MultiDocFusion: Hierarchical and Multimodal Chunking Pipeline for Enhanced RAG on Long Industrial Documents
Authors: Joongmin Shin, Chanjun Park, Jeongbae Park, Jaehyung Seo, Heuiseok Lim
Organizations: Human-inspired AI Research, Korea University · School of Software, Soongsil University · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University
RAG-based QA has emerged as a powerful method for processing long industrial documents. However, conventional text chunking approaches often neglect complex and long industrial document structures, causing information loss and reduced answer quality. To address this, we introduce MultiDocFusion, a multimodal chunking pipeline that integrates: (i) detection of document regions using vision-based document parsing, (ii) text extraction from these regions via OCR, (iii) reconstruction of document structure into a hierarchical tree using large language model (LLM)-based document section hierarchical parsing (DSHP-LLM), and (iv) construction of hierarchical chunks through DFS-based grouping. Extensive experiments across industrial benchmarks demonstrate that MultiDocFusion improves retrieval precision by 8-15% and ANLS QA scores by 2-3% compared to baselines, emphasizing the critical role of explicitly leveraging document hierarchy for multimodal document-based QA. These significant performance gains underscore the necessity of structure-aware chunking in enhancing the fidelity of RAG-based QA systems.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The pipeline for MultiDocFusion . The figure illustrates the step-by-step process for handling a long industrial document. (a) DP extracts layout structures; (b) OCR recognizes and annotates text; (c) DSHP-LLM constructs a hierarchical tree from identified section headers and general nodes; (d) DFS-based Grouping constructs coherent hierarchical chunks for retrieval tasks. The color-coded blocks represent document elements: yellow for Root and Title, red for Section Headers, and green for general nodes (tables, figures, and text blocks).
Model
DocHieNet
HRDH
F1
TEDS
F1
TEDS
GPT-4
0.5139
0.6961
0.2594
0.3342
Llama-3.2-3B
0.2558
0.5464
0.4389
0.4904
↪ DSHP-LLM
0.4894
0.7549
0.8664
0.8459
Qwen-2.5-3B
0.4122
0.6995
0.3299
0.3734
↪ DSHP-LLM
0.4808
0.6957
0.8856
0.8658
Table 1: Performance on DHP datasets (DocHieNet + HRDH) for DSHP-LLM (section headers). ↪ : DSHP-LLM applied. Bold : improvement over baseline.
Chunking Method
DUDE
MPVQA
CUAD
MOAMOB
Recall
Precision
nDCG
Recall
Precision
nDCG
Recall
Precision
nDCG
Recall
Precision
nDCG
Length chunking
0.2628
0.1686
0.2166
0.2523
0.1587
0.1933
0.9011
0.8537
0.8776
0.6462
0.5676
0.6209
Semantic chunking
0.0956
0.0549
0.0775
0.0939
0.0524
0.0680
0.7684
0.6719
0.7181
0.2737
0.1950
0.2453
LumberChunker
0.2395
0.1533
0.1986
0.2152
0.1298
0.1609
0.9031
0.8576
0.8800
0.6130
0.5205
0.5692
Perplexity chunking
0.2428
0.1559
0.2020
0.2159
0.1318
0.1629
0.8869
0.8395
0.8603
0.6173
0.5241
0.5785
Structure-based chunking
0.2219
0.1450
0.1862
0.2036
0.1230
0.1524
0.8844
0.8311
0.8581
0.5544
0.4662
0.5149
Table 2: Retrieval performance by Chunking Method (Average Recall, Precision, nDCG for top- k=1∼4 ), Best scores are in bold .
