Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 78 references

Longitudinal Bayesian networks for assessing team performance in the National Basketball Association

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A dynamic Bayesian network with an autoregressive minutes link is the preferred model for 76ers performance, beating static and hidden-Markov alternatives.

desk verdict Clean applied Bayesian package of standard models; the dynamic-LBN preference rests on a narrow 80-unit WAIC margin with no uncertainty, and the predictions are in-sample. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09824 v1 pith:WP7HWOD7 submitted 2026-08-10 stat.AP

Gabriel Calvo , Francisco Palmí-Perales , Carmen Armero , Virgilio Gómez-Rubio This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.AP
keywords BayesiannetworkslongitudinaldatadynamichiddenMarkovmodelssportsanalyticsNBApredictionzero-inflatedPoisson
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a Bayesian graphical framework for analysing basketball team performance across a season, treating player participation, minutes played, fouls drawn, and shots attempted and made as random variables in a longitudinal Bayesian network. Three baseline models are compared: a static network, a dynamic network with an autoregressive link between a player's minutes in consecutive games, and a dynamic network with a latent team-level hot/cold state. On the Philadelphia 76ers' 2005–06 season, the autoregressive dynamic model attains the lowest WAIC, and the selected model yields posterior predictive distributions for points and minutes at the player level. The contribution is a reusable modelling recipe for longitudinal team-sport data, not a universal claim about which temporal structure is best.

What carries the argument

The central object is the longitudinal Bayesian network: a directed acyclic graph whose nodes are random variables indexed by game, with a joint distribution factorised as local conditional models. The load-bearing mechanism is the dynamic LBN's minutes submodel, a zero-inflated Poisson for minutes played whose log mean is $\log \mu^{(M)}_{ij} = \mu^{(M)}_0 + \beta^{(+)}_M \log(1+y^{(M)}_{i,j-1}) + b^{(M)}_i$, following the standard log-linear Poisson autoregressive specification for count time series. This single autoregressive edge between consecutive games, together with player random effects, is what distinguishes the preferred model; the hidden-Markov alternative instead shifts the logit of shooting success probabilities through a latent team state $Z_j \in \{C,H\}$.

What would settle it

A held-out predictive evaluation across multiple teams or seasons comparing the dynamic LBN with a version that uses a player-specific or nonlinear function of previous minutes; if the simple AR(1) term no longer improves out-of-sample scores (e.g., WAIC on a test season), the claim that the autoregressive minutes model is preferred would be refuted. A direct posterior predictive check on the 76ers, simulating game point totals and comparing them to actual outcomes, would also show whether the WAIC gain translates into calibrated predictions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, for the 76ers data, a longitudinal Bayesian network in which minutes played in game $j$ depend on minutes played in game $j-1$ through $\log(1+y^{(M)}_{i,j-1})$ provides better out-of-sample predictive performance than a static network and than a hidden-Markov network with a latent team hot/cold state. The dynamic LBN reports WAIC 21194.13 versus 21274.69 for the static model and 21274.60 for the hidden-Markov model. The authors take this as evidence that a simple autoregressive carryover captures meaningful temporal dependence in player workload, and they use the selected model to compute conditional predictions for individual players, such as the distribution of points scored when playing more than 30 minutes or the distribution of minutes played when scoring 10 or fewer points.

