Comparing Chunking and Embedding Strategies for Turkish RAG Systems

Retrieval-Augmented Generation conditions a language model on chunks retrieved from a document collection. Its accuracy is therefore limited by the chunking and embedding stages that determine what can be retrieved. We compare Turkish document question answering across three chunking strategies (fixed-length, semantic, and layout-aware Docling), five embedding models, and two LLMs, over three documents with contrasting layouts. Every configuration answers the same question set, which allows component effects to be separated by paired testing rather than inferred from separate benchmarks. The fully crossed design yields 9{,}000 graded question-answer evaluations, each scored by an independent judge model, and component comparisons are tested by paired McNemar tests under Holm correction. The three leading embedding models are statistically indistinguishable, so language specialization yields no measurable retrieval advantage. The faster LLM is not the more accurate one. The preferred configuration depends on content type, since layout-aware chunking helps table-heavy documents far more than text-heavy ones.

Right Reset: Chunking by Prefix Removal

Removing the left context from a causal language model reveals a useful kind of boundary: an edge where the model processes the same right-hand tokens with little change. We turn this observation into prefix-removal probing and introduce Right Reset (RR), which measures preservation of the right-hand hidden-state trajectory. A dynamic program converts RR edge scores into variable-length chunks. On flattened text formed by concatenating topically similar records after deleting their separators and layout, RR recovers 47.7% of the original records as clean units, versus 25.9% for a BGE embedding boundary, the strongest tested conventional baseline without task-specific model training. The gain persists after rendering and OCR. Passive scores from the same Qwen3-4B layer and direct prompting of a same-scale instruction model perform substantially worse on flattened records. Across six language models, RR-selected cuts also undergo consistently less local output disruption than unselected candidate edges. An observed-token likelihood-ratio readout is competitive in some architectures, indicating that the central contribution is the intervention: context dependence itself can provide a boundary signal when surface structure is weak.

Cross-Attention Calibrated Deduplication for Retrieval-Augmented Generation System

Common chunking strategies in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems often create redundant chunks. These redundant chunks make the vector database bigger and slow down retrieval. A common fix is cosine-similarity thresholding. This method reduces each chunk to a single vector, then compares vectors using a similarity score. But a single vector can lose the fine-grained, token-level detail needed to tell a true duplicate apart from a chunk that just shares the same topic. We propose Cross-Attention Calibrated Deduplication (CACD). CACD checks each new chunk against an in-memory pool of chunks already kept, using a cross-encoder instead of a single pooled vector. This keeps token-level detail all the way to the final comparison. CACD combines three parts: the cross-encoder comparison itself, a New Information Score (NIS) that measures how much of a chunk is not explained by a candidate already kept, and a majority vote across several candidates rather than a single best match. NIS is calculated from the attention entropy of the cross-encoder. We tested CACD against five existing filtering methods, nine chunking strategies, and 18 configurations, all on the full SQuAD 1.1 validation set. In our experiments, CACD removes 9.75% of chunks on average. This drop rate is close to other semantic-level methods, and much higher than exact-match filters, which barely remove anything. In these experiments, CACD also processes each configuration in 51.0 seconds on average, about 27% faster than the strongest baseline, NERExact (69.6s), and about 7x faster than cosine-similarity filtering (356.7s). These results come from a single dataset, so we present them as an early comparison, not a general claim. Code for the baseline evaluation and for CACD is available at https://github.com/lehuyphuong/rag_bench and https://github.com/lehuyphuong/cacd_dedup.

The Effect of Text Chunk Size on Retrieval-Augmented Generation Performance

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems have emerged as a powerful process for allowing large language models (LLMs) to retrieve relevant information to use as source material during text generation. A critical yet under-explored component of these systems is the granularity at which source documents are segmented into retrievable chunks. The size of these chunks has the potential to significantly influence generation quality, contextual correctness, retrieval precision, and computational efficiency. Despite its importance, chunk size is often selected without proper evaluation of its impact on generation quality. Smaller chunks, such as individual sentences, may allow for precise retrieval by narrowing the focus of each chunk. However, they contain less information, which may limit the model's ability to generate coherent responses. Larger chunks, such as entire chapters, contain lots of broad information that may improve correctness, but also introduce additional noise and increase computational cost. Because larger chunks contain more information, the number of chunks returned to the model must also be considered. This paper evaluates how chunk size, along with the number of retrieved segments, influences generation quality and retrieval effectiveness. By comparing these configurations, this study seeks to better understand how document segmentation affects the performance and efficiency of Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems. segmentation affects the performance and efficiency of Retrieval-Augmented Generation systems.