A Bayesian regression approach to handicapping tennis players based on a rating system
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
Abstract This paper builds on a recently developed Markov Decision Process-based (MDP) handicap system for tennis, which aims to make amateur matches more competitive. The system gives points to the weaker player based on skill difference, which is measured by the point-win probability. However, estimating point-win probabilities at the amateur level is challenging since point-level data is generally only available at the professional level. On the other hand, tennis rating systems are widely used and provide an estimate of the difference in ability between players, but a rigorous determination of handicap using rating systems is lacking. Therefore, our goal is to develop a mapping between the Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) system and the MDP-based handicaps, so that two amateur players can determine an appropriate handicap for their match based only on their UTRs. We first develop and validate an approach to extract server-independent point-win probabilities from match scores. Then, we show how to map server-independent point-win probabilities to server-specific point-win probabilities. Finally, we use the estimated probabilities to produce handicaps via the MDP model, which are regressed against UTR differences between pairs of players. We conclude with thoughts on how a handicap system could be implemented in practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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