PreprintCited by 36Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorAI-based Problem Solving and Planning

Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey on Agentic RAG

Open access
Singh, Aditi, Ehtesham, Abul, Kumar, Saket, Khoei, Tala Talaei, Vasilakos, Athanasios V.·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced artificial intelligence by enabling human-like text generation and natural language understanding. However, their reliance on static training data limits their ability to respond to dynamic, real-time queries, resulting in outdated or inaccurate outputs. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a solution, enhancing LLMs by integrating real-time data retrieval to provide contextually relevant and up-to-date responses. Despite its promise, traditional RAG systems are constrained by static workflows and lack the adaptability required for multi-step reasoning and complex task management. Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Agentic RAG) transcends these limitations by embedding autonomous AI agents into the RAG pipeline. These agents leverage agentic design patterns reflection, planning, tool use, and multi-agent collaboration to dynamically manage retrieval strategies, iteratively refine contextual understanding, and adapt workflows through operational structures ranging from sequential steps to adaptive collaboration. This integration enables Agentic RAG systems to deliver flexibility, scalability, and context-awareness across diverse applications. This paper presents an analytical survey of Agentic RAG systems. It traces the evolution of RAG paradigms, introduces a principled taxonomy of Agentic RAG architectures based on agent cardinality, control structure, autonomy, and knowledge representation, and provides a comparative analysis of design trade-offs across existing frameworks. The survey examines applications in healthcare, finance, education, and enterprise document processing, and distills practical lessons for system designers and practitioners. Finally, it identifies key open research challenges related to evaluation, coordination, memory management, efficiency, and governance, outlining directions for future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2501.09136

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Memory types in Agentic AI include episodic memory, semantic memory, and vector-based memory for RAG.

    “Memory types include episodic memory (task-specific history) [167,168], semantic memory (long-term facts or structured data) [169,170], and vector-based memory for RAG [171, 172].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [171]

    The Core Principles section (p. 9) identifies short-term and long-term agent memory, while Key Tools and Frameworks (p. 32) describes vector databases as supporting Agentic RAG retrieval. The cited paper does not classify vector-based memory as a memory type or give the claimed episodic and semantic memory categories. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • By automating message formatting, dependency tracking, and semantic alignment, programmatic prompting ensures consistent reasoning across diverse agents in real time.

    “By automating message formatting, dependency tracking, and semantic alignment, programmatic prompting prevents coordination drift and ensures consistent reasoning across diverse agents in real time [22,171].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [171]

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes workflows coordinating prompts, models, and agents, and §3.4 (p. 11) says agents share intermediate results to keep workflows coherent. But the paper does not attribute automated message formatting, dependency tracking, or semantic alignment to programmatic prompting. Section 12.1 (p. 34) also says current orchestration has limited convergence guarantees, so it does not support the claim that prompting ensures consistent reasoning in real time. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Structured representations such as knowledge graphs and indexing strategies appear in both RAG and agent memory communities' methods.

    “For instance, structured representations such as knowledge graphs and indexing strategies appear in both communities' methods, and recent developments in agentic RAG demonstrate how autonomous retrieval mechanisms can interact with dynamic databases in ways reminiscent of agent memory architectures (Singh et al., 2025).”

    From Memory in the Age of AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Singh et al., 2025

    Section 2.3.4 (p. 6) describes graph-based RAG, and Section 10.3 (p. 33) emphasizes high-quality indexing. The survey also describes agents that autonomously select retrieval strategies (Agent-Based Retrieval, p. 25). It does not establish that knowledge graphs and indexing strategies appear in both RAG and agent-memory methods, or make the claimed comparison with agent-memory architectures. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recent developments in agentic RAG demonstrate how autonomous retrieval mechanisms can interact with dynamic databases in ways reminiscent of agent memory architectures.

    “For instance, structured representations such as knowledge graphs and indexing strategies appear in both communities' methods, and recent developments in agentic RAG demonstrate how autonomous retrieval mechanisms can interact with dynamic databases in ways reminiscent of agent memory architectures (Singh et al., 2025).”

    From Memory in the Age of AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Singh et al., 2025

    The Introduction (p. 2) describes autonomous agents coordinating dynamic retrieval, and the Agent-G discussion (p. 23) describes agents retrieving from graph knowledge bases and documents. The paper also discusses vector databases (p. 32) and agent memory (p. 9), but these passages do not establish interaction with dynamically changing databases or the claimed parallel with agent memory architectures. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • By automating message formatting, dependency tracking, and semantic alignment, programmatic prompting prevents coordination drift and ensures consistent reasoning across diverse agents in real time.

