Quantifying the Accuracy and Cost Impact of Design Decisions in Budget-Constrained Agentic LLM Search

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) faces a fundamental three-way tension: deeper retrieval improves factual grounding but inflates token costs and end-to-end latency. Static retrieval configurations cannot resolve this tension across heterogeneous query workloads -- simple definitional queries waste budget on unnecessary context, while complex analytical prompts are underserved by shallow retrieval. This paper introduces Cost-Aware RAG (CA-RAG), a per-query routing framework that selects from a discrete catalog of strategy bundles -- each coupling a retrieval depth (from retrieval-free direct inference to top-$k{=}10$ dense retrieval) with a fixed generation profile -- by maximizing a scalar utility that linearly combines an estimated quality prior with normalized penalties for predicted latency and total billed tokens. CA-RAG is implemented with FAISS-backed dense retrieval and OpenAI chat/embedding APIs, and evaluated on a 28-query benchmark spanning four bundles. The router dynamically exercises all bundles, achieving 26% fewer billed tokens than always-heavy retrieval and 34% lower mean latency than always-direct inference while maintaining equivalent answer quality. Per-query delta analysis reveals that savings are non-uniform and concentrated in simpler queries, motivating complexity-aware guardrails. Sensitivity analysis confirms that the same bundle catalog supports multiple cost-latency-quality operating points through weight adjustment alone. All results are generated directly from logged CSV artifacts for full reproducibility. CA-RAG provides a transparent, auditable foundation for cost-conscious LLM deployments.

Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems enable large language models (LLMs) to solve complex tasks through multi-step interaction with external retrieval tools. However, such multi-step interaction often involves redundant search steps, incurring substantial computational cost and latency. Prior work limits search depth (i.e., the number of search steps) to reduce cost, but this often leads to underexploration of complex questions. To address this, we first investigate how search depth affects accuracy and find a minimal sufficient search depth that defines an accuracy-efficiency trade-off, jointly determined by question complexity and the agent's capability. Furthermore, we propose AutoSearch, a reinforcement learning (RL) framework that evaluates each search step via self-generated intermediate answers. By a self-answering mechanism, AutoSearch identifies the minimal sufficient search depth and promotes efficient search by rewarding its attainment while penalizing over-searching. In addition, reward mechanisms are introduced to stabilize search behavior and improve answer quality on complex questions. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks show that AutoSearch achieves a superior accuracy-efficiency trade-off, alleviating over-searching while preserving search quality.

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.