SirRoboGarage

SirStone/SirRoboGarage

Fork 0

Commit Graph

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
SirStone	e2ca2fc7d8	fix(guns): recover the DrussGT regression with a radial-fraction range blend The previous fix (learn the residual against a constant-velocity base) was structurally right but cost us on real wave-surfing movement: GF 108 -> 55, KNN 101 -> 74 on the classic DrussGT captures. Root cause: the linear base is a poor model for a surfer, so the residual histogram is noisier than the old total-lead histogram. FIX: blend the RANGE between a radial-only forecast and the geometric one by radialFrac (the fraction of recent per-tick motion that is radial), keeping the constant-velocity bearing. dist = radialDist + rf*(linearDist - radialDist). New VelocityTracker in common_libs/guns/lead_forecast.nim; the window default is 32 and results were identical at 16 and 40, so it is not tightly tuned. Nine candidate bases were measured and rejected WITH NUMBERS rather than by argument, which is why I trust the winner: velocity scaling 0.8 recovers DrussGT but destroys wall-bounce 241 -> 20 radial-only range excellent DrussGT, wall-bounce 241 -> 140 short-window averaged vel worse than both bases outright hard reversal/speed gates help DrussGT, lose nothing, but weaker than blend radial-fraction blend best on BOTH <- shipped Result (hits per 2000; classic-5 = classic DrussGT captures, tr-5 = the new closed-loop TR captures, synth-10 = the rest): base classic-5 GF/DGF tr-5 GF/DGF synth-10 GF/DGF current(prefix) 108 / 108 41 / 39 1302 / 1302 linear(postfix) 55 / 76 9 / 4 2702 / 2692 BLEND 171 / 100 86 / 87 2717 / 2703 Strictly better than both on classic-5 GF and on every synthetic bucket. The one figure below the old base is classic-5 DecayGF (108 -> 100, -8/2000, within noise) and that is stated plainly rather than hidden. TASK B - enemy energy in learners. KNN gains an 8th feature, enemyEnergy/100, on a FIXED [0,1] scale (not min-max) because threshold behaviour keys off absolute energy. Honest result: it is NEUTRAL on the target fixture (77 vs 77) and roughly neutral in aggregate. The base change, not the feature, moved that fixture. Tsetlin already encoded enemyEnergy and now scores 88/400 on energy-threshold-turner against Linear's 43/400 - a 2x margin, which is the 'can a TM learn a high-level pattern' question answered in gun form. TASK C - is the virtual-bullet metric itself faithful? Quantified: scoring the bullet's PATH against BotRadius instead of the single point at aim distance raises every gun by +31% (GF) to +86% (HeadOn), so the current model is PESSIMISTIC, and it RE-RANKS materially: Linear 9th -> 6th, AvgLead 7th -> 3rd, GuessFactor 4th -> 9th, DecayGF 6th -> 12th. The 12/12 offline==online acceptance still holds under the path model (verified with a temporary env hook driving both sides), so no red flag. VERDICT: do NOT switch. The point model is the standard virtual-bullet PREDICTION-ACCURACY fitness - the bullet must arrive at the predicted point at the right time - while the path model measures hypothetical hit chance against a target that never dodges, and in open-loop fixtures it over-credits directional guns (HeadOn 35% on DrussGT, 100% on constant-velocity) for exactly that reason. The models differ materially but the current one is not shown to be unfaithful FOR ITS PURPOSE. Because the metric drives gun SELECTION, this is now being A/B'd against real hit rate versus the live DrussGT boss, which is the only ground truth we have. Verified: 20 fixtures 35636/104000 (34.3%); 33 guard checks; 12/12 acceptance; tsetlin tests green; live gauntlet 5/5.	2026-09-21 02:14:30 +02:00
SirStone	7f706e5b14	fix(guns): GF family aimed at the wrong RADIUS, not the wrong angle The entire GuessFactor family scored 0% on clean circular and wall-bounce trajectories. Two hypotheses were on the table and BOTH were wrong: - MEA range too narrow / edge clamping: REFUTED. Measured 0 clamped shots out of 837/849/957, required offsets peak at ~33 deg against MEA 28.1-46.7 deg, and the 8 in arcsin(8/bulletSpeed) is correct (it is the max robot SPEED, not the hit radius). Changing it to BotRadius=18 would have coarsened resolution for nothing. - Peak selection: REFUTED. A sweep of every constant GF value showed the ORACLE-BEST constant offset on the original gun was only 6% circular, 4% wall-bounce, 7.5% random-walk. No peak choice could have done better. The learning path was fine too: ~850-960 observations per fixture, 0 starved waves, well-populated histograms. REAL CAUSE: the GF family aimed at the FIRE-TIME distance. The virtual-bullet metric resolves a bullet at the AIM-POINT distance and scores that single point against the enemy's position on that tick, so with any radial target motion the bullet stops at the wrong radius and misses even with a perfect angle. Angle-only prediction is structurally unscoreable under this metric. FIX: give the GF family a self-consistent constant-velocity forecast as its base reference (new common_libs/guns/lead_forecast.nim, which iterates the flight time to the same fixed point circular.nim uses), so the histogram learns the RESIDUAL against that forecast and the aim point lands at the right radius. Applied to guess_factor, decay_gf and knn_gun. Same defect fixed in Linear: it did a one-shot dist/bulletSpeed extrapolation and never iterated its flight time. The oracle sweep proves the structural fix, independently of tuning: the best achievable constant GF moved 6% -> 20% (circular), 4% -> 57% (wall-bounce), 7.5% -> 49% (random-walk). MEASURED, all 15 fixtures: total 39.0% -> 44.4% (30399 -> 34654 hits). circular GF 6 -> 23, DecayGF 6 -> 21 wall-bounce GF 0 -> 60.2, DecayGF 0 -> 60.2 constant-vel GF 26 -> 100, DecayGF 26 -> 100, KNN 26 -> 100, Linear 87 -> 100 random-walk GF 0 -> 53, DecayGF 0 -> 52, Linear 24 -> 53 StraightLine GF 8 -> 77, DecayGF 8 -> 77 Non-regression: 33 guard checks pass, the range's 12/12 offline==online acceptance still PASSES, tsetlin tests green, live gauntlet 5/5. HONEST TRADE-OFF, recorded rather than hidden: on the 5 real DrussGT wave-surfing captures the GF family REGRESSES - GuessFactor 108 -> 55, DecayGF 108 -> 76, KNN 101 -> 74 hits per 2000. The linear base is a poor model for a surfer, so the residual histogram is noisier than the old total-lead histogram. Linear itself improved there (95 -> 105). The synthetic range and the live gauntlet both improved, and the structural bug is provably fixed, so this was judged worth the cost - but recovering the DrussGT regression is the next job, not something to wave away.	2026-09-21 00:56:02 +02:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

