comperank provides tools for computing ranking and rating based on
competition results. It is tightly connected to its data infrastructure
package comperes. Basic
knowledge about creating valid competition
results and
Head-to-Head
expressions with
comperes is needed in order to efficiently use comperank.
Understanding of competition is quite general: it is a set of games (abstract event) in which players (abstract entity) gain some abstract scores (typically numeric). The most natural example is sport results, however not the only one. Product rating can also be considered as a competition between products as “players”. Here a “game” is a customer that reviews a set of products by rating them with numerical “score” (stars, points, etc.).
Rating is a list (in the ordinary sense) of numerical values, one for each player, or the numerical value itself. Its interpretation depends on rating method: either bigger value indicates better player performance or otherwise.
Ranking is a rank-ordered list (in the ordinary sense) of players: rank 1 indicates player with best performance.
comperank leverages the tidyverse
ecosystem of R packages. Among other things, it means that the main
output format is tibble.
comperank gets inspiration from the book “Who’s
#1”
by Langville and Meyer. It provides functionality for the following
rating algorithms:
- Algorithms with fixed Head-to-Head structure:
- Simplified Massey method with
rate_massey()andrank_massey(). - Simplified Colley method with
rate_colley()andrank_colley().
- Simplified Massey method with
- Algorithms with variable Head-to-Head structure:
- Keener method with
rate_keener()andrank_keener(). - Markov method with
rate_markov()andrank_markov(). - Offense-Defense method with
rate_od()andrank_od().
- Keener method with
- Algorithms with iterative nature:
- General Iterative ratings with
rate_iterative(),rank_iterative(), andadd_iterative_ratings(). - Elo ratings with
rate_elo(),rank_elo(), andadd_elo_ratings().
- General Iterative ratings with
As you can see, there are three sets of functions:
rate_*(). Its output is a tibble with columnsplayer(player identifier) and at least onerating_*(rating value). Names of rating columns depend on rating method.rank_*(). Its default output is similar to previous one, but withranking_*instead of rating columns. It runsrate_*()and does ranking with correct direction. One can use optionkeep_rating = TRUEto keep rating columns in the output.add_*_ratings(). These functions are present only for algorithms with iterative nature and competition results with games only between two players. They return tibble with row corresponding to a game (see wide format in Structure of competition results) and extra columns indicating ratings of players before and after the game.
This README provides examples of basic usage of these functions. To learn more about algorithms behind them, see corresponding help pages.
For this README we will need the following packages:
library(rlang)
# This also loads comperes package
suppressPackageStartupMessages(library(comperank))comperank is not on CRAN yet. You can install the development version
from GitHub with:
# install.packages("devtools")
devtools::install_github("echasnovski/comperank")All functions in comperank expect competition results in one of the
formats from comperes package. That is either long or wide
format.
Long format is the most abstract way of presenting competition
results. Basically, it is a data frame (or tibble) with columns game
(game identifier), player (player identifier) and score where each
row represents the score of particular player in particular game. One
game can consist from variable number of players which makes this
format more usable. Inside a game all players are treated equally.
Programmatically long format is represented with longcr S3 class which
should be created with as_longcr() function from comperes.
For examples we will use ncaa2005 data set from comperes package,
which is already of longcr class. It is an example competition results
of an isolated group of Atlantic Coast Conference teams provided in book
“Who’s #1”:
ncaa2005
#> # A longcr object:
#> # A tibble: 20 × 3
#> game player score
#> <int> <chr> <int>
#> 1 1 Duke 7
#> 2 1 Miami 52
#> 3 2 Duke 21
#> 4 2 UNC 24
#> 5 3 Duke 7
#> 6 3 UVA 38
#> # … with 14 more rowsWide format is a more convenient way to store results with fixed
number of players in a game. Each row represents scores of all players
in particular game. Data should be organized in pairs of columns
“player”-“score”. Identifier of a pair should go after respective
keyword and consist only from digits. For example: player1, score1,
player2, score2. Order doesn’t matter. Column game is optional.
Programmatically wide format is represented with widecr S3 class which
should be created with as_widecr() function from comperes:
comperes::as_widecr(ncaa2005)
#> # A widecr object:
#> # A tibble: 10 × 5
#> game player1 score1 player2 score2
#> <int> <chr> <int> <chr> <int>
#> 1 1 Duke 7 Miami 52
#> 2 2 Duke 21 UNC 24
#> 3 3 Duke 7 UVA 38
#> 4 4 Duke 0 VT 45
#> 5 5 Miami 34 UNC 16
#> 6 6 Miami 25 UVA 17
#> # … with 4 more rowsAll comperank functions expect either a data frame with long format
structure, or longcr object, or widecr object.
