Score-Driven Rating System for Sports

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.09143v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:22:33 GMT
• Title: Score-Driven Rating System for Sports
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a score-driven rating system, a generalization of the classical Elo rating system.<n>The proposed framework accommodates a wide range of game results, such as point differences, win/draw/loss outcomes, or complete rankings.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper introduces a score-driven rating system, a generalization of the classical Elo rating system that employs the score, i.e. the gradient of the log-likelihood, as the updating mechanism for player and team ratings. The proposed framework extends beyond simple win/loss game outcomes and accommodates a wide range of game results, such as point differences, win/draw/loss outcomes, or complete rankings. Theoretical properties of the score are derived, showing that it has zero expected value, sums to zero across all players, and decreases with increasing value of a player's rating, thereby ensuring internal consistency and fairness. Furthermore, the score-driven rating system exhibits a reversion property, meaning that ratings tend to follow the underlying unobserved true skills over time. The proposed framework provides a theoretical rationale for existing dynamic models of sports performance and offers a systematic approach for constructing new ones.

Related papers

• Reasoning Arena: Trace Tournaments When Verifiable Rewards Fall Short [51.667769734342635]
  Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a leading paradigm for improving the reasoning ability of large language models.<n>We propose Reasoning Arena, an adaptive training framework that routes such non-diverse reward groups to a judge system instead of discarding them.<n>We show that Reasoning Arena consistently outperforms the RLVR baseline by 7.6% on average in competition mathematics and coding benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T11:57:17Z)
• Who is a Better Player: LLM against LLM [53.46608216197315]
  We propose an adversarial benchmarking framework to assess the comprehensive performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) through board games competition.<n>We introduce Qi Town, a specialized evaluation platform that supports 5 widely played games and involves 20 LLM-driven players.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T06:41:47Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Indeterminacy [65.137380612741]
  We introduce a framework for validating LLM-as-a-judge systems under rating indeterminacy.<n>We demonstrate that differences in how humans and LLMs resolve rating indeterminacy when responding to forced-choice rating instructions can heavily bias validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-07T22:09:47Z)
• Re-evaluating Open-ended Evaluation of Large Language Models [50.23008729038318]
  We show that the current Elo-based rating systems can be susceptible to and even reinforce biases in data, intentional or accidental.<n>We propose evaluation as a 3-player game, and introduce novel game-theoretic solution concepts to ensure robustness to redundancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T15:07:47Z)
• Analytical and Empirical Study of Herding Effects in Recommendation Systems [72.6693986712978]
  We study how to manage product ratings via rating aggregation rules and shortlisted representative reviews. We show that proper recency aware rating aggregation rules can improve the speed of convergence in Amazon and TripAdvisor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T14:29:23Z)
• Counter-Empirical Attacking based on Adversarial Reinforcement Learning for Time-Relevant Scoring System [22.86575572172689]
  We propose a "counter-empirical attacking" mechanism that can generate "attacking" behavior traces and try to break the empirical rules of the scoring system. By training the adversarial learning problem, a proper scoring function can be learned to be robust to the attacking activity traces that are trying to violate the empirical criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T04:49:41Z)
• Behavioral Player Rating in Competitive Online Shooter Games [3.203973145772361]
  In this paper, we engineer several features from in-game statistics to model players and create ratings that accurately represent their behavior and true performance level. Our results show that the behavioral ratings present more accurate performance estimations while maintaining the interpretability of the created representations. Considering different aspects of the playing behavior of players and using behavioral ratings for matchmaking can lead to match-ups that are more aligned with players' goals and interests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-01T16:23:01Z)
• Integrating Rankings into Quantized Scores in Peer Review [61.27794774537103]
  In peer review, reviewers are usually asked to provide scores for the papers. To mitigate this issue, conferences have started to ask reviewers to additionally provide a ranking of the papers they have reviewed. There are no standard procedure for using this ranking information and Area Chairs may use it in different ways. We take a principled approach to integrate the ranking information into the scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-05T19:39:13Z)
• Evaluating Team Skill Aggregation in Online Competitive Games [4.168733556014873]
  We present an analysis of the impact of two new aggregation methods on the predictive performance of rating systems. Our evaluations show the superiority of the MAX method over the other two methods in the majority of the tested cases. Results of this study highlight the necessity of devising more elaborated methods for calculating a team's performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-21T20:17:36Z)
• The Evaluation of Rating Systems in Team-based Battle Royale Games [4.168733556014873]
  This paper explores the utility of several metrics for evaluating three popular rating systems on a real-world dataset of over 25,000 team battle royale matches. normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG) demonstrated more reliable performance and more flexibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-28T19:22:07Z)
• An Elo-like System for Massive Multiplayer Competitions [1.8782750537161612]
  We present a novel Bayesian rating system for contests with many participants. It is widely applicable to competition formats with discrete ranked matches. We show that the system aligns incentives: that is, a player who seeks to maximize their rating will never want to underperform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T08:14:31Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.