Organizations: Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China · Chinese Academy of Sciences, China · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China · Westlake University, Hangzhou, China · Fudan University, Shanghai, China · National University of Defense Technology, Changsha, China
Web-based applications increasingly rely on understanding long multimodal documents, where answering questions often requires combining information across pages, tables, and figures. Agentic retrieval-augmented generation addresses these tasks through iterative retrieval and reasoning. However, Agentic execution is not always necessary, introducing additional computation and potentially incorrect answers. Our empirical analysis reveals that Agentic execution provides query-dependent benefits, while additional operations may improve, preserve, or degrade answer accuracy. These findings motivate controlling both Agent invocation and subsequent execution. To address these challenges, we propose RouteDRAG, a learning-based framework comprising four components. Unified Document Index organizes multimodal content into a graph-backed index and derives query representations from initial retrieval. Adaptive Path Routing preserves exact answering and predicts the relative benefit of Agent over shorter execution paths. Dynamic Agent Execution maintains an evolving workspace and refines Planner proposals to control tool use and termination. Sequential Policy Learning first trains operation control from observed outcomes and then trains path routing using the resulting Agent's performance. Across two benchmarks, RouteDRAG achieves an average accuracy improvement of 3.47 percentage points over shorter-path-only execution while assigning only 79.3% of queries to Agent. Notably, it also surpasses uniform Agent execution on both benchmarks while requiring fewer answering calls. Our code is now available at https://github.com/Ereshkigal1/RouteDRAG.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Why selective Agentic execution? (a) Initial retrieval can suffice, making Agent execution redundant. (b) Others require linking information through Agent execution. (c) Further retrieval can distract an Agent with sufficient information.
Figure 2. Empirical analysis of Agentic execution. (a) Accuracy and answering-token usage across document categories for Standard and Agent. (b) Paired query outcomes, illustrating the query-dependent benefits of Agentic execution. (c) Answer correctness changes after an additional operation compared with immediate termination.
Figure 3. Overview of RouteDRAG. A shared document index supports learned path routing and Agent execution control. Actor-aligned policy learning uses paired execution outcomes to train routing and action decisions in stages.
Support source
Support requirement
Type
Method
TXT
LAY
CHA
TAB
FIG
SIN
MUL
UNA
Overall
Direct
Direct MLLM
30.76 1.88
36.30 2.09
28.58 1.72
20.52 2.16
28.46 1.94
36.30 1.66
21.36 2.31
52.46 1.83
35.00
Text RAG
BM25
34.86 1.19
19.20 1.37
17.33 1.12
31.88 1.48
14.22 1.06
34.00 0.94
16.98 1.56
76.64 1.21
37.98
BGE-M3
33.72 1.32
23.17 1.18
13.96 1.09
35.82 1.41
16.15 1.02
33.15 0.96
19.99 1.53
73.36 1.24
37.86
Multimodal
M3DocRAG ( Cho et al., 2024 )
43.47 1.79
31.81 1.63
39.23 1.51
33.45 1.91
37.33 1.43
53.08 1.32
25.38 1.72
25.00 1.98
37.58
EVisRAG ( Sun et al., 2025 )
38.29 1.22
33.21 1.34
38.17 1.11
39.84 1.46
38.90 0.98
51.55 0.92
25.03 1.28
58.20 1.57
44.27
Table 1. Answer accuracy (%) on MMLongBench-Doc. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined, respectively.
Document domain
Question type
Type
Method
Acad.
Finance
Gov.
