Wan-Sup Cho

Sovandara Chhoun, Pichdara Po, Sereiwathna Ros et al.

In this study, we compare the performance of four text chunking approaches: Recursive, Khmer-Aware, Sentence-Based, and LLM-Based within a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) framework applied to Khmer agricultural documents. The document chunks are encoded using the BGE-M3 multilingual embedding model and retrieved using the FAISS library. Performance is evaluated using four metrics: Average Retrieval Score (L2 distance), Answer Relevance, Khmer Coverage, and Khmer Intersection over Union, all measured against ground-truth question-answer pairs. For evaluation, we perform 5-fold cross-validation over 18 question-answer pairs. We observe the best performance for the character-based Recursive chunking method with a chunk size of 300 characters, achieving the lowest L2 distance (0.4295 +- 0.0461), highest Answer Relevance (0.8663 +- 0.0199), and highest Khmer IoU (0.6441 +- 0.0347). A paired t-test shows a statistically significant improvement over the Sentence-Based chunking method in L2 distance (p = 0.0121). These results highlight the importance of segmentation granularity and structural preservation for optimizing dense retrieval in morphologically complex, low-resource languages such as Khmer.

Sereiwathna Ros, Phannet Pov, Ratanaktepi Chhor et al.

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.