G-Elo: generalization of the Elo algorithm by modeling the discretized margin of victory
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work we develop a new algorithm for rating of teams (or players) in one-on-one games by exploiting the observed difference of the game-points (such as goals), also known as a margin of victory (MOV). Our objective is to obtain the Elo-style algorithm whose operation is simple to implement and to understand intuitively. This is done in three steps: first, we define the probabilistic model between the teams’ skills and the discretized MOV variable: this generalizes the model underpinning the Elo algorithm, where the MOV variable is discretized into three categories (win/loss/draw). Second, with the formal probabilistic model at hand, the optimization required by the maximum likelihood rule is implemented via stochastic gradient; this yields simple online equations for the rating updates which are identical in their general form to those characteristic of the Elo algorithm: the main difference lies in the way the scores and the expected scores are defined. Third, we propose a simple method to estimate the coefficients of the model, and thus define the operation of the algorithm; it is done in a closed form using the historical data so the algorithm is tailored to the sport of interest and the coefficients defining its operation are determined in entirely transparent manner. The alternative, optimization-based strategy to find the coefficients is also presented. We show numerical examples based on the results of the association football of the English Premier League and the American football of the National Football League.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it