Is the Hawk-Eye system calibrated to tolerate more risk?

[Malli]

Quite a few times in this year's US Open, we saw players seem genuinely surprised when Hawk-Eye called a ball in. Of course, an extreme case of this is Jelena Ostapenko who does this in every match of hers. Perhaps that is excessive - but is there a grain of truth in her skepticism? We find players often questioning the 'ball is in' call than the 'ball is out' call of Hawk Eye. That makes me question its set up. Statistically, there are two types of errors - Type 1 Error (false positives) and Type 2 Error (false negatives). Perhaps the calibrators have decided that a false negative is more 'costly'. Hence the line-calling system is more forgiving. Secondly, they should call out that the picture that comes up on the screen showing where the ball bounced, is not reality; it is not a photograph but a modelled simulation. So that is not necessarily truth.
My question is this - given the above scenario, does it favour players who go for the lines? They may get a call or two to their advantage which can swing a match.

 

[illzoni]

They idea that the automated system can be accurate down to 1mm is difficult to believe. I'm pretty confident the lines aren't drawn with such accuracy.

 

[heninfan99]

They need to use the "Mac-cam" cameras right on the lines.

 

[Milanez82]

Quite a few times in this year's US Open, we saw players seem genuinely surprised when Hawk-Eye called a ball in. Of course, an extreme case of this is Jelena Ostapenko who does this in every match of hers. Perhaps that is excessive - but is there a grain of truth in her skepticism? We find players often questioning the 'ball is in' call than the 'ball is out' call of Hawk Eye. That makes me question its set up. Statistically, there are two types of errors - Type 1 Error (false positives) and Type 2 Error (false negatives). Perhaps the calibrators have decided that a false negative is more 'costly'. Hence the line-calling system is more forgiving. Secondly, they should call out that the picture that comes up on the screen showing where the ball bounced, is not reality; it is not a photograph but a modelled simulation. So that is not necessarily truth.
My question is this - given the above scenario, does it favour players who go for the lines? They may get a call or two to their advantage which can swing a match.

It does have a margin of error since it's based on a prediction how and where the ball bounces according to ball trajectory caught by cameras.
Problem is(as evidenced on clay), no ball leaves the same mark/flattens out the same in reality while on hawkeye a serve and a regular shot leave the same mark so those 1mm out or in balls can go either way.

In the end its still more accurate then a human eye(except on clay where you can see the actual mark).

As for your question, no player literally goes for the line, their slightly off shots catch the lines but its always aimed inside of it.

 

[joshuayuan]

They need to use the "Mac-cam" cameras right on the lines.

Yes, combining the Real Bounce floor cameras + Hawkeye is better.