AGENTIC R AG-R1: Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Stack Memory for Multi-Step Reasoning, Retrieval and Memorizing
PublicMore
AI research summary
The paper presents AGENTIC R AG-R1, a reinforcement-learning framework for retrieval-augmented multi-step reasoning. It combines fine-grained actions, stack memory with push, pop, revision, and summarization, hierarchical outcome and process rewards, and information-aware rollout rejection. Experiments report comparisons, ablations, step-budget scaling, model-size effects, timing, and downstream agent evaluations.
Generated by CiteArk.
What this means
The design may help agents revise misleading intermediate retrievals instead of accumulating them during long reasoning chains. This could benefit question-answering and research agents that need adaptive retrieval and memory control. Its value remains conditional on substantial training, judging, retrieval, checkpoint, and evaluator infrastructure that is not fixed in this compilation.
Run · Match · Repeat
Run · Match · Repeat shows the deepest evidence stage reached by any claim in this repository, not paper-wide reproduction coverage.
An outer circle appears only after a paper author or trusted institution signs the Artifact.
Not reproduced yet
0/4
No verifiable claim has successful reproduction evidence yet.
Research claims
The main empirical claims extracted in this research plan, with their plan coverage and live evidence state. Click a claim to expand it inline.
AGENTIC R AG-R1 reports higher or near-highest F1 than listed baselines across seven multi-hop, open-domain, and agentic QA benchmarks.Experiment blocked; see the specific reasonReported 33.55 pp
Reported
33.55 pp
Observed
—
No verified repository, trained checkpoint, complete curated training data, retrieval implementation, or strict evaluator is available in the fixed inputs.
average F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 33.55 pp
F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 44 pp
F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 49.21 pp
The paper reports increasing AGENTIC R AG-R1 F1 as the maximum reasoning-step budget grows on selected 2Wiki, Bamboogle, and TriviaQA evaluations.Experiment blocked; see the specific reasonReported 23.91 pp
Reported
23.91 pp
Observed
—
The missing checkpoint, retrieval service, and complete evaluation protocol prevent strict comparable evidence; execution resources are not the blocker.
F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 23.91 pp
F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 47.45 pp
The paper reports lower average inference time than TC-RAG and downstream results on MedQA, DeepResearch Bench, ALFWorld, and WebShop.Experiment blocked; see the specific reasonReported 10.15 seconds
Reported
10.15 seconds
Observed
—
The original hardware-sensitive benchmark conditions are underspecified by the fixed paper and repository, so a strict comparable verdict is not available.
average inference time · Not assessed
Reported: 10.15 seconds
average inference time · Not assessed
Reported: 11.86 seconds
answer accuracy · Not assessed
Reported: 87 pp
The paper reports that removing memory actions, rollout rejection, or both lowers average F1, and that removing both retrieval and memory rewards gives the lowest ablation average.Experiment blocked; see the specific reasonReported 33.55 pp
Reported
33.55 pp
Observed
—
The trained variants, reward model prompts, curated training set, optimizer implementation, and exact seeds are unavailable.
average F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 33.55 pp
average F1 · Not assessed
Reported: 19.94 pp
Reproduction and technical details3
The experiment runs a repository and commit explicitly declared by the paper and verified by CiteArk.
No author code is used. CiteArk independently rebuilds the paper-grounded protocol and records every generated file and assumption.
A falsifiable execution still needs a missing method detail, input, split, metric, or evaluation rule.
Signed research planVerifiedThe Research Plan CAP fixes paper sources, complete Claim coverage, planned Experiments, and source-declared values.Download research plan
a4a899b9b6