ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026
Leakage-aware pre-event machine learning evaluation for horse-race prediction under temporal validation.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Horse-racing prediction was used as a case study to develop and evaluate a leakage-aware machine-learning framework based on information available after race-entry finalization and before outcomes were known. Japanese Racing Association flat-race data obtained through JRA-VAN Data Lab. and exported using TARGET frontier JV were split temporally: 2015-2022 for training, 2023-2024 for validation, and January 5, 2025 to May 10, 2026 for independent testing. The test set contained 63,910 horse-level observations from 4,556 races. Confidence intervals were estimated using 10,000 race-level bootstrap resamples. Two horse-level binary outcome labels were evaluated: a win outcome and a JRA place-rule-compatible place outcome derived from the processed field_size variable. Compared with the augmented current_full_model, the hyperparameter-matched no-theory sensitivity-analysis model matched_no_theory_model performed better for both outcomes. For the win outcome, ROC AUC was 0.7543 (95% CI: 0.7475-0.7609) for matched_no_theory_model and 0.7293 (95% CI: 0.7224-0.7362) for current_full_model. For the JRA place-rule-compatible place outcome, ROC AUC was 0.7513 (95% CI: 0.7469-0.7558) and 0.7164 (95% CI: 0.7118-0.7212), respectively. An exploratory race-level uncertainty diagnostic was evaluated separately and was not incorporated into the horse-level prediction models. These findings indicate that the evaluated theory-score block did not improve temporal test-set performance. Domain-derived feature blocks should be evaluated incrementally through leakage audits, temporal validation, feature-block ablation, and matched sensitivity analyses before deployment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.