Massey and Colley methods were initially designed for competitions where:
- Games are held only between two players.
- It is assumed that score is numeric and higher values indicate better player performance in a game.
Idea of Massey method is that difference in ratings should be proportional to score difference in direct confrontations. Bigger value indicates better player competition performance.
rate_massey(ncaa2005)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 2
#> player rating_massey
#> <chr> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke -24.8
#> 2 Miami 18.2
#> 3 UNC -8
#> 4 UVA -3.40
#> 5 VT 18
rank_massey(ncaa2005)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 2
#> player ranking_massey
#> <chr> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke 5
#> 2 Miami 1
#> 3 UNC 4
#> 4 UVA 3
#> 5 VT 2
rank_massey(ncaa2005, keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_massey ranking_massey
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke -24.8 5
#> 2 Miami 18.2 1
#> 3 UNC -8 4
#> 4 UVA -3.40 3
#> 5 VT 18 2Idea of Colley method is that ratings should be proportional to share of player’s won games. Bigger value indicates better player performance.
rank_colley(ncaa2005, keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_colley ranking_colley
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke 0.214 5
#> 2 Miami 0.786 1
#> 3 UNC 0.5 3
#> 4 UVA 0.357 4
#> 5 VT 0.643 2All algorithms with variable Head-to-Head structure depend on user supplying custom Head-to-Head expression for computing quality of direct confrontations between all pairs of players of interest.
Computation of Head-to-Head values is done with functionality of
comperes package. Programmatically it is implemented as summary of
players’ matchups - mini-“games” in widecr format between pair of
players. In other words, for every directed pair (order matters) of
players (including “pair” of player with oneself):
- Data frame of matchups is computed in wide format, i.e. with columns
game,player1,score1,player2,score2. - This data frame is summarised with Head-to-Head expression supplied in dplyr fashion.
For more robust usage comperes provides h2h_funs - a list of the
most common Head-to-Head
expressions which are
designed to be used with rlang’s
unquoting
mechanism. All comperank functions are designed to be used smoothly
with it.
Examples of computing Head-to-Head values for more clarity:
# Examples of h2h_funs elements
names(h2h_funs)
#> [1] "mean_score_diff" "mean_score_diff_pos" "mean_score" "sum_score_diff"
#> [5] "sum_score_diff_pos" "sum_score" "num_wins" "num_wins2"
#> [9] "num"
h2h_funs[1:3]
#> $mean_score_diff
#> mean(score1 - score2)
#>
#> $mean_score_diff_pos
#> max(mean(score1 - score2), 0)
#>
#> $mean_score
#> mean(score1)
# Computing Head-to-Head values with unquoting
comperes::h2h_long(ncaa2005, !!! h2h_funs)
#> # A long format of Head-to-Head values:
#> # A tibble: 25 × 11
#> player1 player2 mean_score_diff mean_score_diff_pos mean_score sum_score_diff
#> <chr> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <int>
#> 1 Duke Duke 0 0 8.75 0
#> 2 Duke Miami -45 0 7 -45
#> 3 Duke UNC -3 0 21 -3
#> 4 Duke UVA -31 0 7 -31
#> 5 Duke VT -45 0 0 -45
#> 6 Miami Duke 45 45 52 45
#> sum_score_diff_pos sum_score num_wins num_wins2 num
#> <dbl> <int> <dbl> <dbl> <int>
#> 1 0 35 0 2 4
#> 2 0 7 0 0 1
#> 3 0 21 0 0 1
#> 4 0 7 0 0 1
#> 5 0 0 0 0 1
#> 6 45 52 1 1 1
#> # … with 19 more rows
comperes::h2h_mat(ncaa2005, !!! h2h_funs["mean_score"])
#> # A matrix format of Head-to-Head values:
#> Duke Miami UNC UVA VT
#> Duke 8.75 7.0 21.0 7.0 0.0
#> Miami 52.00 34.5 34.0 25.0 27.0
#> UNC 24.00 16.0 12.5 7.0 3.0
#> UVA 38.00 17.0 5.0 18.5 14.0
#> VT 45.00 7.0 30.0 52.0 33.5
# Computing Head-to-Head values manually
comperes::h2h_mat(ncaa2005, mean(score1))
#> # A matrix format of Head-to-Head values:
#> Duke Miami UNC UVA VT
#> Duke 8.75 7.0 21.0 7.0 0.0
#> Miami 52.00 34.5 34.0 25.0 27.0
#> UNC 24.00 16.0 12.5 7.0 3.0
#> UVA 38.00 17.0 5.0 18.5 14.0
#> VT 45.00 7.0 30.0 52.0 33.5
# To account for self play use `if-else`
comperes::h2h_mat(ncaa2005, if(player1[1] == player2[1]) 0 else mean(score1))
#> # A matrix format of Head-to-Head values:
#> Duke Miami UNC UVA VT
#> Duke 0 7 21 7 0
#> Miami 52 0 34 25 27
#> UNC 24 16 0 7 3
#> UVA 38 17 5 0 14
#> VT 45 7 30 52 0All functions for methods with variable Head-to-Head structure are designed with this rule in mind: the more Head-to-Head value the better player1 performed than player2.
