How Much Velocity Does Off-Ball Space Value Need? A Broadcast-Viewport Benchmark

Seongjin Choi

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.10801

How Much Velocity Does Off-Ball Space Value Need? A Broadcast-Viewport Benchmark

Seongjin Choi

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Velocity-aware pitch control is standard, but under a broadcast viewport half the players are off screen and on-screen velocities come from a drifting calibration. We ask at which layer of broadcast off-ball analysis velocity changes the answer. Inheriting our off-screen imputation protocol (three Metrica matches, 44 m viewport, block-bootstrap CIs), we score four velocity regimes -- none, viewport-legal observed, true-for-visible, true-for-all -- against a velocity-aware ground truth at three layers: imputation, the control surface, and team verdicts. Velocity is nearly useless for imputation (-0.2 pp against a 12--14 pp velocity-free surface MAE), first-order for the surface (-1.5 to -1.8 pp, 11--15% of that MAE), and ten times smaller for verdicts (-0.12 to -0.19 pp). The velocity that matters is the visible channel: perfect occluded-player velocity adds 2--6% of the visible gain, and no last-seen decay policy we tested exceeds that. Omitting velocity blurs the surface (per-frame |e| 2.2--2.6 pp) with small time-averaged bias (per cell <=0.4 pp), whereas imputation error is a structured bias against the defending team's deep zone (5--9 pp). At a fixed velocity window, a noise ladder of eleven jitter settings, including sigma_v-matched pairs, is ordered to first order by one velocity-noise axis sigma_v with break-even ~1 m/s; eleven SoccerNet-GSR clips from one match through our pipeline measure sigma_v=1.65 m/s yet recover 24--36% of the benefit: 43% of the variance is frame-common, which the surface tolerates, and the residual is heavy-tailed and clustered, which Gaussian controls matched on component RMS do not reproduce (+0.03 vs. +0.36). The share of velocity-free error that velocity removes grows with viewport width (7% at 36 m, 21% at 60 m): fix imputation on tight shots, velocity on wide ones. Code and logs are released.

Explore related subjects

cs.CV cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Seongjin Choi. 2026-09-09. How Much Velocity Does Off-Ball Space Value Need? A Broadcast-Viewport Benchmark. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.10801

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

HiPerViT: A Hierarchical Perceiver-Vision Transformer Architecture for Multi-Scale Texture Recognition

Texture recognition remains challenging for modern vision models because discriminative evidence is often carried by higher-order spatial statistics rather than by object shape alone. While Vision Transformers provide strong long-range modeling capacity, their standard object-centric representations do not explicitly expose such statistical structure, which limits texture sensitivity in fine-grained recognition settings. We present HiPerViT, a compact vision-only architecture that injects an explicit second-order statistical prior into a transformer-based recognition pipeline. The method combines global and local image views with a compact bilinear descriptor encoded as a statistical token, and integrates this token with first-order spatial representations through Perceiver-style latent distillation. This design enables direct interaction between spatial tokens and second-order feature co-occurrence statistics, providing the model with explicit access to texture-relevant information without requiring multimodal pretraining or ensemble construction. Across six texture recognition benchmarks, HiPerViT achieves consistent improvements over strong vision-only baselines under the reported evaluation protocols, including gains of +3.05 percentage points on DTD, +10.48 on GTOS-Mobile, and +10.10 on 1200Tex. Beyond benchmark performance, our analyses show that these gains are largely invariant to the backbone depth used to extract second-order statistics and to the ordering of interaction and distillation stages. This pattern suggests that the primary source of improvement is not a specific fusion topology, but the explicit availability of second-order statistical information as a first-class representational signal. These results support explicit statistical tokenization as an effective and robust design principle for texture-centric visual recognition.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

CamPilot: A Multi-Agent Cinematic Assistant for Camera-Controlled Movie Generation

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into video generation has enabled rapid text-to-video creation and improved visual quality. However, it still falls short of professional filmmaking, where cinematographic language is less refined than human-crafted camera work and multi-shot continuity remains challenging. To address these limitations, we introduce CamPilot, a multi-agent framework that integrates cinematographic planning and camera-work control to produce more coherent, logically structured, and human-aesthetic movies. CamPilot adopts a GRPO-based learning paradigm to learn camera work planning from 14K real-world professional movies, internalizing motion patterns and composition principles that support reasoning over shooting techniques (e.g., camera angle, motion, and focal behavior) and cross-shot relationships for controllable camera-viewpoint generation. Multiple agents further collaborate and evolve to improve overall output quality. To support this work and further studies in this domain, we establish CamEval, a benchmark for evaluating camera work quality and cinematic engagement. Empirical results show that CamPilot outperforms state-of-the-art text-to-movie generation methods on cinematographic control and quality, highlighting the impact of professional camera design on movie generation.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

New Evidence, Same Choice: Testing Physical Experiment Selection in Vision Language Models

A model first sees an image from one physical measurement experiment, such as how far a block coasted, and must answer a question about a new trial, such as whether the block will pass a target after a fixed push. The initial experiment may provide enough information to answer, or the model may need another measurement, such as the object's mass, friction, restitution, or spring stiffness. We study whether vision language models can decide when to answer immediately and, when more evidence is needed, which experiment to perform. Current physical reasoning benchmarks usually evaluate only the final answer, so they do not directly measure this decision-making ability. We introduce a controlled evaluation where each problem provides one measurement image and four possible physical worlds created by combining two possible masses and two possible values of another relevant property. The model must either stop and answer or select the cheapest additional experiment that can resolve the question. We construct matched problem pairs where changing either the observed measurement or the question changes the optimal action. Since all possible worlds and experiment costs are known, we can explicitly determine the optimal choice. Across six open models and 144 physical parameter sets, direct responses repeat the same action for 95.1% to 100% of image pairs even when the correct action changes. Brief reasoning improves action switching, but the best model makes both decisions correctly for only 5.9% of image pairs. Additional analysis reveals failures in measurement interpretation, physical reasoning, and response formatting. By evaluating evidence selection separately from final answers, our benchmark reveals limitations in physical reasoning that conventional answer accuracy can overlook.

cs.CV↗