Evaluation of Chunking Strategies for Effective Text Embedding in Low-Resource Language on Agricultural Documents

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising paradigm for grounding large language model (LLM) outputs in retrieved evidence, thereby reducing hallucination and improving factual accuracy. Its efficacy, however, remains largely unexamined for low-resource, non-Latin-script languages such as Khmer. In this paper, we present a RAG-based question answering system for Khmer-language telecom-domain documents. We conduct a two-phase comparative evaluation. First, we benchmark three embedding models: BGE-M3 (567M), Jina-Embeddings-v3 (570M), and Qwen3-Embedding (597M), for dense retrieval over Khmer documents. BGE-M3 consistently performs best, achieving a Hit Rate@3 of 0.285, File Hit Rate@3 of 0.700, MRR@3 of 0.221, and Precision@3 of 0.112, substantially outperforming the other retrievers. Second, using BGE-M3 as the selected retriever, we evaluate five generator backends: Qwen3 (8B), Qwen3.5 (9B), Sailor2-8B-Chat, SeaLLMs-v3-7B-Chat, and Llama-SEA-LION-v2-8B-IT, on a curated golden dataset of 200 Khmer question-answer pairs. To quantify system performance, we apply six RAGAS-inspired metrics: faithfulness, answer relevance, context relevance, factual correctness, answer similarity, and answer correctness. The results show no single model dominates across all metrics: Qwen3.5-9B achieves the highest faithfulness (0.859) and context relevance (0.726), Qwen3-8B attains the highest factual correctness (0.380), and SeaLLMs-v3-7B-Chat performs best on answer relevance (0.867), answer similarity (0.836), and answer correctness (0.599). These findings highlight that retriever choice remains a major bottleneck for Khmer RAG, while generator strengths vary depending on whether the priority is grounding, factual precision, or semantic similarity.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems use the question-answering capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to access information outside their parameters. We evaluate if cluster-based semantic chunking improves retrieval and answer quality compared to fixed-size and recursive chunking evaluating on long, structured academic theses using the Retrieval Augmented Generation Assessment (RAGAs) framework. RAGAs based faithfulness shows limited reliability in this setup. Performance on fixed versus document specific questions varied substantially, likely related to the formatting of documents and preprocessing. Under the tested configuration, cluster-based chunking did not outperform simpler strategies.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems depend critically on document chunking quality for retrieving relevant context. Fixed chunking segments documents into uniform units irrespective of semantics or user intent, producing a precision-recall trade-off unresolvable by tuning chunk size alone. Semantic and agentic methods partially address these limitations but do not integrate user queries at the chunking stage. We present Query-Adaptive Semantic Chunking (QASC), which dynamically constructs chunks by integrating queries into segmentation through three mechanisms: cosine similarity scoring between sentence and query embeddings to identify seed sentences, contextual window expansion around seeds to preserve coherence, and chunk-level score aggregation to ensure holistic relevance. We evaluate QASC on 100 technical documents across 200 queries spanning four types, comparing against fixed chunking at five granularities, recursive splitting, semantic chunking, and agentic chunking. QASC achieves an F1-score of 0.85, a relative improvement of 18-27% over fixed chunking and 8-12% over semantic and agentic alternatives. Ablation studies confirm each component contributes meaningfully. Human evaluation by three annotators (Cohen kappa = 0.82) corroborates that QASC produces more relevant and coherent chunks than existing methods.