# ADR-008: Recursive Language Models (RLM) Integration

**Date**: 2026-02-16
**Status**: Accepted
**Deciders**: VAPORA Team
**Technical Story**: Phase 9 - RLM as Core Foundation

## Context and Problem Statement

VAPORA's agent system relied on **direct LLM calls** for all reasoning tasks, which created fundamental limitations:

1. **Context window limitations**: Single LLM calls fail beyond 50-100k tokens (context rot)
2. **No knowledge reuse**: Historical executions were not semantically searchable
3. **Single-shot reasoning**: No distributed analysis across document chunks
4. **Cost inefficiency**: Processing entire documents repeatedly instead of relevant chunks
5. **No incremental learning**: Agents couldn't learn from past successful solutions

**Question**: How do we enable long-context reasoning, knowledge reuse, and distributed LLM processing in VAPORA?

## Decision Drivers

**Must Have:**
- Handle documents >100k tokens without context rot
- Semantic search over historical executions
- Distributed reasoning across document chunks
- Integration with existing SurrealDB + NATS architecture
- Support multiple LLM providers (OpenAI, Claude, Ollama)

**Should Have:**
- Hybrid search (keyword + semantic)
- Cost tracking per provider
- Prometheus metrics
- Sandboxed execution environment

**Nice to Have:**
- WASM-based fast execution tier
- Docker warm pool for complex tasks

## Considered Options

### Option 1: RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) Only

**Approach**: Traditional RAG with vector embeddings + SurrealDB

**Pros:**
- Simple to implement
- Well-understood pattern
- Good for basic Q&A

**Cons:**
- ❌ No distributed reasoning (single LLM call)
- ❌ Keyword search limitations (only semantic)
- ❌ No execution sandbox
- ❌ Limited to simple retrieval tasks

### Option 2: LangChain/LlamaIndex Integration

**Approach**: Use existing framework (LangChain or LlamaIndex)

**Pros:**
- Pre-built components
- Active community
- Many integrations

**Cons:**
- ❌ Python-based (VAPORA is Rust-first)
- ❌ Heavy dependencies
- ❌ Less control over implementation
- ❌ Tight coupling to framework abstractions

### Option 3: Recursive Language Models (RLM) - **SELECTED**

**Approach**: Custom Rust implementation with distributed reasoning, hybrid search, and sandboxed execution

**Pros:**
- ✅ Native Rust (zero-cost abstractions, safety)
- ✅ Hybrid search (BM25 + semantic + RRF fusion)
- ✅ Distributed LLM calls across chunks
- ✅ Sandboxed execution (WASM + Docker)
- ✅ Full control over implementation
- ✅ Reuses existing VAPORA patterns (SurrealDB, NATS, Prometheus)

**Cons:**
- ⚠️ More initial implementation effort
- ⚠️ Maintaining custom codebase

**Decision**: **Option 3 - RLM Custom Implementation**

## Decision Outcome

### Chosen Solution: Recursive Language Models (RLM)

Implement a **native Rust RLM system** as a foundational VAPORA component, providing:

1. **Chunking**: Fixed, Semantic, Code-aware strategies
2. **Hybrid Search**: BM25 (Tantivy) + Semantic (embeddings) + RRF fusion
3. **Distributed Reasoning**: Parallel LLM calls across relevant chunks
4. **Sandboxed Execution**: WASM tier (<10ms) + Docker tier (80-150ms)
5. **Knowledge Graph**: Store execution history with learning curves
6. **Multi-Provider**: OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, Ollama support

### Architecture Overview

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                        RLM Engine                            │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                                               │
│  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐      │
│  │  Chunking    │  │ Hybrid Search│  │  Dispatcher  │      │
│  │              │  │              │  │              │      │
│  │ • Fixed      │  │ • BM25       │  │ • Parallel   │      │
│  │ • Semantic   │  │ • Semantic   │  │   LLM calls  │      │
│  │ • Code       │  │ • RRF Fusion │  │ • Aggregation│      │
│  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘      │
│                                                               │
│  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐  ┌──────────────┐      │
│  │   Storage    │  │   Sandbox    │  │  Metrics     │      │
│  │              │  │              │  │              │      │
│  │ • SurrealDB  │  │ • WASM       │  │ • Prometheus │      │
│  │ • Chunks     │  │ • Docker     │  │ • Costs      │      │
│  │ • Buffers    │  │ • Auto-tier  │  │ • Latency    │      │
│  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘  └──────────────┘      │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

