Multi-Agentic Retriever (MAR): Redefining Information Retriever in the Era of AI agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current information retrieval systems often rely on either one retriever or a rigid, pre-defined hybrid retrievers. These static, "one-size-fits-all" approaches lack the flexibility to adapt to the diverse nature of user queries, often leading to suboptimal performance on wide spectrum of queries from different datasets. This thesis introduces the Multi-Agentic Retriever (MAR), a flexible and autonomous framework that recasts information retrieval as a multi-agent problem. MAR utilizes specialized agents, including a \textbf{\textit{PlannerAgent}} for dynamic plan generation and a \textbf{\textit{RetrieverAgent}} equipped with a diverse toolkit of lexical (BM25), dense (Contriever), and sparse-neural (Splade) retrieval methods, alongside LLM-based filtering and reranking tools. We conduct a comprehensive series of ablation studies to systematically evaluate the performance, component interactions, and latency-accuracy trade-offs of this framework. Our key findings reveal a complex landscape. First, while static \textbf{Rule-Based plans} currently achieve the highest peak accuracy, the zero-shot \textbf{LLM-Generated plans} are "toe-to-toe" in performance. Counterintuitively, the LLM-Generated plans are also significantly \textbf{faster on average}, as the \textbf{\textit{PlannerAgent}} can dynamically select simpler, more efficient execution paths. Second, we identify a clear "sweet spot" for model scale: \textbf{32B models} consistently provide the best performance, as 7B/14B models lack the reasoning capabilities for complex planning, while 70B models introduce high latency for diminishing returns. Third, our analysis of agent tools uncovers a fundamental conflict: the \textbf{Query Expansion Agent} is a double-edged sword \textbf{strongly benefiting lexical retrievers} while simultaneously \textbf{harming dense and sparse-neural retrievers}. Finally, we demonstrate that the \textbf{\textit{LLMFilterTool}} is critical for achieving state-of-the-art performance, but its utility is entirely dependent on the reasoning capability of a large-scale model. This research concludes that the future of retrieval lies not in monolithic models but in flexible, multi-agent systems. The MAR framework serves as a robust foundation for this paradigm. We posit that with targeted fine-tuning, the \textbf{\textit{PlannerAgent}} can achieve full autonomy, and the MAR system, when integrated as the retrieval backbone for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, can unlock a new generation of high-precision, intelligent information access systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".