d2ab4446ef27a4bc8771dc97f352791207e9eff4
237
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
  logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
eebf8aacd3 |
fix!: reject malformed games at the Game boundary too
I fixed this at `History`'s ingestion chokepoint and said the boundary was complete. It was not. `Game` is a separate public entry point that does not pass through that chokepoint, and every one of the same four defects was still live there: Game::ranked(&[&[a]], ..) -> PANIC at src/game.rs:317 Game::scored(&[&[a]], ..) -> PANIC at src/game.rs:317 Game::ranked(&[&[], &[a]]) -> Ok, finite posterior for the opponent Game::scored(.., [NaN, 1]) -> Ok The same panic, from safe API, in release. Fixing one path and generalising from it is exactly the mistake that produced the latest-slice joint bug: validating on the shape that cannot expose the problem, then reporting the property as held. `Game::validate_teams` is shared by `ranked` and `scored`, with the non-finite score check in `scored` alongside it. Ranks need no equivalent — they are `u32`. `one_v_one` and `free_for_all` build their teams internally and are unaffected; a test asserts all three well-formed constructors still succeed, so the check cannot quietly widen. BREAKING CHANGE: `Game::ranked` and `Game::scored` return `NotEnoughTeams`, `EmptyTeam` or `InvalidParameter` for inputs they previously panicked on or silently accepted. Refs #18, #26 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
4e9aa6bdc1 |
Merge branch 'test/close-coverage-gaps'
Cover non-finite results and color-group disjointness, closing the two test gaps #26 named. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
a18df521eb |
test: cover non-finite results and color-group disjointness
The two gaps #26 named that were never filled. NonFiniteResult had no test at all — the name appeared in `tests/` only inside a doc comment, and it is the sub-claim in that issue's title. It turns out to be very much reachable, and from *finite* inputs: sigma at 1e300, beta at 1e300, sigma at 1e-300, score_sigma at 1e-300, and scores at 1e308 all overflow inside inference, where the boundary checks cannot see them. That matters because the failure is silent by default — NaN fails every comparison, so a naive `step < epsilon` reads a NaN step as converged, which is why the crate has `step_converged`/`step_is_finite`. Pinned from outside, including that `converge_partial` does not launder a breakdown into an `Ok`, and with a control asserting merely extreme parameters still converge so the suite cannot pass by always failing. Color-group disjointness was #26's fourth acceptance criterion and had only five hand-written cases. Now a proptest over three shapes: a dense pool where collisions force colors to multiply, a sparse one where most events are independent, and repeated members within a single event. Two of my first assertions were wrong about the code rather than the reverse. A competitor named twice *within* one event is not a collision — `color_greedy` collects each event's members into a set for that reason. And contiguity is not a property of `color_greedy`: it holds only after `recompute_color_groups` reorders events so each color occupies one range. The test now asserts what is actually promised — that the reorder is always *possible*, since the parallel sweep slices `&mut` sub-ranges from those groups and overlapping ranges would be unsound. Refs #26 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
1e4b589a9c |
Merge branch 'fix/non-finite-weights'
Reject non-finite weights at ingestion, completing the malformed-input boundary. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
8b20e0c560 |
fix!: reject non-finite weights at ingestion
Measured, a NaN weight behaved exactly as `0.0`:
weight NaN -> Ok, converged: true, 1 iteration, step (0.0, 0.0)
skill pi 0.027777777777777776, tau 0.0
weight 0.0 -> Ok, same skill, bit for bit
So a NaN arriving from a division or a parse was indistinguishable from
a deliberate zero, and the fit reported itself as cleanly converged.
Worth correcting an earlier description of this: the event does not
vanish. The member contributes nothing, which is precisely what weight
zero means, and that equivalence is what makes it undetectable rather
than merely wrong.
Zero and negative weights stay accepted. Both are expressible choices
about how much a member contributes, and tests/degenerate_inputs.rs pins
their behaviour deliberately; only values that are not quantities at all
are rejected. A test asserts they still ingest, so the new check cannot
quietly widen.
This completes the boundary: every malformed input that previously
produced a plausible answer — a one-team event, an empty team, a
non-finite score, a non-finite weight — now fails where it enters.
BREAKING CHANGE: an event carrying a non-finite weight returns
`InvalidParameter` instead of silently treating that member as weightless.
Refs #18
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
862779ae34 |
Merge branch 'feat/convergence-strictness'
Make a short fit an error, raise the default iteration cap, validate the remaining HistoryBuilder parameters, add History::register and History::rating, reject competitor config conflicts across batches, and document what the joint's cost scales in. Closes #50 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
f692906ce4 |
docs: state what the joint's cost actually scales in
A consumer measured an 8x difference in solve time between two fits over the same events, the same slices and the same ~2,000 nodes: career fit (gamma = 0) 787 ms drifting fit (gamma = 0.15) 6214 ms Entirely the collapse rule. A competitor with zero drift contributes one variable however long the history, so a drift-free fit's joint is smaller than a drifting one's by roughly the slice count — and to factorise, by its cube. Choosing a drift configuration is therefore also choosing a query cost, and nothing said so. Documented on `Joint`, on `Joint::variables` and on `posterior_of`, with the measurement. `variables()` is named as the number that decides affordability, since it can be read before committing to a batch. Also states the thing the consumer proposed as a future optimisation, because it is already true: an absence is not an appearance, so a competitor seen in the first and last of a hundred slices contributes two variables rather than a hundred. The matrix is already as small as the model allows on that axis. tests/joint_handle.rs pins the mechanism — ten slices, two competitors, twenty variables drifting against two at `gamma = 0` — so a change to the collapse rule cannot quietly remove the property the docs now promise. Refs #51 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
e493f47e99 |
feat!: add History::register and History::rating, and reject config conflicts across batches
Three things #38 asked for, on a premise that had half dissolved. The
issue argued from "captured at first appearance", "missing it is silent"
and "missing it is permanent";
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
4f6360128d |
feat!: validate mu, sigma and beta on HistoryBuilder
