1
$\begingroup$

I have thought about estimating ratings for teams in a sport competition under the BT probability model. Some of the following may lack rigor, or possibly be sloppy, but I hope the key idea gets through...

We have two teams $i$ and $j$, probability of $i$ winning is \begin{align} p_{ij} = \frac{r_i}{r_i+r_j} \end{align} and thus, if $\hat{p}_{ij}$ is our best estimate of $p_{ij}$, we get \begin{align} r_i \approx \frac{\hat p_{ij}r_j}{1-\hat p_{ij}} \end{align} but because this applies to all teams we get (possibly with some additional weight factor required on each term) \begin{align} r_i \approx \sum_{j\neq i} \frac{\hat p_{ij}}{1-\hat p_{ij}}r_j. \end{align} This is an easy eigenvalue problem in the form $\boldsymbol r = A\boldsymbol r$.

What are the upsides of doing maximum likelihood estimation of $\boldsymbol r$?

EDIT: Actually the following is probably the correct expression: \begin{align} r_i \approx \frac{1}{n_i}\sum_{j\neq i} \frac{\hat p_{ij}n_{ij}}{1-\hat p_{ij}}r_j. \end{align}

where $n_{ij}$ is the total games played between $i$ and $j$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Take a look at

David R. Hunter. MM-Algorthims for generalized Bradley-Terry models. The Annals of Statistics, 32:384–406, 2004

Basically estimating "true" rankings is combinatorial problem. Furthermore it involves some non-linearity. Hence, you cannot simply apply a linear model or eigenvalues - unless you assume some linear relationship between the rankings. The general upside of maximum likelihood estimation is that your objective is a monotonically increasing function and every interation increases the likelihood (however, you don't know what the best likelihood is; that's the drawback).

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ But the model IS linear, according to the derivation above. There is no assumptions except for the basic probability model. What am I missing here? $\endgroup$ Oct 18 '16 at 11:44
  • $\begingroup$ Using SVD to determine the rankings is a legitimate method to aggregate rankings. Maximum likelihood estimation just makes sense from a Baysian point of view - what is a most likely configuration/ranking that is responsible for the scores. If you impose a linear relationship you question would be how your coefficients in the linear model produce such rankings: here you assume a linear influence of one item towards another. From Baysian point of view the interaction of probabilties is not linear. I hope that makes sense; I'm not very sure if this answers your comment. $\endgroup$
    – Drey
    Oct 18 '16 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ Sort of, I suspect what you're saying is that just because $\hat p_{ij}$ is the best estimator of $p_{ij}$, it is not necessarily true that $r_{i}$ is best estimated by algebraically solving for $r_i$ after replacing all instances of $p_{ij}$ with its best estimate $\hat p_{ij}$...? $\endgroup$ Oct 18 '16 at 12:36
  • $\begingroup$ Mhh, I think simply put if you know for sure that $i$ is in linear relationship with $\forall j \neq i$ then surely you can solve the algebraically (assuming that you have complete rankings). If you doubt you can look for a ranking that maximizes the probability of observing scores $r_i$ (see citation above). The resulting rankings (of the $r_i$) may be the same (and usually will be given enough data and low noise). Just there are many different ways to compute the scores. $\endgroup$
    – Drey
    Oct 18 '16 at 12:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.