    “By automating message formatting, dependency tracking, and semantic alignment, programmatic prompting prevents coordination drift and ensures consistent reasoning across diverse agents in real time [21], [173].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [173]

    Section 3.4 (p. 11) says agents communicate and share intermediate results to keep a multi-agent workflow coherent, supporting the general coordination point. It does not describe programmatic prompting automating message formatting, dependency tracking, or semantic alignment. Section 12.1 (p. 34) says current orchestration has limited convergence guarantees, so the claim that it prevents drift and ensures consistent reasoning overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. [2][2] Aditi Singh. Exploring language models: A comprehensive survey and analysis. In 2023 International Conference on Research Methodologies in Knowledge Management, Artificial Intelligence and Telecommunication Engineering (RMKMATE) , pages 1-4, 2023. -
  2. [5][5] Aditi Singh. A survey of ai text-to-image and ai text-to-video generators. In 2023 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Control (AIRC) , pages 32-36, 2023. -
  3. [6][6] Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Gaurav Kumar Gupta, Nikhil Kumar Chatta, Saket Kumar, and Tala Talaei Khoei. Exploring prompt engineering: A systematic review with swot analysis, 2024. -
  4. [7][7] Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems , November 2024. -
  5. [14][14] E. Bandara, R. Gore, P. Foytik, S. Shetty, R. Mukkamala, A. Rahman, X. Liang, S. H. Bouk, A. Hass, S. Rajapakse, N. W. Keong, K. De Zoysa, A. Withanage, and N. Loganathan. A practical guide for designing, developing, and deploying production-grade agentic ai workflows. arXiv preprint , abs/2512.08769, 2025. Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA; Deloitte & Touche LLP, USA; Florida International University, USA; Nanyang Technological University, Singapore; University of Colombo, Sri Lanka; IcicleLabs.AI; AnaletIQ, VA, USA; Effectz.AI. arXiv:2512.08769. - · arXiv
  6. [18][18] Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Saifuddin Mahmud, and Jong-Hoon Kim. Revolutionizing mental health care through langchain: A journey with a large language model. In IEEE 14th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) , pages 0073-0078, 2024. -
  7. [19][19] Gaurav Kumar Gupta, Aditi Singh, Sijo Valayakkad Manikandan, and Abul Ehtesham. Digital diagnostics: The potential of large language models in recognizing symptoms of common illnesses. AI , 6(1), 2025. -
  8. [20][20] Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Saket Kumar, Gaurav Kumar Gupta, and Tala Talaei Khoei. Encouraging responsible use of generative ai in education: A reward-based learning approach. In Tim Schlippe, Eric C. K. Cheng, and Tianchong Wang, editors, Artificial Intelligence in Education Technologies: New Development and Innovative Practices , pages 404-413, Singapore, 2025. Springer Nature Singapore. -
  9. [26][26] Aditi Singh, Abul Ehtesham, Saket Kumar, and Tala Talaei Khoei. Enhancing ai systems with agentic workflows patterns in large language model. In IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT) , pages 527-532, 2024. -
  10. [51][51] Shaokun Zhang, Jieyu Zhang, Jiale Liu, Linxin Song, Chi Wang, Ranjay Krishna, and Qingyun Wu. Training language model agents without modifying language models. ICML'24 , 2024. -
  11. [57][57] Mohamed Amine Ferrag, Norbert Tihanyi, and Merouane Debbah. From llm reasoning to autonomous ai agents: A comprehensive review. arXiv preprint , abs/2504.19678, 2025. Guelma University, Algeria; Technology Innovation Institute, UAE; Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary; Khalifa University of Science and Technology, UAE; Corresponding author: ferrag.mohamedamine@univ-guelma.dz. - · arXiv
  12. [60][60] Nick Craswell, Bhaskar Mitra, Emine Yilmaz, Daniel Campos, Jimmy Lin, Ellen M. Voorhees, and Ian Soboroff. Overview of the trec 2022 deep learning track. In Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) . NIST, TREC, March 2023. -
  13. [68][68] Tom Kwiatkowski, Jennimaria Palomaki, Olivia Redfield, Michael Collins, Ankur Parikh, Chris Alberti, Danielle Epstein, Illia Polosukhin, Jacob Devlin, Kenton Lee, Kristina Toutanova, Llion Jones, Matthew Kelcey, Ming-Wei Chang, Andrew M. Dai, Jakob Uszkoreit, Quoc Le, and Slav Petrov. Natural questions: A benchmark for question answering research. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 7:452-466, 2019. -
  14. [71][71] Jonathan Berant, Andrew K. Chou, Roy Frostig, and Percy Liang. Semantic parsing on freebase from questionanswer pairs. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , 2013. -