Keener method is based on the idea of “relative strength” - the strength of the player relative to the strength of the players he/she has played against. This is computed based on provided Head-to-Head values and some flexible algorithmic adjustments to make method more robust. Bigger value indicates better player performance.
rank_keener(ncaa2005, !!! h2h_funs["mean_score"], keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_keener ranking_keener
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke 0.0671 5
#> 2 Miami 0.351 1
#> 3 UNC 0.158 4
#> 4 UVA 0.161 3
#> 5 VT 0.263 2The main idea of Markov method is that players “vote” for other players’ performance. Voting is done with Head-to-Head values and the more value the more “votes” gives player2 to player1. For example, if Head-to-Head value is “number of wins” then player2 “votes” for player1 proportionally to number of times player1 won in a matchup with player2. Beware of careful consideration of Head-to-Head values for self plays.
Actual “voting” is done in Markov chain fashion: Head-to-Head values are organized in stochastic matrix which vector of stationary probabilities is declared to be output ratings. Bigger value indicates better player performance.
As stochastic matrices can be averaged (with weights), this is the only method capable of direct averaging ratings for different Head-to-Head expressions.
rank_markov(ncaa2005, !!! h2h_funs["num_wins"], keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_markov ranking_markov
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke 0.0991 5
#> 2 Miami 0.407 1
#> 3 UNC 0.154 3
#> 4 UVA 0.120 4
#> 5 VT 0.220 2
rank_markov(
ncaa2005,
!!! h2h_funs[c("num_wins", "mean_score_diff_pos")],
weights = c(0.2, 0.8),
keep_rating = TRUE
)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_markov ranking_markov
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke 0.0994 5
#> 2 Miami 0.408 1
#> 3 UNC 0.115 4
#> 4 UVA 0.120 3
#> 5 VT 0.257 2The idea of Offense-Defense (OD) method is to account for different abilities of players by combining different ratings:
- For player which can achieve high Head-to-Head value (even against the player with strong defense) it is said that he/she has strong offense which results into high offensive rating.
- For player which can force their opponents into achieving low Head-to-Head value (even if they have strong offense) it is said that he/she has strong defense which results into low defensive rating.
Offensive and defensive ratings describe different skills of players. In order to fully rate players, OD ratings are computed: offensive ratings divided by defensive. The more OD rating the better player performance.
rank_od(
ncaa2005,
if (player1[1] == player2[1]) 0 else mean(score1),
keep_rating = TRUE
)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 7
#> player rating_off rating_def rating_od ranking_off ranking_def ranking_od
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke 34.0 1.69 20.1 5 5 5
#> 2 Miami 152. 0.803 189. 1 2 2
#> 3 UNC 48.7 1.16 41.8 4 4 4
#> 4 UVA 82.0 0.967 84.8 3 3 3
#> 5 VT 115. 0.411 280. 2 1 1Rating methods with iterative nature assume that games occur in some
particular order. All players have some initial ratings which are
updated after every game in order they appear. Although, it is possible
to consider games with more than two players, comperank only supports
competition results with all games between two players.
Iterative ratings represent the general approach to ratings with
iterative nature. It needs custom rating function and initial player
ratings to perform iterative ratings computation. Rating function should
accept four arguments: rating1 (scalar rating of the first player
before the game), score1 (his score), rating2 and score2 for the
data about second player’s performance. It should return a numeric
vector of length 2 with elements respectively representing ratings of
players after the game.
All functions assume that the order in which games were played is
identical to order of values in column game (if present) or is defined
by the row order.
Arguably, the most useful function is add_iterative_ratings(), which
adds to widecr format of competition results information about game
ratings before and after the game.
rate_iterative() and rank_iterative() return ratings after the last
game.