Load-bearing premise

The DAG structure and the temporal forms (log(1+previous minutes) autoregression and team-level hot/cold state) are fixed by the researcher rather than learned from the data, so the model ranking and predictions could change if the true dependence structure differs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For longitudinal team-sport data where player workload carries over between games, the autoregressive minutes specification provides a better predictive baseline than a static network.
  • The fitted dynamic LBN can be queried for conditional posterior predictive distributions, enabling questions such as how many points a player scores if he plays more than 30 minutes, or how many minutes he plays if he scores fewer than 10 points.
  • The hidden-Markov LBN offers a Bayesian implementation of the team-level hot-hand effect, and while it did not win on this dataset, the model is available as a component for richer latent-state analyses.
  • The framework's modular structure supports adding covariates, new nodes, and extending to other leagues or seasons without changing the core inferential machinery.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The tiny WAIC gap between the hidden-Markov and static models (21274.60 vs 21274.69) suggests the team-level hot/cold state adds little for this team and season; streakiness may operate at the player level or in different outcome variables, so this comparison should not be read as strong evidence against hot-hand effects in general.
  • The estimated autoregressive coefficient is small (mean 0.097 with 95% interval roughly 0.076–0.119), so the practical improvement in prediction may be modest; the WAIC advantage could be specific to the 76ers' workload patterns and should be re-tested on other teams or seasons.
  • Because the network structure is fixed rather than learned, the same framework could be used to compare alternative researcher-specified DAGs against the authors' three baselines, for example a model with player-specific carryover or with minutes feeding back into shot efficiency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Bayesian graphical modeling framework for longitudinal analysis of NBA player-game data. Three models are specified: a static longitudinal Bayesian network (LBN), a dynamic LBN with a first-order autoregressive structure on minutes played, and a hidden Markov LBN with a team-level hot/cold latent state affecting shot success. The models are fitted to the Philadelphia 76ers' 2005-06 season with NIMBLE, and model selection via WAIC selects the dynamic LBN. The paper then reports posterior summaries for shooting success, shot attempts, minutes, and participation, and illustrates conditional posterior predictive distributions for points and minutes for two players. The GitHub repository provides code for reproduction.

Significance. If the model-selection and predictive claims hold, the paper offers a useful applied template for multivariate longitudinal sports data, with explicit likelihoods and priors that are easy to adapt. The main strengths are the full and internally consistent specification of the three models, the reproducible code, and the honest statement of limitations, including the fixed (not learned) network structure. The statistical novelty is modest: the components—Bayesian networks, Poisson regression, random effects, and hidden Markov states—are established, but the longitudinal graphical synthesis for basketball performance is a reasonable applied contribution. The results about shot-success probabilities and the difference between Iverson and Korver are plausible, but the paper's key model-selection conclusion is not yet rigorously supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1, Table 2] The central claim that the dynamic LBN is preferred rests entirely on a single set of WAIC values with no measure of uncertainty. The dynamic model value is 21194.13 versus 21274.69 for the static model and 21274.60 for the hidden Markov model; the difference of about 80 units, when spread over roughly 82 games times 13 players, corresponds to only about 0.07-0.08 units in average per-observation log predictive density. WAIC is a full-data approximation to out-of-sample predictive performance, and for hierarchical or latent-variable models the computation of the pointwise predictive density can affect the value. The paper should report WAIC standard errors or comparisons under alternative pointwise predictive density treatments, and ideally support the ranking with k-fold or temporal cross-validation, before conditioning the entire remaining analysis on the dynamic model. The near-identical values for the static and hidden Markov models (difference 0.09) also suggest the latent state adds essentially nothing, which should be discussed.
  2. [Section 5.3, Eq. (16), Figures 5-6] The predictive analysis is entirely in-sample. Equation (16) defines the posterior predictive distribution for a new hypothetical match conditional on the observed data, and Figures 5 and 6 show conditional predictive distributions computed from the same 82-game season used to estimate and select the model. The Introduction states the objective of predicting points in the next match, but no holdout evaluation is provided. Please evaluate the predictive performance on held-out games (for example, a last-k-games temporal holdout or leave-one-game-out) and report calibration and accuracy measures such as interval coverage, RMSE, or ranked probability scores for points and minutes. Without this, the phrase 'predictive' is used in a purely conditional-reconstruction sense rather than a forecasting sense.
  3. [Section 4.2 vs Section 4.3, Table 2] The model comparison confounds two separate modeling choices. The dynamic LBN adds autoregressive minutes but has no latent state, while the hidden Markov LBN adds a team-level hot/cold state but keeps the static minutes structure. In Section 4.3 the authors state that minutes, fouls, and attempts follow the same relationships as in the static network. Thus the better WAIC of the dynamic LBN may be due entirely to the autoregressive minutes component, and it does not establish that dynamic time dependence in general is preferred. A model that includes both the autoregressive minutes structure and the hidden state should be fitted and compared before drawing conclusions about the relative merits of the two dynamic mechanisms.
  4. [Section 5, MCMC details] No convergence diagnostics or effective sample sizes are reported. The paper states that three chains of 1,000,000 iterations were run with a 500,000 burn-in and thinning of 500, leaving 1,000 retained iterations per chain and 3,000 total. All posterior summaries, WAIC values, and predictive distributions depend on these samples. Please report R-hat statistics and effective sample sizes for the main parameters, or trace plots for representative parameters, to demonstrate that the posterior approximations are reliable despite the rather aggressive thinning.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The phrase 'whether or nor the player participates' should be 'whether or not the player participates'.
  2. [Section 5] The package is referred to as 'NIMBLER'; the correct name is NIMBLE (de Valpine et al., 2017). The spacing in 'W AIC' is also inconsistent with the standard notation 'WAIC'.
  3. [Section 5.2, Table 5] The row label β_F^(Tk) in Table 5 is misleading for k=2,3, where the coefficient is associated with minutes played, not fouls. The text in the paragraph after Table 5 also refers to β_F^(T2) and β_F^(T3); these should be β_M^(T2) and β_M^(T3).
  4. [Section 4.3] The transition probabilities q_CH and q_HC and the posterior distribution of the latent states are not reported. Since the hidden Markov model is one of the three main proposals, at least a summary of the inferred transition matrix or the posterior probability of being in the hot state across games would help assess the model.
  5. [Section 6] There is a typo: 'succesive' should be 'successive'. Also, the player name 'Dalembert' is spelled 'Dalmebert' in the discussion of Table 7.
  6. [Section 2] The data source is described as NBAstuffer accessed in 2022, but the data are not archived. For reproducibility, consider depositing the cleaned player-game dataset in a permanent repository alongside the code.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the WAIC model comparison and posterior predictive outputs are computed from the data under explicitly stated model assumptions, and no target result is defined in terms of its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical model comparison: the dynamic LBN has the lowest WAIC (21194.13) among the three fitted models (Table 2). This quantity is computed from the observed 76ers data under the stated conditional distributions, not derived from an equation that already encodes the comparison. The autoregressive minutes model in equation (14) is a fitted component whose posterior coefficient is reported in Table 6, and nothing in the model definition forces the WAIC ranking. The hidden Markov structure is motivated by Calvo et al. (2025), a self-citation, but the preferred model is the autoregressive dynamic LBN, not the hidden Markov model, and the HMM's WAIC (21274.60) is essentially equal to the static model's (21274.69), so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the main result. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section 6 that the network structure is assumed by the researcher rather than learned; that is a modeling limitation, not a circularity. The posterior predictive distributions in Figures 5 and 6 are in-sample predictive summaries from the fitted posterior distribution, not hidden restatements of the model inputs. Concerns about WAIC uncertainty and the absence of true out-of-sample validation are substantive correctness or robustness issues, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central empirical findings depend on a large set of parameters fitted to the 76ers data (Tables 3-7), on a fixed DAG structure, and on several standard modeling assumptions. The autoregressive and hidden-Markov choices are specific structural commitments made by the authors rather than derived from data, so they are the main axioms the model comparisons rely on.