The last three unvalidated setters, beside `p_draw`, `score_sigma` and `convergence`, which all assert eagerly. Measured before choosing bounds: beta = 0 -> works, pi 0.0211 (vs 0.0193 at the default) beta = -4.17 -> bit-identical to +4.17 sigma = -8.33 -> bit-identical to +8.33 sigma = 0 -> NonFiniteResult, current_skill returns tau: NaN sigma = inf -> same mu = NaN -> same So the bounds are not the obvious ones. `beta = 0` is legitimate and meaningful — performance is then exactly skill, and the fit moves measurably rather than degenerating — so zero is allowed and a test pins that it reaches a different answer, since "allowed" would otherwise be indistinguishable from "unchecked". The negative cases are the quiet ones. `sigma` and `beta` enter inference only as squares, so a negative value behaves as its absolute value and the sign is dropped without comment. That is the same defect `Member::with_drift_scale` already rejects, for the reason already written there. The non-finite cases are detected today — `converge` reports NonFiniteResult — but a caller who reads `current_skill` first is handed `tau: NaN`, so rejecting at the boundary is what actually closes it. BREAKING CHANGE: `HistoryBuilder::mu`, `sigma` and `beta` now panic on values they previously accepted, matching the existing behaviour of `p_draw`, `score_sigma` and `convergence`. Refs #18 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
eff63dfa2a |
feat!: make a short fit an error and raise the default iteration cap
`ITERATIONS` was 30, and overrunning it returned `Ok` with `converged: false`. Both halves were wrong. The cap is a runaway guard, not a budget: the sweep exits as soon as the step falls below `epsilon`, so a high cap costs nothing on a history that converges. Measured on one needing four sweeps, `max_iter` 30 and 100_000 both finish in 4 iterations and ~130us. So 30 could never make anything faster — it could only stop a healthy history early, and it did: 160 events over 100 competitors already needs 42. Not scaled to the history, because iteration count tracks how loopy the graph is rather than how big it is. At a fixed 320 events over 40 slices, varying only the competitors sharing them: 3 competitors needs 2_789 sweeps, 10 needs 1_068, 100 needs 90, 400 needs 2. Three orders of magnitude on identical event and slice counts, so any formula in those two numbers would be badly wrong on some real shape. A single value set high enough that reaching it means oscillation is the honest version. With the cap raised, stopping at it means something is genuinely wrong, so `converge` now returns `InferenceError::NotConverged` rather than a flag on a success. A short fit is wrong by a little — every rating finite, the ordering sensible, nothing saying the numbers were still moving — and a flag has to be checked while `let _ = h.converge()` is the natural way not to. That is not hypothetical: it is how a real defect hid in this crate's own test suite. `converge_partial` returns the short fit for callers who want one. Only a single existing test needed it, which is the evidence that a capped fit is a deliberate choice rather than the common case. Also corrects the `ITERATIONS` docs, which claimed convergence cost is "roughly linear in the cap". It is linear in the iterations actually run. BREAKING CHANGE: `History::converge` returns `Err(NotConverged)` where it previously returned `Ok` with `converged: false`. Callers that want the old behaviour should use `History::converge_partial`. The default `max_iter` changes from 30 to 10_000, so a history that was silently truncated will now converge properly and its numbers will move. Closes #50 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
7c6965c6a9 |
Merge branch 'fix/ingestion-shape'
Reject malformed events at the ingestion boundary, add EventBuilder::members, and record the rayon opt-in deviation. Closes #5 Closes #37 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
911b48faba |
feat: add EventBuilder::members for per-member configuration
`EventBuilder` could set weights and nothing else, so `prior` and
`drift_scale` were reachable only through the typed
`Event`/`Team`/`Member` shape plus `add_events`. Which ingestion route a
competitor arrived through decided whether it could be configured.
`members(...)` takes `Member` values directly, so `Member`'s own builder
expresses everything. `team(...)` stays the common case.
One escape hatch rather than `priors` and `drift_scales` setters beside
`weights`, as the issue suggested and then argued against itself: a
parallel array per field means a parallel length check per field, and
each one is a new way to get the lengths wrong. `Member` already has a
builder; this just lets the fluent path reach it.
`record_winner`/`record_draw` are deliberately left alone. They are the
two-argument convenience path, and extending them would be a breaking
signature change. The issue's reason for wanting them extended has also
weakened: it said a competitor arriving through them was "permanently
stuck on the history defaults", and since
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
f57784c141 |
docs: record the rayon opt-in deviation in spec section 6
Issue #5 asked for a decision, not an implementation: either flip rayon to default-on, or record why the spec was deviated from and close. Opt-in stands. The measured speedups are 1.0x realistic / 1.3x pathological (#4), so default-on would cost every downstream user a thread pool and a dependency for approximately nothing. The condition the decision was waiting on cannot be met: #5 was blocked on re-measuring after cross-slice dirty-bit skipping landed, and #4 was closed by removing the inert slices_skipped field rather than by implementing it. There is no forthcoming measurement to wait for. Also corrects the spec's own reasoning. It cited an unsafe concurrent write through SkillStore as a cost of going default-on; the crate is forbid(unsafe_code) and the compute/apply split avoids that entirely. The case for opt-in is the measurements, not a safety argument. Closes #5 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
8e4d6a637d |
fix: reject malformed events at the ingestion boundary
A one-team event reached `run_chain`, which builds one diff link per
adjacent pair of teams, leaving it to index `links[1..]` on an empty
vector. That panicked with "range start index 1 out of range for slice
of length 0" — from `History::add_events`, in a release build, through
entirely safe API.
An empty team was the quieter half of the same gap. It contributes no
performance, so a malformed event converged and handed back a finite,
plausible-looking posterior for whoever it was matched against. That is
this crate's characteristic defect: a public surface reporting a
constant that looks like an answer.
A non-finite score was the third. `converge` did report NonFiniteResult,
so it was detected — but a caller reading `current_skill` before
converging was handed `tau: NaN` with nothing to say so.
`NotEnoughTeams` and `EmptyTeam` already existed. They were checked on
the prediction paths and nowhere else, which is exactly why ingestion
could still manufacture the states they describe. The checks go in
`add_events_with_prior` alongside the tie check, for the same reason
that one is there: every ingestion route lands on it, so `record_winner`,
`record_draw` and `EventBuilder` inherit them rather than each needing
their own.
Also corrects documentation that had been stating the opposite of the
code since
|
||
|
logaritmisk
|
82eff740b6 | chore: Release trueskill-tt version 0.7.0 v0.7.0 | ||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
c1b1c6c7d7 |
Merge branch 'feat/joint-handle'
Factorise the joint once with History::joint, so a batch of queries pays the O(n^3) Cholesky once rather than once per question. Closes #51 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
1bb6bb31d8 |
feat: factorise the joint once with History::joint
`posterior_of`, `posterior_of_at` and `expected_variance_reduction` each
built the joint precision matrix, factorised it, asked one question and
threw it away. The factorisation is O(n^3) in the history's appearances
and depends only on the fit, so a caller asking about every pair in a
standings table, every cell in a grid, or every candidate in an
active-learning sweep paid for the same factorisation once per question.
