mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Stronger Baselines for Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Long-Context Language Models

arXiv 2506.03989 ↗First posted 4 Jun 2025cs.CLcited by 9

On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → RAG pipeline design and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

With the rise of long-context language models (LMs) capable of processing tens of thousands of tokens in a single context window, do multi-stage retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines still offer measurable benefits over simpler, single-stage approaches? To assess this question, we conduct a controlled evaluation for QA tasks under systematically scaled token budgets, comparing two recent multi-stage pipelines, ReadAgent and RAPTOR, against three baselines, including DOS RAG (Document's Original Structure RAG), a simple retrieve-then-read method that preserves original passage order. Despite its straightforward design, DOS RAG consistently matches or outperforms more intricate methods on multiple long-context QA benchmarks. We trace this strength to a combination of maintaining source fidelity and document structure, prioritizing recall within effective context windows, and favoring simplicity over added pipeline complexity. We recommend establishing DOS RAG as a simple yet strong baseline for future RAG evaluations, paired with state-of-the-art embedding and language models, and benchmarked under matched token budgets, to ensure that added pipeline complexity is justified by clear performance gains as models continue to improve.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in RAG pipeline design and evaluation, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 13 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Jun 2025.

Builds on

13 of 14 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Retrieval Augmented Generation or Long-Context LLMs? A Comprehensive Study and Hybrid Approach23 Jul

Other references · 12

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  2. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
  3. 2017The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challengecited by 597
  4. 2024RAPTOR: Recursive Abstractive Processing for Tree-Organized Retrievalcited by 532
  5. 2020UnifiedQA: Crossing Format Boundaries With a Single QA Systemcited by 476
  6. 2024∞Bench: Extending Long Context Evaluation Beyond 100K Tokenscited by 367
  7. 2021QuALITY: Question Answering with Long Input Texts, Yes!cited by 208
  8. 2024A Human-Inspired Reading Agent with Gist Memory of Very Long Contextscited by 146
  9. 2023Walking Down the Memory Maze: Beyond Context Limit through Interactive Readingcited by 133
  10. 2023PEARL: Prompting Large Language Models to Plan and Execute Actions Over Long Documentscited by 61
  11. 2024In Defense of RAG in the Era of Long-Context Language Modelscited by 53
  12. 2024Embedding And Clustering Your Data Can Improve Contrastive Pretrainingcited by 17

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 9.

9 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Long Context RAG Performance of Large Language Models
  2. 2025LaRA: Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation and Long-Context LLMs -- No Silver Bullet for LC or RAG Routing
  3. 2024Long2RAG: Evaluating Long-Context & Long-Form Retrieval-Augmented Generation with Key Point Recall
  4. 2025When Retrieval Succeeds and Fails: Rethinking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for LLMs
  5. 2025Retrieval Augmented Generation Evaluation in the Era of Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey
  6. 2024Toward Optimal Search and Retrieval for RAG
  7. 2024XRAG: eXamining the Core -- Benchmarking Foundational Components in Advanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation
  8. 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey