Agentic RAG

No Easy A: Why AI Training Needs Hard-Case Routing AI teams like to say they are “improving the model.” Very noble. Also conveniently vague. In practice, “improvement” usually means one of three things: collect more data, buy a larger model, or run another round of fine-tuning and hope the loss curve behaves like a polite employee. The two papers in this cluster suggest a less glamorous, more useful idea: the scarce resource is not only data or parameters. It is learning pressure. ...

TL;DR for operators Diagnosis is not a search-box problem. A clinician does not simply type a symptom list, read a guideline, and pick a disease like ordering takeaway. The useful work is iterative: form a hypothesis, compare against similar cases, notice what does not fit, retrieve again, ignore plausible-looking rubbish, and only then commit. ...

TL;DR for operators Most enterprise RAG failures are not generation failures. They are retrieval-routing failures wearing a very convincing blazer. The paper behind this article proposes an open-source agentic hybrid RAG framework for scientific literature review: bibliographic metadata and citation relationships go into a Neo4j knowledge graph; full-text PDF chunks go into a FAISS vector store; an LLM-based agent decides whether a user’s question should be answered through GraphRAG or VectorRAG; a Mistral-based generator produces the final answer; DPO is used to improve grounding; and bootstrap resampling is used to report evaluation uncertainty.1 ...

TL;DR for operators Most enterprise RAG systems still behave like diligent interns with a search box: they retrieve a handful of plausible snippets, hand them to a language model, and hope the synthesis does not quietly forget half the question. That works for narrow Q&A. It fails when the user asks for a relationship chain, a complete list, or a decision-ready map of who did what, funded by whom, connected to which topic. ...