free parameters (6)
  • Autoregressive coefficient beta_M^+ (Eq. 14) = 0.097 (posterior mean; 95% CI 0.076, 0.119)
    Central temporal parameter for the dynamic LBN; the model preference over static depends on this coefficient being positive and informative.
  • Player participation probabilities p_i (Bernoulli means) = 0.273 to 0.988 across 13 players (Table 7)
    Per-player probability of appearing in a game; drives zero-inflation in all downstream count nodes.
  • Minutes baseline mu_0^M and player SD sigma_M = 2.616 (mu_0^M); 0.688 (sigma_M) (Table 6)
    Parameters of the minutes submodel, determining baseline minute rates and heterogeneity.
  • Foul-to-free-throw coefficient beta_F^(T1) = 0.227 (Table 5)
    Link between fouls drawn and free-throw attempts; part of the shot-attempt submodel.
  • Three-point attempt intercept beta_0^(T3) = -5.900 (Table 5)
    Large negative intercept; partly determines the low three-point attempt counts for big men.
  • Shot success logit coefficients beta^(Ck) (Eq. 12) = Tables 3 and 4, e.g., beta_0^(C2)=0.233, beta_H^(C2)=0.067
    Fitted parameters governing made-shot probabilities; directly control posterior predictive point totals.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The DAG parent sets are correct and fixed a priori; no structure learning is performed.
    Section 6 states the network structure is assumed specified by the researcher; all inferences are conditional on this graph.
  • domain assumption Count variables (minutes, fouls, attempts) are Poisson-distributed given participation; minutes, which is continuous in the raw data, is treated as a count.
    Equipment (7)-(10) use zero-inflated Poisson models, but Table 1 lists fractional minutes, so the Poisson assumption is a discrete approximation with no justification.
  • domain assumption Random effects are independent mean-zero normals with common variance per submodel.
    Assumed in Eqs. (7)-(12); a standard GLMM assumption that is not checked for fit or outliers.
  • ad hoc to paper Temporal dependence is first-order: minutes at game j depend on game j-1 via log(1+minutes), and the latent state is a first-order Markov chain.
    Imposed model structure in Eqs. (13)-(14) and Section 4.3; not derived from data or compared with higher-order or nonlinear alternatives.
  • ad hoc to paper An ordering constraint beta_C0 < beta_H0 identifies the cold and hot states in the HMM.
    Section 4.3 imposes this constraint to avoid label switching, which is a modeling choice rather than a consequence of the data generating process.
  • domain assumption Weakly informative priors N(0,10^2) and U(0,100) do not materially influence posterior inference.
    Section 4.1.3 elicits these priors; the paper does not report sensitivity analyses to verify that the results are robust to prior specification.
invented entities (1)
  • Team-level latent hot/cold state Z_j
    purpose: Capture a time-varying team-wide streakiness that modifies all players' shot success probabilities in game j.
    The HMM includes a two-state Markov chain (Eq. 15) with higher success in the hot state; WAIC shows no improvement over the static model (21274.60 vs 21274.69), so the entity has no empirical support in this dataset and there is no external falsifiable prediction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Longitudinal Bayesian networks for assessing team performance in the National Basketball Association." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WP7HWOD7

