Per project_crt_diag_findings.md — CRT.diag + diag.2 empirically
falsified all three hypotheses about why the model's per-event output
doesn't track horizon-specific dynamics. Labels ARE differentiated per
horizon, AUC=0.66 IS per-event measured, but per-event predictions
behave identically across all 5 horizons (2.5-event mean run length
raw, 3.3-event after aggressive Wiener-α EMA smoothing). h6000
predictions should change every thousands of events, not every 3.3.
Diagnosis: training dynamics issue. The BCE loss provides no signal
pushing toward horizon-coherent predictions. Adjacent-event labels at
horizon K share K-1/K of the forward window so SHOULD produce similar
predictions, but the loss doesn't require this.
Intervention A (this spec, minimum-scope): output smoothness
regularizer
L_smooth[h] = λ[h] × mean_t (p[h](t) - p[h](t-1))²
With horizon-weighted λ (stronger for h6000 than h30): forces h6000
predictions to change slowly while leaving h30 responsive.
Implementation surface:
- multi_horizon_heads.cu backward: extend grad_probs with smoothness
gradient
- perception.rs trainer step: prev_probs_d buffer, per-horizon (p[t]
- p[t-1])² accumulation
- heads.rs: SMOOTHNESS_LAMBDA constant per horizon
- alpha_train.rs: --smoothness-base-lambda CLI flag
Validation gate (CRT.train Gate):
MUST: per-horizon AUC ≥ baseline - 0.02 (no signal destruction)
WIN: h6000 mean_run_len ≥ 100 events; h6000/h30 ratio ≥ 10× (horizons
actually differentiated post-training)
STRETCH: CRT.1 controller smoke shows mean PnL CORRELATED with
conviction (vs anti-correlated in lnfwd)
Future work if intervention A doesn't pass WIN:
B: horizon-conditional output structure (architecture change)
C: curriculum on horizon (multi-day training)
D: different label generation (majority-vote vs single-point)
Status: Design — awaiting user review before plan.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
faa9a73c10