What are Different types of chunking methods and ideal chunk-size

Browse all previously published AI Tutorials here.

Table of Contents

• What are Different types of chunking methods and ideal chunk-size

• Chunking Strategies for LLM Training

• Chunking Strategies for LLM Inference

• Determining the Ideal Chunk Size

Chunking Strategies for LLM Training

Fixed-Length Sequence Chunking: Large language models are typically trained on fixed-length text segments due to hardware limits. For example, GPT-style models often use 2K–4K token segments during pre-training. This standard “concatenate and chunk” approach packs text to a target length (possibly concatenating multiple documents) and truncates or splits any overflow. While simple, it can introduce unnatural boundaries that break discourse continuity. If segmentation is random, the model may see abrupt topic shifts at chunk edges. This can hurt long-range learning unless mitigated (e.g. via special tokens or masking to prevent cross-document blending). Longer chunks allow learning dependencies over greater context, but exponentially increase memory and compute cost. Extremely long training chunks (e.g. 16K+ tokens) are often prohibitive (HERE). Recent research emphasizes that naively training on very long sequences can cause instability from high gradient variance (HERE). In practice, many pre-trained LLMs stick to moderate lengths (e.g. 2048) and rely on downstream fine-tuning or inference tricks for longer contexts . The trade-off is clear: larger chunk sizes in training improve the model’s long-context capability, but at the cost of much higher computation. There is a diminishing return if the model rarely encounters such long dependencies in training data. Choosing a reasonable maximum (e.g. a few thousand tokens) is a balance between capturing long-range structure and keeping training feasible.

Variable Length Curriculum: Instead of a single fixed chunk size, 2024 work by Liu et al. introduces a variable sequence length curriculum, gradually increasing the chunk length during training . Early training iterations use shorter sequences (e.g. 512 tokens), then progressively longer segments, cycling through lengths. This curriculum (e.g. “Grow-Linear” or cyclic schedules) ensures the model sees long contexts after it has learned basic patterns, avoiding overwhelming it when weights are random . Empirically, this approach stabilizes training (reducing gradient variance) and improves efficiency – the model achieved the same perplexity as a fixed-8192 baseline using less than half the data, implying >2× data efficiency . The advantage is better long-context performance without needing to always train on maximum-length chunks (which are “hard” examples). The trade-off is added complexity in training schedules and hyper-parameters (deciding how and when to increase length). Nonetheless, this curriculum method yielded more stable convergence (allowing larger learning rates/batches) and superior long-context evaluation scores than constant-length training . It suggests the “ideal” training chunk size may not be one static value – introducing a range of lengths can produce a model robust to both short and long contexts.

Memory and Pipeline-Based Chunking: Other training-time chunking methods involve architectural changes. Memory-augmented transformers segment long sequences into chunks and introduce memory tokens or recurrence to link chunks. For example, Transformer-XL (2019) carried hidden states from the previous segment as an pseudo-context for the next – effectively chunking the sequence and passing summary information forward. Modern variants (2024) use learnable memory slots or recurrence to achieve similar effects (HERE) , but these require custom architectures or fine-tuning and increase training complexity. Another frontier is distributed training that chunks sequences across GPUs. Yao et al. (2024) propose a Fully Pipelined Distributed Transformer (FPDT) that allows training on extremely long sequences by pipeline parallelism along the sequence dimension. They split a 2-million-token sequence into chunks processed in a streaming pipeline on 4 GPUs, achieving a 16× context length increase with high hardware utilization ( Training Ultra Long Context Language Model with Fully Pipelined Distributed Transformer). This sequence chunk pipeline fed the model chunks sequentially through different devices, enabling an 8B parameter model to train on 2M tokens context . The advantage is a true end-to-end training of ultra-long context (no approximation), which can unlock new capabilities. The obvious downsides are complexity and potential pipeline overhead. Such solutions are specialized and require careful orchestration, but they demonstrate that with chunk-based partitioning, even million-token contexts are not out of reach in training. In summary, training-time chunking strategies range from straightforward (fixed splitting) to advanced (curricula, memory recurrence, sequence parallelism), each balancing context length vs. cost. A practical approach is often to choose the longest chunk that resources allow, and if possible employ curriculum or memory mechanisms to mitigate the downsides of large chunks.

