Natural Language Query to Configuration for Retrieval Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Modern retrieval agents expose many configuration choices -- LLM, retriever, number of documents, number of hops, and synthesis strategy -- each shaping both answer quality and serving cost. Today, these pipelines are typically hand-tuned once per workload, leaving substantial per-query optimization untapped. We formulate the problem: given a natural-language query and either an accuracy or a budget target, select from a predefined pipeline catalog the configuration that minimizes cost or maximizes accuracy at inference time. We propose **BRANE**, which uses an LLM to convert each query into workload-specific characteristics, then trains a lightweight per-configuration predictor that estimates whether the pipeline will answer the query correctly. At inference time, **BRANE** selects the configuration that maximizes predicted correctness penalized by cost, exposing a tunable cost-quality tradeoff without retraining. Across MuSiQue, BrowseComp-Plus, and FinanceBench, **BRANE** consistently pushes the cost-quality Pareto frontier, matches the best fixed configuration's accuracy at up to 89% lower cost, and outperforms LLM-routing, rule-based, and fine-tuned Qwen3-4B baselines. These results show that per-query configuration of the full retrieval pipeline is a practical alternative to static workload-level tuning.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 18 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.
Builds on
18 of 27 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 17
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
- 2021MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Compositioncited by 916
- 2024RouteLLM: Learning to Route LLMs with Preference Datacited by 682
- 2024Adaptive-RAG: Learning to Adapt Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models through Question Complexitycited by 451
- 2025DeepResearcher: Scaling Deep Research via Reinforcement Learning in Real-world Environmentscited by 286
- 2024The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systemscited by 281
- 2023FinanceBench: A New Benchmark for Financial Question Answeringcited by 270
- 2024RouterBench: A Benchmark for Multi-LLM Routing Systemcited by 238
- 2025CARROT: A Cost Aware Rate Optimal Routercited by 39
- 2025OmniRouter: Budget and Performance Controllable Multi-LLM Routingcited by 35
- 2025The Distracting Effect: Understanding Irrelevant Passages in RAGcited by 33
- 2025Enterprise Deep Research: Steerable Multi-Agent Deep Research for Enterprise Analyticscited by 20
5 more
- 2025Murakkab: Resource-Efficient Agentic Workflow Orchestration in Cloud Platformscited by 18
- 2024METIS: Fast Quality-Aware RAG Systems with Configuration Adaptationcited by 17
- 2026R2-Router: A New Paradigm for LLM Routing with Reasoningcited by 14
- 2025HedraRAG: Coordinating LLM Generation and Database Retrieval in Heterogeneous RAG Servingcited by 3
- 2026RAG over Thinking Traces Can Improve Reasoning Taskscited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Are LLM-Based Retrievers Worth Their Cost? An Empirical Study of Efficiency, Robustness, and Reasoning Overhead
- 2026Compute Allocation for Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval Agents
- 2025Demystifying and Enhancing the Efficiency of Large Language Model Based Search Agents
- 2024A Survey of Query Optimization in Large Language Models
- 2026SGR-Bench: Benchmarking Search Agents on State-Gated Retrieval
- 2025Your Dense Retriever is Secretly an Expeditious Reasoner
- 2025Rethinking Query Optimization for Multi-Agent Systems [Vision]
- 2026Practical Online KV Cache Compaction for LLM Agents: An Empirical Study