Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
169 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
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.