Chunking Strategies for LLM Inference

Document Chunking for Retrieval (RAG): A common use of chunking at inference is in retrieval-augmented generation. Here, a long document or knowledge base is split into chunks that can be embedded and retrieved individually. The simplest method is fixed-size chunking, e.g. splitting text into 500-token or 1000-token blocks (often with overlapping context of 20–50% to avoid cutting important content) (Long Context RAG Performance of Large Language Models). For example, one study chunked documents into 512-token segments with a 256-token overlap, indexed each, then retrieved the top-k chunks to feed an LLM . This ensures each chunk is within the LLM’s context window and can be processed independently. The trade-offs of chunk size in retrieval are well-studied: smaller chunks (e.g. 100–200 tokens) mean higher recall (finer granularity so relevant info is less likely to be split out), but each chunk contains less context and more chunks are needed to cover the same text. Very small chunks can also hurt embedding quality or coherence. Larger chunks (e.g. 1000+ tokens) carry more complete context, which improves semantic coherence and may capture an answer in one chunk, but they risk bringing in irrelevant text and can waste space if much of the chunk isn’t actually needed for the query. There is an optimal middle ground. Empirical results in 2024 show that chunk sizes around 512 to 1024 tokens consistently outperformed smaller or larger chunks on QA tasks (Introducing a new hyper-parameter for RAG: Context Window Utilization). In a comparative study across Wikipedia, legal, and academic texts, chunks of 512 or 1024 yielded the highest answer accuracy (measured by similarity to ground-truth) for both a 70B and an 8×7B MoE model . Extremely small chunks (128 tokens) underperformed, likely due to losing context, while very large ones added noise. Furthermore, an overlapping semantic chunking approach can be used: rather than splitting strictly by length, the text is segmented by semantic boundaries (paragraphs or discourse units) – this was the approach in ChunkRAG, which uses semantic chunking to produce coherent sections and then filters them by relevance with an LLM before generation (ChunkRAG: Novel LLM-Chunk Filtering Method for RAG Systems). The advantage of semantic chunking is each chunk is a self-contained topic or idea, improving retrieval precision. ChunkRAG showed that filtering at the chunk level (dropping less relevant chunks) substantially reduced LLM hallucinations and improved factual accuracy in generation . The cost is extra processing (running an LLM to score each chunk). In general, chunking for retrieval must balance completeness and relevance. If chunks are too large or too many, the model may become overwhelmed or pick up irrelevant context, increasing confusion or latency (HERE). If too small, important context gets fragmented across chunks (the model might see facts in isolation and miss their relationships), or the retriever might overlook subtle relevant pieces that got diluted. Researchers note that any fixed chunking inevitably breaks some document coherence and can lead to missed info that was split off . Therefore, recent systems often combine strategies – moderate chunk sizes (few hundred tokens), slight overlaps, and intelligent chunking (by sentence or paragraph boundaries) to preserve meaning. The trade-off boils down to precision vs. recall: larger, semantically coherent chunks improve precision (each retrieved chunk is more likely to contain a complete answer), whereas smaller overlapping chunks favor recall (less likely to miss something, at the expense of including extraneous bits).

