99f9532f556f46d84fc236a4b4bf4b586d5b4e01
2 Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 SirStone
|
1ea72c7f14 |
TM gun round 2: base was never behind; RADIAL target beats Linear on bmPoint
=== TASK 1: MY PREMISE WAS REFUTED ===
I instructed the job to "fix the baseline" because an earlier measurement said the
TM gun's base did not iterate flight time like `LinearGun`. MEASURED: the new gun's
base is BYTE-FOR-BYTE `LinearGun` - 18/18 runs tie exactly, p=1.000, every per-run
row byte-identical. The "non-iterating baseline" belonged to the OLD `tsetlin.nim`,
not this gun. So no fix was needed, and the earlier inference should not have been
generalised to the new gun. (It did still align the zero-correction clamp to
LinearGun's exact [0, arena] range, and reports the old BotRadius-inset base was a
wash/marginally better at 34.2%/24.7%.)
=== TASK 2: THE RADIAL TARGET - A CONTROL-VALIDATED WIN, BUT ONLY ON bmPoint ===
Instead of the lateral (GF-bucket) component - which the linear lead already
captures - the TM now predicts the RADIAL component: will the enemy be nearer or
farther than the base prediction when our bullet arrives? A 5-class radial head
sharing the same 40-bit context and TM core; the readout advances/retards the aim
distance along the base bearing.
under bmPath (the SHIPPED metric): STRUCTURAL NO-OP
synthetic 8/8 exact ties, p=1.0; real 33.9%/24.1% vs Linear 34.0%/24.3%
under bmPoint: A WIN, control-validated
TMRadial 9.4% (6013/63785) / 5.8% (42079/726652)
Linear 7.2% / 4.7% overall 17/1, p=0.0001
Tsetlin 7.0% / 4.8% overall 15/3, p=0.0075
shuffled 7.0% / 3.6% early 17/1 p=0.0001; overall 18/0, p<0.0001
radial head online accuracy 48.8% vs 19.9% shuffled chance and 36.7% majority
-> it is CONDITIONAL learning, not a constant short-range bias.
Best config: TM_RADIAL_RANGE=60, TM_RAD_MARGIN=0.25, 5 classes.
CAVEAT THAT MATTERS: a win on `bmPoint` is NOT yet evidence of a real win. `bmPath`
is the shipped SELECTION metric precisely because it beat `bmPoint` on real hit
rate (7.43% vs 4.70%). But that A/B was about which gun to PICK, not about gun
QUALITY - a gun can be better in reality while scoring worse on the selection
metric. So this needs a LIVE test, and it is the decisive one.
=== TASK 3: REVERSAL TARGET - CLEAN NEGATIVE ===
The label positive rate is only 9.7% (rev=[24772,2673]) and the head's 86.8%
accuracy is BELOW the 90.3% majority baseline: it does not learn the positive
class at all. Hit-rate effect neutral (bmPath 19.5%/18.4% vs shuffled 19.1%/17.8%,
p=0.24/0.82). Dropped.
=== OVERALL ===
Not competitive on the shipped bmPath metric (gated GF 28.3%/22.2% vs Linear
34.0%/24.3%, p=0.0075). Better than Linear on bmPoint via TMRadial (+2.2pp early,
+1.1pp overall). Per-enemy reset exists; a fresh gun per round; NO cross-battle
persistence (the user's non-negotiable).
MEASURED LIMITATION: radial mode has a high labelMiss because aiming short
resolves BEFORE the base arrival tick, biasing training toward resolvable samples.
The metric win is label-independent. A deferred-label fix is the next refinement.
INFERRED: the mechanism is surfers being NEARER than the base prediction
(range-holding); a constant-short-offset ablation would separate a learned
short-range bias from genuine per-tick conditional prediction.
|
||
|
SirStone
|
ca82053a11 |
TM gun: the discrete-target diagnosis was RIGHT - it learns now. Still loses to Linear.
The user's goal: a TM gun that is the best 1v1 gun, starting from scratch every
battle but quickly overfitting the current enemy. The previous attempt (knob
tuning) failed: NO configuration beat its own shuffled-feedback control, and the
TM-off ablation scored the same as TM-on, i.e. the TM's correction was
near-zero-mean noise. Diagnosis then: a Tsetlin Machine is a CLASSIFIER, and we
were asking it for an absolute aim point - a regression target. So this attempt
gave it a DISCRETE target (multi-class over guess-factor buckets) with 40
binary/bucketed motion features, and measured it against Linear, the default
Tsetlin gun, and a MANDATORY shuffled control.
THE DIAGNOSIS IS CONFIRMED - THE TM LEARNS, DECISIVELY:
online class accuracy 46.0% vs shuffled control 20.0% (2.3x chance)
raw ungated argmax 21.2%/18.6% vs shuffled 15.2%/8.3% (18/18, p<0.0001)
TMPattern > its shuffled control, overall 17/1 runs, p=0.0001
Compare the previous attempt, which could not beat shuffled feedback at all.
TMPattern also beats the default Tsetlin gun early (17/1, p=0.0001), so it is a
strictly better TM gun than the one in the rack.
BUT IT IS NOT COMPETITIVE WITH LINEAR ON REAL SURFERS:
real DrussGT, bmPath (the shipped metric), 3 seeds, pooled early/overall
Linear 34.0% (6358/18715) 24.3% (58297/239943)
TMPattern (gated) 27.9% (15514/55535) 22.0% (158658/719681)
TMPatternShuf 28.7% 19.4%
Linear > TMPattern: 15/18 early p=0.0075, 15/18 overall p=0.0075
bmPoint: neutral (7.2%/4.6% vs Linear 7.2%/4.7%)
synthetic controlled motion: matches/edges Linear (66.8%/60.6% vs 66.4%/59.6%,
shuffled 55.7%/50.1%) - the mechanism works when motion is predictable.
So: the representation fix moved this from "learns nothing" to "learns strongly
but applies its knowledge badly". INFERRED reason for the residual loss: the
linear lead is already the modal GF bucket (the label histogram is centred), so
corrective excursions away from it are net-negative. The measured deficit lives
in the BASELINE and in RANGE, not in the TM knobs - which is why further knob
tuning was never going to work.
Best config: gated hard K=5, TM_CONF_MARGIN=0.25, TM_SHRINK=0.5.
NOT TRIED (time-boxed): the binary-reversal target, and a RADIAL (range-holding)
target - the latter is the top next step.
Adds `common_libs/guns/tm_pattern.nim` (NOT registered in the rack),
`common_libs/tests/sweep_tm_pattern.nim`, and a durable writeup at
`common_libs/tests/tm_pattern_sweep_results.md`.
|