`History::joint()` returns a `Joint` handle that pays it once. Measured
on 1976 appearances, 90 queries: 68.4s one-shot against 745ms factorise
plus 93ms of queries — 81.6x, with bit-identical answers. Per query,
Criterion at 480 appearances: 9.0ms one-shot against 48us cached, 187x.
The handle borrows the history, which is what makes it correct with no
invalidation logic: the borrow checker forbids adding events or refitting
while it is alive, so there is no window in which the factorisation could
describe a fit that no longer exists. It also makes the lifetime of the
n^2 factor explicit rather than parking it in the history forever — at
4000 appearances that is 128MB, which is not something to cache silently.
Every question the joint answers turns out to be a bilinear form,
c^T A^-1 a = (L^-1 c) . (L^-1 a)
so no caller ever needs L^-1 c itself. Replacing the general solve with a
forward substitution drops the back substitution as wasted work, halving
a query, and removes a failure mode: a variance as `c . (A^-1 c)` is a
difference of products that can round negative, where `|L^-1 c|^2` is a
sum of squares and cannot.
The one-shot calls are unchanged in cost and now delegate to the handle,
so the two paths cannot drift apart. tests/joint_handle.rs asserts they
agree bit for bit, including at pinned times, under UnknownKeys::Prior,
and across candidate matchups.
Refs #51
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
|
||
|
logaritmisk
|
b113385c6f | chore: Release trueskill-tt version 0.6.0 v0.6.0 | ||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
f345e7690e |
fix!: make the joint span slices, not just the latest one
`posterior_of` shipped in 0.5.0 reading a single slice. Measured against a real Through-Time history that answers almost nothing: ustat's round fit is 76 per-day slices whose last one holds a solo round, so 0 of 55 pair differences resolved and the single node that did was degenerate — a one-competitor slice has no correlation to account for and returns the marginal unchanged. That was my mistake, and the fixture chose it. I validated against single-slice histories, which is exactly the shape that cannot reveal the problem. In a library whose premise is skill over time, competitors are read at *their own* last appearance and those are different slices by construction. The joint is now time-expanded: one variable per appearance, linked by the prior on a first appearance, the drift between consecutive ones, and the within-slice event contrasts. Consecutive appearances with no drift between them are the same variable rather than two joined by an infinite precision, which keeps the matrix positive-definite when a competitor is pinned with `drift_scale = 0`. `posterior_of` now reads each competitor at their own latest appearance, which is where `current_skill` reads them, so the two agree about which posterior they describe. Adds `posterior_of_at(time, terms)` for a comparison anchored to a moment, matching `learning_curve`'s reading. Validated against a hand-written exact posterior for a two-competitor, two-slice history — the precision matrix is spelled out in the test rather than obtained from the crate, so it is an independent check rather than a restatement. Also pinned: competitors last seen in different slices now compare at all, means still agree with the marginals, zero drift makes slice layout irrelevant, and more drift widens a comparison across time. BREAKING CHANGE: `posterior_of` and `expected_variance_reduction` now consider the whole history rather than its latest slice, so results change for any multi-slice history. `JointUnavailable` is now returned when *any* slice holds ranked events, not just the last. Refs #46, #47 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmisk
|
d9e85cda1d | chore: Release trueskill-tt version 0.5.0 v0.5.0 | ||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
633a503900 |
refactor!: remove the factor-graph surface nothing used, add try_winner
Two decisions taken before cutting 0.5.0. #42 — the `Schedule` trait was public API the engine never called. Its only call site was `Game::custom`, itself `#[doc(hidden)]`, and `EpsilonOrMax` was never constructed anywhere. Removing that surface showed the problem was larger than the issue described: with `custom` gone, the compiler found `Factor`, `BuiltinFactor`, `RankDiffFactor` and `TeamSumFactor` all dead too. `Game::run_chain` drives a local `DiffFactor` enum and bypasses the whole T1 abstraction — it has done since it was written. So this is not just an unused extension point but the machinery it was built on, and `CLAUDE.md` was documenting it as live architecture. Removed: `graph` module, `Schedule`, `EpsilonOrMax`, `ScheduleReport`, `Game::custom`, `Factor`, `BuiltinFactor`, `RankDiffFactor`, `TeamSumFactor`. `TruncFactor`, `MarginFactor`, `VarStore` and `VarId` stay — inference uses those. The measurement behind choosing removal over wiring is in #42: the within-game loop converges in 1 to 8 iterations against a cap of 30, so a `Residual` schedule has no headroom to reclaim, and `Damped` already shipped as `ConvergenceOptions::alpha`. #20 — `Outcome::winner` panicking on an out-of-range index. Kept, and the reasoning is now on the method. It is the only constructor here that validates, which looks inconsistent until you try deferring like its siblings: `winner(5, 2)` produces ranks `[1, 1]`, an all-tied draw that ingestion accepts without complaint when `p_draw > 0`. Asking "team 5 won" and silently getting "everyone drew" is the exact failure this crate keeps removing, so the check belongs where the mistake is. Adds `Outcome::try_winner` for indices that are computed or parsed rather than written literally, following the `new`/`try_new` convention. That is additive; the panicking form stays because every call site in this repo, its tests and its README passes literals, where a `?` would be noise. BREAKING CHANGE: the `graph` module and everything it exported are removed, as are `Game::custom` and `ScheduleReport`. Closes #42. Closes #20. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
7cf45db5cf |
feat: add expected_variance_reduction for scored active learning
#49: `expected_information_gain` enumerates discrete outcomes, so a consumer recording continuous scores cannot ask which matchup to run next. The issue flagged this as possibly a research question, since "expected variance reduction under EP may not have a clean closed form even for Gaussian likelihoods". It does. Observing a scored event is a rank-one update to the precision matrix, so Sherman-Morrison gives reduction = (c^T L^-1 a)^2 / (v + a^T L^-1 a) for target functional c and matchup contrast a. Verified against an actual refit on four candidate matchups: agreement to 1e-9 relative. Two consequences worth stating. There is no expectation to take. The expression depends on which matchup is played but not on how it turns out, because for a Gaussian likelihood the posterior variance update is data-independent. Pinned by `the_outcome_does_not_change_the_reduction`, which refits with scores of (3, 1), (100, -50) and (0, 0) and gets the same answer. The name keeps the term the active-learning literature uses; no averaging happens. It is also far cheaper than its ranked counterpart — one linear solve rather than a full inference pass per possible outcome — because `c^T L^-1 a` and `a^T L^-1 a` share the same solve. `target` is deliberately the same linear-functional shape as `posterior_of`, as the issue proposed, so the two share a concept rather than inventing two. The load-bearing test is the refit comparison. An acquisition function is the archetype of a surface that returns finite, plausible, monotone numbers while being wrong, and then quietly selects worse matchups forever; ranking behaviour alone would not catch that. Closes #49 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
c866210c65 |
feat: add History::predict_margin for scored matchups