DUDE
MPVQA
CUAD
MOAMOB
Chunking Method
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
Length chunking
0.1611
0.1444
0.1988
0.1398
0.0966
0.1408
0.2585
0.1677
0.1662
0.2497
0.0823
0.1115
Semantic chunking
0.1548
0.1261
0.1657
0.1332
0.0805
0.0978
0.2593
0.1491
0.1468
0.2455
0.0846
0.1043
LumberChunker
0.1531
0.1284
0.1752
0.1307
0.0769
0.0993
0.2657
0.1630
0.1650
0.2536
0.0848
0.1167
Perplexity chunking
0.1653
0.1390
0.1855
0.1344
0.0751
0.0950
0.2641
0.1646
0.1524
0.2532
0.0894
0.1190
Structure-based chunking
0.1751
0.1489
0.1921
0.1537
0.0980
0.1278
0.2498
0.1556
0.1591
0.2501
0.0979
0.1114
Table 3: Average QA performance (ANLS, ROUGE-L, METEOR) of six chunking strategies on DUDE, MPVQA, CUAD, and MOAMOB datasets, for top- k∈{1,4} . Results are averaged over Llama-3.2-3B, Mistral-8B, and Qwen-2.5-7B models. Best scores are in bold .
Chunking Method
DETR
DiT
VGT
Avg
Length chunking
0.4952
0.4863
0.4497
0.4771
Semantic chunking
0.3247
0.3263
0.2297
0.2936
LumberChunker
0.4620
0.4533
0.4412
0.4522
Perplexity chunking
0.4636
0.4460
0.4436
0.4511
Structure-based chunking
0.4396
0.4171
0.4269
0.4279
MultiDocFusion
0.5014
0.4976
0.5061
0.5017
Table 4: Average performance of Chunking Methods by DP model (top- k=1∼4 nDCG).
Chunking Method
EasyOCR
Tesseract
TrOCR
Avg
Length chunking
0.5369
0.4799
0.4144
0.4771
Semantic chunking
0.3213
0.2757
0.2423
0.2798
LumberChunker
0.5057
0.4546
0.3963
0.4522
Perplexity chunking
0.5115
0.4674
0.3739
0.4509
Structure-based chunking
0.5194
0.4650
0.2993
0.4279
MultiDocFusion
0.5681
0.5068
0.4097
0.4949
Table 5: Average performance of Chunking Methods by OCR model (top- k=1∼4 nDCG).
Chunking Method
BGE
E5
BM25
Avg
Length chunking
0.4834
0.4715
0.4764
0.4771
Semantic chunking
0.3114
0.3378
0.1825
0.2772
LumberChunker
0.4708
0.4319
0.4539
0.4522
Perplexity chunking
0.4715
0.4318
0.4495
0.4509
Structure-based chunking
0.4679
0.4040
0.4118
0.4279
MultiDocFusion
0.5213
0.4884
0.5085
0.5061
Table 6: Average performance of Chunking Methods by embedding model (top- k=1∼4 nDCG).
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Type/Domain
#Documents
Avg. Pages
#QA pairs
DocHieNet
Mixed (Reports/Papers/Industrial)
1,673
5.3
-
HRDH
Academic Papers (arXiv)
1,500
7.1
-
MPVQA
General Documents (Multi-page)
17,000
3.4
48,000+
CUAD
Legal Documents (Contracts)
510
6.2
13,000+
DUDE
Mixed (Financial Reports/Manuals)
3,000+
4.9
7,000+
MOAMOB
Industrial Technical Documents
2
35.5
71
Appendix
Table 7: Summary of key datasets used in MultiDocFusion.
Method
Metric
Avg. Length (Characters / Tokens)
Number of Chunks
Length chunking
Characters
789.25
6,807
Tokens
548.30
Semantic chunking
Characters
289.10
18,498
Tokens
201.54
LumberChunker
Characters
702.45
10,650
Tokens
483.82
Appendix
Table 8: Chunk statistics (average length and total number) for Length chunking, Semantic chunking, LumberChunker, Perplexity, Structure-based, and MultiDocFusion chunking methods ( max_len=550 tokens)
Chunking Method
DUDE
MPVQA
Length chunking
0.1592
0.1348
Semantic chunking
0.1537
0.1294
LumberChunker
0.1573
0.1351
Perplexity chunking
0.1668
0.1299
Structure based Chunking
0.1683
0.1488
MultiDocFusion
0.1793
0.1544
Appendix
Table 9: Official test-server ANLS on DUDE and MPVQA. Ground-truth is hidden on the server, so retrieval metrics cannot be computed; main paper reports corpus-level retrieval+QA on validation splits.
