Comparing Chunking and Embedding Strategies for Turkish RAG Systems
TL;DR
This work compares Turkish document question answering across three chunking strategies, five embedding models, and two LLMs, over three documents with contrasting layouts, finding the faster LLM is not the more accurate one.
Abstract
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.