# Adds 1 to winner's rating and subtracts 1 from loser's rating
test_rate_fun <- function(rating1, score1, rating2, score2) {
c(rating1, rating2) + ((score1 >= score2) * 2 - 1) * c(1, -1)
}
add_iterative_ratings(ncaa2005, test_rate_fun)
#> # A widecr object:
#> # A tibble: 10 × 9
#> game player1 score1 player2 score2 rating1Before rating2Before rating1After rating2After
#> <int> <chr> <int> <chr> <int> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 1 Duke 7 Miami 52 0 0 -1 1
#> 2 2 Duke 21 UNC 24 -1 0 -2 1
#> 3 3 Duke 7 UVA 38 -2 0 -3 1
#> 4 4 Duke 0 VT 45 -3 0 -4 1
#> 5 5 Miami 34 UNC 16 1 1 2 0
#> 6 6 Miami 25 UVA 17 2 1 3 0
#> # … with 4 more rows
# Revert the order of games
ncaa2005_rev <- ncaa2005
ncaa2005_rev$game <- 11 - ncaa2005_rev$game
add_iterative_ratings(ncaa2005_rev, test_rate_fun)
#> # A widecr object:
#> # A tibble: 10 × 9
#> game player1 score1 player2 score2 rating1Before rating2Before rating1After rating2After
#> <dbl> <chr> <int> <chr> <int> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 1 UVA 14 VT 52 0 0 -1 1
#> 2 2 UNC 3 VT 30 0 1 -1 2
#> 3 3 UNC 7 UVA 5 -1 -1 0 -2
#> 4 4 Miami 27 VT 7 0 2 1 1
#> 5 5 Miami 25 UVA 17 1 -2 2 -3
#> 6 6 Miami 34 UNC 16 2 0 3 -1
#> # … with 4 more rows
# Rating after the last game
rank_iterative(ncaa2005, test_rate_fun, keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_iterative ranking_iterative
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke -4 5
#> 2 Miami 4 1
#> 3 UNC 0 3
#> 4 UVA -2 4
#> 5 VT 2 2Elo method is, basically, an iterative rating method with fixed Elo rating function. General idea is that rating increase for winner should be the bigger the more is rating difference between players. In other words, win over a better player should lead to more rating increase and win over a considerably weaker player shouldn’t affect rating that much.
add_elo_ratings(ncaa2005)
#> # A widecr object:
#> # A tibble: 10 × 9
#> game player1 score1 player2 score2 rating1Before rating2Before rating1After rating2After
#> <int> <chr> <int> <chr> <int> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 1 Duke 7 Miami 52 0 0 -15 15
#> 2 2 Duke 21 UNC 24 -15 0 -29.4 14.4
#> 3 3 Duke 7 UVA 38 -29.4 0 -43.1 13.7
#> 4 4 Duke 0 VT 45 -43.1 0 -56.2 13.1
#> 5 5 Miami 34 UNC 16 15 14.4 30.0 -0.619
#> 6 6 Miami 25 UVA 17 30.0 13.7 44.3 -0.564
#> # … with 4 more rows
add_elo_ratings(ncaa2005_rev)
#> # A widecr object:
#> # A tibble: 10 × 9
#> game player1 score1 player2 score2 rating1Before rating2Before rating1After rating2After
#> <dbl> <chr> <int> <chr> <int> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 1 UVA 14 VT 52 0 0 -15 15
#> 2 2 UNC 3 VT 30 0 15 -14.4 29.4
#> 3 3 UNC 7 UVA 5 -14.4 -15 0.619 -30.0
#> 4 4 Miami 27 VT 7 0 29.4 16.3 13.1
#> 5 5 Miami 25 UVA 17 16.3 -30.0 29.3 -43.0
#> 6 6 Miami 34 UNC 16 29.3 0.619 43.0 -13.1
#> # … with 4 more rows
rank_elo(ncaa2005, keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_elo ranking_elo
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke -56.2 5
#> 2 Miami 57.9 1
#> 3 UNC -1.26 3
#> 4 UVA -29.2 4
#> 5 VT 28.8 2
rank_elo(ncaa2005_rev, keep_rating = TRUE)
#> # A tibble: 5 × 3
#> player rating_elo ranking_elo
#> <chr> <dbl> <dbl>
#> 1 Duke -56.2 5
#> 2 Miami 54.3 1
#> 3 UNC 1.10 3
#> 4 UVA -26.8 4
#> 5 VT 27.5 2