paper
When Does Streaming Tool Use Help? Characterizing Tool-Intent Stabilization in Streaming Retrieval-Augmented Generation
paperactiveprovisional
when-does-streaming-tool-use-help-characterizing-tool-intent-stabilization-in-streaming-retrieval-augmented-generation-e0e86385·1 events·first seen 2d agoAliases: When Does Streaming Tool Use Help? Characterizing Tool-Intent Stabilization in Streaming Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Co-occurring entities
More like this (12)
When Does Mixing Help? Analyzing Query Embedding Interpolation in Multilingual Dense RetrievalRetrieval-Augmented GenerationMultimodal Augmented Generation via Multimodal Retrieval WorkshopSemantic Generative Tuning (SGT)Self-Augmenting Retrieval for Diffusion Language ModelsContext-Driven Incremental Compression for Multi-Turn Dialogue GenerationContext-Driven Incremental Compression for Multi-Turn Dialogue GenerationKnowledge-Augmented Tool ExecutionReference-Augmented TrainingFlowEdit: Associative Memory for Lifelong Pronunciation Adaptation in Flow-Matching TTSProvenance-Grounded Gating and Adaptive Recovery in Synthetic Post-Training Data Curationgenerative language modeling
Recent events (1)
Tool-intent stabilization analysis quantifies when streaming RAG latency hiding is possible
A new arXiv paper introduces 'tool-intent stabilization' — the point in a streaming input at which a speculative retrieval query converges to the correct result — and measures its distribution on the CRAG benchmark (1,371 questions). The authors derive a model-agnostic bound on how much tool latency can be hidden behind remaining user input, finding that at realistic operating parameters 73.9% of queries admit substantial latency hiding. The study requires no model training and validates the bound against a working streaming pipeline, also identifying query properties that predict early versus late stabilization.