aiqbench analysis
This study provides a rigorous, joint evaluation of parsers, chunking strategies, and embedding models specifically tuned for complex Indian regulatory documents, challenging the industry norm of treating these RAG components as interchangeable. The findings reveal significant interactions between parsing and chunking choices and identify specific failure modes in dense embeddings when handling tabular data, offering critical guidance for building robust retrieval systems on structured legal texts.
Parser, Chunking, and Embedding Interactions in Retrieval-Augmented Generation over Indian Government Regulatory Documents
arXiv:2609.31660v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines are typically assembled from independently-chosen components -- a document parser, a chunking strategy, and an embedding model -- yet these choices are rarely evaluated jointly, and evaluations that do combine them are usually run on a single document or corpus. We present a controlled factorial study of 3 parsers, 3 chunking strategies, and 5 dense embedding models, together with a sparse BM25 baseline, evaluated against 800 question instances, each with one or more required evidence strings, with evidence strings automatically validated against source text and a 10% random sample manually reviewed, across four structurally distinct Indian central-government regulatory documents. We fit linear mixed-effects models with document-query-level random intercepts to the resulting 72,000-row result set, run Holm-corrected paired comparisons between matched dense and sparse configurations, and report clustered bootstrap confidence intervals for all 54 unique retriever configurations. We find that no single retriever family dominates across documents; parser and chunker choice interact significantly; MPNet-base is a consistent underperformer with a severe failure mode on table-derived questions; and the corpus exhibits a near-saturated evidence-preservation ceiling above 98%, indicating that retrieval differences are driven primarily by ranking quality rather than information loss during ingestion. We additionally report embedding-dimension and chunk-size/overlap ablations and an efficiency/quality Pareto analysis. We release our full evaluation harness, corpus manifest, and 800-question benchmark.
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines are typically assembled from independently-chosen components -- a document parser, a chunking strategy, and an embedding model -- yet these choices are rarely evaluated jointly, and evaluations that do combine them are usually run on a single document or corpus. We present a controlled factorial study of 3 parsers, 3 chunking strategies, and 5 dense embedding models, together with a sparse BM25 baseline, evaluated against 800 question instances, each with one or more required evidence strings, with evidence strings automatically validated against source text and a 10% random sample manually reviewed, across four structurally distinct Indian central-government regulatory documents. We fit linear mixed-effects models with document-query-level random intercepts to the resulting 72,000-row result set, run Holm-corrected paired comparisons between matched dense and sparse configurations, and report clustered bootstrap confidence intervals for all 54 unique retriever configurations. We find that no single retriever family dominates across documents; parser and chunker choice interact significantly; MPNet-base is a consistent underperformer with a severe failure mode on table-derived questions; and the corpus exhibits a near-saturated evidence-preservation ceiling above 98%, indicating that retrieval differences are driven primarily by ranking quality rather than information loss during ingestion. We additionally report embedding-dimension and chunk-size/overlap ablations and an efficiency/quality Pareto analysis. We release our full evaluation harness, corpus manifest, and 800-question benchmark.
17 pages, 15 figures, 5 tables. Retrieval-only factorial evaluation with supplementary ablations and reproducibility materials
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
arXiv:2609.31660 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.31660v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.31660 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 332 words
Related coverage

Build enterprise search for agents with Amazon Bedrock Managed Knowledge Base
AWS · Jul 16, 2026
From Vector Search to Agentic RAG: Building an Enterprise Research Analyst with hipVS
AMD · Jul 15, 2026
Chunk Twice, Embed Once: A Systematic Study of Segmentation and Representation Trade-offs in Chemistry-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation
arXiv · Sep 18, 2026

How Fanatics Betting and Gaming built a multi-agent customer support system
AWS · Aug 19, 2026