System Prompt (Common)
You are an expert in analyzing section headers of documents and creating a hierarchical structure. The following is a list of ’section header’ texts extracted from a document. For each item, determine its relationship with the parent section (parent-child relationship). If possible, follow standard document numbering rules, such as treating ’3.1’ as a child of ’3’ and ’3.1.1’ as a child of ’3.1’. Even if there is no numeric pattern, infer hierarchy based on textual context. If an item is a top-level heading (i.e., the root node is its parent), set ‘parent‘ to null. Output format: json only. DO NOT include any other explanations or text. [ {"id": "<id from the original header_list>", "parent": "<id of the parent node or null if root>"} ]
Appendix
Table 10: Prompt examples for DSHP - LLM model training. The common prompt (top) is used for both Example 1 (easier, with numbered sections) and Example 2 (harder, no section numbers). Lines expanded so that both examples reach a similar height. The parent value null denotes the root node. The symbol ... indicates omitted content for brevity.
Figure 2: An example of a long industrial document (MPVQA) illustrating the content structure and formatting used for guidelines and requirements in nuclear power plant operations. The document contains various sections, such as general information, application scope, and specific criteria, serving as a representative case for evaluating document chunking methods.
Figure 3: Step-by-step illustration aligned with the MultiDocFusion pipeline: (a) Document Parsing (DP), (b) OCR, (c) DSHP-LLM for section hierarchy reconstruction and node attachment, and (d) DFS-based Grouping for hierarchy-aware chunking.
Method
Chunk
Example Content
Length chunking
Chunk 1
A Proposal for — Jeffrey A. Solomon _ Product Director, HRT _ Women’s Health Care “Wyeth-Ayerst Pharmaceuticals REMARIN” FAMILY OF PRODUCTS Medical and Scientific Communications Plan 2000 tember 1999 PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL …
Chunk 2
INTRODUCTION Design Write has prepared the following proposal for a comprehensive educational and communications program …
Chunk 3
we have been guided by the brand operating strategies for 2000. We have had the fortunate experience of working with the HRT Management Team since 1997 …
Medical and Scientific Communications Plan. 2000: Premarin® Family of Products
Chunk 3
INTRODUCTION Design Write has prepared the following proposal for a comprehensive educational and communications program to support the PREMARIN® Family of Products. Design Write thanks the Women’s Health Care, HRT Management Team, for this opportunity to present its ideas to further the goal of expanding the PREMARIN Family of Products’ position in the marketplace, In developing this proposal, we have been guided by the brand operating strategies for 2000.
Appendix
Table 11: Qualitative comparison of chunking methods applied to the document in Figure 2 . Each method shows three chunks (1 to 3) for six approaches: Length chunking, Semantic chunking, LumberChunker, Perplexity chunking, Structure-based chunking, and MultiDocFusion .
Chunking Method
k
DUDE
MPVQA
CUAD
MOAMOB
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
Length chunking
1
0.1642
0.1642
0.1642
0.1556
0.1556
0.1556
0.8607
0.8607
0.8607
0.5847
0.5847
0.5847
