Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2511.06191

Prediction-based evaluation of back-four defense with spatial control in soccer

Soujanya Dash·Kenjiro Ide·Rikuhei Umemoto·Kai Amino·Keisuke Fujii
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Defensive organization is critical in soccer, particularly during negative transitions when teams are most vulnerable. The back-four defensive line plays a decisive role in preventing goal-scoring opportunities, yet its collective coordination remains difficult to quantify. This study introduces interpretable spatio-temporal indicators namely, space control, stretch index, pressure index, and defensive line height (absolute and relative) to evaluate the effectiveness of the back-four during defensive transitions. Using synchronized tracking and event data from the 2023-24 LaLiga season, 2,413 defensive sequences were analyzed following possession losses by FC Barcelona and Real Madrid CF. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant effects of team, outcome, and their interaction for key indicators, with relative line height showing the strongest association with defensive success. Predictive modeling using XGBoost achieved the highest discriminative performance (ROC AUC: 0.724 for Barcelona, 0.698 for Real Madrid), identifying space score and relative line height as dominant predictors. Comparative analysis revealed distinct team-specific defensive behaviors: Barcelona's success was characterized by higher spatial control and compact line coordination, whereas Real Madrid exhibited more adaptive but less consistent defensive structures. These findings demonstrate the tactical and predictive value of interpretable spatial indicators for quantifying collective defensive performance.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYstat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Soujanya Dash, Kenjiro Ide, Rikuhei Umemoto, Kai Amino, Keisuke Fujii. 2025-11-09. Prediction-based evaluation of back-four defense with spatial control in soccer. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.06191

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Who Should Be Generated? Justifying Demographic Targets in Open-Ended Generation

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Anticipatory Human Oversight of Agentic AI: A Philosophical Account

Human oversight is widely held to mitigate the risks of AI systems. Even for systems that produce discrete outputs at identifiable decision points, the realisation of human oversight as a reactive measure is empirically fragile, yet increasingly well understood. However, for agentic AI -- systems that plan, decompose goals, and execute multi-step actions over extended horizons -- reactive oversight reaches its structural limits: intervention on individual actions defeats the autonomy that motivates the deployment, while intervention on aggregate patterns is too coarse for harms whose cumulative consequences only become legible after the fact. This paper argues that reactive oversight must be complemented by an anticipatory mode: oversight exercised before the agent acts, by specifying the normative agenda that structures the space of permissible action and refining it iteratively through specification, runtime, and inspection. The two are complements -- the agenda's escalation conditions specify when reactive intervention is invoked. Drawing on Meaningful Human Control, we read anticipatory oversight as the operationalisation of distal-reason tracking. In addition, we argue that the proposed framework yields a specific responsibility architecture by design: occupying the anticipatory mode is the discharge of a role-grounded prospective obligation, and backward-looking responsibility takes the form of strict moral answerability -- rationalistic, relational, and holding regardless of fault, in virtue of the principal's prior opportunity for precaution. We develop bridging failure modes, address objections including moral luck and the illusion of control, and close with regulatory, architectural, and empirical implications

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Critical Data Studies in the Anthropocene

This chapter introduces the concept of the Anthropocene into critical data studies, a field that has, for the past decade, explored the entanglements between datafication and politics. With the scaling up of contemporary datafication alongside generative computing, it is essential to expand these debates, both theoretically and methodologically, to consider the logics of extraction and exploitation inherent in the politics of artificial intelligence. Critical data scholars are called to interrogate how dominant narratives around the materiality of contemporary datafication either obscure or reveal its environmental impacts, along other key questions such as who benefits from these logics. To illustrate this, this chapter brings two case studies from Spain and Chile and explores how the infrastructure of contemporary datafication intersects with existing power structures, influencing which social and environmental consequences are recognized, addressed, and neglected. Finally, it invites critical data scholars to keep exploring the politics of data, infrastructure, and the Anthropocene by blending discipline boundaries between science and technology studies, media, geography, and political ecology.

cs.CY↗