A Markov Game model for valuing player actions in ice hockey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating player actions is very important for general managers and coaches in the National Hockey League. Researchers have developed a variety of advanced statistics to assist general managers and coaches in evaluating player actions. These advanced statistics fail to account for the context in which an action occurs or to look ahead to the long-term effects of an action. I apply the Markov Game formalism to play-by-play events recorded in the National Hockey League to develop a novel approach to valuing player actions. The Markov Game formalism incorporates context and lookahead across play-by-play sequences. A dynamic programming algorithm for value iteration learns the values of Q-functions in different states of the Markov Game model. These Q-values quantify the impact of actions on goal scoring, receiving penalties, and winning games. Learning is based on a massive dataset that contains over 2.8 million events in the National Hockey League. The impact of player actions varies widely depending on the context, with possible positive and negative effects for the same action. My results show using context features and lookahead makes a substantial difference to the action impact scores. Accounting for context and lookahead also increases the information in the model. Players are ranked according to the aggregate impact of their actions, and compared with previous player metrics, such as plus-minus, total points, and salary, as well as recent advanced statistics metrics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it