Organizations: The University of Southern Mississippi
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) compression papers often evaluate a compressor on one to three readers and treat the compressed evidence layer as evaluation-neutral. We show this assumption is false: fixed compression can raise average accuracy while hiding reader upgrades and reversing model rankings. Across 20 readers and ten domain-method settings over four QA benchmarks and one summarization benchmark, compression gain decreases with reader baseline (nine of ten settings significant, p < 0.05). Generic summarization flips 31% of pairwise model rankings on LongMemEval-S, and a fixed HotpotQA compressor hides 80% of the raw upgrade from Qwen 7B to GPT-4.1-mini. Two opposing forces explain this paradox: compression rescues weak readers by removing noise they cannot filter, and harms strong readers by dropping details they would have used. The pattern appears across structured compilation, generic summarization, three trained compressor families, query-focused summarization, and an external audit of nine published compression papers. We release ragscale, a toolkit built on 177,000 row-level compression transitions, so any compression paper can audit reader scaling with three readers in one day.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) improves knowledge-intensive large language model (LLM) applications by conditioning generation on retrieved documents, but longer contexts increase latency, key-value (KV) cache memory, and token cost. Post-retrieval compression can reduce this cost, yet existing compressors often operate independently for each query, rely on auxiliary models or rewriting, and introduce online overhead that can offset the benefit of shorter prompts. We revisit RAG compression from a data-mining perspective by aggregating historical query--document--model interactions into reusable evidence views. We first show that modern compressors have unstable gains over simple truncation and can add substantial inference-time latency. We then propose Reusable Evidence View Aggregation (REVA), a framework that mines the target generator's historical attention traces into a document-keyed, budget-agnostic score store. REVA maps token-level attention to readable word units, aggregates importance across repeated document accesses, and renders budget-specific plain-text views that preserve document order and the standard RAG interface. Across four representative benchmarks and modern LLMs, REVA improves generation quality by 1.0--5.8 points over existing advances, while reducing compression overhead by a factor of 5.3 to 15.6, adding less than 40 ms of latency.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become essential for knowledge-intensive question answering, yet scaling RAG pipelines remains challenging due to the prohibitive computational cost of processing lengthy retrieved contexts. Existing compression approaches face a fundamental trade-off: hard compression methods operate online in a query-aware fashion but achieve only modest compression rates and typically require fine-tuning the generative model, while soft compression methods attain higher ratios but rely on costly offline encoding that is entirely agnostic to the input query. To bridge this gap, we introduce RAGOCR, a novel framework that compresses retrieved documents into compact visual representations conditioned on the input query. To further balance compression rate and information fidelity, we introduce a query-aware dynamic resolution mechanism that adaptively allocates visual granularity based on each document's estimated relevance and complexity: highly relevant passages are rendered at higher resolution to preserve fine-grained details, while peripheral documents are aggressively compressed at lower resolution. Experiments on five QA benchmarks using the MedOmniKB retrieval corpus demonstrate that RAGOCR surpasses naive RAG by over 15% in accuracy while requiring only one-eighth the number of input tokens, and consistently outperforms both hard and soft compression baselines across varying retrieval depths.
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) spans lexical and dense retrieval, graph-based indexing, and agentic search, but these paradigms are usually evaluated on different benchmarks at one corpus size, leaving their accuracy-cost scaling unclear. To bridge this gap, we present a controlled study that varies corpus size along 28 strictly nested tiers spanning roughly 450-fold, while holding questions and a fixed bedrock of relevant and adversarial documents unchanged. Under one reader model and one judging protocol, we measure official accuracy, construction and query tokens, and latency. The results reveal a scale-dependent crossover rather than an unconditional winner. File-System Agent leads at the smallest shared tiers, but its sequential exploration costs 39 times more query tokens at the bedrock and becomes less effective as the search space grows. Around 10 million corpus tokens, BM25 overtakes it and leads at every larger shared tier, with a margin approaching 20 points at full scale. BM25 also anchors the low-cost end of the Pareto frontier without LLM-based construction. Dense retrieval remains efficient but less accurate, whereas graph-based RAG encounters construction walls before deployment scale and its scalable variants remain below BM25 at shared tiers. Overall, corpus growth increasingly favors global candidate ranking: lexical retrieval is the strongest scalable default, while agentic reasoning works best after ranked discovery rather than in place of it.