test: pin what an additive model does to combined uncertainty

Investigating #47 needed a reproduction of the reporter's structure: a
joint player/layout model where every observation measures a sum of
nodes against a reference, so the data pins differences and leaves the
overall level to the prior.

The result corrects #46's framing as well as answering #47. Combining
marginals is wrong in opposite directions depending on the combination,
and the unsafe direction is not the one either issue assumed:

    combination            exact   adding marginals
    p0 + h0 (a round)     4.0850   0.8041   0.20x   OVERconfident
    p0 - p1 (rank two)    0.8741   0.8592   0.98x   about right
    h0 - h1               0.7119   0.7057   0.99x   about right

#46 assumed every published figure was too wide and that this was "at
least the safe direction". That holds for differences. For sums it
reverses: adding marginals is five times too narrow, which publishes a
claim the data does not support.

For a single node the exact marginal is ~5x wider than message passing
reports, because the level it shares with its partners is pinned only by
the prior. That is the honest posterior for a weakly identified
parameter, not a defect — and it is why #47's node "should be
publishable" intuition and its posterior sigma disagree.

Refs #46, #47

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ

tests/additive_model.rs

@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
+//! What an additive model does to uncertainty, and why "add the marginals" is
+//! unsafe in one direction and merely wasteful in the other.
+//!
+//! Structurally this is the shape a joint player/layout model takes: every
+//! observation measures a *sum* of nodes against a reference, so the data pins
+//! differences and leaves the overall level to the prior. That is the classic
+//! rating-scale indeterminacy, not a defect.
+//!
+//! The consequence for a consumer is that combining marginals is wrong in
+//! opposite directions depending on the combination, which is worth pinning
+//! because the unsafe direction is not the one you would guess:
+//!
+//! - **Differences** (`a - b`): the shared level cancels, so the exact width is
+//!   small — and adding marginals lands within a couple of percent of it here,
+//!   because the loopy underestimate offsets the ignored correlation.
+//! - **Sums** (`a + b`): the shared level does *not* cancel, so the exact width
+//!   is large, and adding marginals is roughly five times too narrow. That is
+//!   overconfident, and it is the direction that publishes a claim the data
+//!   does not support.
+
+use smallvec::smallvec;
+use trueskill_tt::{ConstantDrift, ConvergenceOptions, Event, History, Member, Outcome, Team};
+
+#[test]
+fn additive_structure_makes_sums_wide_and_differences_tight() {
+    // Structurally like ustat: every round is (player + hole) measured against
+    // a fixed reference. Only SUMS are pinned by the data; the split between
+    // player and hole is pinned only by the prior.
+    let players = ["p0", "p1", "p2"];
+    let holes = ["h0", "h1"];
+
+    let mut h: History<i64, _, _, &'static str> = History::builder()
+        .mu(0.0)
+        .sigma(6.0)
+        .beta(1.0)
+        .score_sigma(2.0)
+        .drift(ConstantDrift(0.0))
+        .convergence(ConvergenceOptions {
+            max_iter: 20_000,
+            epsilon: 1e-12,
+            alpha: 1.0,
+        })
+        .build();
+
+    let mut seed = 3u64;
+    let mut rnd = move || {
+        seed ^= seed << 13;
+        seed ^= seed >> 7;
+        seed ^= seed << 17;
+        seed
+    };
+    // true skills, so we know what the data encodes
+    let truth_p = [2.0, 0.0, -2.0];
+    let truth_h = [1.0, -1.0];
+
+    let mut events = Vec::new();
+    for _ in 0..60 {
+        let p = (rnd() as usize) % 3;
+        let q = (rnd() as usize) % 2;
+        let noise = ((rnd() % 1000) as f64 / 1000.0 - 0.5) * 2.0;
+        let score = truth_p[p] + truth_h[q] + noise;
+        events.push(Event {
+            time: 1,
+            teams: smallvec![
+                Team::with_members([Member::new(players[p]), Member::new(holes[q])]),
+                Team::with_members([Member::new("reference")]),
+            ],
+            outcome: Outcome::scores([score, 0.0]),
+        });
+    }
+    h.add_events(events).unwrap();
+    let r = h.converge().unwrap();
+    assert!(r.converged, "{:?}", r.final_step);
+
+    println!("\n== marginals (what current_skill reports) ==");
+    for k in players.iter().chain(holes.iter()) {
+        let g = h.current_skill(k).unwrap();
+        println!("  {k}: mu {:>8.4}  sigma {:>8.4}", g.mu(), g.sigma());
+    }
+
+    println!("\n== the same nodes via posterior_of (exact marginal) ==");
+    for k in players.iter().chain(holes.iter()) {
+        let g = h.posterior_of(&[(k, 1.0)]).unwrap();
+        println!("  {k}: mu {:>8.4}  sigma {:>8.4}", g.mu(), g.sigma());
+    }
+
+    println!("\n== combinations the data actually pins ==");
+    for (label, terms) in [
+        ("p0 + h0 (a round)", vec![(&"p0", 1.0), (&"h0", 1.0)]),
+        (
+            "p0 - p1 (rank two players)",
+            vec![(&"p0", 1.0), (&"p1", -1.0)],
+        ),
+        ("p0 - p2", vec![(&"p0", 1.0), (&"p2", -1.0)]),
+        (
+            "h0 - h1 (rank two holes)",
+            vec![(&"h0", 1.0), (&"h1", -1.0)],
+        ),
+    ] {
+        let joint = h.posterior_of(&terms).unwrap();
+        // what a consumer gets today by adding marginals
+        let naive: f64 = terms
+            .iter()
+            .map(|(k, c)| c * c * h.current_skill(*k).unwrap().sigma().powi(2))
+            .sum::<f64>()
+            .sqrt();
+        println!(
+            "  {label:<28} exact sigma {:>7.4}   adding marginals {:>7.4}   {:>5.2}x over",
+            joint.sigma(),
+            naive,
+            naive / joint.sigma()
+        );
+
+        let ratio = naive / joint.sigma();
+        if label.contains('+') {
+            assert!(
+                ratio < 0.5,
+                "{label}: adding marginals should be badly OVERconfident for a \
+                 sum, got {ratio:.3}x"
+            );
+        } else {
+            assert!(
+                (0.8..1.25).contains(&ratio),
+                "{label}: adding marginals happens to be close for a difference, \
+                 got {ratio:.3}x"
+            );
+        }
+    }
+
+    // A single node in an additive model is weakly identified: its exact
+    // posterior is far wider than message passing reports, because the level it
+    // shares with its partners is pinned only by the prior.
+    for k in players.iter().chain(holes.iter()) {
+        let bp = h.current_skill(k).unwrap().sigma();
+        let exact = h.posterior_of(&[(k, 1.0)]).unwrap().sigma();
+        assert!(
+            exact > 3.0 * bp,
+            "{k}: exact marginal {exact} should be much wider than the reported \
+             {bp} in an additive model"
+        );
+    }
+}