2
0.2454
0.1684
0.2105
0.2367
0.1591
0.1815
0.9001
0.8513
0.8770
0.6435
0.5711
0.6218
3
0.3001
0.1700
0.2368
0.2889
0.1599
0.2084
0.9157
0.8514
0.8842
0.6696
0.5605
0.6349
4
0.3416
0.1717
0.2546
0.3278
0.1601
0.2278
0.9278
0.8513
0.8883
0.6869
0.5542
0.6423
Semantic chunking
1
0.0586
0.0586
0.0586
0.0562
0.0562
0.0562
0.6810
0.6810
0.6810
0.2079
0.2079
0.2079
Appendix
Table 12: Retrieval summary by Chunking Method — Comparison of VQA Datasets (top- k=1∼4 )
Chunking Method
OCR
DUDE
MPVQA
CUAD
MOAMOB
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
Length chunking
easyocr
0.2836
0.1805
0.2289
0.2701
0.1658
0.2042
0.9076
0.8756
0.8923
0.8511
0.7689
0.8223
tesseract
0.2511
0.1617
0.2082
0.2804
0.1805
0.2168
0.8919
0.8469
0.8644
0.6489
0.5919
0.6301
trocr
0.2538
0.1636
0.2125
0.2064
0.1298
0.1589
0.9037
0.8386
0.8760
0.4385
0.3421
0.4103
Semantic chunking
easyocr
0.1050
0.0593
0.0845
0.1037
0.0572
0.0757
0.7392
0.6517
0.6869
0.4437
0.3241
0.4078
tesseract
0.0909
0.0516
0.0739
0.1014
0.0556
0.0731
0.7573
0.6584
0.7057
0.2785
0.2038
0.2502
Appendix
Table 13: OCR performance by Chunking Method (top- k=1∼4 average)
Chunking Method
DP Model
DUDE
MPVQA
CUAD
MOAMOB
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
Length chunking
detr
0.2918
0.2007
0.2507
0.2588
0.1680
0.2023
0.9097
0.8800
0.8934
0.6611
0.6078
0.6345
dit
0.2852
0.1836
0.2370
0.2835
0.1852
0.2250
0.9047
0.8450
0.8804
0.6278
0.5365
0.6030
vgt
0.2115
0.1214
0.1620
0.2145
0.1227
0.1526
0.8888
0.8361
0.8590
0.6496
0.5585
0.6252
Semantic chunking
detr
0.1298
0.0784
0.1069
0.1109
0.0605
0.0790
0.8621
0.7873
0.8226
0.3274
0.2374
0.2903
dit
0.1037
0.0591
0.0845
0.1123
0.0647
0.0833
0.7373
0.6244
0.6746
0.2933
0.2241
0.2667
Appendix
Table 14: DP performance by Chunking Method (top- k=1∼4 average)
Chunking Method
Embedding
DUDE
MPVQA
CUAD
MOAMOB
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
R
P
nDCG
Length chunking
bge
0.2655
0.1646
0.2097
0.2810
0.1742
0.2118
0.9152
0.8778
0.8960
0.6504
0.5677
0.6162
e5
0.2644
0.1602
0.2178
0.2469
0.1485
0.1855
0.8915
0.8491
0.8651
0.6467
0.5672
0.6175
BM25
0.2586
0.1810
0.2222
0.2289
0.1534
0.1827
0.8965
0.8342
0.8717
0.6415
0.5679
0.6290
Semantic chunking
bge
0.0753
0.0433
0.0619
0.0876
0.0511
0.0653
0.8663
0.8046
0.8361
0.2956
0.2309
0.2824
e5
0.1184
0.0665
0.0955
0.1152
0.0650
0.0839
0.8380
0.7628
0.8035
0.4126
0.2966
0.3681
Appendix
Table 15: Performance comparison by Embedding and Chunking Method (top- k=1∼4 average)
MPVQA
DUDE
CUAD
MOAMOB
Top-k
Chunking Method
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
ANLS
ROUGE-L
METEOR
1
Length chunking
0.1299
0.0679
0.0859
0.1573
0.1281
0.1722
0.2675
0.1761
0.1616
0.2498
0.0739
0.1054
Semantic chunking
0.1256
0.0635
0.0794
0.1527
0.1126
0.1420
0.2611
0.1544
0.1409
0.2444
0.0737
0.1009
LumberChunker
0.1394
0.0737
0.0873
0.1614
0.1264
0.1642
0.2690
0.1698
0.1657
0.2588
0.0748
0.1189
Perplexity chunking
0.1254
0.0544
0.0676
0.1683
0.1357
0.1689
0.2592
0.1629
0.1457
0.2530
0.0868
0.1182
Structure based Chunking
0.1440
0.0858
0.1103
0.1615
0.1217
0.1527
0.2489
0.1569
0.1592
0.2477
0.0892
0.1108
Appendix
Table 16: Average generation performance ( ANLS , ROUGE-L , METEOR ) of six chunking strategies on MPVQA, DUDE, CUAD, and MOAMOB datasets, separated by top- k settings ( k=1 and k=4 ). Best scores for each metric and dataset are highlighted in bold .