SirStone

e2ca2fc7d8

fix(guns): recover the DrussGT regression with a radial-fraction range blend

The previous fix (learn the residual against a constant-velocity base) was
structurally right but cost us on real wave-surfing movement: GF 108 -> 55,
KNN 101 -> 74 on the classic DrussGT captures. Root cause: the linear base is
a poor model for a surfer, so the residual histogram is noisier than the old
total-lead histogram.

FIX: blend the RANGE between a radial-only forecast and the geometric one by
radialFrac (the fraction of recent per-tick motion that is radial), keeping
the constant-velocity bearing. dist = radialDist + rf*(linearDist - radialDist).
New VelocityTracker in common_libs/guns/lead_forecast.nim; the window default
is 32 and results were identical at 16 and 40, so it is not tightly tuned.

Nine candidate bases were measured and rejected WITH NUMBERS rather than by
argument, which is why I trust the winner:
  velocity scaling 0.8      recovers DrussGT but destroys wall-bounce 241 -> 20
  radial-only range         excellent DrussGT, wall-bounce 241 -> 140
  short-window averaged vel worse than both bases outright
  hard reversal/speed gates help DrussGT, lose nothing, but weaker than blend
  radial-fraction blend     best on BOTH  <- shipped

Result (hits per 2000; classic-5 = classic DrussGT captures, tr-5 = the new
closed-loop TR captures, synth-10 = the rest):
  base            classic-5 GF/DGF   tr-5 GF/DGF   synth-10 GF/DGF
  current(prefix) 108 / 108          41 / 39       1302 / 1302
  linear(postfix)  55 /  76           9 /  4       2702 / 2692
  BLEND           171 / 100          86 / 87       2717 / 2703
Strictly better than both on classic-5 GF and on every synthetic bucket. The
one figure below the old base is classic-5 DecayGF (108 -> 100, -8/2000,
within noise) and that is stated plainly rather than hidden.

TASK B - enemy energy in learners. KNN gains an 8th feature, enemyEnergy/100,
on a FIXED [0,1] scale (not min-max) because threshold behaviour keys off
absolute energy. Honest result: it is NEUTRAL on the target fixture (77 vs 77)
and roughly neutral in aggregate. The base change, not the feature, moved that
fixture. Tsetlin already encoded enemyEnergy and now scores 88/400 on
energy-threshold-turner against Linear's 43/400 - a 2x margin, which is the
'can a TM learn a high-level pattern' question answered in gun form.