Chunking to Extend Context Windows: Beyond retrieval settings, chunking is used to overcome the fixed context length of an LLM at inference. One prominent 2024 approach is Dual Chunk Attention (DCA) (Training-Free Long-Context Scaling of Large Language Models) . DCA modifies the Transformer’s attention mechanism to handle inputs much longer than the trained context limit without retraining. The idea is to split the long sequence into chunks and perform attention in a piecewise fashion. Concretely, DCA first applies intra-chunk attention — the model attends fully to tokens within each chunk (just as it normally would on a segment of, say, 2048 tokens) . By resetting positional embeddings in each chunk, it ensures the model’s positional encoding (e.g. RoPE) never exceeds its original range in any single attention computation . Then DCA stiches together the chunks via an additional mechanism (the “dual” aspect) that allows limited information flow across chunks without violating the model’s position indexing. (In essence, it reuses the model’s native position range for each chunk and coordinates attention such that queries and keys from distant chunks are handled in a separate step.) The implementation only requires changes to the inference code – no model weights are changed . DCA is compatible with efficient attention implementations like FlashAttention , so it can scale to long inputs with manageable overhead. The advantage is dramatic: Llama2 models using DCA demonstrated reliable generation with context windows 8× larger than their original limit . For example, Llama2-70B (trained on 4K tokens) could handle over 32K tokens with only a tiny increase in perplexity (+0.02) . The 70B model’s perplexity stayed nearly flat (5.18 to 5.59) going from 4K to 32K input, indicating minimal degradation . Even at 64K or 96K tokens, performance remained strong . This is a huge practical win: DCA effectively trades computation for memory, splitting a long input into chunks so that the quadratic attention cost applies to chunk length rather than the full sequence length. The trade-off is that the model doesn’t get to attend globally to every token at once – long-range interactions are mediated through the chunk interface. If something in the first token and last token needs direct interaction, DCA might approximate it rather than capture it exactly as a full attention would. However, the empirical results suggest that for many tasks, this approximation is sufficient if chunk size is large enough, since each chunk still covers a substantial span. DCA’s chunk size is typically set equal to the original trained context length (or a bit less), to ensure no within-chunk extrapolation errors. Thus, an inference chunk size here is a parameter that one tunes: larger chunks reduce the number of chunk segments (thus more direct context per segment), but if chunk size exceeds what the model was trained on, it could start to extrapolate positional embeddings (unless other tricks like interpolation are used). In the Llama2 example, using ~4K chunks was a safe choice. Notably, DCA enabled some models to reach 192K token contexts by adjusting the chunk size (e.g. using 24K-token chunks for models with extended positional embeddings) – clearly showing how chunk size can be dialed up in line with the model’s known capacity.

Hierarchical Chunking and Token Pruning: Another class of methods chunk at a finer granularity to improve efficiency. InfiniteHiP (Yang et al., 2024) is a framework that achieves extreme long-context inference (millions of tokens) by hierarchical chunk-based pruning (Extending Language Model Context Up to 3 Million Tokens on a Single GPU). The input is partitioned into fixed-size chunks, say c tokens each. In a first stage, each chunk is examined in parallel and only the single most “important” token (the one with highest attention score to the query) is kept . In other words, it performs a coarse attention filter per chunk: each chunk yields one representative token that best summarizes that chunk’s contribution. Only the top d chunks (by those attention scores) are retained, and the rest of the chunks are dropped . Then the process can repeat for further refinement (stacking multiple pruning modules) to winnow the sequence down to the truly relevant parts in a multiscale fashion . This results in a block-sparse attention mask focused on a subset of tokens. Essentially, InfiniteHiP trades a slight approximation in attention for massive gains in speed and memory. By discarding the bulk of low-relevance tokens, it avoids full quadratic attention over all n tokens. The technical implementation uses an LRU-style cache for key–value memory and processes chunks in parallel, making it highly efficient . The authors report no loss in quality on long context tasks compared to other state-of-the-art efficient attention methods, while enabling unprecedented context lengths (up to 3 million tokens) on a single GPU . The advantage here is clear: you can feed an entire book or even multiple books (millions of tokens) to the model, and it will intelligently ignore the irrelevant parts and pay attention to the few segments that matter – all in a single forward pass. The trade-off, however, is that this is an approximation of full attention; if a token that was pruned out actually mattered for a subtle reason, the model could miss it. The method’s efficacy relies on the assumption (usually true in language) that at any point, only a small fraction of the context is truly influential (sparsity in attention). Also, this method adds complexity in inference code and isn’t part of standard model implementations. Still, as a chunking strategy, it highlights a powerful idea: process the input in chunks to identify important pieces, and discard or compress the rest – a recurring theme in handling long contexts.