In long, multi-page industrial documents, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) depends heavily on whether chunk boundaries follow the document's true structure. Existing text-centric chunkers and generative hierarchy parsers often miss cross-page parent-child relations, figure/table-caption bindings, and boundary cues, which leads to fragmented or redundant chunks and degrades both retrieval and answer quality. We propose M3DocDep, an LVLM-based pipeline that first recovers block-level dependencies and then constructs chunks along the recovered document tree. The pipeline uses SharedDet as a common DP+OCR preprocessing layer, extracts multimodal block embeddings with boundary-aware SoftROI pooling, scores candidate parent-child edges with a biaffine head, decodes a globally valid dependency tree with MST constraints, and builds tree-guided chunks annotated with section paths and page ranges. Under a shared-block evaluation protocol, M3DocDep improves STEDS by +28.5 to +39.6 percent on DHP benchmarks, retrieval nDCG by +1.1 to +15.3 percent, and QA ANLS by +4.5 to +15.3 percent on corpus-level RAG benchmarks. These results show that recovering document dependencies before chunking yields more coherent retrieval units for long, multi-page multimodal documents.
Joongmin Shin, Jeongbae Park, Jaehyung Seo +1
Human-inspired AI Research, Korea University · Computer Science and Engineering, Konkuk University · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University
Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) for document-based Open-domain Question Answering (ODQA) on large-scale industrial corpora faces two critical bottlenecks: routing failure in locating the correct document and evidence fragmentation in integrating scattered information. Existing approaches relying on flat text chunks or page-level images inherently struggle to (i) precisely pinpoint the target document among thousands of candidates and (ii) organically connect multimodal evidence, such as tables and figures, within a limited token budget. To address these challenges, we propose HiKEY, a hierarchical tree-based multimodal retrieval framework that elevates document hierarchy to a first-class retrieval signal. Instead of simple chunking, HiKEY reconstructs a logical heterogeneous graph via Document Hierarchical Parsing (DHP), explicitly encoding parent-child relationships. Adopting a hierarchical coarse-to-fine strategy, the framework (1) performs global routing to rapidly prune the search space using hierarchical indexing, and (2) conducts fine-grained retrieval to rank sections by employing a multimodal fusion strategy that captures the most discriminative evidence. Finally, HiKEY assembles a token-efficient evidence subgraph via a hybrid structural-semantic packing strategy. Experiments on ODQA benchmarks demonstrate that HiKEY significantly outperforms page- and chunk-based baselines, improving retrieval recall by up to 12.9% and end-to-end QA performance by up to 6.8%.
Joongmin Shin, Gyuho Shim, Jeongbae Park +2
Human-inspired AI Research, Korea University · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Korea University · Computer Science and Engineering, Konkuk University
Recent advances in multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (MM-RAG) have shifted toward minimal parsing, relying on page-level images for producing retriever embeddings and for answer generation. While efficient, this trend often neglects explicit handling of the rich, structured information in complex enterprise documents, instead depending on pre-trained embeddings or vision-language models to implicitly capture such structure. In this work, we take a more direct approach: MM-BizRAG proactively extracts and represents document structure via a document structure-aware split that dynamically routes documents through orientation-specific ingestion pipelines, applying explicit layout-aware parsing for vertically structured documents (e.g., reports) and holistic page-level representations for horizontally structured documents (e.g., slide decks). A unified LLM-driven artifact transformation pipeline with placeholder-based positional alignment preserves natural reading order, while inference-time multimodal assembly decouples retrieval representations from generation context, enabling richer, more grounded answers without any finetuning requirement. Through experiments on a large, heterogeneous enterprise dataset and two public benchmarks (SlideVQA and FinRAGBench-V), MM-BizRAG consistently outperforms state-of-the-art vision-centric baselines by up to 32% points, with especially strong gains on report-style layouts. Furthermore, we introduce FastRAGEval, a single-call LLM Judge metric for fine-grained generative recall that halves RAGChecker's cost while achieving stronger human alignment.
Hanoz Bhathena, Parin Rajesh Jhaveri, Rohan Mittal +7
JPMorgan Chase & Co. · Georgia Institute of Technology