Five tests in crates/ml/src/trainers/dqn/smoke_tests had pass gates that
validated existence rather than the invariant their doc-comment claimed
to test. A trainer returning all-zero diagnostics (a plausible wiring
regression) would have passed them.
- reward_component_audit: was `is_finite() && >= 0.0` on 5 slots —
passes trivially on all-zero stubs. Added `cf_flip > 0.1` and
`trail_r > 0.01` floors (known-wired slots in smoke config;
popart/micro/loss_aversion remain finite-only as they are
legitimately near-zero in smoke). Run-observed values: cf=0.614,
trail=0.295, la=0.006 — well above floors.
- exploration_coverage: `.unwrap_or(0.0)` silently substituted 0 for a
missing epoch, conflating "emission regressed" with "exploration
collapsed". Now panics with a distinct message on missing entries,
also asserts len >= 20, normalized range [0,1], and spread > 1e-6 to
catch constant-output emitters. Run-observed spread: 0.275.
- training_stability::50_epoch_convergence: entropy assertion was
guarded behind `if entropy.is_finite()`, so NaN entropy (the more
severe failure) silently passed. Fail hard on NaN first.
- training_stability::trading_model_behavior: same `is_finite` guard
pattern on action_entropy — now fails hard when the diagnostic is
missing or NaN rather than skipping.
- training_stability::gpu_collector_auto_initializes: only asserted
training returned `Ok(_)`. A collector producing silent zeros would
pass. Now also verifies epochs_trained, loss finiteness, and
gradient flow.
- walk_forward::no_overfitting_50_epochs: had two tautological "finite
check" assertions (`x < x + 1` and the signum-adjusted ratio) that
always passed regardless of divergence. Replaced with real
`.is_finite()` checks plus a `div_ratio < 10.0` stability gate.
Tests run under CUBLAS_WORKSPACE_CONFIG=:4096:8 +
FOXHUNT_TEST_DATA=test_data/futures-baseline, release-test profile.
reward_component_audit and exploration_coverage both PASS on the
local RTX 3050. No threshold relaxation or quickfixes applied; any
future wiring regression will now be caught by a meaningful
assertion instead of a near-tautology.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
4399a56d76