A generative approach to frame-level multi-competitor races
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multi-competitor races often feature complicated within-race strategies that are difficult to capture when training data on race outcome level data. Models which do not account for race-level strategy may suffer from confounded inferences and predictions. We develop a generative model for multi-competitor races which explicitly models race-level effects like drafting and separates strategy from competitor ability. The model allows one to simulate full races from any real or created starting position opening new avenues for attributing value to within-race actions and performing counter-factual analyses. This methodology is sufficiently general to apply to any track based multi-competitor races where both tracking data is available and competitor movement is well described by simultaneous forward and lateral movements. We apply this methodology to one-mile horse races using frame-level tracking data provided by the New York Racing Association (NYRA) and the New York Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association (NYTHA) for the Big Data Derby 2022 Kaggle Competition. We demonstrate how this model can yield new inferences, such as the estimation of horse-specific speed profiles and examples of posterior predictive counterfactual simulations to answer questions of interest such as starting lane impacts on race outcomes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".