arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.21023

Beyond Match Results: Bayesian Mediation of Ability, Performance, and Winning in Professional Tennis

Guanyu Hu·Xiao Wang
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Match results measure competitive ability, but they do not explain how ability is expressed during play. Match statistics offer a natural mediator, however performance is usually measured over the same match as the outcome: a full-match statistic uses events that help determine the winner, while a first-set statistic is earlier but rests on fewer service points and still contributes to the result. Comparing the two therefore mixes timing and precision. We develop a Bayesian mediation framework for this problem. Dynamic abilities on hard, clay, and grass courts are estimated from previous seasons only and are linked to both players' service performance, and a Bradley--Terry model relates ability and performance to the match result. A control mediator samples the first set's number of service points from the full match, separating the measurement window from the point count. In 3,820 men's matches, the hard-court mediated share rises from 0.52 with a first-set mediator to 0.95 with a full-match mediator; the point-count contrast accounts for 0.30 of this gap and the window contrast for 0.13. The pattern replicates on the women's tour. Simulations and sensitivity analyzes examine the decomposition and assumptions needed for a causal interpretation.

Explore related subjects

stat.APstat.ME

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Guanyu Hu, Xiao Wang. 2026-10-14. Beyond Match Results: Bayesian Mediation of Ability, Performance, and Winning in Professional Tennis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.21023

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

A simple sensitivity analysis for observational studies

Drawing causal conclusions from non-experimental (observational) data is a central aim in science but is extremely challenging. Without control over treatment assignment (as in an experiment), treated and control groups may not be comparable on unmeasured factors affecting treatment and outcome. To address such concerns, sensitivity analyses can be performed; sensitivity analyses acknowledge the existence of unmeasured factors but ask how strong they must be to overturn causal conclusions. We (re)introduce a particularly simple form of sensitivity analysis which can be performed by any reader of an observational study with access to only an estimate and confidence interval for a causal effect. This simple sensitivity analysis may serve as an effective tool for readers wishing to gauge the robustness of conclusions from an observational study.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Length-Preserving Vessel Trajectory Simplification With Controllable Compression-Precision Bound

Vessel trajectory data from the Automatic Identification System (AIS) is important for a wide range of maritime analysis and management applications. As AIS datasets continue to grow in scale, trajectory simplification (or compression) algorithms have become indispensable tools for managing their computational demands. Existing approaches, however, largely overlook the preservation of trajectory length, a critical metric of direct relevance to maritime environmental auditing and voyage management. We address this gap by framing trajectory simplification as a pair of dual optimization problems subject to error constraints: Compression-Driven Simplification (CDS), which minimizes data volume for a given length-error tolerance, and Precision-Driven Simplification (PDS), which minimizes length approximation error for a given compression target. Both problems are solved within a unified dynamic programming framework, and we provide mathematical proofs establishing that our formulation yields globally optimal solutions. This guarantees flexible, direct control over both compression ratio and length-approximation fidelity. { We benchmark CDS and PDS on real-world AIS datasets spanning diverse navigation scenarios and representative water area, comparing against state-of-the-art baselines. Experimental results on public benchmark datasets demonstrate that even under a small length error tolerance ($ε=0.1$ nmi), our methods achieve about 91\% data compression rate, approximately 14\% higher than the best-performing baseline, which implies that our methods are capable of maximally preserving the trajectory length while reducing data redundancy significant.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Statistical Elements of a Successful Farm-scale Trial

Growers and advisers increasingly run large strip trials on their own paddocks, but the rules used to design them come from small-plot research. We simulated strip trials on a spatially autocorrelated field, varying trial length (L), replication (r), randomised or systematic allocation, and long-strip or stacked layout, for a nitrogen response that was uniform or varied across within-field pseudo-environments (PEs). Analyses of strip-plot means and of yield pixels were first checked for Type I error, and designs were then compared by the smallest response that a valid analysis detects with 80% power. Follow-up runs added gaps, unequal strip lengths, trends, spatially varying responses and alternative field structures; more than 3 million models were fitted. Treating pixels as independent replicates gave false positives in 32-40% of null trials. Replication was the strongest design lever: the detectable response scaled as $r^{-0.60}$ to $r^{-1.02}$ but only as $L^{-0.45}$ or more slowly, and at equal plot area more, shorter replicates won all 66 comparisons. With complete data, strip means with an autoregressive residual were the most precise analysis; when strips contained gaps, pixel-level spatial models with a strip effect halved the detectable response, while the spatial analysis of strip means became liberal. For PE-varying responses, spatial PE models detected per-PE effects 33-46% smaller than PE means without a spatial term. Randomisation did not improve precision but kept tests valid (systematic allocation: Type I error up to 23%), whereas systematic allocation gave more accurate response maps. The results are condensed into a design table and a detectable-gain chart for use before a trial is sown.

stat.AP↗