---
格式版本: 2
标题: "When Is Complex Chunking Worth It? A Multi-Objective Evaluation of Chunking Methods at Scale"
原文链接: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16586"
发布日期: "2026-08-17"
发布时间校准状态: "found"
发布时间需复核: "否"
发布时间来源: "rule:local:strict_original_body"
发布时间证据: "**\\[v1\\]** Mon, 17 Aug 2026 13:47:48 UTC (40 KB)"
发布时间校准原因: "规则确认唯一严格发布时间，来源 local:strict_original_body"
发布时间校准置信度: "high"
发布时间候选数量: 18
发布时间严格候选数量: 6
发布时间原页读取状态: "source template page reused from URL open"
发布时间未找到原因: ""
发布时间校准时间: "2026-08-20T15:47:41+08:00"
发布时间仲裁状态: "skipped"
发布时间仲裁尝试次数: 0
发布时间仲裁耗时毫秒: 0
发现时间: "2026-08-20T15:43:02+08:00"
入库时间: "2026-08-20T07:47:41.411Z"
来源平台: "arXiv 学术论文搜索"
搜索渠道: "source_template"
搜索词: "https://arxiv.org/search/?query=throughput&searchtype=all"
匹配关键词:
  - "throughput"
  - "performance"
  - "latency"
相关厂家:
  []
相关专家:
  []
内容类型: "网页"
抓取工具: "Free Fetch + Defuddle"
清洗工具: "Defuddle Markdown + Defuddle/Readability 正文提取"
原始附件:
  []
AI优质: "否"
AI打分: 15
AI分档: "非优质"
AI质检状态: "不通过"
AI打分理由: "论文主题为信息检索中的分块策略评估，与超节点/AI Rack/机柜级AI基础设施完全无关，仅因搜索词命中throughput，无项目相关价值。"
AI质检模型: "tx-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI质检时间: "2026-08-20T15:54:09+08:00"
AI主题相关性: 0
AI来源权威性: 5
AI新颖性: 5
AI技术细节: 0
AI商业部署信号: 0
AI完整性: 5
AI摘要: "该研究在多个语料库和嵌入模型上评估了8种分块策略，发现复杂分块很少稳定优于简单方法，最佳策略取决于模型、数据集、规模与检索指标；相似性能下操作成本差异显著，分块应被视为多目标设计决策。"
AI摘要模型: "ali-deepseek-v4-flash"
AI摘要时间: "2026-09-07T03:25:22.424Z"
采集批次: "2026年8月20日14点19分32秒"
采集批次ID: "20260820-141932-079"
去重键: "https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16586"
---

## Computer Science > Information Retrieval

## Title:When Is Complex Chunking Worth It? A Multi-Objective Evaluation of Chunking Methods at Scale

[View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.16586) [HTML (experimental)](https://arxiv.org/html/2608.16586v1)

> Abstract:Dense retrieval is commonly evaluated on benchmarks that represent each document with a single embedding, even though real-world retrieval systems often index long documents that require chunking. In these settings, the chosen chunking method not only affects retrieval quality, but also indexing throughput, query latency, and memory usage. Prior comparisons of chunking strategies have mainly focused on retrieval performance, leaving operational trade-offs underexplored. To address these issues, we evaluate eight representative chunking strategies across two scalable corpora, three embedding models, and multiple corpus sizes, measuring both retrieval effectiveness and system-level costs. Our results show that computationally expensive methods rarely provide consistent gains over simpler chunking. Instead, the best performing strategy depends on the embedding model, dataset, corpus size, and target retrieval metric. Methods with similar performance can also differ substantially in operational cost, showing that chunking should be seen as a multi-objective design decision.

| Subjects: | Information Retrieval (cs.IR) |
| --- | --- |
| Cite as: | [arXiv:2608.16586](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16586) \[cs.IR\] |
|  | (or [arXiv:2608.16586v1](https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.16586v1) \[cs.IR\] for this version) |
|  | [https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.16586](https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.16586) |

## Submission history

From: Laura Caspari \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/6efb2c46/2608.16586)\]  
**\[v1\]** Mon, 17 Aug 2026 13:47:48 UTC (40 KB)

[Which authors of this paper are endorsers?](https://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/2608.16586) | Disable MathJax ([What is MathJax?](https://info.arxiv.org/help/mathjax.html))