Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 60 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 51 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 18 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 14 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 77 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 159 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 456 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Dynamic Ranking with the BTL Model: A Nearest Neighbor based Rank Centrality Method (2109.13743v2)

Published 28 Sep 2021 in math.ST, stat.ML, and stat.TH

Abstract: Many applications such as recommendation systems or sports tournaments involve pairwise comparisons within a collection of $n$ items, the goal being to aggregate the binary outcomes of the comparisons in order to recover the latent strength and/or global ranking of the items. In recent years, this problem has received significant interest from a theoretical perspective with a number of methods being proposed, along with associated statistical guarantees under the assumption of a suitable generative model. While these results typically collect the pairwise comparisons as one comparison graph $G$, however in many applications - such as the outcomes of soccer matches during a tournament - the nature of pairwise outcomes can evolve with time. Theoretical results for such a dynamic setting are relatively limited compared to the aforementioned static setting. We study in this paper an extension of the classic BTL (Bradley-Terry-Luce) model for the static setting to our dynamic setup under the assumption that the probabilities of the pairwise outcomes evolve smoothly over the time domain $[0,1]$. Given a sequence of comparison graphs $(G_{t'}){t' \in \mathcal{T}}$ on a regular grid $\mathcal{T} \subset [0,1]$, we aim at recovering the latent strengths of the items $w_t* \in \mathbb{R}n$ at any time $t \in [0,1]$. To this end, we adapt the Rank Centrality method - a popular spectral approach for ranking in the static case - by locally averaging the available data on a suitable neighborhood of $t$. When $(G{t'}){t' \in \mathcal{T}}$ is a sequence of Erd\"os-Renyi graphs, we provide non-asymptotic $\ell_2$ and $\ell{\infty}$ error bounds for estimating $w_t*$ which in particular establishes the consistency of this method in terms of $n$, and the grid size $\lvert\mathcal{T}\rvert$. We also complement our theoretical analysis with experiments on real and synthetic data.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (31)
  1. Ranking: Compare, don’t score. In 2011 49th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton), pages 776–783. IEEE, 2011.
  2. Nonparametric estimation in the dynamic bradley-terry model. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 3317–3326. PMLR, 2020.
  3. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345, 1952.
  4. Cellprofiler: image analysis software for identifying and quantifying cell phenotypes. Genome biology, 7(10):1–11, 2006.
  5. Dynamic bradley–terry modelling of sports tournaments. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 62(1):135–150, 2013.
  6. Partial recovery for top-k𝑘kitalic_k ranking: Optimality of mle and sub-optimality of spectral method. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16485, 2020.
  7. Spectral method and regularized mle are both optimal for top-k𝑘kitalic_k ranking. The Annals of Statistics, 47(4):2204–2235, 2019.
  8. Ranking and synchronization from pairwise measurements via SVD. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22:19:1–19:63, 2021.
  9. Dynamic stochastic models for time-dependent ordered paired comparison systems. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 89(428):1438–1449, 1994.
  10. A state-space model for national football league scores. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93(441):25–35, 1998.
  11. A continuous model for ratings. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 75(2):420–442, 2015.
  12. Recommender systems—beyond matrix completion. Communications of the ACM, 59(11):94–102, 2016.
  13. M. G. Kendall. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika, 30(1-2):81–93, 1938.
  14. Markov chains and mixing times, volume 107. American Mathematical Soc., 2017.
  15. Estimating driver crash risks based on the extended bradley–terry model: an induced exposure method. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 163(2):227–240, 2000.
  16. Recovery guarantees for time-varying pairwise comparison matrices with non-transitivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09151, 2021.
  17. How often does the best team win? a unified approach to understanding randomness in north american sport. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 12(4):2483–2516, 2018.
  18. R Duncan Luce. Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. Courier Corporation, 2012.
  19. JNS Matthews and KP Morris. An application of bradley-terry-type models to the measurement of pain. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 44(2):243–255, 1995.
  20. Pairwise comparisons with flexible time-dynamics. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1236–1246, 2019.
  21. Probability and computing: Randomization and probabilistic techniques in algorithms and data analysis. Cambridge university press, 2017.
  22. A network-based dynamical ranking system for competitive sports. Scientific reports, 2(1):1–7, 2012.
  23. Paine N. Nfl elo ratings are back! https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-elo-ratings-are-back/., 2015.
  24. Rank centrality: Ranking from pairwise comparisons. Operations Research, 65(1):266–287, 2017.
  25. A. Nemirovski. Topics in non-parametric statistics. Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour, 28:85, 2000.
  26. Worst-case versus average-case design for estimation from partial pairwise comparisons. The Annals of Statistics, 48(2):1072 – 1097, 2020.
  27. Hanson-wright inequality and sub-gaussian concentration. Electronic Communications in Probability, 18, 2013.
  28. Stochastically transitive models for pairwise comparisons: Statistical and computational issues. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11–20. PMLR, 2016.
  29. Simple, robust and optimal ranking from pairwise comparisons. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18(1):7246–7283, 2017.
  30. Joel A. Tropp. An introduction to matrix concentration inequalities. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning, 8(1-2):1–230, 2015.
  31. nflwar: a reproducible method for offensive player evaluation in football. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, 15(3):163–183, 2019.
Citations (5)

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Lightbulb On Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.