Wrong implementation of the SM2 algorithm

[brumar]

First of all, thank you a lot for this library coded with high quality standards. It saved me a lot of time. Here is my contribution :

I just noticed that your interval computation does not strictly follow the SM2 algorithm

    public function calcInterval($time = 1, $factor = 2.5)
    {
//some lines dropped
            $interval = self::calcInterval($time - 1, $factor) * $factor;
        }
//some lines dropped
    }

I think you had a strict interpretation of this line :_''' I(n):=I(n-1)_EF'''* , that's why you got into a recursive computation to find I(n). Indeed, this mathematical notation seems dubious to me and should have been rewritten as '''I(n):=I(n-1)*EF(n)''' to be less ambiguous. If you are skeptic about my comment, you can check the implementation this function in anki .

def _nextInterval(self, card, delay, ease):

Your computation of the new interval can be problematic for cards with a lot of repetitions small changes on EF involves big changes on the interval (it can suddenly double or divided by two for cards with more than 5 repetitions).

Diving more into SM2 for the purpose of this comment, I also realised that another misunderstanding might have occurred.

    public function calcNewFactor($oldFactor = 2.5, $quality = 4)
    {
//some lines dropped
newFactor = $oldFactor+(0.1-(5-$quality)*(0.08+(5-$quality)*0.02));       
return $newFactor > 1.3 ? ($newFactor < 2.5 ? $newFactor : 2.5) : 1.3;
    }

Avoiding $newFactor > 2.5 seems not consistent with the SM2 algorithm. I think you got mislead (and once again, the original article is not really clear) because the statement "E-Factors were allowed to vary between 1.1 for the most difficult items and 2.5 for the easiest ones" seems to be only related to the SM-0 (or SM-1 ?) algorithm. I also checked on anki, and there is no track of this upper bound. Best Regards

[wiwofone]

Hey man! Thanks for the comments, I will make sure to read more into it tomorrow and try to fix it.

[gquemener]

Hello @brumar,

I don't understand how you assume that EF in I(n):=I(n-1)EF means EF(n). Furthermore, I don't understand why we're not using EF' in this formula.

AFAIU, EF' computation requires EF and q and not n, because n is the number of times the question was asked and it does not enter in consideration during computation of EF'.

Could you share your thought about that please?

I'm not familiar with python, and feel really lost in anki's source code. Could you also point out where the I(n-1) computation is performed (I don't see any recursive call in _nextInterval) ?

[brumar]

Hello @gquemener, I forked wiwifone project, but sadly got not enough time to publish it (and eventually send pull request). Here is my critical functions, adapted from @wiwofone work.

    public function calcInterval($time = 1, $factor = 2.5, $oldinterval=1)
    {
        if ($time < 1) {
            throw new RangeException('The number of repetitions must be 1 or higher');
        }  
        if ($time == 1) {
            $interval = 1;
        } elseif ($time == 2) {
            $interval = 6;
        } else {
            $interval = $oldinterval * $factor;
        }
        return ceil($interval);
    }

and

    public function calcNewFactor($oldFactor = 2.5, $quality = 4)
    {
        if ($quality > 5 || $quality < 0) {
            throw new RangeException('Quality must be between 0 and 5');
        }

        $newFactor = $oldFactor+(0.1-(5-$quality)*(0.08+(5-$quality)*0.02));
        $fac=max($newFactor, 1.3);
        return $fac; // 1.3 < factor 
    }

I read carefully your comment, and I think the critical point is there _I don't see any recursive call in nextInterval. The reason is that it should not be computed in a recursive fashion. The current EF, or EF' as you call it, does only concern the relation between the old interval and the new one. This is why I think the original description of the SM2 can be misleading to this aspect. If you are still not convinced, think about how I(n) increases with a EF going from 2.5 to 2.8 with - let's say- n=8. Then the new interval is around 6 times higher than the previous one, this is not practical at all. Because from 1 to 7 the interval are successively multiplied by 2.8 instead of 2.5, then multiplied a last time with 2.8. The ratio of (I(n)/I(n-1) is computed with (2.8/2.5)^7 * 2.8 = 6.2.

[gquemener]

I'm a bit confused,

There must be an error in my understanding of the algorithm. Here's a comparison between your solution (no_recursive.php) and the current one (recursive.php) with the result in comment at the end of each file.

https://gist.github.com/gquemener/de9daa5d6891c83384e9

The interval does not increase with your solution...

[brumar]

I gave you messy explanations, please accept my sincere apologies. I like your comparison. In your example, the loops are not well placed. I think this is the reasons why the interval is not increasing, but I am not sure. To properly test what you want, you should better have your loop on quality ($q) placed before your loop on $n. Thus, you can generate successive intervals after 11 consecutives answer with the same quality given.

