Skip to content

docs: restore RRF mention in recall highlights#68

Merged
lIang70 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/readme-accuracy
May 7, 2026
Merged

docs: restore RRF mention in recall highlights#68
lIang70 merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
fix/readme-accuracy

Conversation

@lIang70

@lIang70 lIang70 commented May 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Summary

Follow-up correction to PR #67. After deeper code review, the previous "RRF was an exaggeration" rewrite was itself wrong.

What I missed

`sdk/recall.New()` constructs its retrieval pipeline via `sdk/retrieval/pipeline.LTM()`, which canonically uses:

```go
// sdk/retrieval/pipeline/factory.go
MultiRetrieve{ BM25, Vector, Entity },
RRFFusion{K: 60}, // ← this IS Reciprocal Rank Fusion
EntityBoost{Boost: 0.4},
ScoreThreshold{...},
SupersededDecay{...},
TimeDecay{...},
Limit{...},
```

`RRFFusion` (defined in `sdk/retrieval/pipeline/stages_fusion.go`) is the standard `1 / (k + rank)` fusion. EntityBoost is a post-fusion re-rank signal, not a replacement for RRF.

Fix

Restored the RRF mention and made it more precise: three-lane retrieval (BM25 + vector + entity) → RRF → entity boost / supersede decay / time decay → limit.

Test plan

  • `grep -n RRFFusion sdk/retrieval/pipeline/factory.go` confirms it sits in both `Default()` and `LTM()`
  • Re-read README highlights section in rendered form

Made with Cursor

lIang70 and others added 2 commits May 7, 2026 16:29
Re-verifying against sdk/retrieval/pipeline/factory.go shows recall
DOES use Reciprocal Rank Fusion — RRFFusion{K: 60} is the canonical
fusion stage in both Default() and LTM(), with EntityBoost as a
post-fusion re-rank signal, not a replacement.

Earlier commit on this branch overcorrected and removed the RRF
claim. Restored and made the description more precise: three-lane
retrieval (BM25 + vector + entity) → RRF → entity boost / supersede
decay / time decay → limit.

Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
@lIang70
lIang70 merged commit 88fe54b into main May 7, 2026
10 checks passed
@lIang70
lIang70 deleted the fix/readme-accuracy branch May 7, 2026 08:37
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant