Files
trueskill-tt/tests/variance_reduction.rs
T
logaritmiskandClaude Opus 5 e72bf3894c refactor!: the joint is reached through Joint, not mirrored on History
`posterior_of`, `posterior_of_at` and `expected_variance_reduction`
existed twice: once on `Joint`, and once on `History` as one-shot
wrappers whose whole body was `self.joint()?.<same>(..)`.

The wrappers re-factorised on every call — their own docs said so,
warning the reader to take a `Joint` instead — and they were what
smuggled the scored-only precondition onto the flat surface. A user
following the quickstart builds a ranked history, sees `posterior_of` in
the method list, and it never works. `h.joint()?.posterior_of(..)` is
one call longer and tells the truth: you need a joint, and a joint needs
a scored history.

That leaves three tiers instead of a flat surface with a hidden
precondition: `History` fits and reads, `predict_*` forecasts, `Joint`
answers exact joint questions.

`predict_margin` was itself calling `self.posterior_of`; it goes through
`self.joint()?` directly now.

The `Joint` methods' docs referred back to the wrappers for their real
content ("Identical to `History::posterior_of`, without re-paying the
factorisation"), so they now carry it: what a linear functional means,
which appearance each competitor is read at, and why
`expected_variance_reduction` belongs on the handle.

`tests/joint_handle.rs` had three tests comparing the wrapper against
the handle. That comparison is gone, but the property behind it is not —
they now compare a *reused* joint against a *fresh* one per question,
which is the actual correctness claim behind caching the factorisation
(#51), without the wrapper in the middle.

Closes #78.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011hcFjNDmHXZF8URGLku5zZ
2026-09-10 06:40:31 +02:00

197 lines
5.7 KiB
Rust

//! `expected_variance_reduction`: which matchup best sharpens a given question.
use smallvec::smallvec;
use trueskill_tt::{
ConstantDrift, ConvergenceOptions, Event, History, InferenceError, Member, Outcome, Team,
UnknownKeys,
};
type H = History<i64, ConstantDrift, trueskill_tt::NullObserver, &'static str>;
fn round(a: &'static str, b: &'static str, sa: f64, sb: f64) -> Event<i64, &'static str> {
Event {
time: 1,
teams: smallvec![
Team::with_members([Member::new(a)]),
Team::with_members([Member::new(b)]),
],
outcome: Outcome::scores([sa, sb]),
}
}
fn base() -> Vec<Event<i64, &'static str>> {
vec![
round("a", "b", 5.0, 2.0),
round("a", "c", 6.0, 1.0),
round("b", "c", 4.0, 3.0),
round("c", "d", 2.0, 1.0),
round("a", "d", 7.0, 2.0),
]
}
fn fit(extra: Option<Event<i64, &'static str>>, policy: UnknownKeys) -> H {
let mut h: History<i64, _, _, &'static str> = History::builder()
.mu(0.0)
.sigma(6.0)
.beta(1.0)
.score_sigma(2.0)
.drift(ConstantDrift::new(0.0))
.unknown_keys(policy)
.convergence(ConvergenceOptions {
max_iter: 20_000,
epsilon: 1e-13,
alpha: 1.0,
})
.build();
let mut ev = base();
if let Some(e) = extra {
ev.push(e);
}
h.add_events(ev).unwrap();
let _ = h.converge().unwrap();
h
}
/// The closed form must equal what actually happens if the matchup is played.
/// This is the assertion that makes the whole call trustworthy: a wrong
/// acquisition function returns plausible numbers and quietly picks worse
/// matchups forever.
#[test]
fn the_closed_form_matches_an_actual_refit() {
let h = fit(None, UnknownKeys::Reject);
let target: Vec<(&&str, f64)> = vec![(&"a", 1.0), (&"b", -1.0)];
let before = h
.joint()
.unwrap()
.posterior_of(&target)
.unwrap()
.sigma()
.powi(2);
for (x, y) in [("a", "b"), ("c", "d"), ("a", "c"), ("b", "d")] {
let predicted = h
.joint()
.unwrap()
.expected_variance_reduction(&[&[&x], &[&y]], &target)
.unwrap();
let after = fit(Some(round(x, y, 3.0, 1.0)), UnknownKeys::Reject);
let actual = before
- after
.joint()
.unwrap()
.posterior_of(&target)
.unwrap()
.sigma()
.powi(2);
assert!(
(predicted - actual).abs() / actual.abs() < 1e-9,
"{x} vs {y}: predicted {predicted}, actual {actual}"
);
}
}
/// The reduction cannot depend on the score, because for a Gaussian likelihood
/// the posterior variance update is data-independent. This is why the call
/// needs no expectation despite its name.
#[test]
fn the_outcome_does_not_change_the_reduction() {
let target: Vec<(&&str, f64)> = vec![(&"a", 1.0), (&"b", -1.0)];
let h = fit(None, UnknownKeys::Reject);
let before = h
.joint()
.unwrap()
.posterior_of(&target)
.unwrap()
.sigma()
.powi(2);
let mut seen = Vec::new();
for (sa, sb) in [(3.0, 1.0), (100.0, -50.0), (0.0, 0.0)] {
let after = fit(Some(round("c", "d", sa, sb)), UnknownKeys::Reject);
seen.push(
before
- after
.joint()
.unwrap()
.posterior_of(&target)
.unwrap()
.sigma()
.powi(2),
);
}
for w in seen.windows(2) {
assert!(
(w[0] - w[1]).abs() < 1e-12,
"variance reduction moved with the observed score: {seen:?}"
);
}
}
/// The point of the call: it must rank candidate matchups usefully. Playing the
/// pair you are trying to separate helps most; an unrelated pair helps least.
#[test]
fn it_ranks_candidates_by_how_much_they_answer_the_question() {
let h = fit(None, UnknownKeys::Reject);
let target: Vec<(&&str, f64)> = vec![(&"a", 1.0), (&"b", -1.0)];
let direct = h
.joint()
.unwrap()
.expected_variance_reduction(&[&[&"a"], &[&"b"]], &target)
.unwrap();
let unrelated = h
.joint()
.unwrap()
.expected_variance_reduction(&[&[&"c"], &[&"d"]], &target)
.unwrap();
assert!(direct > 0.0 && unrelated > 0.0);
assert!(
direct > 5.0 * unrelated,
"playing the target pair should dominate: {direct} vs {unrelated}"
);
}
/// A matchup between two competitors nobody has seen still teaches something
/// about them, but nothing about a target that does not involve them.
#[test]
fn an_unrelated_unseen_matchup_teaches_nothing_about_the_target() {
let h = fit(None, UnknownKeys::Prior);
let target: Vec<(&&str, f64)> = vec![(&"a", 1.0), (&"b", -1.0)];
let reduction = h
.joint()
.unwrap()
.expected_variance_reduction(&[&[&"stranger"], &[&"nobody"]], &target)
.unwrap();
assert!(
reduction.abs() < 1e-12,
"an unseen pair shares nothing with the target: {reduction}"
);
}
#[test]
fn shape_errors_are_reported() {
let h = fit(None, UnknownKeys::Reject);
let target: Vec<(&&str, f64)> = vec![(&"a", 1.0), (&"b", -1.0)];
assert!(matches!(
h.joint()
.unwrap()
.expected_variance_reduction(&[&[&"a"]], &target),
Err(InferenceError::MismatchedShape {
expected: 2,
got: 1,
..
})
));
assert!(matches!(
h.joint()
.unwrap()
.expected_variance_reduction(&[&[&"a"], &[&"ghost"]], &target),
Err(InferenceError::UnknownKey { .. })
));
}