Source note3 min read
Beyond Top-K: Replacing Black-Box Retrieval with Interpretable Agentic Operations
Source
arXiv
arxiv.org/abs/2608.06305v1
Source
- Source name: arXiv
- Source kind: paper
- Authors / organization: Sagar Tamang, Ayush Vyas, Tabarakul Hazarika
- Venue: arXiv: cs.AI
- Published: 2026-08-06
- Collected: 2026-08-07
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06305v1
- PDF: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.06305v1
- DOI: UNKNOWN
Plain-Language Brief
The paper proposes a new approach for document search called 'READ (Reliable Embedding-free Agentic Document-search)', which aims to address the issues with current black-box retrieval designs in handling long documents like financial statements, audit reports, and regulatory returns. The proposed method uses an agent that reads the raw document through three deterministic operations: normalized lexical search, structural navigation, and bounded span reads. The agent's performance is compared to dense retrieval methods, showing improved results on 51 verified questions.
What the Document Says
- The paper introduces READ (Reliable Embedding-free Agentic Document-search).
- READ uses an agent that reads the raw document through three operations: normalized lexical search, structural navigation, and bounded span reads.
- The performance of READ is compared to dense retrieval methods on 51 verified questions.
- READ answers 58.8% of the questions correctly against dense retrieval's 15.7% (p_Holm = 2 x 10^-5).
- When the same loop is given to an agent with a top-k tool, it reaches only 27.5%.
- The paper also reports that BM25 is statistically indistinguishable from READ.
Key Concepts Mentioned
- document search
- READ
- agentic operations
- normalized lexical search
- structural navigation
- bounded span reads
- financial statements
- audit reports
- regulatory returns
Claims Made by the Document
- READ improves document search performance over dense retrieval methods.
- BM25 is statistically indistinguishable from READ.
Evidence Used
- The paper presents results comparing READ to dense retrieval on 51 verified questions.
- The paper mentions the statistical significance of READ's performance against dense retrieval (p_Holm = 2 x 10^-5).
Methods / Approach
UNKNOWN
Limitations Stated by the Authors
UNKNOWN
Limitations Noted by the Agent
Agent interpretation — not from the source.
UNKNOWN
Open Questions
UNKNOWN
Notes for Future Q&A
May include interpretation. Labeled where it does.
UNKNOWN
Raw Abstract / Excerpt
Retrieval-augmented generation over long documents is dominated by one design: chunk the text, embed the chunks, and surface the top-k nearest neighbours of the query. We argue that for an important class of documents -- financial statements, audit reports, regulatory returns -- this design is structurally unsound, and we make the argument measurable. On a 780-page government financial report, 86.8% of content lines are table rows, thousands of near-identical figures compete in one embedding space, and a figure inherits its unit from a header a median of 13 lines above it -- so a chunk boundary routinely separates a number from whether it is in lakh or crore, an error of two orders of magnitude. A table-aware chunker built as a steelman fixes the unit problem but leaves 27-30% of numeric chunks with no fiscal-year header at every chunk size we tried. We propose READ (Reliable Embedding-free Agentic Document-search), in which an agent reads the raw document through three deterministic operations -- normalized lexical search, structural navigation, and bounded span reads -- exposed over the Model Context Protocol, so a trajectory is a replayable audit trail, not an opaque similarity score. On 51 verified questions READ answers 58.8% against dense retrieval's 15.7% (p_Holm = 2 x 10^-5) -- or 35.3% tuned, which READ still leads by 23.5 points (p_Holm = 0.017). An agent given the same loop but a top-k tool reaches only 27.5%, locating the gain in the interface rather than in iteration. We also report what the evidence does not support: BM25 is statistically indistinguishable from READ, so our result separates embedding-based from embedding-free retrieval, not agentic from lexical search.
