Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 6, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is a widely used approach for grounding large language models (LLMs) in external knowledge. However, configuring a pipeline is an expensive hyperparameter optimization problem over many interacting choices, from chunking and embedding model to reranking and generation. Existing optimizers, from greedy search to Bayesian optimization, reduce each trial to an aggregate score and search without modeling why a configuration performed as it did, even though the retrieved chunks already provide evidence about whether each failure occurred during retrieval or after it. We introduce Agentic AutoRAG, an LLM-agent optimizer for multi-objective RAG hyperparameter optimization with retrieval-versus-generation failure attribution. It proposes configurations scored on a frozen exam from the corpus: after each trial a Diagnoser attributes each failed question to retrieval or generation, and a Proposer, grounded in a knowledge base of model rankings and pricing, selects the next configuration, weighing accuracy against cost to trace a Pareto frontier. On three multi-hop QA benchmarks it reaches higher LLM-judge accuracy than every baseline we compare, and within its first 10 trials it matches or beats the statistical baselines' full 30-trial judge accuracy. In its cost-aware mode on a real-world healthcare corpus it reaches a median exam accuracy of 77%, above the strongest baseline's 71.5%, at about 58% of that baseline's cost per query, and it matches that 71.5% at about 22% of the cost.