Bridging Static and Agentic RAG for Taiwanese Historical Question Answering
Organizations: Graduate Institute of Networking and Multimedia, National Taiwan University · Dept. of Computer Science & Information Engineering, National Taiwan University · Graduate Institute of Communication Engineering, National Taiwan University
Abstract
Agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables language models to adapt retrieval based on previously retrieved evidence, but it remains unclear whether such adaptive orchestration consistently outperforms well-designed static pipelines. We conduct a controlled comparison of agentic and static RAG for Taiwanese historical question answering, sharing the same generator and hybrid retrieval backend. Despite similar aggregate performance, the two pipelines differ on 70.83% of questions, with their advantages largely canceling out when averaged. An oracle that selects the better response per question improves the composite score by 0.2417 over the better individual pipeline, revealing substantial headroom for question-level selection. We therefore introduce a post-hoc selector that compares the two responses and their cited evidence, significantly outperforming either individual pipeline and recovering 60.34% of the oracle headroom. These results show that aggregate comparisons can obscure meaningful question-level differences between retrieval strategies, suggesting that exploiting their complementarity may be more fruitful than seeking a universally superior pipeline.
Figures & tables
| Correctness | Completeness | Faithfulness | Relevance | Composite | |
| Static RAG | 4.1750 | 3.9833 | 4.5417 | 3.7750 | 4.1188 |
| Agentic RAG | 4.2917 | 4.1167 | 4.4833 | 3.9500 | 4.2104 |
| (A S) | +0.1167 | +0.1333 | +0.1750 | +0.0917 | |
| Wilcoxon | 0.2927 | 0.4204 | 0.4304 | 0.0331 | 0.6543 |
| Strategy | Composite | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Static RAG | 4.1188 | -37.93 |
| Agentic RAG | 4.2104 | 0.00 |
| Random selection | 4.1646 | -18.97 |
| Length heuristic | 4.1917 | -7.76 |
| Post-hoc selector | 4.3563 | 60.34 |
| Tie Handling | Final Score | Recovery (%) | vs. Agentic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Practical handling rules | |||
| Tie Agentic | 4.3479 | 56.90 | +0.1375 |
| Tie Static | 4.3646 | 63.79 | +0.1542 |
| Expected Value (Main) | 4.3563 | 60.34 | +0.1458 |
| Sensitivity bounds | |||
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Question Type | Agentic | Static | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fill-in-the-blank ( ) | 0.9808 | 0.9615 | 1.0000 |
| Multiple-choice ( ) | 0.9400 | 0.8800 | 0.4531 |
| Overall ( ) | 0.9608 | 0.9216 | 0.3438 |
Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Retrieval-augmented generation connects language models to external knowledge so answers can use current, domain-specific evidence.
See all 792 papers