File size: 14,525 Bytes
d231962
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
"""B. Competitive and structural features over a scored candidate table.



THE POINT. Every scorer in this pipeline reads one pair at a time. It is asked "do these two

strings describe the same business" when the question the metric actually rewards is "which

S1 owns this record". Those differ whenever a record is weakly similar to one S1 and weakly

similar to nothing else: the pairwise view says reject, the ownership view says it is forced.



The measurement that settles it, on empty-address candidates with an exact core-name match:



    competitors     TP       FP    ratio      (break-even at the shipped operating point

    1 (forced)     306       24    12.75       is 3.76:1, not 4:1 - the 4:1 figure is the

    2              110      176     0.62       TP -> T limit, and quoting it here would

    11+            177    9,230     0.02       reject pairs that are worth taking)

    aggregated     442    3,074     0.14



The aggregate is what a pair-level test reports, and it is 27x below break-even, which is why

an earlier pass concluded these pairs were unrecoverable. Splitting by competitor count shows

a subset three times above break-even. None of that is visible without global information.



CAVEAT ON THE SOURCE NUMBERS. Those counts came from `val_scored_20000.parquet`, which was

drawn with `RandomState(42)` where the split used `default_rng(42)`. It is therefore not the

intended val split but a random draw over all train S1, roughly 7% of it seen during

cross-encoder or stacker training. Ratios between groups survive that; the absolute level

does not. Re-measure on a clean split before trusting a threshold picked from it.

"""
from __future__ import annotations

import numpy as np
import pandas as pd

from . import textnorm as T

# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- measured recipe
# The six name-sharing features, reproduced EXACTLY as specified and measured in
# MODEL5_FALSE_NEGATIVE_FIXES.md §3.1. Retraining model-4's stage-2 LightGBM with these and
# nothing else changed gave, on the same stack split, same 5 folds, same seeds:
#
#                          stack out-of-fold      plain val
#     model-4                   0.98248            0.98298
#     + these six               0.98543 (+0.0030)  0.98621 (+0.0032)
#
# This is a reproduction, not an interpretation. My own earlier feature set overlapped it but
# was missing the two HIGHEST-gain members - x_n_s1_own_name (gain rank 4 of 79) and
# x_n_s1_cand_name_ns (rank 7) - and left the counts unclipped. Both matter:
#   * x_n_s1_own_name asks how common THIS S1's own name is. It is the strongest of the six,
#     and no feature I had captured it at all: everything I wrote looked at the candidate.
#   * the clip at 10 stops a handful of enormous name groups from dominating tree splits.
# Keep all six even though the first three rank low alone; the measurement used all six.
NAME_FEATURES = ["x_empty", "x_name_eq", "x_name_ns_eq",
                 "x_n_s1_cand_name", "x_n_s1_cand_name_ns", "x_n_s1_own_name"]


def _name_core(s: str) -> str:
    return T.split_legal_suffix(T.norm_text(str(s)))[0]


def _name_ns(core: str) -> str:
    """name_core with no spaces. norm_text has already removed punctuation."""
    return core.replace(" ", "")


def name_key_columns(df: pd.DataFrame, name_col: str = "business_name") -> pd.DataFrame:
    """Add name_core / name_ns to a prepared source table."""
    core = [_name_core(x) for x in df[name_col].astype(str)]
    return pd.DataFrame({"name_core": core, "name_ns": [_name_ns(x) for x in core]},
                        index=df.index)


def name_features(d: pd.DataFrame, s1: pd.DataFrame, pool: pd.DataFrame,

                  qcol: str = "q", ccol: str = "c") -> pd.DataFrame:
    """The six features for candidate rows `d`, indexing into `s1` and `pool`.



    `s1` and `pool` must already carry name_core / name_ns (see name_key_columns), and

    `pool` must carry addr_empty.



    COUNTS ARE OVER THE SPLIT'S OWN S1 TABLE - all 2,206,821 on train, all 1,732,544 on test,

    every country including France. Reusing train counts on test would be a different feature.

    Country enters only as a string key for grouping, never as a value, so France gets its own

    counts automatically and the open-set rule is respected.

    """
    ctry = s1["country"].to_numpy()[d[qcol].to_numpy()]
    a = s1["name_core"].to_numpy()[d[qcol].to_numpy()]
    b = pool["name_core"].to_numpy()[d[ccol].to_numpy()]
    ans = s1["name_ns"].to_numpy()[d[qcol].to_numpy()]
    bns = pool["name_ns"].to_numpy()[d[ccol].to_numpy()]

    cn = (s1["country"].astype(str) + "\t" + s1["name_core"].astype(str)).value_counts()
    cns = (s1["country"].astype(str) + "\t" + s1["name_ns"].astype(str)).value_counts()

    f = pd.DataFrame(index=d.index)
    f["x_empty"] = pool["addr_empty"].to_numpy()[d[ccol].to_numpy()].astype(np.float32)
    f["x_name_eq"] = (a == b).astype(np.float32)
    f["x_name_ns_eq"] = (ans == bns).astype(np.float32)
    f["x_n_s1_cand_name"] = pd.Series(ctry + "\t" + b).map(cn).fillna(0) \
        .clip(upper=10).to_numpy().astype(np.float32)
    f["x_n_s1_cand_name_ns"] = pd.Series(ctry + "\t" + bns).map(cns).fillna(0) \
        .clip(upper=10).to_numpy().astype(np.float32)
    f["x_n_s1_own_name"] = pd.Series(ctry + "\t" + a).map(cn).fillna(0) \
        .clip(upper=10).to_numpy().astype(np.float32)
    return f