#48: every predict_* answers "who wins", and a consumer recording scores never asks that. It wants the interval on the result, and having none it hand-fitted a noise law whose fitted node weight came out at 0.0 — so the quoted sigma was 5.83 whether the competitor had forty rounds or none, against real residual spreads of 5.8 and 12.44. `predict_margin` composes the three things that make a scored result uncertain: the joint posterior over the competitors, their per-event performance noise, and the observation noise on the score. It widens as the model knows less — measured, sigma 2.48 against an opponent with forty rounds, 3.38 against one seen once, wider still against one never seen — which is the property the hand-fitted law lost. It is a margin, not a score, and that is not a shortcut. Scored ingestion reduces every event to `score_a - score_b` before inference, so the absolute level is discarded: shifting every score in a history by +100 or -1000 produces a bit-identical fit, verified. There is no information from which to predict what a competitor will *score*. Returning one would be a number derived entirely from the prior, which is exactly the plausible constant this crate keeps finding and removing. `posterior_of` now honours `UnknownKeys::Prior`, which gives #48 its second requirement — "I have never seen this competitor, here is the prior-informed answer". An unseen competitor shares no event with the slice, so it is independent by construction and its variance is additive rather than part of the solve. Worth recording for expectations: for a *margin* the joint buys little over adding marginals (2.4798 against 2.5112 here), because a margin is a difference and differences are where the loopy underestimate and the ignored correlation cancel. The gain here is having a predictive distribution at all. `posterior_of`'s correlation handling earns its keep on sums and single nodes instead — see tests/additive_model.rs. Closes #48 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
1f791bcddd |
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 |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
c52e2550af |
feat: add History::posterior_of for a linear combination of competitors
#46: every accessor returns a per-competitor marginal, and almost nothing a consumer publishes is one competitor. Combining marginals assumes independence, and competitors are correlated through every event they share. `posterior_of(&[(a, 1.0), (b, -1.0)])` returns the posterior of that combination with the correlation intact. Validated against the exact linear-Gaussian posterior on both a tree and a loopy fixture, for differences and for single competitors: agreement to 1e-9 relative in every case. The investigation that preceded this is why it is not a covariance accessor. Marginals from loopy message passing are about half the true width, and ignoring correlation overstates a difference — the two errors partially cancel, leaving 1.327x rather than 2.646x. Bolting true correlations onto the existing marginals would have given 0.765 against a true 1.524, which is overconfident: the direction the reporter specifically called unsafe. Rebuilding the joint from the factor structure fixes both at once, and a single-competitor query now returns the exact marginal rather than the narrow one. The precision matrix depends only on structure — who played whom, with what weights and what noise — not on the observed outcomes, and the means were already exact. So only the second moment is reconstructed. Known limits, all deliberate and documented on the method: - Latest slice only. A functional spanning times, such as "current versus career", needs the time-expanded joint and is not covered. - Scored events only. A ranked outcome's truncation is EP-approximated and its converged factors are not retained after inference, so ranked slices return `JointUnavailable` rather than a plausible wrong number. - Dense Cholesky, O(n^3) per query in the slice's competitor count: 38.8us at 50, 5.66ms at 400, 49.1ms at 800. Fine for the sizes this serves today; caching the factorization per slice would make repeat queries O(n^2), and sparsity is the next step after that. Refs #46, #47, #48 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmisk
|
4924bc8b57 |
style: use arrays rather than vec! in the calibration fixture
clippy::useless_vec. Pushed broken because the verification chain used
`if ... then echo` blocks that report status without gating the `&&`
that follows — the same shape of mistake as
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
36eacf5f67 |
test: calibrate the marginals against the exact posterior
Investigation for #46 and #47, before touching either. A scored history is linear-Gaussian, so its true joint posterior has a closed form and the crate can be checked against ground truth. Measured on five competitors: means marginal sd (crate / exact) tree (star) exact 1.000 loopy (robin) exact 0.502 On a tree the crate is exact in both. With cycles the means stay exact — the standard Gaussian-BP result, and the property ratings rely on — while marginal variances come out about half the true width. That is the opposite direction from what #47 reports, so whatever is happening in that consumer's model, the crate being conservative is not it. It also means #46 cannot be implemented as an added covariance accessor. The exact correlation between two nodes here is +0.857, so ignoring it overstates the width of a difference — but the too-narrow marginals partially cancel that, leaving 1.327x rather than 2.646x. Adding true correlations to these marginals without correcting them would give 0.765 against a true 1.524: overconfident, which is the direction the reporter specifically called unsafe. Pins the two real invariants (exactness on a tree, exact means with cycles) and deliberately only records the variance gap, since closing it is what #46 proposes. Also records the working rules this project has converged on: investigate before implementing, fix the root issue, and scout crates.io on measured accuracy rather than adoption. Refs #46, #47 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
71554fd944 |
feat: add UnknownKeys::Prior, and explain why there is no Skip
#44's third ask was an opt-in mode so a caller with partially-known teams need not pre-filter. The requested shape was `Skip` — drop unknown members. Measured, that is the wrong mode to build. A team's performance is the *sum* of its members, so dropping one drops its variance too. On a two-member team with one unknown: SKIP (drop the member) : performance sigma 2.37 PRIOR (member at prior) : performance sigma 6.53 (2.76x wider) Skipping makes the model *more* certain because it knows *less*, which is backwards. `Prior` is also the answer the model already gives for a competitor it knows about but has no evidence for — measured, such a competitor sits at sigma 4.99 against the prior's 6.0 — so it corresponds to a state the model can actually be in. Skipping does not. So the enum is `Reject` (default, unchanged) and `Prior`, and it is `#[non_exhaustive]` in case a real use for skipping turns up later. Placed on `HistoryBuilder` rather than per-call. Neither consumer wants it to vary between queries: one scores thousands of candidate matchups in a loop, the other's headline feature is predicting a competitor nobody has faced. That makes it a property of how the model is being used, and keeps five prediction signatures unchanged. This also gives #48 the semantics it asked for — "I have never seen this competitor, here is the prior-informed answer" — which it needs for predicting a course nobody has played. `an_unknown_member_widens_its_team_rather_than_narrowing_it` pins the property that ruled `Skip` out, so a future convenience cannot quietly reintroduce it. Closes #44. Refs #48 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
2cf21a753d |
docs: record that the event log is the source of truth, and why
#45 asked whether a fitted `History` can be persisted, and noted that the absence of `serde` "reads as an omission rather than a decision, which invites exactly this issue from every consumer in turn". Fair. Documents the decision on `History` along with the reasoning that makes it one: `converge` reaches a fixed point determined by the events, ratings and configuration alone, so a snapshot would carry no information the event log does not — it would cache the computation, never the answer. It also bounds what a snapshot could buy, since that is the question a consumer actually has. Re-converging an unchanged history costs one iteration, measured at 0.91 ms against 365 ms cold on 2 000 events, so it would make a cold restart cheap and do nothing for appends. Appending one event moves its participants more than a sigma across their whole history, so that re-convergence is real work rather than repeated work. Closes #45 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
35d7512557 |
fix(test): the ingestion-order property was comparing two truncated fits
`ingestion_order_does_not_change_the_answer` failed with a 1.2e-6 gap in
mu and read as a violation of the invariant. It was not. Both sides ran
`max_iter: 200` against `epsilon: 1e-10`, and the batched side stopped
at the cap with a step of 3.4e-9 — so the test compared two fits that
had not converged and attributed the difference to ingestion order.