@misc{pith2026260809824,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Longitudinal Bayesian networks for assessing team performance in the National Basketball Association},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WP7HWOD7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09824}
}
read the original abstract

Assessing the performance of a basketball team requires the consideration of multiple sources of information. In recent years, the volume and the quality of data generated in sport has increased considerably, particularly in basketball. In this work, we propose a Bayesian graphical modelling framework for the longitudinal analysis of basketball team performance. The framework is based on Bayesian networks that explicitly represent the nodes, that is, the random variables of interest, as longitudinal stochastic processes. We propose three baseline longitudinal models: a static Bayesian network, a dynamic Bayesian network with an autoregressive structure between successive games, and a dynamic Bayesian network based on a hidden Markov structure. We illustrate the proposed framework through a real-world sports analytics case study involving the Philadelphia 76ers of the National Basketball Association (NBA) during the 2005--06 season. The analysis includes player participation, minutes played, fouls drawn, and one-, two-, and three-point shots attempted and made.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09824 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. DAG for the scoring LBN of basketball player i-th in the j-th basket [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. DAG for the random variables of the Dynamic LBN of a basketball [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. DAG for the hidden Markov dynamic LBN of a basketball player [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Approximate posterior distributions of the success probabilities for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Approximate predictive distribution of the total number of points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Approximate predictive distribution of the total number of minutes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 77 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    NBA Play-by-Play Data , year =

    work page

  2. [2]

    2002 , publisher=

    Analysis of longitudinal data , author=. 2002 , publisher=

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , volume=

    Modeling player and team performance in basketball , author=. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , volume=

    Spatio-temporal analysis of team sports , author=. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    2013 , publisher=

    Sports analytics: A guide for coaches, managers, and other decision makers , author=. 2013 , publisher=

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , volume=

    Big ideas in sports analytics and statistical tools for their investigation , author=. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Introduction to

    Kulkarni, Vidyadhar G , volume=. Introduction to. 2011 , publisher=

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    1993 , publisher=

    Tools for statistical inference , author=. 1993 , publisher=

    work page 1993

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Application of

    Jianjiang, Zheng and Yan, Liu , booktitle=. Application of. 2022 , organization=

    2022

  2. [10]

    Bayesian networks in healthcare:

