Files
el/engram
will.anderson da116b2884 self-review 2026-06-30: WM cap, breakthrough floor, ISE exclusion + route
Port critical WM fixes from self-review 2026-06-26 branch (f7bd99a) that were
never merged to HEAD. Running binary had these fixes; source did not — rebuild
would have silently regressed all three improvements.

1. ENGRAM_BREAKTHROUGH_WEIGHT 0.25→0.10
   With 0.25, naturally-promoted nodes (threshold ≥0.15) decayed below the
   breakthrough floor within one activation call and lost their WM slot to
   fresh breakthrough candidates. All 524/525 WM nodes were at floor = useless.
   Invariant: BREAKTHROUGH_WEIGHT < min(type_thresholds = 0.15 Canonical).

2. ENGRAM_WM_CAP=24 with Pass 4 (per-call) + Pass 5 (global) enforcement
   Without cap, broad curiosity seeds promote 500+ nodes simultaneously.
   wm_avg_weight collapses, goal-bias differentiation is lost. Verified:
   "knowledge" query now promotes exactly 24 nodes (was 525). Cowan (2001)
   cognitive basis: WM capacity ~4 chunks; 24 allows rich multi-topic context.

3. ISE exclusion from WM (Pass 2 guard)
   InternalStateEvent JSON content ("knowledge", "memory", etc.) triggered
   lexical seeding → suppression accumulation → breakthrough at floor. ISEs
   are observability-only and must never surface in context compilation.
   suppression_count cleared so ISEs never build toward breakthrough.

4. route_create_ise importance fix (0.5→0.3)
   Corrects mismatch between HTTP route and awareness.el in-process fallback.
   Also adds body comment clarifying auth-exempt rationale.

SYNAPSE (arXiv 2601.02744) validates WM cap design and ISE exclusion principle.
Next priority: cosine similarity seeding to complement lexical BFS.
2026-06-30 08:48:19 -05:00
..
2026-04-30 13:49:28 -05:00

Engram

A local-first memory substrate for accumulating intelligence.

An engram is the physical trace of a memory in the brain — the actual encoded substrate, not an abstraction above it. That's what this is.


Why existing databases are wrong for this use case

Relational databases store rows and retrieve them by predicate. Key-value stores retrieve by exact key. Vector databases retrieve by geometric proximity. All of them share the same fundamental model: you store data in, you query it out. Storage and retrieval are separate systems.

The brain doesn't work this way.

When you remember something, you don't query your hippocampus. You activate a memory trace and the pattern propagates. Long-term potentiation — the strengthening of synaptic connections through co-activation — is simultaneously the storage mechanism and the retrieval mechanism. The structure that holds the memory is the same structure that surfaces it.

No existing database models this. Engram does.


The Spreading Activation Model

Engram retrieval works through spreading activation:

  1. Seeds — you name one or more nodes you know are relevant (e.g. the current task, recent context, a concept you're reasoning about)

  2. Query embedding — you provide a semantic vector representing the direction of your current thought

  3. Propagation — activation flows outward from seeds through weighted edges. At each hop, strength attenuates multiplicatively:

    strength = parent_strength × edge_weight × target_salience × cosine_sim(query, target)
    
  4. Pruning — paths weaker than a threshold are cut (the attention filter)

  5. Return — the top-N nodes by activation strength

This is not a query. It is a pattern completion. The system surfaces what is most associatively relevant to the current context, weighted by how strongly those things have been reinforced over time.


The Four Memory Tiers

Tier Analogy Contents
Working Prefrontal working memory K most recently activated nodes — hot, fast
Episodic Hippocampus Time-ordered events and experiences
Semantic Neocortex Concept graph — long-term structural knowledge
Procedural Cerebellum / basal ganglia Patterns, workflows, habits

Nodes migrate between tiers based on salience decay and reinforcement. A frequently activated semantic node stays semantic. A rarely-touched episodic memory decays toward procedural background.


Salience — Forgetting as Adaptation

Salience is not stored permanently. It decays:

fn compute_salience(importance: f32, last_activated_ms: i64, activation_count: u64) -> f32 {
    let days_since = (now_ms() - last_activated_ms) as f32 / 86_400_000.0;
    importance * (1.0 / (1.0 + days_since)) * (activation_count as f32 + 1.0).ln()
}

Three signals:

  • Importance (0.01.0): set at creation, stable
  • Recency: decays toward zero as days pass without activation
  • Frequency: log-compressed count of activations

Forgetting in Engram is not a bug. It is adaptive pruning. Memories that are never activated again become less likely to surface during retrieval. They are not deleted — they remain in storage — but they stop competing for attention. This is exactly how biological memory works, and why it is adaptive rather than pathological.