Memory Compression via Chunking: Related to pruning, some methods compress past context chunks into smaller representations instead of dropping them entirely. An approach called InfLLM (Inference LLM) proposed in 2024 uses chunking in a recurrent manner (HERE) . The long input is divided into chunks (e.g. 512 tokens each). The model processes the first chunk normally and produces output (or internal state). Then, instead of carrying forward all 512 tokens worth of key/value history, it extracts a few representative tokens or a summary state (for instance, 4 tokens summarizing that chunk) . These representatives serve as a compressed memory of chunk 1 and are prepended or used as context when processing chunk 2, and so on. Thus, as the model moves through chunks, it only retains a fixed-size memory (like 128 tokens of past context, regardless of how far back) . This is akin to a sliding window or stateful RNN-like behavior on top of the transformer. The technical challenge is choosing how to create those representative tokens – it could be via an attention mechanism or special pooling. InfLLM’s implementation details aside, the benefit is that context length becomes effectively unlimited (you can feed chunk after chunk) with linear complexity in n (each chunk processed in turn) rather than quadratic in n. It’s a form of chunked processing with constant memory footprint. The trade-off, naturally, is information loss: by compressing each chunk’s information into a few vectors, the model might forget or ignore details that were not captured by those representatives. If the question at the end of a long text suddenly needs a detail from the very first chunk, the answer is only as good as what was distilled into the memory from that first chunk. The success of such methods depends on the idea that important information can be distilled at each step (perhaps via attention selecting key tokens – similar in spirit to the pruning approach). In practice, this can work for tasks like maintaining coherence in a story or carrying forward topic information, but might struggle if precise facts from far back are needed verbatim. The advantage is that no modifications to model weights are required (it’s an inference-time technique or at most a small fine-tune to encourage summarization), and it can be combined with other methods (e.g. a retrieval could fetch older info if needed).

In summary, inference-time chunking methods allow us to handle inputs far exceeding an LLM’s nominal context limit by splitting or filtering the input. Whether through external means (retrieving only the most relevant chunks of text) or internal means (changing attention to process chunks sequentially or sparsely), chunking is a key strategy in 2024 LLM research to push the boundaries of context length. The advantages are often practical efficiency and extended capabilities, at the cost of approximation: the model is no longer seeing everything end-to-end in one giant sequence, but this is usually an acceptable trade-off when n is extremely large.

Determining the Ideal Chunk Size

Choosing the “ideal” chunk size depends on the context (training vs. inference) and the desired outcome. Recent empirical findings offer guidance for each scenario:

• Training Context Length: In training, the ideal chunk (sequence length) is constrained by resources. Too short, and the model never learns long-range patterns; too long, and training becomes intractable or unstable. Studies have found that mixing sequence lengths is better than committing to one maximum length (HERE). A practical approach is to set a reasonably high maximum (e.g. 1K–4K tokens for a base model) and occasionally feed even longer sequences via curriculum once the model is capable . The variable-length curriculum results indicate you don’t want all training examples to be extremely long – instead, an optimal training regimen had a significant fraction of shorter sequences and gradually introduced long ones . This suggests that from a training perspective, there isn’t a single magic chunk length, but rather an ideal distribution of lengths. That said, if we consider final training context capacity, many current LLMs see diminishing returns beyond a certain length. For example, if most of your training data (books, articles) are under 5K tokens, training to 16K might yield minimal benefit because the model won’t frequently encounter meaningful signals beyond 5K. In contrast, specialized domains (legal or code) with very long sequences might warrant a larger chunk size. The 2024 FPDT experiment that successfully trained on 2M-token sequences is a proof-of-concept; it’s not yet standard to use that as context in general-domain training. For practical purposes, researchers often pick the longest chunk that their hardware budget allows (for base pre-training) and then leverage fine-tuning or inference techniques for any further extension (HERE). In summary, ideal training chunk size is a trade-off: enough to capture important long dependencies, but not so long that the model cannot be efficiently trained. Empirically, using variable lengths up to a few thousands tokens yields strong long-context performance without the need to explicitly train on exorbitantly long segments . If truly long contexts are needed, strategies like recurrence or pipeline chunking can be employed rather than naively increasing the sequence length.

