Index  |  Benchmarks  |  Mathematics  |  Graph  |  About
SRCH:10393EEC

Iterative vs Single-Shot Retrieval Latency and Accuracy on NaturalQuestions and TriviaQA

Submitted: 7 June 2026
Review score: 8.67/10
Verification: L2, Source-grounded claims
Quality tier: Flagship candidate
Verified claims: 9
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.20576374

Abstract

Abstract: This report synthesises findings from 6 peer-reviewed papers addressing the following research question: How does the answer accuracy on NaturalQuestions and TriviaQA correlate with retrieval latency when comparing iterative retrieval strategies like RGAR against single-shot standard RAG. 9 claims were extracted from source literature; 9 were independently verified against retrieved documents. An automated multi-reviewer quality assessment produced a score of 8.7/10. This report is a machine-generated literature synthesis and does not constitute original research.

Research Question

How does the answer accuracy on NaturalQuestions and TriviaQA correlate with retrieval latency when comparing iterative retrieval strategies like RGAR against single-shot standard RAG?

Verification Level

Paper levelL2, Source-grounded claims
Source-grounded claims9
Claim record sourcenot publicly specified

Descriptive public verification status only; aggregate claim counts are public, but individual claim records are not exposed here.

Quality Tier

TierFlagship candidate
BasisReview score, verified-claim count, and public artifact coverage meet flagship-candidate thresholds.

Descriptive public triage only; this tier does not alter current publication or DOI behavior.

Quality Dimensions

Evidence strength MEDIUM
Citation grounding MEDIUM
Uncertainty disclosure MEDIUM
Reproducibility status HIGH

Automated triage signals derived from public fields; not human peer review or independent validation.

Correction Record

StatusCURRENT
Correction count0
Manifest contractpaper-manifest-v1.1
Correction contractcorrection-record-v1

Public corrections are additive records. Current status does not claim the synthesis is error-free.

Provenance

PublisherAssignee Research
Public provenanceL4, External archival record
Report artifactAvailable
External recordRegistered
Claim lineage9 aggregate source-grounded claims
Review methodAutomated multi-reviewer assessment
Quality guideHow to read scores, claims, manifests, and evidence links
Provenance contractsource-provenance-v1
NoteMachine-generated synthesis of existing literature. Not primary research.