Raised to 20_000, at which both converge and the property holds. Runtime
is unchanged at 0.05s, because converging is what the iterations were
for.
The test now asserts `report.converged` on both sides before comparing.
That is the part worth keeping: any test that compares two fits for
equality is measuring truncation unless it first establishes that both
reached a fixed point. `ingestion_equivalence.rs` already did this;
`properties.rs` did not.
Found because
|
||
|
logaritmisk
|
e1bddf2474 |
style: factor the event-pair type out of the reconvergence fixture
clippy's `type_complexity` fires on the tuple-of-vectors return. Caught after pushing, because the verification chain used `&&` between `just lint` and a `grep` that succeeded on the error text — so a failing lint reported success. The gate has to be on the command, not on whether the output matched. |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
5d36fa1008 |
test: pin that re-convergence is path-independent
Answering #45 — can a fitted `History` be persisted — needed to know whether `converge` reaches a fixed point determined by the events alone, or one that depends on the message state it started from. It is the former, and that is worth a test rather than a comment. `tests/ingestion_equivalence.rs` varies how events are batched but converges only at the end. These converge *between* batches, which is the path a caller takes when it fits, serves, then ingests more. Measured divergence from a single fit over the same events: 6.2e-13 for an append strictly later than every existing slice, 8.9e-11 for one interleaved with them. Both at the convergence tolerance. The design question guessed the interleaved case might be weaker; it is not, and the reason is that Through Time revises the past on every converge anyway, so doing it in two steps is not a special case. Also pins that re-converging an unchanged history costs one iteration. Measured on a 2000-event fixture that is 0.91ms against 365ms cold — the fact that makes a restored snapshot worth having at all. Refs #45 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
c12bc830a5 |
feat!: name the unknown key, expose tail probabilities, flag short fits
Three issues from two downstream consumers, all small, all sharing a theme: the crate had the information and would not hand it over. #44 — `UnknownKey { team: 0, member: 0 }` did not say which key. A consumer upgrading 0.1.2 -> 0.4.1 had every one of 5591 predictions return this error, fell back to a neutral 0.5, and lost its entire metadata model for a day. Nothing crashed and nothing logged; it was found by sweeping an unrelated parameter and noticing the output did not move. The 0.4.0 change that made unknown keys an error was right — the error was just too anonymous to act on. It now carries the key's `Debug` rendering, and its `Display` says what to do about it. The precondition is documented on every prediction entry point, which the reporter said would alone have saved the day. #43 — `cdf` was `pub(crate)`, so a consumer asking "is this competitor below the cutoff" approximated it with a `mu + z * sigma` band and had no way to say what confidence any `z` bought. Adds `Gaussian::probability_below` / `probability_above`. The second is separate on purpose: `1 - cdf` collapses to exactly zero past ~8.3 sigma, and a stopping rule is evaluated precisely there. Both route through the survival function added in 0.4.1, so this is visibility rather than new numerics. #50 — `ConvergenceReport` was not `#[must_use]`, so the one signal that a fit stopped short was trivially discarded. It now is, and that immediately found 78 sites doing exactly that — including this crate's own ATP example, which was capped at 10 sweeps when the history needs 30. The example now reads the report and says so. `ITERATIONS = 30` is documented as the floor it is, with the three measurements to hand: 400 events over 100 competitors already stops there at ~7e-3 against a 1e-6 tolerance, the ATP example needs 30 at a much looser one, and a consumer's 2000-node model needs 76 to 161. BREAKING CHANGE: `InferenceError::UnknownKey` gains a `key` field, and the prediction methods now require `K: Debug` in order to fill it. Closes #43, #50. Refs #44 — its third ask, an opt-in `UnknownKeys::Skip` mode, is a live API question and deliberately not answered here. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmisk
|
901f60972e | chore: Release trueskill-tt version 0.4.2 v0.4.2 | ||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
8116fd081f |
test: localise the erfc_inv tail residual to the caller's argument
Scouting crates.io for a more accurate `erfc` than `libm` turned up a 1.16e-12 relative error in `erfc_inv` at `p_draw = 0.999999`, measured against a 70-digit `decimal` reference. It looked like too few Newton steps. It is not: adding a fourth changed nothing. The error is in forming the argument. `1.0 - 0.999999` is `1.0000000000287557e-06` — 0.999999 is not representable, and subtracting from one cancels, leaving 2.9e-11 of relative error before `erfc_inv` is entered. Given an exactly-representable argument it returns 1.8e-16. So the routine was never the problem, and the extra iteration has been reverted rather than shipped as a fix for a defect that was not there. `puruspe::inverfc` returns the identical wrong value for the identical reason, which is what makes the shared upstream cause obvious. Adds a test that separates the two, and corrects a quantile constant in `erfc_inv_matches_known_quantiles` that was recalled rather than computed: `Phi^-1(0.9999995)` is 4.89163847569859, not 4.891638475699099. The others were checked against the same reference and were right. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
17d072b2ae |
fix: route every transcendental through libm, and combine sigmas with hypot
