Tristan Rice

Software Engineer and Student

nwHacks Machine Learning

4 Minutes 800 Words

I’ve been doing a bunch of work during my internship with Machine Learning models so I figured I take a crack at applying them to some of my personal projects. Just for fun I wanted to see what would happen if I tried to train a model on the registration, check-in and submission data for nwHacks.

I decided to use Hector, a suite of algorithms completely written in Go since that’s what most of the nwHacks tooling is written in. Took a few hours to write a pipeline that would read in the nwHacks registration data from Firebase and output it into a format that Hector supports.

Training the model and evaluating my personal results.


These are all the features that the model looks at. GitHub information is queried from the GitHub API. Distances are calculated by geocoding the city using the MapQuest API and calculating great circle distance from Vancouver.

To check whether or not someone submitted, I exported the submission data from the devpost and did string matching on names and email addresses from people listed. This is probably missing a bunch of people who worked on the project but weren’t listed on the submission.


To figure out which algorithm to use, I ran 10 way cross validation with some common machine learning algorithms.

Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves

The models are graded using receiver operating characteristic curves by measuring the total area under the curve (ROC AUC). This is a rough approximation of how accurate the model is.

One rule of thumb for AUC is:

An AUC of 0.5 means the model is completely worthless and is pretty much just randomly guessing.

Algorithm Comparisons

After inspecting some initial results I ended up settling on Random Forests as they had the best performance with more complex features.

Without GitHub Data

svm 0.575548324252739
rf 0.7826494507380344
knn 0.6437386773574082
gbdt 0.7949250288350634

After these results I only looked at random forests and gradient boosted decision trees.

With GitHub Data

rf 0.7781795846146551
gbdt 0.7476873539057933


The model for check-in and submission has very poor accuracy where as the model for acceptance is reasonably accurate. Intuitively this makes sense since humans are deciding whether or not someone gets accepted, but we’re pretty bad at estimating whether or not someone is actually going to submit a project or show up. Those models are a bit better than randomly guessing but not by much. There’s also about 1/4th the amount of data for the check-in and submission models.

Classifier ROC AUC Personal Probability
Probability of check-in given accepted 0.5215234069947506 0.618993
Probability of submitting a project given checked-in 0.5509568462997873 0.395492
Probability of being accepted 0.8470575003026127 0.862843

Personal Performance

To evaluate the personal probability I’ve listed the input features below so you can judge me yourself.

reg := &db.Registration{
  Name:           "Tristan Rice",
  School:         "University of British Columbia",
  City:           "Vancouver",
  GitHub:         "d4l3k",
  LinkedIn:       "d4l3k",
  Reason:         "I really want to come to nwHacks and make some cool
                   stuff! I've gone that past couple of years and really
                   enjoyed it.",
  Resume:         "",
  Mentor:         true,
  FirstHackathon: false,
  Teammates:      "jinny, roy",
  PersonalSite:   "",
  Email:          "",

Other Random Thoughts

Live Score on Registration Form

It might be interesting to list the probability of acceptance on the registration form with a “hint: add more data to increase probability of acceptance.” However, that’s probably a terrible idea.

Sorting and Filtering Registrations

Could also be helpful for reviewers to use the models to quickly weed out any very low effort submissions. It would definitely lower turn around time from registration close to sending out acceptances. I’d have to try and improve the model more and maybe remove the school and distance to make it more fair for more distant applicants. There’s probably a skew towards local students since remote ones tend to not show up as often without travel reimbursement.

Parameter Sweep

These models were all trained using Hector’s default parameters. If we were going to use these models it would definitely be worth it to run some large scale parameter sweeps using bayesian optimization to tune the hyper parameters.

Older Data

Might also be worth it to dig up the data from the 2015-2016 nwHacks which would roughly double our training examples.

Source Code

The source code is available at: under the MIT License.