### Implementation Details

**Crate**: `vapora-rlm` (17,000+ LOC)

**Key Components:**

```rust
// 1. Chunking
pub enum ChunkingStrategy {
    Fixed,      // Fixed-size chunks with overlap
    Semantic,   // Unicode-aware, sentence boundaries
    Code,       // AST-based (Rust, Python, JS)
}

// 2. Hybrid Search
pub struct HybridSearch {
    bm25_index: Arc<BM25Index>,      // Tantivy in-memory
    storage: Arc<dyn Storage>,        // SurrealDB
    config: HybridSearchConfig,       // RRF weights
}

// 3. LLM Dispatch
pub struct LLMDispatcher {
    client: Option<Arc<dyn LLMClient>>,  // Multi-provider
    config: DispatchConfig,               // Aggregation strategy
}

// 4. Sandbox
pub enum SandboxTier {
    WASM,   // <10ms, WASI-compatible commands
    Docker, // <150ms, full compatibility
}
```

**Database Schema** (SCHEMALESS for flexibility):

```sql
-- Chunks (from documents)
DEFINE TABLE rlm_chunks SCHEMALESS;
DEFINE INDEX idx_rlm_chunks_chunk_id ON TABLE rlm_chunks COLUMNS chunk_id UNIQUE;
DEFINE INDEX idx_rlm_chunks_doc_id ON TABLE rlm_chunks COLUMNS doc_id;

-- Execution History (for learning)
DEFINE TABLE rlm_executions SCHEMALESS;
DEFINE INDEX idx_rlm_executions_execution_id ON TABLE rlm_executions COLUMNS execution_id UNIQUE;
DEFINE INDEX idx_rlm_executions_doc_id ON TABLE rlm_executions COLUMNS doc_id;
```

**Key Decision**: Use **SCHEMALESS** instead of SCHEMAFULL tables to avoid conflicts with SurrealDB's auto-generated `id` fields.

### Production Usage

```rust
use vapora_rlm::{RLMEngine, ChunkingConfig, EmbeddingConfig};
use vapora_llm_router::providers::OpenAIClient;

// Setup LLM client
let llm_client = Arc::new(OpenAIClient::new(
    api_key, "gpt-4".to_string(),
    4096, 0.7, 5.0, 15.0
)?);

// Configure RLM
let config = RLMEngineConfig {
    chunking: ChunkingConfig {
        strategy: ChunkingStrategy::Semantic,
        chunk_size: 1000,
        overlap: 200,
    },
    embedding: Some(EmbeddingConfig::openai_small()),
    auto_rebuild_bm25: true,
    max_chunks_per_doc: 10_000,
};

// Create engine
let engine = RLMEngine::with_llm_client(
    storage, bm25_index, llm_client, Some(config)
)?;

// Usage
let chunks = engine.load_document(doc_id, content, None).await?;
let results = engine.query(doc_id, "error handling", None, 5).await?;
let response = engine.dispatch_subtask(doc_id, "Analyze code", None, 5).await?;
```

## Consequences

### Positive

**Performance:**
- ✅ Handles 100k+ line documents without context rot
- ✅ Query latency: ~90ms average (100 queries benchmark)
- ✅ WASM tier: <10ms for simple commands
- ✅ Docker tier: <150ms from warm pool
- ✅ Full workflow: <30s for 10k lines (2728 chunks)

**Functionality:**
- ✅ Hybrid search outperforms pure semantic or BM25 alone
- ✅ Distributed reasoning reduces hallucinations
- ✅ Knowledge Graph enables learning from past executions
- ✅ Multi-provider support (OpenAI, Claude, Ollama)

**Quality:**
- ✅ 38/38 tests passing (100% pass rate)
- ✅ 0 clippy warnings
- ✅ Comprehensive E2E, performance, security tests
- ✅ Production-ready with real persistence (no stubs)

**Cost Efficiency:**
- ✅ Chunk-based processing reduces token usage
- ✅ Cost tracking per provider and task
- ✅ Local Ollama option for development (free)

### Negative

**Complexity:**
- ⚠️ Additional component to maintain (17k+ LOC)
- ⚠️ Learning curve for distributed reasoning patterns
- ⚠️ More moving parts (chunking, BM25, embeddings, dispatch)

**Infrastructure:**
- ⚠️ Requires SurrealDB for persistence
- ⚠️ Requires embedding provider (OpenAI/Ollama)
- ⚠️ Optional Docker for full sandbox tier

**Performance Trade-offs:**
- ⚠️ Load time ~22s for 10k lines (chunking + embedding + indexing)
- ⚠️ BM25 rebuild time proportional to document size
- ⚠️ Memory usage: ~25MB per WASM instance, ~100-300MB per Docker container

