A mathematical optimization framework for expansion draft decision making and analysis
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
Abstract In this paper, we present and analyze a mathematical programming approach to expansion draft optimization in the context of the 2017 NHL expansion draft involving the Vegas Golden Knights, noting that this approach can be generalized to future NHL expansions and to those in other sports leagues. In particular, we present a novel mathematical optimization approach, consisting of two models, to optimize expansion draft protection and selection decisions made by the various teams. We use this approach to investigate a number of expansion draft scenarios, including the impact of “collaboration” between existing teams, the trade-off between team performance and salary cap flexibility, as well as opportunities for Vegas to take advantage of side agreements in a “leverage” experiment. Finally, we compare the output of our approach to what actually happened in the expansion draft, noting both similarities and discrepancies between our solutions and the actual outcomes. Overall, we believe our framework serves as a promising foundation for future expansion draft research and decision-making in hockey and in other sports.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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