Law
News
TXT
MM
META
UNA
Overall
Direct
Direct MLLM
30.36 2.14
39.58 2.38
68.92 1.92
65.97 2.26
33.14 2.47
52.43 1.85
22.40 2.55
49.22 2.08
63.71 2.31
44.55
Text RAG
BM25
61.06 1.45
57.64 1.62
74.32 1.27
73.82 1.73
87.21 1.18
89.81 1.06
58.44 1.84
39.53 1.91
80.65 1.39
68.24
BGE-M3
55.78 1.58
54.51 1.42
67.57 1.31
71.20 1.64
86.63 1.22
82.77 1.15
52.92 1.78
42.25 1.96
79.03 1.37
64.52
Multimodal
M3DocRAG ( Cho et al., 2024 )
61.06 2.03
65.28 1.87
66.89 1.74
71.20 2.18
81.40 1.65
85.68 1.52
68.51 1.96
53.10 2.26
57.90 2.07
67.88
EVisRAG ( Sun et al., 2025 )
67.30 1.43
65.75 1.56
70.65 1.28
72.92 1.72
82.47 1.16
82.44 1.08
72.65 1.47
45.84 1.85
78.45 1.31
70.69
Table 2. Answer accuracy (%) on DocBench. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
DocBench
MMLongBench-Doc
Method
Acc. ↑
Agent% ↓
Act./Q ↓
Calls/Q ↓
Tok./Q ↓
Acc. ↑
Agent% ↓
Act./Q ↓
Calls/Q ↓
Tok./Q ↓
w/o Adaptive Path Routing
73.77
15.88
0.300
2.97
29.14
50.32
16.50
0.379
3.31
33.15
w/o Dynamic Agent Execution
74.19
100.00
1.418
7.11
49.30
50.25
100.00
1.850
8.23
56.53
w/o Agent Routing
73.41
–
–
2.01
24.07
49.31
–
–
2.23
27.14
All Agent Routing
74.68
100.00
1.685
7.46
52.08
52.52
100.00
2.148
8.25
57.02
RouteDRAG-Efficient
74.05
11.52
0.171
2.58
27.36
50.87
16.41
0.348
3.20
32.18
Table 3. Component ablation. Accuracy and Agent use are percentages; tokens are in thousands. Dashes mark the no-Agent setting. Best and second-best measured values are bold and underlined.
Figure 4. Sensitivity to regularization strength and routing threshold on (a) DocBench and (b) MMLongBench-Doc. Cells report accuracy (%); colors show percentage-point changes from α=100 and zero threshold offset. Two three-by-three heatmaps show accuracy on DocBench and MMLongBench-Doc as regularization and the development-calibrated threshold offset vary.
Figure 6. Practical efficiency comparison with representative RAG baselines. (a–b) Answer accuracy versus inference latency on DocBench and MMLongBench-Doc. (c–d) Peak GPU memory consumption across different methods.
VLM Backbone
Agent
Random
Ours
Calls Red. (%)
Qwen3-VL-4B
69.60 / 45.92
68.20/43.21
70.15 / 46.65
13.8/14.2
Qwen3-VL-8B
74.68 / 52.52
73.66/49.88
75.86 / 53.80
16.4/14.9
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
72.78 / 48.49
70.40/45.92
73.32 / 48.30
14.1/14.4
InternVL3-8B
73.50 / 50.23
71.10/47.59
74.23 / 51.05
15.0/14.3
Gemma-3-12B
71.96 / 47.57
69.54/45.97
71.87 / 48.49
13.7/15.2
Table 4. Backbone generalization on DocBench and MMLongBench-Doc. Accuracy (%) and relative reduction in answering model calls compared with Uniform Agent (%).
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 11
DocBench
MMLongBench-Doc
Configuration
Acc. ↑
Agent% ↓
Calls/Q ↓
Acc. ↑
Agent% ↓
Calls/Q ↓
RouteDRAG-Efficient
74.05
11.52
2.58
50.87
16.41
3.20
RouteDRAG-Medium
74.73
42.65
4.22
52.29
57.56
5.72
RouteDRAG-High
75.18
59.53
5.09
52.93
71.13
6.57
RouteDRAG
75.86
78.49
6.24
53.80
80.02
7.02
Appendix
Table A1. Accuracy–cost trade-offs of per-query routing configurations. Accuracy and actual Agent usage are percentages.
School of Electrical and Information Engineering, Tianjin University · The International Joint Institute of Tianjin University, Fuzhou, Tianjin University · Department of Automation, Tsinghua University