internal/recommendation/candidates.go

@@ -139,22 +139,46 @@ func DefaultCandidateSourceLimits() CandidateSourceLimits {
 // would produce a short mix or none at all, and "no playlist" is a worse
 // answer than "a few tracks further from the seed than we would like".
 //
-// likes_overlap is cut hardest of the tier-2 arms for a specific reason: its
-// SQL assigns a FLAT 0.6 sim_score (recommendation.sql:108) rather than
-// measuring anything. It is a collaborative signal wearing similarity's
-// clothes, and raising SimilarityWeight amplifies it — if real ListenBrainz
-// scores commonly land below 0.6 it would outrank genuine matches. Halved
-// here pending the fill-rate measurement in #3879; the honest fix is to stop
-// it claiming a similarity score it did not compute.
+// DO NOT SHRINK AN ARM ORDERED BY UNSEEDED random(). This is the constraint
+// that shapes the numbers below, and it is not obvious from reading them.
+//
+// `likes_overlap` and `random_fill` both end in a bare `ORDER BY random()`
+// (recommendation.sql:118, :161) with no daily seed. Such an arm returns a
+// STABLE set only while its LIMIT exceeds the rows eligible for it — at that
+// point it returns all of them and the random order is irrelevant, because
+// the caller sorts by id before scoring. Drop the limit below the eligible
+// count and the arm starts returning a random SUBSET, which differs between
+// two builds on the same day.
+//
+// That is a real defect (#3889) rather than a quirk of this function, and it
+// bit here: cutting RandomFill to 10 broke
+// TestBuildSystemPlaylists_DailyNonceDeterminism, whose library is smaller
+// than the default limit and whose determinism was therefore accidental.
+// Growing an arm is always safe; only shrinking one is.
+//
+// So the seed-independent arms are trimmed only where the ordering is
+// deterministic: `taste_overlap` sorts by `tpa.weight DESC, t.id` and can be
+// cut, `random_fill` cannot. The reduction is consequently modest — and it
+// matters less than it looks, because the WEIGHTS are what demote sim_score-0
+// candidates now. The pool change biases the draw; the songs_like profile is
+// what actually keeps unrelated tracks out of the result.
+//
+// One arm is left alone that arguably should not be: `likes_overlap` assigns
+// a FLAT 0.6 sim_score (recommendation.sql:108) rather than measuring
+// anything — a collaborative signal wearing similarity's clothes, which a
+// raised SimilarityWeight amplifies. If real ListenBrainz scores commonly
+// land below 0.6 it will outrank genuine matches. It cannot be trimmed here
+// without the determinism fix landing first; the honest repair is to stop it
+// claiming a similarity score it never computed (#3879).
 func SongsLikeCandidateSourceLimits() CandidateSourceLimits {
 	return CandidateSourceLimits{
 		LBSimilar:     60, // tier 1 — doubled; the only arm that measures the seed
-		SimilarArtist: 40, // tier 2
+		SimilarArtist: 40, // tier 2 — raised; growing is always safe
 		TagOverlap:    20, // tier 2
 		UserCoplay:    20, // tier 2
-		LikesOverlap:  10, // tier 2, halved — flat 0.6, see above
-		TasteOverlap:  10, // tier 3 floor — halved, not removed
-		RandomFill:    10, // tier 3 floor — cut hard, never to zero
+		LikesOverlap:  20, // tier 2 — NOT trimmed: unseeded random(), see above
+		TasteOverlap:  10, // tier 3 floor — halved; deterministic ordering, safe
+		RandomFill:    30, // tier 3 floor — NOT trimmed: unseeded random(), see above
 	}
 }
 

internal/recommendation/songs_like_limits_test.go

@@ -59,3 +59,41 @@ func TestSongsLikeLimits_KeepThePoolRoughlyTheSameSize(t *testing.T) {
 			"this was meant to re-weight the pool, not starve it", s, d)
 	}
 }
+
+// The constraint that is invisible in the numbers, and that this file exists
+// to keep visible.
+//
+// `likes_overlap` and `random_fill` end in a bare `ORDER BY random()` with no
+// daily seed (recommendation.sql:118, :161). Such an arm returns a stable set
+// only while its LIMIT exceeds the eligible rows; below that it returns a
+// random SUBSET that differs between two builds on the same day, and the
+// daily-determinism promise quietly stops holding.
+//
+// This is not hypothetical — it is how this change first failed CI. Cutting
+// RandomFill to 10 broke TestBuildSystemPlaylists_DailyNonceDeterminism,
+// whose library is smaller than the default limit and whose determinism was
+// therefore an accident of the limit exceeding the library.
+//
+// Growing these arms is always safe. Only shrinking is, and the fix that
+// would make shrinking safe is a seeded ordering (#3889), not a smaller
+// number here.
+func TestSongsLikeLimits_DoNotShrinkTheUnseededRandomArms(t *testing.T) {
+	d := DefaultCandidateSourceLimits()
+	s := SongsLikeCandidateSourceLimits()
+
+	for _, tc := range []struct {
+		arm             string
+		songsLike, dflt int
+	}{
+		{"RandomFill", s.RandomFill, d.RandomFill},
+		{"LikesOverlap", s.LikesOverlap, d.LikesOverlap},
+	} {
+		if tc.songsLike < tc.dflt {
+			t.Errorf("%s cut from %d to %d. That arm is ordered by unseeded random(), "+
+				"so a smaller limit makes pool membership vary between same-day "+
+				"rebuilds — it breaks daily determinism rather than merely narrowing "+
+				"the mix. Fix the ordering (#3889) before trimming this.",
+				tc.arm, tc.dflt, tc.songsLike)
+		}
+	}
+}