### Risks and Mitigations

| Risk | Mitigation | Status |
|------|-----------|--------|
| SurrealDB schema conflicts | Use SCHEMALESS tables | ✅ Resolved |
| BM25 index performance | In-memory Tantivy, auto-rebuild | ✅ Verified |
| LLM provider costs | Cost tracking, local Ollama option | ✅ Implemented |
| Sandbox escape | WASM isolation, Docker security tests | ✅ 13/13 tests passing |
| Context window limits | Chunking + hybrid search + aggregation | ✅ Handles 100k+ tokens |

## Validation

### Test Coverage

```
Basic integration:     4/4  ✅ (100%)
E2E integration:       9/9  ✅ (100%)
Security:             13/13 ✅ (100%)
Performance:           8/8  ✅ (100%)
Debug tests:           4/4  ✅ (100%)
───────────────────────────────────
Total:                38/38 ✅ (100%)
```

### Performance Benchmarks

```
Query Latency (100 queries):
  Average: 90.6ms
  P50: 87.5ms
  P95: 88.3ms
  P99: 91.7ms

Large Document (10k lines):
  Load: ~22s (2728 chunks)
  Query: ~565ms
  Full workflow: <30s

BM25 Index:
  Build time: ~100ms for 1000 docs
  Search: <1ms for most queries
```

### Integration Points

**Existing VAPORA Components:**
- ✅ `vapora-llm-router`: LLM client integration
- ✅ `vapora-knowledge-graph`: Execution history persistence
- ✅ `vapora-shared`: Common error types and models
- ✅ SurrealDB: Persistent storage backend
- ✅ Prometheus: Metrics export

**New Integration Surface:**
```rust
// Backend API
POST /api/v1/rlm/analyze
{
  "content": "...",
  "query": "...",
  "strategy": "semantic"
}

// Agent Coordinator
let rlm_result = rlm_engine.dispatch_subtask(
    doc_id, task.description, None, 5
).await?;
```

## Related Decisions

- **ADR-003**: Multi-provider LLM routing (Phase 6 dependency)
- **ADR-005**: Knowledge Graph temporal modeling (RLM execution history)
- **ADR-006**: Prometheus metrics standardization (RLM metrics)

## References

**Implementation:**
- `crates/vapora-rlm/` - Full RLM implementation
- `crates/vapora-rlm/PRODUCTION.md` - Production setup guide
- `crates/vapora-rlm/examples/` - Working examples
- `migrations/008_rlm_schema.surql` - Database schema

**External:**
- [Tantivy](https://github.com/quickwit-oss/tantivy) - BM25 full-text search
- [RRF Paper](https://plg.uwaterloo.ca/~gvcormac/cormacksigir09-rrf.pdf) - Reciprocal Rank Fusion
- [WASM Security Model](https://webassembly.org/docs/security/)

**Tests:**
- `tests/e2e_integration.rs` - End-to-end workflow tests
- `tests/performance_test.rs` - Performance benchmarks
- `tests/security_test.rs` - Sandbox security validation

## Notes

**Why SCHEMALESS vs SCHEMAFULL?**

Initial implementation used SCHEMAFULL with explicit `id` field definitions:
```sql
DEFINE TABLE rlm_chunks SCHEMAFULL;
DEFINE FIELD id ON TABLE rlm_chunks TYPE record<rlm_chunks>;  -- ❌ Conflict
```

This caused data persistence failures because SurrealDB auto-generates `id` fields. Changed to SCHEMALESS:
```sql
DEFINE TABLE rlm_chunks SCHEMALESS;  -- ✅ Works
DEFINE INDEX idx_rlm_chunks_chunk_id ON TABLE rlm_chunks COLUMNS chunk_id UNIQUE;
```

Indexes still work with SCHEMALESS, providing necessary performance without schema conflicts.

**Why Hybrid Search?**

Pure BM25 (keyword):
- ✅ Fast, exact matches
- ❌ Misses semantic similarity

Pure Semantic (embeddings):
- ✅ Understands meaning
- ❌ Expensive, misses exact keywords

Hybrid (BM25 + Semantic + RRF):
- ✅ Best of both worlds
- ✅ Reciprocal Rank Fusion combines rankings optimally
- ✅ Empirically outperforms either alone

**Why Custom Implementation vs Framework?**

Frameworks (LangChain, LlamaIndex):
- Python-based (VAPORA is Rust)
- Heavy abstractions
- Less control
- Dependency lock-in

Custom Rust RLM:
- Native performance
- Full control
- Zero-cost abstractions
- Direct integration with VAPORA patterns

**Trade-off accepted**: More initial effort for long-term maintainability and performance.

---

**Supersedes**: None (new decision)
**Amended by**: None
**Last Updated**: 2026-02-16