Comparing Chunking and Embedding Strategies for Turkish RAG Systems
On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → Multimodal RAG
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Multimodal RAG, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 18 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2026.
Builds on
18 of 24 references.
References · 18
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,779
- 2017Billion-scale similarity search with GPUscited by 2,477
- 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,185
- 2016Enriching Word Vectors with Subword Informationcited by 1,578
- 2020Leveraging Passage Retrieval with Generative Models for Open Domain Question Answeringcited by 1,203
- 2020Language-agnostic BERT Sentence Embeddingcited by 621
- 2023Ragas: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generationcited by 408
- 2024Multilingual E5 Text Embeddings: A Technical Reportcited by 357
- 2020KUISAIL at SemEval-2020 Task 12: BERT-CNN for Offensive Speech Identification in Social Mediacited by 84
6 more
- 2018Text Segmentation as a Supervised Learning Taskcited by 76
- 2022Impact of Tokenization on Language Models: An Analysis for Turkishcited by 62
- 2019Data Augmentation via Dependency Tree Morphing for Low-Resource Languagescited by 45
- 2024Docling Technical Reportcited by 29
- 2025TurkEmbed4Retrieval: Turkish Embedding Model for Retrieval Taskcited by 3
- 2026Mecellem Models: Turkish Models Trained from Scratch and Continually Pre-trained for the Legal Domaincited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Evaluating Chunking Strategies for Retrieval-Augmented Generation on Academic Texts
- 2026A Systematic Analysis of Chunking Strategies for Reliable Question Answering
- 2025Passage Segmentation of Documents for Extractive Question Answering
- 2024Improving Retrieval for RAG based Question Answering Models on Financial Documents
- 2025A New HOPE: Domain-agnostic Automatic Evaluation of Text Chunking
- 2026Evaluation of Chunking Strategies for Effective Text Embedding in Low-Resource Language on Agricultural Documents
- 2024Is Semantic Chunking Worth the Computational Cost?
- 2025SmartChunk Retrieval: Query-Aware Chunk Compression with Planning for Efficient Document RAG