OA-RAG: Ontology-based Agentic RAG for Faithful LLM Reasoning

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) significantly improves the factuality of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet standard pipelines often lack mechanisms to verify inter- mediate reasoning, leaving them vulnerable to hallucinations in high-stakes domains. To address this, we propose a domain-specific RAG framework that integrates explicit rea- soning and faithfulness verification. Our architecture augments standard retrieval with neural query rewriting, BGE-based cross-encoder reranking, and a rationale generation module that grounds sub-claims in specific evidence spans. We further introduce an eight-category verification taxonomy that enables fine-grained assessment of rationale faithfulness, distinguishing between explicit and implicit support patterns to facilitate structured error diagnosis. We evaluate this framework on the BioASQ and PubMedQA benchmarks, specifically analyzing the impact of dynamic in-context learning and rerank- ing under constrained token budgets. Experiments demonstrate that explicit rationale generation improves accuracy over vanilla RAG baselines, while dynamic demonstration selection combined with robust reranking yields further gains in few-shot settings. Using Llama-3-8B-Instruct, our approach achieves 89.1% on BioASQ-Y/N and 73.0% on Pub- MedQA, competitive with systems using significantly larger models. Additionally, we perform a pilot study combining human expert assessment with LLM-based verification to explore how explicit rationale generation improves system transparency and enables more detailed diagnosis of retrieval failures in biomedical question answering.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely employed to mitigate risks such as hallucinations and knowledge obsolescence in medical question answering, yet its predominantly single-round, static retrieval paradigm misaligns with the multi-stage process of clinical reasoning. This compressed workflow induces two structural deficiencies: question-to-query translation often lacks clinically grounded semantic interpretation, and retrieval lacks iterative sufficiency feedback, making it difficult to form reliable evidence chains. We argue that both issues stem from a deeper cause: overloading a single reasoning chain with heterogeneous tasks of interpretation, exploration, and adjudication. The remedy is to reconstruct the workflow via task decoupling and dynamic multi-round exploration. To this end, we propose SEMA-RAG, a Self-Evolving Multi-Agent RAG framework for medical question answering, which assigns these roles to three specialist agents: the Interpreter Agent for clinical schema interpretation, the Explorer Agent for sufficiency-driven self-evolving retrieval, and the Arbiter Agent for evidence adjudication and answer selection. Across five benchmarks and five LLM backbones, SEMA-RAG improves the strongest baseline by +6.46 accuracy points on average, measured per backbone.

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.