car1_strategy float64 | car2_strategy float64 | rival_response_time float64 | tyre_delta float64 | track_position_gap float64 | label_cascade int64 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.2 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.7 | 0 |
0.28 | 0.3 | 0.36 | 0.4 | 0.62 | 0 |
0.36 | 0.38 | 0.44 | 0.46 | 0.55 | 0 |
0.42 | 0.45 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 0.48 | 0 |
0.55 | 0.58 | 0.62 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 1 |
0.6 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.66 | 0.34 | 1 |
0.66 | 0.7 | 0.74 | 0.72 | 0.28 | 1 |
0.72 | 0.76 | 0.8 | 0.78 | 0.22 | 1 |
0.58 | 0.62 | 0.7 | 0.68 | 0.32 | 1 |
F1 TeamStrategy–Coupling–RivalResponse–TyreDelta–Gap Cascade
A five-node coupling model for team-level strategic collapse in Formula 1.
This repository models how two-car strategy alignment, rival response speed, tyre delta, and track position gap interact to produce non-linear outcome cascades.
It shifts analysis from single-car optimisation to multi-agent interaction geometry.
What This Repo Demonstrates
You can:
• Score a two-car strategic state for cascade risk
• Identify interaction drivers of team-level instability
• Compare coordinated vs split strategies
• Estimate distance to strategic collapse boundary
• Export structured stability reports
The dataset is synthetic.
It demonstrates the geometry of multi-agent instability.
Core Five-Node Set
• car1_strategy
• car2_strategy
• rival_response_time
• tyre_delta
• track_position_gap
This is a coupled decision system.
The model captures how:
Aligned aggressive strategies → increased coupling risk
Fast rival response → compressed decision windows
Tyre delta mismatch → pace asymmetry
Small track position gaps → amplified timing consequences
Collapse emerges from interaction across both cars and rivals.
Prediction Target
label_cascade
• 0 = Stable team strategy state
• 1 = Team-level cascade region reached
A cascade represents:
Loss of both cars’ track position
Undercut chain amplification
Intra-team interference
Strategic dead-end state
Row Structure
Each row is a normalized race snapshot (0.0–1.0 scale).
car1_strategy
Higher values indicate aggressive or delayed commitment
car2_strategy
Higher values indicate similar commitment increasing coupling
rival_response_time
Higher values indicate faster competitive reaction
tyre_delta
Higher values indicate larger tyre performance mismatch
track_position_gap
Lower values indicate tighter pack compression
Use Cases
Two-Car Strategy Design
Evaluate whether to split or align pit windows.
Rival Reaction Analysis
Quantify risk under rapid competitor response.
Multi-Agent Boundary Mapping
Identify when team coupling creates instability.
What-If Strategic Exploration
Test small adjustments in timing or tyre choice.
Measure impact on cascade probability.
What Makes This Different
vs Single-Car Strategy Models
This models two-car interaction explicitly.
vs Deterministic Decision Trees
It evaluates instability surfaces rather than scripted branches.
vs Outcome Simulation Only
Simulation predicts finishing position.
This predicts collapse risk.
Example Output
Input Strategic State
{
"car1_strategy": 0.44,
"car2_strategy": 0.48,
"rival_response_time": 0.52,
"tyre_delta": 0.54,
"track_position_gap": 0.46
}
Risk Assessment
{
"cascade_probability": 0.41,
"risk_band": "AMBER"
}
Boundary Interpretation
If rival_response_time decreases (faster response) and track_position_gap narrows:
Cascade probability can exceed 0.75.
Distance-to-RED can be estimated via L1 / L2 perturbation norms.
Batch Testing Capability
Compare multiple team strategies:
def batch_test(strategies: list) -> list:
results = []
for s in strategies:
risk = score(s)
results.append((s, risk))
results.sort(key=lambda x: x[1]["cascade_probability"], reverse=True)
return results
Applications:
• Compare split vs aligned pit windows
• Evaluate aggressive vs conservative team play
• Rank coordinated race plans by stability margin
Exportable Stability Reports
Structured reporting supports:
• Strategy room reviews
• Pre-race documentation
• Post-race analysis
• Governance and audit trail
Example concept:
def export_report(state, risk, boundary_configs, mitigations):
report = {
"configuration": state,
"risk_assessment": risk,
"boundary_configs": boundary_configs,
"mitigations": mitigations
}
return report
Files
data/train.csv
Synthetic training data
data/tester.csv
Evaluation dataset
scorer.py
Outputs:
• accuracy
• precision
• recall
• f1
• confusion matrix
Evaluation
Run:
python scorer.py
Scope
This repository demonstrates five-node coupling geometry using synthetic data.
It does not represent calibrated team telemetry.
Small samples reveal structure.
Production-scale data determines operational exposure.
Production Direction
Production deployment enables:
• 50K–1M row telemetry-calibrated datasets
• Real-time team-level stability scoring
• Multi-car coordination monitoring
• Early warning before strategic cascade
• Integration into race engineering dashboards
License
MIT
Structural Note
This dataset identifies a measurable coupling pattern associated with systemic instability.
The sample demonstrates the geometry.
Production-scale data determines operational exposure.
Enterprise & Research Collaboration
Clarus develops production-scale coherence monitoring infrastructure for motorsport, healthcare, finance, infrastructure, and AI systems.
team@clarusinvariant.com
Instability is detectable.
Boundaries are measurable.
- Downloads last month
- 15