Generalized Bradley-Terry Models for Score Estimation from Paired Comparisons
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Many applications, e.g. in content recommendation, sports, or recruitment, leverage the comparisons of alternatives to score those alternatives. The classical Bradley-Terry model and its variants have been widely used to do so. The historical model considers binary comparisons (victory or defeat) between alternatives, while more recent developments allow finer comparisons to be taken into account. In this article, we introduce a probabilistic model encompassing a broad variety of paired comparisons that can take discrete or continuous values. We do so by considering a well-behaved subset of the exponential family, which we call the family of generalized Bradley-Terry (GBT) models, as it includes the classical Bradley-Terry model and many of its variants. Remarkably, we prove that all GBT models are guaranteed to yield a strictly convex negative log-likelihood. Moreover, assuming a Gaussian prior on alternatives' scores, we prove that the maximum a posteriori (MAP) of GBT models, whose existence, uniqueness and fast computation are thus guaranteed, varies monotonically with respect to comparisons (the more A beats B, the better the score of A) and is Lipschitz-resilient with respect to each new comparison (a single new comparison can only have a bounded effect on all the estimated scores). These desirable properties make GBT models appealing for practical use. We illustrate some features of GBT models on simulations.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 3.
9 papers.
- 2024Arena Learning: Build Data Flywheel for LLMs Post-training via Simulated Chatbot Arenacited by 26
- 2025AI Alignment at Your Discretioncited by 20
- 2024From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learningcited by 2
- 2025Generalizing while preserving monotonicity in comparison-based preference learning modelscited by 1
- 2026PieArena: Ranking and Profiling Language Agents in Realistic Negotiation Scenarioscited by 1
- 2025On Monotonicity in AI Alignmentcited by 0
- 2025Designing User-Centric Metrics for Evaluation of Counterfactual Explanationscited by 0
- 2026Bayesian Preference Learning for Test-Time Steerable Reward Modelscited by 0
- 2026Pairwise Reference Alignment as a Model-Level Ordinal Observablecited by 0
- 2026Pairwise Reference Alignment as a Model-Level Ordinal Observable29 May 2026
- 2026Bayesian Preference Learning for Test-Time Steerable Reward Models9 Feb 2026
- 2026PieArena: Ranking and Profiling Language Agents in Realistic Negotiation Scenarios5 Feb 2026
- 2025Designing User-Centric Metrics for Evaluation of Counterfactual Explanations20 Jul 2025
- 2025On Monotonicity in AI Alignment10 Jun 2025
- 2025Generalizing while preserving monotonicity in comparison-based preference learning models10 Jun 2025
- 2025AI Alignment at Your Discretion10 Feb 2025
- 2024From Efficiency to Equity: Measuring Fairness in Preference Learning24 Oct 2024
- 2024Arena Learning: Build Data Flywheel for LLMs Post-training via Simulated Chatbot Arena15 Jul 2024