    Kyrimi, Evangelia and Dube, Kudakwashe and Fenton, Norman and Fahmi, Ali and Neves, Mariana Raniere and Marsh, William and McLachlan, Scott , journal=. Bayesian networks in healthcare:. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  3. [11]

    Bayesian

    Hu, Yi and Meng, Qingmin and Zhu, Jia , booktitle=. Bayesian. 2019 , organization=

    2019

  4. [12]

    Bayesian

    Kote, Nelda and Biba, Marenglen and Canaj, Elena , journal=. Bayesian

  5. [13]

    Reusability of

    Babakov, Nikolay and Sivaprasad, Adarsa and Reiter, Ehud and Bugar. Reusability of. Applied Intelligence , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  6. [14]

    Understanding predictive information criteria for

    Gelman, Andrew and Hwang, Jessica and Vehtari, Aki , journal=. Understanding predictive information criteria for. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  7. [15]

    Asymptotic equivalence of

    Watanabe, Sumio , journal=. Asymptotic equivalence of

  8. [16]

    Programming with models: writing statistical algorithms for general model structures with

    de Valpine, Perry and Turek, Daniel and Paciorek, Christopher J and Anderson-Bergman, Clifford and Lang, Duncan Temple and Bodik, Rastislav , journal=. Programming with models: writing statistical algorithms for general model structures with. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  9. [17]

    Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003) , editor =

    Plummer, Martyn , title =. Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003) , editor =. 2003 , url =

    2003

  10. [18]

    Bayesian networks and

    Conrady, Stefan and Jouffe, Lionel , volume=. Bayesian networks and. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  11. [19]

    Andersen, Stig K and Olesen, Kristian G and Jensen, Finn Verner and Jensen, Frank , booktitle=

  12. [20]

    User Manual

    Genie modeler , author=. User Manual. Available online: https://support. bayesfusion. com/docs/(accessed on 21 October 2019) , volume=

    2019

  13. [21]

    Patil, Anand and Huard, David and Fonnesbeck, Christopher J , journal=

  14. [22]

    2016 , publisher=

    Luttinen, Jaakko , journal=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  15. [23]

    Ankan, Ankur and Textor, Johannes , journal=. pgmpy:

  16. [24]

    Pittavino, Marta and Lewis, Fraser and Furrer, Reinhard , journal=. abn: an

  17. [25]

    network , volume=

    Package ‘deal’ , author=. network , volume=

  18. [26]

    Bayesian network structure learning, parameter learning and inference, R package version , volume=

    Package ‘bnlearn’ , author=. Bayesian network structure learning, parameter learning and inference, R package version , volume=

  19. [27]

    Log-linear

    Fokianos, Konstantinos and Tj. Log-linear. Journal of multivariate analysis , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  20. [28]

    Microbiome , year =

    Lugo-Martinez, Jose and Ruiz-Perez, Daniel and Narasimhan, Giri and Bar-Joseph, Ziv , title =. Microbiome , year =

  21. [29]

    and Rubin, Mikael and Papini, Santiago and Telch, Michael J

    Cassidy, Galen P. and Rubin, Mikael and Papini, Santiago and Telch, Michael J. , title =. Clinical Psychological Science , year =

  22. [30]

    Frontiers in Public Health , year =

    Begashaw, Getnet Bogale and Zewotir, Temesgen and Fenta, Haile Mekonnen , title =. Frontiers in Public Health , year =

  23. [31]

    Biometrics , pages=

    Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data , author=. Biometrics , pages=. 1990 , publisher=

    1990

  24. [32]

    Learning dynamic

    Ghahramani, Zoubin , booktitle=. Learning dynamic. 1997 , publisher=

    1997

  25. [33]

    Statistical Modelling , volume=

    A regularized hidden. Statistical Modelling , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  26. [34]

    Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , volume=

    Markov switching modelling of shooting performance variability and teammate interactions in basketball , author=. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  27. [35]

    Detecting the hot hand:

    Sun, Yanlong , booktitle=. Detecting the hot hand:

  28. [36]

    Football Result Prediction with Bayesian Network in Spanish League-Barcelona Team ,year=

    Farzin Owramipur and Farzin Owramipur and Parinaz Eskandarian and Parinaz Eskandarian and Faezeh Sadat Mozneb and Faezeh Sadat Mozneb , doi=. Football Result Prediction with Bayesian Network in Spanish League-Barcelona Team ,year=

