  Data competitions rely on real-time leaderboards to rank competitor entries
and stimulate algorithm improvement. While such competitions have become quite
popular and prevalent, particularly in supervised learning formats, their
implementations by the host are highly variable. Without careful planning, a
supervised learning competition is vulnerable to overfitting, where the winning
solutions are so closely tuned to the particular set of provided data that they
cannot generalize to the underlying problem of interest to the host. This paper
outlines some important considerations for strategically designing relevant and
informative data sets to maximize the learning outcome from hosting a
competition based on our experience. It also describes a post-competition
analysis that enables robust and efficient assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of solutions from different competitors, as well as greater
understanding of the regions of the input space that are well-solved. The
post-competition analysis, which complements the leaderboard, uses exploratory
data analysis and generalized linear models (GLMs). The GLMs not only expand
the range of results we can explore, they also provide more detailed analysis
of individual sub-questions including similarities and differences between
algorithms across different types of scenarios, universally easy or hard
regions of the input space, and different learning objectives. When coupled
with a strategically planned data generation approach, the methods provide
richer and more informative summaries to enhance the interpretation of results
beyond just the rankings on the leaderboard. The methods are illustrated with a
recently completed competition to evaluate algorithms capable of detecting,
identifying, and locating radioactive materials in an urban environment.
