Know Before You Fetch: Calibrated Retrieval-Budget Allocation for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has become the standard way to ground large language models in external knowledge, yet most systems retrieve a fixed number of passages for every question regardless of its difficulty. This wastes computation on easy questions, starves hard ones, and gives no signal for when a generated answer can be trusted. With a growing share of question answering systems built on top of commercial language model APIs, a method that can decide how much to retrieve, and how far to trust its own answers, without retraining the underlying model, is of clear practical value. This paper presents AB-RAG (Adaptive Budgeted Retrieval-Augmented Generation), a training-free and backbone-agnostic framework that generates an answer, estimates its confidence from a combination of three signals, and then decides whether to stop or to retrieve more evidence, subject to a fixed retrieval budget. The estimator combines the model's own certainty, the agreement between the answer and the evidence, and the variance of the retrieval scores. For models that expose token probabilities the certainty signal is read directly; for closed APIs it is approximated by self-consistency, so the method works without access to model internals. Across three backbones and two datasets, the central result is that the confidence estimate reliably separates correct from incorrect answers on every backbone, reaching a clean split of 57.6% against 0% Exact Match between high- and low-confidence answers on a factoid dataset. The adaptive policy improves accuracy on capable backbones, and the study reports its negative and nuanced findings honestly, including a confidence signal that proved unsuitable for short answers and a retrieval signal whose sign was found and corrected through measurement. The entire study was carried out on a single consumer laptop with only a few dollars of API spend.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) under a fixed reader-context budget forces a selection problem: of the evidence retrieved, only a fraction can be shown to the reader. We argue that document recall -- the standard retrieval metric -- is the wrong quantity to optimize in this regime, and we make two contributions. First, as a general contribution, we introduce answer-in-context, a diagnostic that measures whether a gold answer survives as a contiguous span in the packed reader context (not the retrieved set). It predicts answer F1 better than recall (r=0.39-0.55 vs. about 0.31), separates answer quality roughly five-fold (0.60 vs. 0.12 on HotpotQA), and carries information beyond retrieval: it adds Delta R squared=0.17 over recall and shows a 4.6x EM gap even among questions where all gold was retrieved. We also confirm it interventionally: on 2WikiMultiHopQA a packing change that raises coverage but not answer-in-context yields no accuracy gain. Second, as a conditional contribution, we cast reader-context construction as budgeted monotone submodular maximization and build a packer that jointly optimizes relevance, query coverage, representativeness, and diversity. On HotpotQA with a 160-token budget and a 3B reader it beats a strong focused heuristic, MMR, and naive packing -- by up to +5.1 F1 at equal-or-lower token cost, across three seeds. Crucially, we map the scope of this win honestly: it requires the conjunction of (i) multi-hop complementary structure, (ii) retrieval that surfaces the evidence, (iii) a binding but not extreme budget, and (iv) a reader weak enough that evidence density, not reading capacity, is the bottleneck. A quantization-controlled reader-scale ladder (3B to 7B to 14B) shows the edge over the heuristic is absorbed by 7B and significantly reverses by 14B, while the diagnostic explains every boundary with a single variable.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems typically employ fixed retriever and generator configurations across queries, despite substantial differences in query complexity and information needs, leading to inefficient allocation of computational resources. While retrieval and generation adaptivity have been studied independently, their joint effect on end-to-end RAG performance remains underexplored. We systematically analyze how retriever and generator complexity interacts across factoid and multi-hop question answering (QA), including bridge and composition reasoning tasks. Our analysis shows that stronger retrieval generally yields larger gains than increased generation effort, but both exhibit diminishing and non-monotonic returns, indicating that higher-complexity configurations are not uniformly better across queries. Motivated by these findings, we introduce DRAG, a query-adaptive framework for selecting retriever-generator configurations. We first propose DRAG$_\text{QPP}$, a training-free routing approach that uses Query Performance Prediction (QPP) signals to guide retriever selection and perplexity-based measures over retrieved context to guide generator selection. We further introduce DRAG$_\text{SFT}$, a supervised routing approach that fine-tunes an LLM to jointly predict retriever-generator configurations. Across three LLM families and four QA benchmarks, \qpprag~achieves performance comparable to strong static RAG baselines while substantially reducing inference latency, whereas DRAG$_\text{SFT}$ consistently improves effectiveness over static and training-free adaptive baselines. Overall, DRAG demonstrates that jointly adapting retrieval and generation achieves a more favorable effectiveness-efficiency trade-off than static RAG pipelines.