MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402934999 · doi:10.1007/s00180-024-01560-8

Can the hot hand phenomenon be modelled? A Bayesian hidden Markov approach

2024· article· en· W4402934999 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriel Calvo, Carmen Armero, Luigi Spezia

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational Statistics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesMinisterio de Educación y Formación ProfesionalFundación UniversiaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónRural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division
KeywordsBayesian probabilityVariable-order Bayesian networkHidden Markov modelPhenomenonMarkov chainComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceEconometricsBayesian inferenceMachine learningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sports data analytics has been gaining importance over recent years as an essential topic in applied statistics. Specifically, basketball has emerged as one of the iconic sports where the use and immediate collection of data have become widespread. Within this domain, the hot hand phenomenon has sparked a significant scientific controversy, with sceptics claiming its non-existence while other authors provide evidence for it. We propose a Bayesian longitudinal hidden Markov model that examines the hot hand phenomenon in consecutive shots of a basketball team, each of which can be either missed or made. We assume two states (cold or hot) in the hidden Markov chains associated with each math and model the probability of success for each shot with regard the hidden state, the random effects related the match, and the covariates. This model is applied to real data sets of three teams from the USA National Basketball Association: the Miami Heat team and the Toronto Raptors team in the 2005–2006 season, and the Chicago Bulls in the 2022–2023 season. We show that this model is a powerful tool for assessing the overall performance of a team during a game and, in particular, for quantifying the magnitude of team streaks in probabilistic terms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational StatisticsSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207