Anki 25.05 Beta 1

Anki Beta Testing
1

Hi all,

A new beta is now available, with the headline feature being a new FSRS version. Please give it a try and let us known how you go. It contains the security fixes that were recently released in 25.02.x as well.

If you’re an FSRS user, after updating, optimizing your presets is recommended. The FSRS param count differs from previous releases, and the mobile clients will continue to use the old parameters until the mobile clients get an update, so you may see the same card be given different delays depending on the platform you review on.

10 Likes
2

image
image851×915 23.7 KB

I feel like this is kinda janky, especially the fact that I can still scroll, but scrolling only affects what’s in the background, behind this window…which isn’t really a window, actually.
@A_Blokee perhaps making a proper separate window for the simulator is better

3

I get an error when clicking Simulate.

Anki 25.05 (0aaa6383)  (ao)
Python 3.9.18 Qt 6.6.2 PyQt 6.6.1
Platform: Windows-10-10.0.26100

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "aqt.taskman", line 148, in _on_closures_pending
  File "aqt.taskman", line 88, in <lambda>
  File "aqt.operations", line 259, in wrapped_done
  File "concurrent.futures._base", line 439, in result
  File "concurrent.futures._base", line 391, in __get_result
  File "concurrent.futures.thread", line 58, in run
  File "aqt.operations", line 243, in wrapped_op
  File "aqt.deckbrowser", line 163, in get_data
  File "anki.scheduler.base", line 78, in deck_due_tree
  File "anki._backend_generated", line 376, in deck_tree
  File "anki._backend", line 161, in _run_command
pyo3_runtime.PanicException: called `Result::unwrap()` on an `Err` value: PoisonError { .. }
4

My FSRS 5 parameters produce Log loss: 0.2463, RMSE(bins): 1.59%.
If I clear the parameters field, optimize and then evaluate, I get Log loss: 0.2453, RMSE(bins): 1.71%.

I am really not sure which among FSRS 5 and FSRS 6 is better.

Another observation:
If I manually change the last parameter (w20) from 0.23 to 0.5, then RMSE improves.
Log loss: 0.2453, RMSE(bins): 1.69%.
So, FSRS 6 may perform better for my deck if the initial value of decay was closer to 0.5?

5

I can try and fix the scrolling issue.

2 Likes
6

I think simulator should have its own pop-up window, like Stats.

2 Likes
7

@L.M.Sherlock

8

Bug: even with S0 set to minimum possible values and DR=99%, the shortest interval that I get is 50 minutes

image
image701×262 8.3 KB

image

On another preset I can’t get <1d intervals at all
Just a speculation, but I think these are two separate bugs: some kind of parent deck->subdeck interaction went wrong and the calculation of intervals also went wrong

1 Like
9

fixed in

3 Likes
10

Request: Pressing Escape while the new FSRS Simulator pane is displayed should close the simulator, rather than closing the entire Options window.

2 Likes
11

Does this also mean the difficulty (D) will be different depending on which client performs a review? I’m a little worried that doing reviews of the same cards with both FSRS-6 and earlier versions will lead to inconsistent results, for example if a client using old FSRS-5 params reads a D value that was set using new FSRS-6 params.

12

Yes. Difficulty, stability and retrievability will be different

1 Like
13

image
image778×283 7.06 KB

Bug: moving cards between decks causes the review entries in Card Info to reverse. Specific to 25.05, can’t reproduce it on 25.02.4.

EDIT: apparently Luc already identified what causes it.

2 Likes