[gquemener]

I've updated the comparison gist, I think results are corrects now

[brumar]

Cool. Few comments :
(1)why

$newInterval = calcInterval($n, $oldFactor, $oldInterval);
$newFactor = calcNewFactor($oldFactor, $q);

and not

$newFactor = calcNewFactor($oldFactor, $q);
$newInterval = calcInterval($n, $newFactor , $oldInterval);

(2)The recursive one gives smaller intervals because the factor can't reach an higher value than 2.5. This is not a big problem, but as I stated in my first comment, I believe this is a misinterpretation of the SM2. http://www.supermemo.com/english/ol/sm2.htm : according to my understanding, this upper boundary is only related to the very first SM algorithm.

[gquemener]

(1) Actually the lines are:

        $oldInterval = calcInterval($n, $oldFactor, $oldInterval);
        $oldFactor = calcNewFactor($oldFactor, $q);

This is because, AFAIU, the newly calculated factor will only be used in the next interval computation (and not the current one). Am I wrong? Can you post an usage example if so please?

(2) Indeed, plus the distribution of intervals is wider with your solution (with the recursive solution, answering 1 or 2 has the same result on the interval computation, same for answering 4 or 5).

[brumar]

(1) Oh indeed. Sorry. Concerning the updating process, maybe we are not on the same page. According to me, aside the backtracking of EF, the idea of the main process is : subject answer → update Interval accordingly. Maybe I missed something, but reading your code, it seems that the interval is updated not with the current answer given but the previous one. It does not makes sense from a user perspective. But maybe I missed something.

(2) Yes.

(3) I forgot to mention something. I don't remember for @wiwofone implementation but to respect strict SM2, you should reset interval to the starting ones (1 then 6) when answer is below 4. Check the link I sent if you want to be sure. Personally, despite I think interval reset is a good idea, I think SM2 is a bit rough to consider that all answer below 4 force the rehearsal cycle to start over. IMHO, only 3 values of $q should be offered to the user : 0,3,4,5 for (blackout,hard,ok,easy). And no reset for the answer 3, only for 0. That's how anki proceed, and I think it's more clear for the user this way.

[gquemener]

(1) I see, indeed it makes more sense to use current question evaluation to evalute the next question interval! I've updated the gist.

(3) I'll think about the interval reseting. In fact, the number of values is something i don't understand here. I've installed Anki, and it only proposes me 3 grades to evaluate my answers : Review (<1d), Correct (<10m) and Easy (4d). I don't see any reference to these grades in the SM-2 link you've provided. I guess this is the "modified" part in Anki of the SM-2 algorithm you mentionned but I don't find any documentation about it (apart from http://ankisrs.net/docs/manual.html#learning but I can't make any correlation between it and SM-2).

I don't see how the interval written in the buttons could be respected either, because they will always be greater than 1 (day) and never be 4 (days), if it respects SM-2. Could you enlight me about that too please?

[brumar]

Sorry if there is any errors or unclear elements in my answer. I have to hurry. I may get back to you in the evening to explain further some points if you need so.

The behavior of Anki on new items and reseted items is special and do not strictly follow SM2. I won't be sure if I try to describe it, the best is to see by yourself how it works. For the latter rehearsal cycles, however, I can ensure you that it's more in line with the original SM2 proposition with a 4 buttons UI roughly related to the 0,2,3,5 possible qualities values I mentioned before and with no reset for 2. I know I mentioned 0,3,4,5 later, but it seems incorrect after reviewing the anki code source. _nextinterval in anki is harder to read than I remember, there is some subtleties with the delay (i.e adapt interval computations when you rehearse too late or too early I think, not sure). Anyway, in normal mode, _next interval basically multiply the old interval by the easiness factor. But have a look on the factor update function which is way more clear.

    def updateFactor(self, card, ease):
        "Update CARD's factor based on EASE."
        card.lastFactor = card.factor
        if not card.reps:
            # card is new, inherit beginning factor
            card.factor = self.averageFactor
        if card.successive and not self.cardIsBeingLearnt(card):
            if ease == 1:
                card.factor -= 0.20
            elif ease == 2:
                card.factor -= 0.15
        if ease == 4:
            card.factor += 0.10
        card.factor = max(1.3, card.factor)

I did the math one day, and if I remember well, this factor update is roughly equivalent in SM2 with what happens when $q equals to 2,3 or 5. So "ease" should be like $q-1 .

I hope this helps. Bruno

[rizerzero]

Hello guys, Thank you all for sharing all these information, that was helpful! I wanted to know if you guys had a final updated implementation after this discussion and suggestion from @brumar .

Thank again guys 😅