Follow-on from #41, which added `libm` for `erfc`. Surveying what else the dependency offers: its unique surface over `std` is `erf`/`erfc`, `lgamma`/`tgamma` and Bessel functions, and only the first was ever needed. But the survey found something better than another special function. `std`'s `exp` and `ln` delegate to the *system* math library. IEEE 754 specifies the basic operations and `sqrt` exactly and says nothing about transcendentals, so those differ per platform. Measured here over 200k inputs: exp: 19425/200000 differ from libm (worst 1 ulp) log: 9932/200000 differ Inference is an iterative fixed point, so a one-ULP difference can change an iteration count and move the answer by more than one ULP. Routing every transcendental through `libm` makes a fit reproducible across platforms — a stronger guarantee than `tests/determinism.rs`, which only covers thread counts. It costs nothing. `Batch::iteration` measured -2.7% [-5.7%, -0.3%] with the whole set swapped, and not one golden moved. Also switches the two places that combined sigmas as `sqrt(a^2 + b^2)` to `hypot`. Squaring overflows to infinity above ~1.3e154 and flushes to zero below ~1.5e-154 — measured, the naive form returns `inf` where `hypot` returns 1.41e160 — and `Gaussian`'s constructors are public, so a caller can reach both ends. Deliberately not done: rewriting the KL divergence's `ln` of a ratio via `ln_1p`. The cancellation is real as the ratio approaches one, but measured absolute error is at most ~1e-11 in a quantity of order 0.4 nats, so it changes nothing. The invariant is recorded in `CLAUDE.md` and on `erfc`'s own docs, since nothing enforces it mechanically. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
3dd659307a |
fix: replace the erfc approximation with libm, for free
#41 asked whether the Numerical Recipes `erfcc` approximation — 1.2e-7 relative, and the binding accuracy constraint on the whole crate — was worth replacing, given it sits in the inference hot loop. It is, and it costs nothing. Measured, against an independent incomplete-gamma reference: range previous (NR) libm [-3, 0] 7.95e-8 2.15e-14 [0, 0.5] 8.69e-8 4.70e-14 [0.5, 2] 9.38e-8 1.24e-12 [2, 6] 1.04e-7 5.20e-14 [6, 26] 1.07e-7 1.75e-13 erfc(0) 1.00000003 1.0 (exactly) |erfc(z)+erfc(-z)-2| 6.00e-8 2.22e-16 Performance, on `benches/batch.rs`: change [-3.34% +2.26%], p = 0.89 — no change detected. That result is counterintuitive, because libm's erfc is 1.65x slower when swept uniformly over [-2.5, 2.5]. The sweep was the wrong input distribution. Capturing the arguments inference actually passes: |x|<0.5 96.16% 0.5-0.84 2.05% 0.84-1.25 1.24% 1.25-2 0.54% 2-6 0.00% 98% fall below 0.84375, which is exactly where FDLIBM skips the exponential entirely — while the NR form always pays for one. On the real trace libm is the faster of the two (3.23 vs 3.78 ns/call). An ad-hoc `Instant` harness reported a 16% end-to-end speedup; that was an artifact of its own setup allocating and leaking per run, and criterion's verdict of "no change" is the one to believe. What it bought: - `compute_margin` against exact quantiles: 8.4e-8 -> 1.7e-16. - `cdf(mu, mu, sigma)` is now exactly 0.5; it was 1.5e-8 out. - `sf + cdf` sums to one within a ULP, from 3e-8. - `erfcx`'s two branches now agree to round-off across the crossover rather than to 1e-7, so the log-space evidence path and the linear one are consistent. - Ten test tolerances tightened from 1e-6 to 1e-13..1e-15, and the prediction floor is now the integrator's rather than `cdf`'s. Five goldens moved, by 2.4e-9 to 6e-7 — the magnitude of the removed error, and `test_env_ttt`'s mu still rounds to the same six decimals. Re-recorded with more digits so future drift stays visible. Verified as movement toward truth per the goldens policy: every value now derives from a primitive checked against an independent reference and satisfying the exact identities, which the previous one did not. Adds `libm` — zero transitive dependencies, rust-lang maintained. Closes #41 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmisk
|
7e289ee834 | chore: Release trueskill-tt version 0.4.1 v0.4.1 | ||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
564969ee5d |
test: pin quality()'s N-group closed form, closing the README cross-check
The scan for precision defects found none in `quality()` — but it did find that N identical teams have an exact closed form, which is a much stronger regression net than the single two-team golden that was there. For two identical single-player teams quality is `sqrt(2b^2 / (2b^2 + s1^2 + s2^2))`. With the conventional parameters that ratio is exactly 1/5, and the N-group generalisation is `(1/5)^((n-1)/2)` — one factor per adjacent pair. Measured across n = 2..10 the implementation matches to 1e-9, so the determinant path that #9 rebuilt is correct over the whole range, not just at n = 2. The n=3 and n=5 values (0.200 and 0.040) are also what the `trueskill` Python package produces for the same configuration, which is the cross-implementation check the README Todo has been asking for since the redesign. Asserted separately as literals so a change to the closed-form reasoning cannot silently carry them along. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
683813ec10 |
fix: correct erfc_inv's sign error and keep evidence in log space
A systematic scan for precision defects, following the tail-precision work in |
||
|
logaritmisk
|
2a48d10aa9 | chore: Release trueskill-tt version 0.4.0 v0.4.0 | ||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
d4f91fd221 |
fix: reject convergence options that silently disable inference
`Game::ranked` and `Game::scored` validated `p_draw` and `score_sigma`
but never `convergence`. `ConvergenceOptions` has public fields and
`GameOptions` carries one, so a caller could hand the engine a set that
`HistoryBuilder`'s eager asserts never saw. Past that, the only guard
was a `debug_assert!`, which is gone in the profile users ship.
An `alpha` of zero is the bad case, and it fails silently rather than
loudly. Measured in release before the fix:
likelihoods: [[Gaussian { pi: 0.0, tau: 0.0 }],
[Gaussian { pi: 0.0, tau: 0.0 }]]
Every EP update unapplied, every likelihood uninformative, inference
returning the priors it was given — and an `OwnedGame` that looks
entirely ordinary to the caller. `HistoryBuilder::convergence` already
documents exactly this hazard; the `Game` constructors just did not
share the check.
Adds `ConvergenceOptions::validate`, called by both constructors.
Rejects `alpha` outside `(0.0, 1.0]` and negative `epsilon`; NaN fails
both comparisons and is rejected too.
`tests/validation.rs` states the release-mode guarantee for the whole
public surface, not just this hole, and CI already runs the suite in
release. Probing the other conditions #18 lists found five of eight
already enforced — ties without a draw probability, per-event score
sigma, weight/team dimensions, draw-probability range, score-sigma
range — so this closes the remaining gap rather than the whole issue.
The engine keeps its `debug_assert!`s as invariant documentation.