• Inference Chunk Size (Retrieval): When chunking documents for retrieval-augmented inference, studies indicate an optimal range on the order of a few hundred tokens. Aggarwal et al. (2024) found that chunk sizes of 512 or 1024 tokens consistently led to the best answer quality across diverse text types (Introducing a new hyper-parameter for RAG: Context Window Utilization). This range balances containing enough context to be meaningful (each chunk can answer something substantive) against keeping chunks focused and numerous enough to cover different aspects. If chunks are significantly smaller (e.g. 100–200 tokens), important context might be split up, and the model might need to see multiple chunks together to answer a question (which is not always possible if the number of chunks it can input is limited). If chunks are much larger (e.g. 2K+ tokens), one or two chunks could consume the entire LLM context window, and if they happen to include irrelevant parts, they waste space and even introduce confusion. The cited study varied both chunk size and the number of chunks (k) given to the model, measuring semantic similarity of answers to ground truth. They observed that for 70B Llama and 56B (8×7B MoE) models, chunks of 512 or 1024 tokens yielded the highest scores, and performance plateaued or dropped with smaller (256) or larger (2048+) chunks . They also note that the optimal number of chunks was around 7–9 for those chunk sizes, which corresponded to using roughly 40–70% of the LLM’s context capacity . Beyond ~10 chunks, additional information didn’t improve answers, likely because the model either had what it needed or couldn’t effectively utilize more text . This implies that filling the entire context window with retrieved chunks is not always beneficial – quality peaked when the window was only partially filled with the most relevant chunks. One interpretation is that beyond a certain point, extra context becomes noise that dilutes the model’s focus. The takeaway for practitioners is to tune chunk size and number: start with ~500 token chunks with some overlap, and feed just enough top-ranked chunks to cover the query (often under 10). Ensure each chunk is self-contained (e.g. don’t split sentences across chunks, use semantic boundaries). These empirical findings serve as a rule of thumb; of course, specific tasks may differ (for very factoid QA, smaller chunks might work, whereas for open-ended synthesis, larger chunks might be fine). But the 2024 results provide evidence that medium-sized chunks strike the best balance in a RAG setting .

• Inference Chunk Size (Attention Methods): For chunk-based attention methods like DCA and InfiniteHiP, the ideal chunk size is tied to the model’s characteristics. With DCA, a good choice is the original training context length (e.g. if the model was trained on 2048 tokens, use ~2048 or maybe a bit less to be safe). This ensures the model’s positional embeddings and attention patterns within each chunk are within the regime it was trained on. Indeed, DCA’s effectiveness relies on not pushing the model beyond its familiar range in any single chunk (Training-Free Long-Context Scaling of Large Language Models). If the chunk size is too small, you incur more overhead (more chunks to handle the same input, and potentially the model has to stitch together very many segments which could make it harder to capture long-range info). If the chunk size is too large (exceeding what the model was trained on), you reintroduce the position extrapolation problem DCA is trying to avoid. In practice, one would choose the largest chunk size that the model can confidently handle (often the pre-training context limit). For example, with a 4K context model, chunk = 4K; with a fine-tuned long model that can do 8K, chunk = 8K, etc. Adjustments can be made if using optimized positional encoding (some models with RoPE can handle slightly beyond their original length with negligible loss). The trade-off in these methods is between fewer large chunks vs. more small chunks. Fewer large chunks means the model does more work per chunk (higher within-chunk compute, but fewer cross-chunk operations), whereas more smaller chunks reduce per-chunk cost but require more cross-chunk attention steps or memory. Generally, performance is better with larger chunks because the model can internally resolve more context before needing an approximation across chunks. So, the ideal chunk size here gravitates toward the maximum feasible per the model’s training.