Quick Start

use engram_core::{EngramDb, Node, Edge, NodeType, MemoryTier, RelationType};
use std::path::Path;

// Open or create a database
let db = EngramDb::open(Path::new("/var/lib/my-agent/memory"))?;

// Create a node with a semantic embedding
let node = Node::new(
    NodeType::Concept,
    vec![0.9, 0.1, 0.3, 0.7, 0.8, 0.2],   // embedding from your LLM
    b"Spreading activation surfaces relevant memories by pattern completion".to_vec(),
    MemoryTier::Semantic,
    0.9,   // importance
);
let id = db.put_node(node)?;

// Link it to related concepts
let related = db.put_node(Node::new(
    NodeType::Concept,
    vec![0.8, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.7, 0.3],
    b"Long-term potentiation: co-activation strengthens synaptic weight".to_vec(),
    MemoryTier::Semantic,
    0.85,
))?;
db.put_edge(Edge::new(id, related, RelationType::Causes, 0.9))?;

// Retrieve by spreading activation
let results = db.activate(
    &[id],                                     // seeds
    &[0.85, 0.15, 0.35, 0.65, 0.75, 0.25],   // query embedding
    3,                                         // max hops
    10,                                        // top-N results
)?;

for r in results {
    println!(
        "strength={:.4} hops={}{}",
        r.activation_strength,
        r.hops,
        String::from_utf8_lossy(&r.node.content)
    );
}

Project Structure

engram/
  crates/
    engram-core/        # The memory engine — storage, graph, activation, salience
    engram-ffi/         # C FFI stubs for cross-language bindings
  bindings/
    kotlin/             # Android / JVM binding notes
    typescript/         # WASM / Node binding notes
    go/                 # CGo binding notes
  examples/
    basic.rs            # Full walkthrough: insert, activate, search, decay

Public API

impl EngramDb {
    fn open(path: &Path) -> EngramResult<Self>;
    fn put_node(&self, node: Node) -> EngramResult<Uuid>;
    fn get_node(&self, id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<Option<Node>>;
    fn put_edge(&self, edge: Edge) -> EngramResult<()>;
    fn get_edges_from(&self, from_id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<Vec<Edge>>;
    fn get_edges_to(&self, to_id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<Vec<Edge>>;
    fn search_embedding(&self, embedding: &[f32], limit: usize) -> EngramResult<Vec<ScoredNode>>;
    fn activate(&self, seeds: &[Uuid], query_embedding: &[f32], max_depth: u8, limit: usize) -> EngramResult<Vec<ActivatedNode>>;
    fn traverse(&self, from: Uuid, relation: Option<RelationType>, max_depth: u8) -> EngramResult<Vec<Node>>;
    fn touch(&self, id: Uuid) -> EngramResult<()>;
    fn decay(&self, factor: f32) -> EngramResult<usize>;
    fn node_count(&self) -> EngramResult<usize>;
    fn edge_count(&self) -> EngramResult<usize>;
}

Dependencies

  • sled — embedded persistent B-tree (no daemon, no network, local-first)
  • bincode — compact binary serialization
  • uuid — stable node identity
  • serde — derive support
  • thiserror / anyhow — error handling

Design Decisions

Why sled? Local-first. No daemon. Transactional. Fast enough for the node counts Engram targets (< 1M nodes). When the right HNSW index is needed, it will layer on top of sled, not replace it.

Why flat cosine scan? Correct and simple. The graph structure itself is the primary retrieval mechanism. Vector search is a secondary signal. HNSW adds complexity and a compile dependency that isn't justified until retrieval quality at scale demands it.

Why multiplicative activation? Because memory is conjunctive. A path requires all of its links to be strong to carry signal. Addition would allow many weak associations to accumulate into false relevance. Multiplication enforces that every factor matters.

Why salience decay? Because not everything that was once important remains important. Adaptive forgetting is not failure — it is the mechanism that keeps attention on what's current. A memory system that never forgets is one that can never focus.