Refs #18
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
8c087ad015 |
fix!: apply competitor configuration whenever it is supplied
`Member::with_prior` and `with_drift_scale` were consumed only on the branch that *creates* a competitor — `priors.remove` sat inside `if !self.agents.contains(..)`. Supplying either for a key the history already knew did nothing at all: no error, no warning, and output computed from the default prior. A prior applied on a competitor's very first event and was silently discarded ever after. Configuration now applies whenever supplied. Two details this forced: Configuration is tracked per *field* rather than as a merged `Rating`. A member setting only `drift_scale` must not also assert the default prior, or it would silently undo a prior seeded on an earlier event. Slice state has to be refreshed. `drift_scale` is re-derived on every forward pass, but a prior is written into the competitor's earliest slice once, at ingestion, and `iteration` refreshes only slices after the first. Without the refresh a late prior would reach the drift terms and nothing else — a subtler version of the drop being fixed. This was caught by a test, not by reading the code. Conflicting values for one competitor within a single batch are now `ConflictingCompetitorConfig` rather than resolved by iteration order. Events in a batch are unordered, so "last one wins" would make the result depend on traversal — and `tests/ingestion_equivalence.rs` exists to rule exactly that out. Repeating the same value stays inert, which is the shape callers get when configuration is a property of the domain. That invariant turned out to be tested only for *unconfigured* competitors: every helper in that file built members with `Member::new`. Extended to cover configured ones, including a check that configuration changes the fit at all, so the order tests cannot pass vacuously. `with_prior` had no coverage under `tests/` whatsoever, which is how this survived. Adds `tests/competitor_config.rs`. `drift_scale_is_ignored_after_first_appearance` asserted the old behaviour and now asserts the new one. It was written as a deliberate change-detector — "moving the capture would be a visible break, not a silent one" — so it inverted rather than being deleted. Also removes `InferenceError::ConvergenceFailed` and `NegativePrecision`, which no code path ever constructed: public variants advertising failure modes no caller could observe. Partial #20 — its other items were already resolved, except `Outcome::winner` still panicking. BREAKING CHANGE: `prior` and `drift_scale` now take effect for competitors the history already knows, where they were previously ignored; a batch supplying conflicting values for one competitor is now an error. `InferenceError::ConvergenceFailed` and `InferenceError::NegativePrecision` are removed. Closes #10. Refs #20. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
7341669d1a |
fix: stop destroying tail precision in evidence and truncation
`erfc` is sound — it holds ~1e-7 *relative* accuracy down to 1e-296 with no tail degradation. Three expressions built on it threw that away by subtracting quantities that both approach the same value. 1. `cavity_evidence` computed `1.0 - cdf(margin, ..)`, which is algebraically `sf(margin, ..)` and numerically a catastrophe: 7% error by eight sigma, and exactly zero past ~8.3, where the true probability is 1e-19 and perfectly representable. Clamped, that reached `log_evidence` as ln(f64::MIN_POSITIVE) = -708 whatever the truth was — off by 665 nats at nine sigma. `1 - cdf` is smallest precisely when the result contradicts the prior, so the model-comparison number was worst for upsets: the observation it exists to notice. Adds `sf`, the survival function, computed without the subtraction. The tie branch picks whichever tail keeps both of its terms small, for the same reason. 2. `v_w` computed the inverse Mills ratio as `pdf(-a) / cdf(-a)`. Both underflow together past about 39 sigma, giving `0 / 0` and putting NaN straight into the posterior. Adds `erfcx`, so the shared `exp(-alpha^2 / 2)` cancels analytically instead of being evaluated twice and divided. 3. With that fixed, `w = v * (v - alpha)` became the next casualty: `v` tends to `alpha`, so the gap lost every digit and drove `w` above 1, making `sqrt(1 - w)` NaN at alpha = 1e6. The gap now comes from its asymptotic series, which forms no difference at all. The tie branch had the same defect one expression over — `v * v - u` with both terms at 1e18 returned w = -128 — and a far-tail window is indistinguishable from a half-line, so it shares the asymptotic. No public signature changes, and no existing golden moved: every one of these only alters regions the old code got wrong. The two identity tests are asserted at 1e-6 rather than tighter because `erfc` is not exactly antisymmetric — `erfc(z) + erfc(-z)` differs from 2 by ~3e-8, and `erfc(0)` returns 1.00000003. That floor is tracked separately. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
2fff745c3b |
feat: let observers be shared, boxed, or borrowed
`History` takes its observer by value and never hands it back, so a
caller who wanted to read what an observer recorded had no way to keep a
handle to it. The natural spelling did not compile:
let recorder = Arc::new(Recorder::default());
History::builder().observer(Arc::clone(&recorder))
// error[E0277]: `Arc<Recorder>: Observer<i64>` is not satisfied
The workaround was for every observer to wrap each of its own fields in
an `Arc` and derive `Clone` — one allocation and one lock per field, a
pattern each implementor had to rediscover, and nothing documenting it.
Adds blanket `Observer` impls for `Arc<O>`, `Box<O>` and `&O`. All are
`?Sized`, so `Arc<dyn Observer<T>>` and `Box<dyn Observer<T>>` work too
and an observer can be chosen at runtime. Also adds
`History::observer()` and `into_observer()`, so a non-shared observer's
state can be inspected in place or reclaimed after `converge` without
needing interior mutability at all.
`tests/observer.rs` is simplified to the shared spelling, so the
recommended pattern is the one demonstrated rather than the workaround.
Closes #40
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
3c2f9ac64c |
feat: add expected information gain for active matchup selection
`quality()` answers "is this matchup fair". Callers picking which
comparison to run next need "is this matchup informative", and the two
coincide only for two evenly matched competitors. Without a principled
alternative, downstream code was reaching for hand-rolled heuristics
like `quality * sigma_a^2 * sigma_b^2`, which double-counts uncertainty:
the two factors are not independent.
Adds `expected_information_gain`, the outcome-weighted divergence
between current beliefs and the beliefs each result would produce:
EIG = SUM P(outcome) * KL(posterior_after(outcome) || prior)
Available standalone over `Rating`s, and as
`History::expected_information_gain` using current skills and the
history's own beta, drift and p_draw — so the outcomes it weighs are the
ones that would actually be fitted.
This is the mutual information between the outcome and the skills, which
gives an analytic ceiling: gain cannot exceed the entropy of the thing
being observed, so at most `ln k` nats for k outcomes. That bound is the
sharpest test available, because an acquisition function is unusually
exposed to returning finite, plausible, monotone numbers while being
wrong — it would simply select slightly worse matchups forever. A
prototype of this returned 4.77 nats from a sign error while passing
every monotonicity check; `never_exceeds_the_entropy_of_the_outcome`
catches that class unconditionally.