  15. [72][72] Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki, editors, Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages 9802-9822, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  16. [76][76] Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir Radev. QMSum: A new benchmark for query-based multi-domain meeting summarization. pages 5905-5921, June 2021. -
  17. [77][77] Pradeep Dasigi, Kyle Lo, Iz Beltagy, Arman Cohan, Noah A. Smith, and Matt Gardner. A dataset of informationseeking questions and answers anchored in research papers. In Kristina Toutanova, Anna Rumshisky, Luke Zettlemoyer, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Iz Beltagy, Steven Bethard, Ryan Cotterell, Tanmoy Chakraborty, and Yichao Zhou, editors, Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies , pages 4599-4610, Online, June 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  18. [78][78] Timo Möller, Anthony Reina, Raghavan Jayakumar, and Malte Pietsch. COVID-QA: A question answering dataset for COVID-19. In ACL 2020 Workshop on Natural Language Processing for COVID-19 (NLP-COVID) , 2020. -
  19. [81][81] Alon Talmor, Jonathan Herzig, Nicholas Lourie, and Jonathan Berant. CommonsenseQA: A question answering challenge targeting commonsense knowledge. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) , pages 4149-4158, Minneapolis, Minnesota, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  20. [88][88] Tsung-Hsien Wen, Milica Gaši´ c, Nikola Mrkši´ c, Lina M. Rojas-Barahona, Pei-Hao Su, Stefan Ultes, David Vandyke, and Steve Young. Conditional generation and snapshot learning in neural dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 2153-2162, Austin, Texas, November 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  21. [89][89] Ruining He and Julian McAuley. Ups and downs: Modeling the visual evolution of fashion trends with one-class collaborative filtering. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web , WWW '16, page 507-517, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 2016. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. -
  22. [90][90] Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. HellaSwag: Can a machine really finish your sentence? In Anna Korhonen, David Traum, and Lluís Màrquez, editors, Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages 4791-4800, Florence, Italy, July 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  23. [93][93] James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. FEVER: a large-scale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In Marilyn Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent, editors, Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) , pages 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  24. [98][98] Richard Socher, Alex Perelygin, Jean Wu, Jason Chuang, Christopher D. Manning, Andrew Ng, and Christopher Potts. Recursive deep models for semantic compositionality over a sentiment treebank. In David Yarowsky, Timothy Baldwin, Anna Korhonen, Karen Livescu, and Steven Bethard, editors, Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages 1631-1642, Seattle, Washington, USA, October 2013. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  25. [99][99] Sourav Saha, Jahedul Alam Junaed, Maryam Saleki, Arnab Sen Sharma, Mohammad Rashidujjaman Rifat, Mohamed Rahouti, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Nabeel Mohammed, and Mohammad Ruhul Amin. Vio-lens: A novel dataset of annotated social network posts leading to different forms of communal violence and its evaluation. In Firoj Alam, Sudipta Kar, Shammur Absar Chowdhury, Farig Sadeque, and Ruhul Amin, editors, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Bangla Language Processing (BLP-2023) , pages 72-84, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. -
  26. [104][104] Ralf Steinberger, Bruno Pouliquen, Anna Widiger, Camelia Ignat, Tomaž Erjavec, Dan Tufi¸ s, and Dániel Varga. The JRC-Acquis: A multilingual aligned parallel corpus with 20+ languages. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, editors, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'06) , Genoa, Italy, May 2006. European Language Resources Association (ELRA).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singh, A., Ehtesham, A., Kumar, S., Khoei, T. T., & Vasilakos, A. V.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406542750
Cited by
36
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 11
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
Keywords
agentic retrieval-augmented generation, retrieval-augmented generation, large language models, autonomous AI agents, agent cooperation, agent autonomy, knowledge representation, real-time information retrieval, multi-step reasoning, agent coordination, memory management, agent governance, medical applications, financial applications, educational software

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review