jgrusewski 61b2fa962b fix(sp11): B1b bug 3 — cf-component feedback loop in mag-ratio canary
Deep audit on b435d25be found a third post-B1b bug in same class as
the slot 63 overload: experience_env_step writes cf_reward_weighted
(= w_cf × cf_reward, post-controller-weight) to reward_components_
per_sample[+1] at line ~3696. SP4's reward_component_ema_kernel EMAs
this into ISV slot 64 (REWARD_CF_EMA_INDEX) which the SP11 mag-ratio
canary reads as ratio[1] = slot[64] / Σ.

Self-reinforcing loop:
  high w_cf → high cf_reward_weighted → high slot 64 →
  high ratio[1] → controller raises w_cf → tighter loop

Until mean=1 normalization saturates other components to floor.

The other 5 component slots correctly write RAW pre-weight values:
- rc[+0] = total_reward (intentional, PopArt input — post-composition)
- rc[+2..+5] = r_trail / r_micro / r_opp_cost / r_bonus (all raw, pre-Σ)
- Slot 360 (popart-component) fed by `popart_component_per_sample`
  which receives `r_popart` raw

Only rc[+1] was wrong. Fixed: write raw cf_reward to rc[+1] so the
canary tracks intrinsic cf magnitude. The replay-buffer cf-tuple
reward (out_rewards[cf_off]) still uses cf_reward_weighted — that's
correct, loss kernels train on controller-weighted signal.

This was the third bug in a class — pre-SP11 invariants exposed by
post-decomposition semantic. Trio: (1) slot 63 overload (5e16b67ca),
(2) stale rc[] init + cf_flip ordering (b435d25be), (3) cf-component
feedback loop (this commit).

cargo check + build clean; 6/6 SP11 GPU tests + 14/14 contract tests
still pass. After this fix-up, all known SP11 reward-system bugs
identified by deep audit are resolved. L40S smoke validates empirical
sharpe recovery.
2026-05-04 11:00:47 +02:00

Foxhunt

Production HFT trading system in Rust.

Architecture

The workspace contains 32 crates organized as follows:

Core Libraries (16)

Crate Purpose
trading_engine Order processing, FIX 4.4, IB TWS, SIMD, RDTSC timing
risk VaR, Kelly, circuit breakers, kill switches, compliance
risk-data Risk data types and shared structures
trading-data Trading data types
ml DQN Rainbow, PPO, TFT, Mamba2, ensemble inference
ml-data ML data types and feature definitions
data Market data ingestion and storage
backtesting Replay engine, strategy tester
adaptive-strategy Ensemble execution, microstructure analysis
common Shared types, resilience, error handling
storage S3 and local model storage
model_loader Model serialization and loading
market-data Market data feed handlers
database PostgreSQL access layer (SQLx)
config Configuration management
tli CLI commands and tooling

Services (8)

Service Purpose
backtesting_service gRPC backtesting service
broker_gateway_service FIX routing, broker connectivity
trading_service Core trading operations
ml_training_service Model training orchestration
data_acquisition_service Market data acquisition
trading_agent_service Autonomous trading agents
api_gateway gRPC API gateway with auth
web-gateway Axum REST + WebSocket gateway

Frontend

web-dashboard/ -- React 19 + TypeScript + Vite + TradingView charts.

Building

# Check compilation (no PostgreSQL required)
SQLX_OFFLINE=true cargo check --workspace

# Run tests for a specific crate
SQLX_OFFLINE=true cargo test -p <crate> --lib

# Clippy
SQLX_OFFLINE=true cargo clippy --workspace

ML Models

Four production model architectures on Candle v0.9.1 with CUDA:

  • DQN Rainbow -- Deep Q-Network with prioritized replay, dueling heads, noisy nets
  • PPO -- Proximal Policy Optimization with GAE and LSTM policies
  • TFT -- Temporal Fusion Transformer for multi-horizon forecasting
  • Mamba2 -- State space model for sequence prediction

Each model has a standalone trainer and a UnifiedTrainable adapter for the hyperopt pipeline.

Infrastructure

  • Git: Gitea at git.fxhnt.ai (Tailscale-only), Scaleway DEV1-S
  • Observability: OpenTelemetry OTLP (env OTEL_EXPORTER_OTLP_ENDPOINT)
  • Database: PostgreSQL with SQLx offline mode for CI

License

Proprietary. All rights reserved.

Description
No description provided
Readme 849 MiB
Languages
Rust 88.2%
Cuda 7.7%
Python 1.3%
Shell 1.1%
PLpgSQL 0.8%
Other 0.8%