Retrieval Planning: ReAct vs Self-Ask vs Plan-and-Solve
Now that we've diagnosed Query Planning failures, it's time to fix them. Let's compare when each of these three patterns shines.
Retrieval Planning: ReAct vs Self-Ask vs Plan-and-Solve
Now that we've diagnosed Query Planning failures, it's time to fix them. Let's compare when each of these three patterns shines.
Why Retrieval Planning?
In the previous post, we examined three failure points in Query Planning:
- Decomposition: Breaking questions incorrectly
Related Posts
TurboQuant in vLLM on One A100 — Capacity, Speed, and Accuracy of All Four Presets on an 8B Model
vLLM 0.28, Qwen3-8B bf16, one A100 80GB: KV capacity, batched throughput, 32K decode, needle-in-haystack, and GSM8K for bf16, fp8, and all four TurboQuant presets — the 8B size vLLM's own study skipped.
TurboQuant From Scratch on Real KV Tensors — What 3 Bits Actually Cost, and Why the Forks Beat the Paper's Layout
PolarQuant in 60 lines of PyTorch on real KV from Llama-3.2-1B and Qwen3-8B: 3-bit costs +10% perplexity, k8v4 +0.2%, QJL only pays below 4 bits, and the block-32 layout explains half the forks' edge.
TurboQuant llama.cpp CUDA Fork, Measured on an A100 — turbo4 Matches q4_0, turbo3 Breaks at Long Context
Qwen3-8B Q4_K_M on one A100, six KV types: perplexity, prefill, decode-at-depth, and VRAM measured. turbo4 matches q4_0 quality and beats q8_0 decode 2.5x at depth; turbo3 triples perplexity at 32K context.