  29. [37]

    Predicting Football Matches Results using Bayesian Networks for English Premier League (EPL) , year=

    Nazim Razali and Nazim Razali and Aida Mustapha and Aida Mustapha and Faiz Ahmad Yatim and Faiz Ahmad Yatim and Roziah Aziz and Ruhaya Ab Aziz , doi=. Predicting Football Matches Results using Bayesian Networks for English Premier League (EPL) , year=

  30. [38]

    2012 ,author=

    Pi-football: A. 2012 ,author=. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2012.07.008 ,pmid=

    2012 doi

  31. [39]

    D’Urso, Pierpalo and De Giovanni, Livia and Vitale, Vincenzina , journal=. A. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  32. [40]

    2020 International Conference on Image, Video Processing and Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Bayesian network learning for winning structure and losing structure in basketball games , author=. 2020 International Conference on Image, Video Processing and Artificial Intelligence , volume=. 2020 , organization=

    2020

  33. [41]

    Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports , volume=

    Bayesian statistics meets sports: a comprehensive review , author=. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  34. [42]

    Can the hot hand phenomenon be modelled?

    Calvo, Gabriel and Armero, Carmen and Spezia, Luigi , journal=. Can the hot hand phenomenon be modelled?. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  35. [43]

    The American Statistician , year=

    R-squared for Bayesian regression models , author=. The American Statistician , year=

  36. [44]

    Zero-inflated

    Lambert, Diane , journal=. Zero-inflated. 1992 , publisher=

    1992

  37. [45]

    Accident Analysis & Prevention , volume=

    Stated preference analysis of autonomous vehicle among bicyclists and pedestrians in Pittsburgh using Bayesian Networks , author=. Accident Analysis & Prevention , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  38. [46]

    Semi-autonomous vehicle motor insurance: A

    Sheehan, Barry and Murphy, Finbarr and Ryan, Cian and Mullins, Martin and Liu, Hai Yue , journal=. Semi-autonomous vehicle motor insurance: A. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  39. [47]

    A driver fatigue recognition model based on information fusion and dynamic

    Yang, Guosheng and Lin, Yingzi and Bhattacharya, Prabir , journal=. A driver fatigue recognition model based on information fusion and dynamic. 2010 , publisher=

    2010

  40. [48]

    Driver fatigue evaluation model with integration of multi-indicators based on dynamic

    He, Qichang and Li, Wei and Fan, Xiumin and Fei, Zhimin , journal=. Driver fatigue evaluation model with integration of multi-indicators based on dynamic. 2015 , publisher=

    2015

  41. [49]

    The analysis of driver's behavioral tendency under different emotional states based on a

    Liu, Ya-Qi and Wang, Xiao-Yuan , journal=. The analysis of driver's behavioral tendency under different emotional states based on a. 2020 , publisher=

    2020

  42. [50]

    Examining

    Peng, Yichuan and Cheng, Leyi and Jiang, Yuming and Zhu, Shengxue , journal=. Examining. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  43. [51]

    Driving risk status prediction using

    Yan, Lixin and Huang, Zhen and Zhang, Yishi and Zhang, Liyan and Zhu, Dunyao and Ran, Bin , journal=. Driving risk status prediction using. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  44. [52]

    A data-driven

    Joo, Yang-Jun and Kho, Seung-Young and Kim, Dong-Kyu and Park, Ho-Chul , journal=. A data-driven. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  45. [53]

    Automotive cybersecurity vulnerability assessment using the common vulnerability scoring system and

    Wang, Yinghui and Yu, Bin and Yu, Haiyang and Xiao, Lingyun and Ji, Haojie and Zhao, Yanan , journal=. Automotive cybersecurity vulnerability assessment using the common vulnerability scoring system and. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  46. [54]

    2023 IEEE 6th International Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR) , pages=

    Bayesian Belief Network Analysis on Self-Driving Cars , author=. 2023 IEEE 6th International Conference on Multimedia Information Processing and Retrieval (MIPR) , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  47. [55]

