mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Beyond Semantic Similarity: Performance and Costs of Agentic Retrieval for Complex Tasks

arXiv 2610.05750 ↗First posted 5 Oct 2026cs.IR cs.AIcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Modern information systems, including many agentic workflows, use dense retrieval to explore large amounts of unstructured data. However, dense retrieval relies on surface-level semantic similarity, which is insufficient for increasingly complex search applications. Here, we investigate agentic retrieval that combines the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) with the efficient corpus exploration of retrievers in a ReAct agentic loop to solve complex retrieval tasks. In our experiments, we show that agentic retrieval is more effective than standard retrieval, improving nDCG@10 by 8.7 points using the same embedding model. Moreover, while specialized retrieval methods struggle on out-of-domain tasks, agentic retrieval is highly generalizable: the same pipeline achieves competitive results on both the ViDoRe v3 and BRIGHT leaderboards. However, this improvement comes at a cost. On average, agentic retrieval takes 107.4 seconds, compared to 0.67 seconds for standard retrieval, and consumes 764.1K input and 5.8K output tokens per query. In short, our study demonstrates the effectiveness of agentic retrieval in modern data systems and motivates future work on more cost-efficient retrieval agents for large-scale deployment.

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 12 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

Builds on

12 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025BrowseComp-Plus: A More Fair and Transparent Evaluation Benchmark of Deep-Research Agent8 Aug

Other references · 11

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  2. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  3. 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,824
  4. 2025Search-R1: Training LLMs to Reason and Leverage Search Engines with Reinforcement Learningcited by 1,444
  5. 2020Approximate Nearest Neighbor Negative Contrastive Learning for Dense Text Retrievalcited by 849
  6. 2023REPLUG: Retrieval-Augmented Black-Box Language Modelscited by 792
  7. 2020RocketQA: An Optimized Training Approach to Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 413
  8. 2024BRIGHT: A Realistic and Challenging Benchmark for Reasoning-Intensive Retrievalcited by 158
  9. 2021Optimizing Dense Retrieval Model Training with Hard Negativescited by 155
  10. 2024GenQREnsemble: Zero-Shot LLM Ensemble Prompting for Generative Query Reformulationcited by 23
  11. 2025TheMCPCompany: Creating General-purpose Agents with Task-specific Toolscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Beyond Semantic Similarity: Rethinking Retrieval for Agentic Search via Direct Corpus Interaction
  2. 2025From Web Search towards Agentic Deep Research: Incentivizing Search with Reasoning Agents
  3. 2026Rethinking Reasoning-Intensive Retrieval: Evaluating and Advancing Retrievers in Agentic Search Systems
  4. 2026Q2D-Web: A Large-Scale Benchmark for Retrieval in Agentic RAG Systems
  5. 2026Agentic-R: Learning to Retrieve for Agentic Search
  6. 2026A Picture of Agentic Search
  7. 2026A-RAG: Scaling Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Hierarchical Retrieval Interfaces
  8. 2026AgenticRAGTracer: A Hop-Aware Benchmark for Diagnosing Multi-Step Retrieval Reasoning in Agentic RAG