aiqbench analysis
This research redefines the knowledge base in retrieval-augmented generation as a trainable model rather than a static input, using supervised agent curation to optimize document stores. By treating question-answer pairs as labels for graph construction, the method achieves significant improvements in action efficiency and accuracy over unsupervised entity indexing. The study demonstrates that generalization depends on key coverage within the training set, offering a new metric for evaluating how well curated stores handle unseen queries.
Training a Knowledge Base: Supervised Structure Learning for Agent-Curated Document Stores
arXiv:2608.21829v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation treats the document store as a frozen input, and the systems that instead let an agent curate one never measure what curation does to the store. We invert the framing: the knowledge base is the model. A training agent answers a supervised question against the current store, is shown the gold, then edits the store; an unchanged reader is later examined on a frozen snapshot under a fixed action budget. Where offline graph construction is unsupervised, (question, answer) pairs are our labels -- and that supervision is what makes the structure cheap. Per point of corpus indexed it returns 1.6x the action saving and 1.8x the accuracy of an unsupervised entity index covering everything, using 1,913 links against its 196,112. On questions the store trained on, an unchanged reader spends 31% fewer actions at higher accuracy, and the result reproduces on an official PhantomWiki generation whose questions we did not write. To measure how far this reaches we introduce a key-coverage gradient, a probe varying how much of a question the training set touched, replacing a train/test split's pass/fail with a decay curve. Generalization proves endpoint-dependent: accuracy carries to unseen questions (+0.167 F1 where both of a question's keys were indexed, +0.100 where one was, zero where neither) while the action saving stays on trained questions. Because that decay is indexed by coverage rather than by novelty, more training extends it -- and the store is undertrained, not saturated: coverage grows linearly in new questions and stops the moment training repeats them, so a hundred questions reach a quarter of the corpus and four times as many would close the gap.
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented generation treats the document store as a frozen input, and the systems that instead let an agent curate one never measure what curation does to the store. We invert the framing: the knowledge base is the model. A training agent answers a supervised question against the current store, is shown the gold, then edits the store; an unchanged reader is later examined on a frozen snapshot under a fixed action budget. Where offline graph construction is unsupervised, (question, answer) pairs are our labels -- and that supervision is what makes the structure cheap. Per point of corpus indexed it returns 1.6x the action saving and 1.8x the accuracy of an unsupervised entity index covering everything, using 1,913 links against its 196,112. On questions the store trained on, an unchanged reader spends 31% fewer actions at higher accuracy, and the result reproduces on an official PhantomWiki generation whose questions we did not write. To measure how far this reaches we introduce a key-coverage gradient, a probe varying how much of a question the training set touched, replacing a train/test split's pass/fail with a decay curve. Generalization proves endpoint-dependent: accuracy carries to unseen questions (+0.167 F1 where both of a question's keys were indexed, +0.100 where one was, zero where neither) while the action saving stays on trained questions. Because that decay is indexed by coverage rather than by novelty, more training extends it -- and the store is undertrained, not saturated: coverage grows linearly in new questions and stops the moment training repeats them, so a hundred questions reach a quarter of the corpus and four times as many would close the gap.
10 pages, 4 figures, 5 tables. Submitted to IEEE BigData 2026
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
H.3.3; I.2.6; I.2.7
arXiv:2608.21829 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2608.21829v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.21829 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 388 words
Related coverage

Research Note: Filtering Subversion-Relevant Information From Pretraining Data Is Feasible
LessWrong · Oct 5, 2026

Mastering Agentic Techniques: AI Agent Customization
NVIDIA · May 20, 2026

The generative AI customization spectrum: From prompt engineering to custom models on AWS
AWS · Sep 14, 2026

Projection sampling preserves capabilities but diminishes gains from alignment fine-tuning
LessWrong · Oct 16, 2026