    Health monitoring system for autonomous vehicles using dynamic

    Gomes, Iago Pacheco and Wolf, Denis Fernando , journal=. Health monitoring system for autonomous vehicles using dynamic. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  48. [56]

    Scientific reports , volume=

    Potential risk assessment for safe driving of autonomous vehicles under occluded vision , author=. Scientific reports , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  49. [57]

    Risk level assessment for rear-end collision with

    Russo, Jean-Nicola and Sproesser, Thomas and Drouhin, Fr. Risk level assessment for rear-end collision with. IFAC-PapersOnLine , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  50. [58]

    Vehicle classification system based on dynamic

    Liu, YuQiang and Wang, Kunfeng , booktitle=. Vehicle classification system based on dynamic. 2014 , organization=

    2014

  51. [59]

    Kafai, Mehran and Bhanu, Bir , journal=. Dynamic. 2011 , publisher=

    2011

  52. [60]

    Vehicle trajectory prediction based on

    Ye, Ning and Zhang, Yingya and Wang, Ruchuan and Malekian, Reza , journal=. Vehicle trajectory prediction based on. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  53. [61]

    Clustering driver behavior using dynamic time warping and hidden

    Yao, Ying and Zhao, Xiaohua and Wu, Yiping and Zhang, Yunlong and Rong, Jian , journal=. Clustering driver behavior using dynamic time warping and hidden. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  54. [62]

    Driver behaviour profiling using dynamic

    Obuhuma, James I and Okoyo, Henry O and McOyowo, Sylvester O , journal=. Driver behaviour profiling using dynamic. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  55. [63]

    Transportation research part C: emerging technologies , volume=

    Lane changing intention recognition based on speech recognition models , author=. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  56. [64]

    Driver intention prediction using model-added

    Song, Ruitao , journal=. Driver intention prediction using model-added. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  57. [65]

    Probabilistic intention prediction and trajectory generation based on dynamic

    He, Ganglei and Li, Xin and Lv, Ying and Gao, Bingzhao and Chen, Hong , booktitle=. Probabilistic intention prediction and trajectory generation based on dynamic. 2019 , organization=

    2019

  58. [66]

    Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems , pages=

    Dynamic and intelligent control of autonomous vehicles for highway on-ramp merge , author=. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems , pages=

  59. [67]

    2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages=

    Interaction-aware probabilistic behavior prediction in urban environments , author=. 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , pages=. 2018 , organization=

    2018

  60. [68]

    Vehicle trajectory prediction considering driver uncertainty and vehicle dynamics based on dynamic

    Jiang, Yuande and Zhu, Bing and Yang, Shun and Zhao, Jian and Deng, Weiwen , journal=. Vehicle trajectory prediction considering driver uncertainty and vehicle dynamics based on dynamic. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  61. [69]

    Forbes, Jeff and Huang, Timothy and Kanazawa, Keiji and Russell, Stuart , booktitle=. The

  62. [70]

    IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , volume=

    Quantification of uncertainty and its applications to complex domain for autonomous vehicles perception system , author=. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

    2023

  63. [71]

    A dynamic

    Li, Junxiang and Dai, Bin and Li, Xiaohui and Xu, Xin and Liu, Daxue , journal=. A dynamic. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  64. [72]

    Diestel, R. , isbn=. Graph. 2017 , publisher=

    2017

  65. [73]

    Holmes and Lakhmi C

    Dawn E. Holmes and Lakhmi C. Jain , editor =. Introduction to Bayesian Networks , booktitle =

  66. [74]

    Bayesian Networks, Introduction and Practical Applications

    Wiegerinck, Wim and Burgers, Willem and Kappen, Bert. Bayesian Networks, Introduction and Practical Applications. Handbook on Neural Information Processing. 2013

    2013

  67. [75]

    Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference , year =

    Judea Pearl , editor =. Probabilistic Reasoning in Intelligent Systems: Networks of Plausible Inference , year =

  68. [76]

    Pearl and S

    J. Pearl and S. Russell , booktitle =. Bayesian Networks. Arbib, M , year =

  69. [77]

    Cai, Baigen and Liu, Yonghong and Liu, Zengkai and Chang, Yuanjiang and Jiang, Lei , title =

  70. [78]

    2001 , author =

    Chapter 57 -. 2001 , author =

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.