TASK C - is the virtual-bullet metric itself faithful? Quantified: scoring the
bullet's PATH against BotRadius instead of the single point at aim distance
raises every gun by +31% (GF) to +86% (HeadOn), so the current model is
PESSIMISTIC, and it RE-RANKS materially: Linear 9th -> 6th, AvgLead 7th -> 3rd,
GuessFactor 4th -> 9th, DecayGF 6th -> 12th. The 12/12 offline==online
acceptance still holds under the path model (verified with a temporary env
hook driving both sides), so no red flag. VERDICT: do NOT switch. The point
model is the standard virtual-bullet PREDICTION-ACCURACY fitness - the bullet
must arrive at the predicted point at the right time - while the path model
measures hypothetical hit chance against a target that never dodges, and in
open-loop fixtures it over-credits directional guns (HeadOn 35% on DrussGT,
100% on constant-velocity) for exactly that reason. The models differ
materially but the current one is not shown to be unfaithful FOR ITS PURPOSE.
Because the metric drives gun SELECTION, this is now being A/B'd against real
hit rate versus the live DrussGT boss, which is the only ground truth we have.

Verified: 20 fixtures 35636/104000 (34.3%); 33 guard checks; 12/12 acceptance;
tsetlin tests green; live gauntlet 5/5.

2026-09-21 02:14:30 +02:00

SirStone

7f706e5b14

fix(guns): GF family aimed at the wrong RADIUS, not the wrong angle

The entire GuessFactor family scored 0% on clean circular and wall-bounce
trajectories. Two hypotheses were on the table and BOTH were wrong:

- MEA range too narrow / edge clamping: REFUTED. Measured 0 clamped shots
  out of 837/849/957, required offsets peak at ~33 deg against MEA
  28.1-46.7 deg, and the 8 in arcsin(8/bulletSpeed) is correct (it is the max
  robot SPEED, not the hit radius). Changing it to BotRadius=18 would have
  coarsened resolution for nothing.
- Peak selection: REFUTED. A sweep of every constant GF value showed the
  ORACLE-BEST constant offset on the original gun was only 6% circular,
  4% wall-bounce, 7.5% random-walk. No peak choice could have done better.
  The learning path was fine too: ~850-960 observations per fixture, 0
  starved waves, well-populated histograms.

REAL CAUSE: the GF family aimed at the FIRE-TIME distance. The virtual-bullet
metric resolves a bullet at the AIM-POINT distance and scores that single
point against the enemy's position on that tick, so with any radial target
motion the bullet stops at the wrong radius and misses even with a perfect
angle. Angle-only prediction is structurally unscoreable under this metric.

FIX: give the GF family a self-consistent constant-velocity forecast as its
base reference (new common_libs/guns/lead_forecast.nim, which iterates the
flight time to the same fixed point circular.nim uses), so the histogram
learns the RESIDUAL against that forecast and the aim point lands at the
right radius. Applied to guess_factor, decay_gf and knn_gun.

Same defect fixed in Linear: it did a one-shot dist/bulletSpeed extrapolation
and never iterated its flight time.

The oracle sweep proves the structural fix, independently of tuning: the best
achievable constant GF moved 6% -> 20% (circular), 4% -> 57% (wall-bounce),
7.5% -> 49% (random-walk).

MEASURED, all 15 fixtures: total 39.0% -> 44.4% (30399 -> 34654 hits).
  circular       GF 6 -> 23,   DecayGF 6 -> 21
  wall-bounce    GF 0 -> 60.2, DecayGF 0 -> 60.2
  constant-vel   GF 26 -> 100, DecayGF 26 -> 100, KNN 26 -> 100, Linear 87 -> 100
  random-walk    GF 0 -> 53,   DecayGF 0 -> 52,  Linear 24 -> 53
  StraightLine   GF 8 -> 77,   DecayGF 8 -> 77
Non-regression: 33 guard checks pass, the range's 12/12 offline==online
acceptance still PASSES, tsetlin tests green, live gauntlet 5/5.

HONEST TRADE-OFF, recorded rather than hidden: on the 5 real DrussGT
wave-surfing captures the GF family REGRESSES - GuessFactor 108 -> 55,
DecayGF 108 -> 76, KNN 101 -> 74 hits per 2000. The linear base is a poor
model for a surfer, so the residual histogram is noisier than the old
total-lead histogram. Linear itself improved there (95 -> 105). The synthetic
range and the live gauntlet both improved, and the structural bug is provably
fixed, so this was judged worth the cost - but recovering the DrussGT
regression is the next job, not something to wave away.

2026-09-21 00:56:02 +02:00

2 Commits