Which THREE of the following are valid reasons to include a chunk overlap when performing fixed-size chunking for a RAG pipeline? (Select THREE)
- A. Overlap improves the likelihood that a query matching content near a chunk boundary will retrieve a chunk containing full context around that content✓ Correct
- B. Overlap compensates for semantic chunking failures by providing a fallback splitting mechanism
- C. Overlap ensures that sentences or ideas split at a chunk boundary appear in at least one complete chunk, reducing the chance of a relevant passage being missed✓ Correct
- D. Overlap eliminates the need for a re-ranker by ensuring all retrieved chunks are equally relevant
- E. Overlap reduces the total number of chunks stored in the Vector Search index, lowering storage costs
- F. Overlap allows each chunk to carry some surrounding context, making individual chunks more self-contained for the LLM to interpret✓ Correct
Explanation
Option C is correct: overlap is specifically designed to prevent relevant content from being split cleanly between two chunks where neither chunk contains the full context. Option A is correct: if a key phrase straddles a boundary, the overlapping region ensures it appears in full in at least one chunk, improving recall for boundary-spanning content. Option F is correct: each chunk that carries surrounding context (from the overlap) is more self-contained and interpretable by the LLM without requiring it to infer missing context. Option E is the opposite of the truth—overlap increases the total number of chunks and therefore increases storage costs. Option D is false: overlap does not replace a re-ranker; retrieved chunks may still be irrelevant, and a re-ranker is a separate precision-improvement mechanism. Option B is false: overlap is a fixed-size chunking parameter and has no relationship to semantic chunking failures.