• Inference Chunk Size (Pruning/Memory): In multi-stage pruning like InfiniteHiP, chunk size (the block size for initial partitioning) is a tunable parameter. A larger chunk means each pruning module considers a bigger block of text when picking the top token. If chunks are too large, the “top-1 token” chosen might not adequately represent all the relevant content in that block (since the block could contain multiple important points that get pruned out). If chunks are too small, you increase overhead (more chunks to process) and risk losing context within each chunk (e.g. attention scores computed only within tiny windows might not identify globally important tokens). The paper doesn’t give a single optimal value, but they demonstrated using chunk sizes on the order of a few thousand tokens effectively (e.g. 6K in one experiment) (Extending Language Model Context Up to 3 Million Tokens on a Single GPU). The ideal here likely depends on the model’s attention distribution – one might choose a chunk size such that an attention head’s receptive field (locality) is well utilized. In practice, moderate sizes (e.g. 512 or 1K) could be a starting point, as those are parallelizable and align with typical model locality (many transformers have local patterns that span a few hundred tokens). Similarly for the InfLLM style approach, a chunk size should be chosen in conjunction with how many representative tokens are kept. The 2024 study set 512-token chunks and kept 4 reps per chunk in one setting (HERE), and also tried 2048-token chunks with 1 rep for extreme contexts . A larger chunk with very few reps is a heavier compression (risking info loss), whereas smaller chunks with more reps is lighter compression but more compute. An ideal setting would retain enough reps to summarize the chunk’s important content. For example, one might find that keeping ~1% of tokens as summary (e.g. 5 tokens out of 500) is a good compromise. Ultimately, tuning these chunk sizes in attention/pruning methods often involves evaluating on long-context tasks (like Long Range Arena or question answering) to see where quality drops off.

Summary of Trade-offs: Across training and inference, chunk size choices reflect a balance between information completeness and efficiency. Empirical evidence supports moderate chunk lengths (hundreds to a thousand tokens) as optimal in many scenarios (Introducing a new hyper-parameter for RAG: Context Window Utilization). Too small yields fragmented, less useful pieces (HERE); too large yields redundancies and higher latency with little gain . The ideal chunk size also interacts with how many chunks will ultimately be used – effectively the total context budget. For instance, given a fixed LLM context window, there’s a trade-off between fewer large chunks vs. many small chunks. The former gives richer context per chunk, the latter gives more coverage. The 2024 RAG study suggests the sweet spot is to use about 50%–70% of the LLM’s context with top chunks, rather than naively filling it up . In other words, leave some headroom and focus on the highest-value content. Additionally, domain specifics matter: documents with clear semantic structure (like encyclopedia articles with sections) benefit from chunking at those boundaries, whereas free-form text might be better in uniform chunks with overlap.

To determine the ideal chunk size in practice, one should experiment with different sizes and measure performance on the target task. The recent literature provides a starting point (512 or 1024 tokens for many QA/doc tasks; original training length for attention-based extensions) but the optimal can vary. Key indicators of a poor chunking choice include a drop in retrieval accuracy (for RAG, if chunks too big or small lead to lower answer correctness) or a sharp increase in perplexity/response error (for attention methods, if chunking too aggressively impairs the model’s understanding). Adjusting chunk size is a powerful lever: as Luo et al. (2024) noted, it’s a “tricky problem” but also an opportunity – appropriate chunking can significantly enhance LLM effectiveness by feeding it information in the most digestible way . The ideal chunk is thus one that preserves as much meaning as possible per chunk while fitting the operational constraints of the model. Recent research converges on the idea that neither extreme of the spectrum works best; instead, mid-sized, semantically coherent chunks with judicious overlap or summarization yield the strongest results in large-scale language model training and inference .

Sources: Recent arXiv papers from 2024-2025 including retrieval-augmented generation studies (Introducing a new hyper-parameter for RAG: Context Window Utilization) , long-context LLM extension methods (Dual Chunk Attention (Training-Free Long-Context Scaling of Large Language Models) , InfiniteHiP pruning (Extending Language Model Context Up to 3 Million Tokens on a Single GPU)), and efficient training techniques (HERE) have been referenced to compile these insights. Each method offers a different angle on chunking, but all underscore the importance of choosing chunk sizes wisely to maximize an LLM’s performance given finite context and compute.