Increased Prediction Accuracy in the Game of Cricket Using Machine Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Player selection is one the most important tasks for any sport and cricket is no exception. The performance of the players depends on various factors such as the opposition team, the venue, his current form etc. The team management, the coach and the captain select 11 players for each match from a squad of 15 to 20 players. They analyze different characteristics and the statistics of the players to select the best playing 11 for each match. Each batsman contributes by scoring maximum runs possible and each bowler contributes by taking maximum wickets and conceding minimum runs. This paper attempts to predict the performance of players as how many runs will each batsman score and how many wickets will each bowler take for both the teams. Both the problems are targeted as classification problems where number of runs and number of wickets are classified in different ranges. We used nave bayes, random forest, multiclass SVM and decision tree classifiers to generate the prediction models for both the problems. Random Forest classifier was found to be the most accurate for both the problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it