FEATURE_NAMES = [
    "n_claimants", "rev_rank", "rev_rank_frac", "is_best_s1", "gap_to_best_other",
    "gap_to_second", "mutual_topk", "fwd_rank", "cand_addr_empty", "name_overlap",
    "scrambled", "n_competitors_exact_name", "is_unique_name_owner",
    "sibling_same_name", "s1_cand_count", "p_minus_s1_max",
    "name_core_equal", "empty_and_unique_name", "empty_and_shared_name", "name_is_other_s1",
]


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- global name map

def build_name_index(s1: pd.DataFrame, name_col: str = "business_name",

                     country_col: str = "country") -> dict:
    """How many S1 entities carry each (core name, country)?



    Built over EVERY S1 row, not over a validation slice. A competitor can be anywhere in the

    data, so restricting this to a sample silently inflates the uniqueness rate and the

    forced-assignment group with it.

    """
    keys = [T.split_legal_suffix(T.norm_text(n))[0] + "\x00" + T.norm_country(c)
            for n, c in zip(s1[name_col].astype(str), s1[country_col].astype(str))]
    vc = pd.Series(keys).value_counts()
    return {"key_by_row": keys, "count": vc.to_dict()}


def core_key(name: str, country: str) -> str:
    return T.split_legal_suffix(T.norm_text(name))[0] + "\x00" + T.norm_country(country)


# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- pair features

def add_features(cand: pd.DataFrame, s1_name: np.ndarray, s1_country: np.ndarray,

                 pool_name: np.ndarray, pool_addr: np.ndarray, pool_country: np.ndarray,

                 name_count: dict, qcol: str = "q", ccol: str = "c", pcol: str = "p",

                 topk: int = 10, s1_key: dict | None = None,

                 progress: bool = True) -> pd.DataFrame:
    """Attach every feature in FEATURE_NAMES to a scored candidate table.



    `cand` needs integer row indices into the S1 and pool arrays, plus a score. The arrays are

    positional, matching raw source order - the same contract the embedding matrices use.



    Everything is computed with sorts and groupby reductions rather than per-row Python, so a

    24M-row test table stays inside a few minutes and a few GB.

    """
    df = cand
    q = df[qcol].to_numpy()
    c = df[ccol].to_numpy()
    p = df[pcol].to_numpy(dtype=np.float32)
    n = len(df)
    out = {}
    # S1 core keys, again only for the rows referenced.
    s1_core_key = s1_key if s1_key is not None else {}

    # ---- competition for the RECORD: sort by (c, -p) once and reduce within each record
    order = np.lexsort((-p, c))
    c_s, p_s = c[order], p[order]
    # group boundaries
    new = np.empty(n, dtype=bool)
    new[0] = True
    np.not_equal(c_s[1:], c_s[:-1], out=new[1:])
    gid = np.cumsum(new) - 1
    n_groups = gid[-1] + 1 if n else 0
    starts = np.flatnonzero(new)
    sizes = np.diff(np.append(starts, n))

    rank_in_group = np.arange(n) - starts[gid]                    # 0 = best for this record
    n_claim = sizes[gid]
    best_p = p_s[starts][gid]
    second = np.where(sizes[gid] > 1, p_s[np.minimum(starts[gid] + 1, n - 1)], np.nan)
    # gap to the best OTHER S1: for the leader that is the runner-up, otherwise the leader
    gap_other = np.where(rank_in_group == 0, p_s - np.nan_to_num(second, nan=0.0), p_s - best_p)

    inv = np.empty(n, dtype=np.int64)
    inv[order] = np.arange(n)
    out["rev_rank"] = rank_in_group[inv].astype(np.int32)
    out["n_claimants"] = n_claim[inv].astype(np.int32)
    out["is_best_s1"] = (out["rev_rank"] == 0).astype(np.int8)
    out["gap_to_best_other"] = gap_other[inv].astype(np.float32)
    out["gap_to_second"] = (p_s - np.nan_to_num(second, nan=0.0))[inv].astype(np.float32)
    out["rev_rank_frac"] = (out["rev_rank"] / np.maximum(out["n_claimants"] - 1, 1)).astype(np.float32)

    # ---- competition for the S1 SIDE: same reduction with the roles swapped
    order2 = np.lexsort((-p, q))
    q_s2, p_s2 = q[order2], p[order2]
    new2 = np.empty(n, dtype=bool)
    new2[0] = True
    np.not_equal(q_s2[1:], q_s2[:-1], out=new2[1:])
    gid2 = np.cumsum(new2) - 1
    starts2 = np.flatnonzero(new2)
    sizes2 = np.diff(np.append(starts2, n))
    fwd_rank = np.arange(n) - starts2[gid2]
    s1_max = p_s2[starts2][gid2]
    inv2 = np.empty(n, dtype=np.int64)
    inv2[order2] = np.arange(n)
    out["fwd_rank"] = fwd_rank[inv2].astype(np.int32)
    out["s1_cand_count"] = sizes2[gid2][inv2].astype(np.int32)
    out["p_minus_s1_max"] = (p_s2 - s1_max)[inv2].astype(np.float32)