Measured against the ceiling the values are meaningful rather than
vacuous: 0.382 nats for an even matchup between diffuse priors against
an 0.693 ceiling, falling to 0.013 for a lopsided one and 0.000 for a
hopeless one.
`disagrees_with_the_quality_times_variance_heuristic` pins down that
this is not a monotone transform of the heuristic it replaces — the two
rank a lopsided matchup and a confident even one in opposite orders — so
a later "simplification" cannot quietly revert to it.
Cost is one inference pass per possible outcome, documented on the
public API alongside the shortlist-then-score pattern, so callers do not
discover it in production.
Also folds the duplicated key-gathering in `predict_quality` and
`performances` into one validated `member_skills`.
Refs #39
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
507894dae7 |
refactor!: close the remaining API gaps from #21
Three unrelated small defects, all requiring signature changes: - `Game::one_v_one` hardcoded `GameOptions::default()`, so a 1v1 could never set `p_draw` or convergence options — and a drawn 1v1 was therefore unreachable through it, since the default `p_draw` is zero. It now takes `&GameOptions` like every other constructor. - `Observer::on_batch_processed` was declared on the trait and never called from anywhere: implementors wired up a callback that could not fire. It is now called after each slice sweep, and renamed `on_slice_processed` to match the vocabulary the codebase adopted in T2 — the unit of work is a `TimeSlice`, not a batch. A slice is swept once travelling backward and once forward, so a multi-slice history fires it twice per slice per iteration; the doc comment says so. - `pub mod factors` sat beside `pub(crate) mod factor`, two module paths differing by one character with only one of them importable. The public facade is now `graph`. Tests cover each as a behaviour rather than a compile check: a drawn 1v1 succeeds only when p_draw is supplied, and the observer tests fail if any callback stops firing. BREAKING CHANGE: `Game::one_v_one` takes a fourth `&GameOptions` argument; `Observer::on_batch_processed` is renamed `on_slice_processed`; the `factors` module is renamed `graph`. Closes #21 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
bb2a845882 |
feat!: N-team outcome prediction with draw mass, replacing the 2-team panic
`predict_outcome` asserted `teams.len() == 2` and returned `[p, 1 - p]`, allocating no probability to a draw even with `p_draw > 0`. For a draw-enabled model the numbers were simply wrong, at any team count. It now returns `Result<Prediction, InferenceError>` and supports N teams. Two algorithms, both deterministic: - Who finishes first. Performances are independent Gaussians, so this separates into a one-dimensional integral per team rather than a multivariate orthant probability. Adaptive Gauss-Kronrod evaluates it to ~1e-15, matching the exact two-team closed form. - A specific finishing order. The factor graph only constrains rank-adjacent teams, so a full order is a chain of local constraints, not a general orthant integral. That chain collapses into a sequential recursion over cumulative integrals: O(teams * grid) per order. Fixed-node Gauss-Hermite is the obvious tool for the first and is a trap: when a rival's sigma is small the CDF product becomes a step narrower than the node spacing, and the nodes step over it. Measured 4.4e-4 off the closed form on a mildly skewed matchup and 1.7e-2 on a small-sigma one, while still returning something that looks like a probability. Adaptive refinement is what makes that case safe, and `win_probabilities_survive_a_rival_with_a_tiny_sigma` pins it down. The acceptance test is an identity rather than a golden: the outcome space is exhaustive and disjoint, so the probabilities sum to one. Any drift is integration error and nothing else. Gauss-Hermite failed it at 4.4e-4; this holds to ~1e-9. Also from #21: unknown keys are now reported rather than dropped, so a team of strangers can no longer produce a confident-looking prediction. `predict_quality` returns `Result` for the same reason. BREAKING CHANGE: `predict_outcome` returns `Result<Prediction, _>` instead of `Vec<f64>`; `predict_quality` returns `Result<f64, _>`. Refs #21, #39 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ |
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
87fca8dcca |
docs: correct drifted documentation and compile the README in CI
Four README code blocks no longer compiled: `Player` was renamed `Rating`
in T2, the `Drift` trait gained a `T: Time` parameter and a second method,
and two blocks were missing imports outright. The `Rating` example needed
more than a rename — with the binding unused, `T` is ambiguous because
`ConstantDrift` implements `Drift<T>` for every `T`, so it now carries an
explicit annotation.
Nothing compiled those blocks. `src/lib.rs` gains a `cfg(doctest)` struct
carrying `#[doc = include_str!("../README.md")]`, which turns every `rust`
block into a doctest without displacing the curated crate docs as the
front page. Verified it bites: reintroducing `Player` fails the build with
E0432 rather than shipping. Illustrative blocks are fenced `text` — note
that a bare fence defaults to `rust` under rustdoc, which is how the
`variance_delta = elapsed * γ²` formula became a compile error.
Prose fixes: README claimed `Gaussian::forget` takes a square root (it
works in variance space) and pointed at a `.gamma()` builder method that
does not exist. CLAUDE.md's data-flow diagram spliced the public ingestion
shape into the internal one — `Team` is not in that chain — listed
`cdf()`/`erfc()` as public when they are `pub(crate)` and private, and
called `SkillStore` public when only `CompetitorStore` escapes the crate.
Rustdoc fixes: `EventBuilder::scores_with_sigma` claimed a debug-assert
that `Outcome::scores_with_sigma` never had and whose own docs contradict;
rejection happens at ingestion as `InvalidParameter`. `event.rs` described
`add_events_with_prior` as replaced when it is still the ingestion
chokepoint. `factors.rs` advertised `Game::custom` without noting it is
`#[doc(hidden)]`. Internal T2/T4 milestone labels are dropped from public
items; the ones in the private `time_slice` module are left alone.
Closes #35
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014b6wy2q8rnFK8U8GPJVQNU
|
||
|
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5
|
ef62b57a08 |
fix(release): skip the changelog hook during a dry run
`just release-plan` is documented as a preview that writes nothing, but cargo-release runs pre-release hooks during a dry run too. The hook wrote CHANGELOG.md and `git add`ed it, so the clean-tree check in `just release` then refused to run — the repo's own two-step release workflow could not be followed as written. Guard the hook on DRY_RUN, which cargo-release 1.1.5 exports to the hook environment (verified by dumping `env` from a throwaway hook; it also sets CRATE_NAME, PREV_VERSION and NEW_VERSION). The clean-tree check itself is left alone: it is load-bearing, because publishing is irreversible. Closes #36 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014b6wy2q8rnFK8U8GPJVQNU |