Files
trueskill-tt/tests/additive_model.rs
T
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5 b553c630f5 refactor!: K comes first in History, HistoryBuilder and Joint
`K` is the one type parameter people change, and it was last. Naming a
history in a struct field meant writing all four to say one thing:

    struct Ladder { history: History<i64, ConstantDrift, NullObserver, String> }
    struct Analysis<'h> { joint: Joint<'h, i64, ConstantDrift, NullObserver, &'static str> }

Now:

    struct Ladder { history: History<String> }
    struct Analysis<'h> { joint: Joint<'h> }

`History<K, T, D, O>`, all four defaulted. Bounds may reference later
parameters, so `D: Drift<T> = ConstantDrift` is legal in third position.
`Joint` gains the same defaults, so `Joint<'h, String>` spells it.

72 call sites swapped, and the reorder makes most of them shorter: 18
now read `History<String>` and the `&'static str` ones read `History`.
The two turbofished builders shrink from
`HistoryBuilder::<Untimed, _, _, String>::new()` to
`HistoryBuilder::<String, Untimed>::new()`.

`Joint` keeps `O` structurally, defaulted rather than removed. #72 notes
it never touches the observer, which is true — but it borrows the whole
`&'h History<K, T, D, O>` and calls `History::resolve_terms`, so dropping
the parameter means either a view type or moving that method off
`History`. The default already buys the entire user-visible benefit,
which was the spelling.

Refs #72.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
2026-09-10 06:49:22 +02:00

148 lines
5.4 KiB
Rust

//! 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 = History::builder()
.mu(0.0)
.sigma(6.0)
.beta(1.0)
.score_sigma(2.0)
.drift(ConstantDrift::new(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.joint().unwrap().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.joint().unwrap().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
.joint()
.unwrap()
.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"
);
}
}