    # mutual top-k: the record is in this S1's top-k AND this S1 is in the record's top-k.
    # A mutual nearest-neighbour is the cheapest available proxy for "these two chose each
    # other", and it is the one competitive signal that costs no extra inference at all.
    out["mutual_topk"] = ((out["fwd_rank"] < topk) & (out["rev_rank"] < topk)).astype(np.int8)

    # ---- record-side text structure
    addr_empty = np.array([not str(a).strip() for a in pool_addr], dtype=np.int8)
    out["cand_addr_empty"] = addr_empty[c]

    # Token sets are built ONLY for the rows a candidate actually references. Building them
    # for all 1.7M S1 and 10M pool rows costs tens of GB of Python set objects, most of which
    # no pair ever touches.
    uq = np.unique(q)
    uc = np.unique(c)
    q_tok = {int(i): set(T.tokens(T.norm_text(str(s1_name[i])))) for i in uq}
    c_tok = {int(i): set(T.tokens(T.norm_text(str(pool_name[i])))) for i in uc}

    ov = np.empty(n, dtype=np.float32)
    step = max(1, n // 10)
    for i in range(n):
        if progress and i % step == 0 and i:
            print(f"    name_overlap {i:>12,}/{n:,} ({i/n:5.1%})", flush=True)
        a, b = q_tok[int(q[i])], c_tok[int(c[i])]
        inter = len(a & b)
        u = len(a) + len(b) - inter
        ov[i] = (inter / u) if u else 0.0
    out["name_overlap"] = ov
    # "scrambled" is the generator's made-up-word rewrite (Zephveo, Drexdelta): 2.4% of US
    # copies and 7.0% of India's, and 18% of model-4's val loss. A decoy almost never has one.
    out["scrambled"] = (ov == 0.0).astype(np.int8)

    # ---- global uniqueness of the RECORD name among all S1
    # This is the measurement the whole track rests on. Calibration on model-4's stack,
    # restricted to empty-address candidates whose name_core equals this S1's:
    #
    #   unique among the country's S1   9,171 pairs   mean p 0.714   ACTUAL match rate 0.982
    #   shared by 2 S1                  3,488         mean p 0.565   actual 0.525
    #   shared by 3 or more            20,972         mean p 0.280   actual 0.170
    #
    # The unique group is under-predicted by 0.27 in probability. Per coarse group the model
    # is perfectly calibrated, which is why ordinary calibration checks never found this: the
    # error only appears once you condition on a competitor count the model cannot see.
    ckey = {int(i): core_key(str(pool_name[i]), str(pool_country[i])) for i in uc}
    if not s1_core_key:
        s1_core_key = {int(i): core_key(str(s1_name[i]), str(s1_country[i])) for i in uq}
    ncomp_by_c = {i: name_count.get(k, 0) for i, k in ckey.items()}
    ncomp = np.fromiter((ncomp_by_c[int(x)] for x in c), np.int32, n)
    out["n_competitors_exact_name"] = ncomp
    out["is_unique_name_owner"] = (ncomp == 1).astype(np.int8)

    # ---- sibling agreement: has this S1 already got a strong candidate with the same name?
    # 55% of rejected empty-address true pairs have a correctly matched sibling with the same
    # name, so this is the feature that lets one confident sibling carry an unconfident one.
    sib = np.zeros(n, dtype=np.int8)
    strong = p >= 0.5
    have = {(int(q[i]), ckey[int(c[i])]) for i in np.flatnonzero(strong)}
    if have:
        for i in np.flatnonzero(~strong):
            if (int(q[i]), ckey[int(c[i])]) in have:
                sib[i] = 1
    out["sibling_same_name"] = sib

    # ---- the exact structural group the calibration table above is indexed by
    if progress:
        print(f"    name_core_equal over {n:,} rows", flush=True)
    same_core = np.fromiter(
        (1 if ckey[int(c[i])] == s1_core_key[int(q[i])] else 0 for i in range(n)), np.int8, n)
    out["name_core_equal"] = same_core
    out["empty_and_unique_name"] = (
        (out["cand_addr_empty"] == 1) & (same_core == 1) & (ncomp == 1)).astype(np.int8)
    out["empty_and_shared_name"] = (
        (out["cand_addr_empty"] == 1) & (same_core == 1) & (ncomp >= 3)).astype(np.int8)
    # The record's name matches SOME S1 exactly, but not this one - a decoy signature. 22.5%
    # of distractors reuse a real S1 name, and these score about 0.05 against a mean p of 0.18.
    out["name_is_other_s1"] = ((same_core == 0) & (ncomp >= 1)).astype(np.int8)

    for k in FEATURE_NAMES:
        df[k] = out[k]
    return df