% -*- mode: noweb; noweb-default-code-mode: R-mode; -*-
\documentclass[nojss]{jss}
\usepackage{dsfont}
\usepackage{bbm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{wasysym}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{yfonts}

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% declarations for jss.cls %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


%% just as usual
\author{Robin K. S. Hankin\\Auckland University of Technology}
\title{Partial rank data with the \pkg{hyper2} package: likelihood
  functions for generalized Bradley-Terry models}


%\VignetteIndexEntry{The hyper2 package}

%% for pretty printing and a nice hypersummary also set:
\Plainauthor{Robin K. S. Hankin}
\Plaintitle{A Generalization of the Dirichlet Distribution}
\Shorttitle{A Generalization of the Dirichlet Distribution}

%% an abstract and keywords
\Abstract{

Here I present the \pkg{hyper2} package for generalized Bradley-Terry
models and analyze two situations: single scull rowing, and the
competitive cooking game show MasterChef Australia.  A number of
natural statistical hypotheses may be tested straightforwardly using
the software.  This vignette is based on \citep{hankin2017}.
}


\Keywords{Dirichlet distribution, hyperdirichlet distribution,
  combinatorics, \proglang{R}, multinomial distribution, constrained
optimization, Bradley-Terry}
\Plainkeywords{Dirichlet distribution, hyperdirichlet distribution,
  combinatorics, R, multinomial distribution, constrained
optimization, Bradley-Terry}
  
  
  
%% publication information
%% NOTE: This needs to filled out ONLY IF THE PAPER WAS ACCEPTED.
%% If it was not (yet) accepted, leave them commented.
%% \Volume{13}
%% \Issue{9}
%% \Month{September}
%% \Year{2004}
%% \Submitdate{2004-09-29}
%% \Acceptdate{2004-09-29}

%% The address of (at least) one author should be given
%% in the following format:
\Address{
  Robin K. S. Hankin\\
  Auckland University of Technology\\
  E-mail: \email{hankin.robin@gmail.com}
}
%% It is also possible to add a telephone and fax number
%% before the e-mail in the following format:
%% Telephone: +43/1/31336-5053
%% Fax: +43/1/31336-734

%% for those who use Sweave please include the following line (with % symbols):

%% end of declarations %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

\newcommand{\bolda}{\mathbf a}
\newcommand{\boldp}{\mathbf p}
\newcommand{\boldV}{\mathbf V}
\newcommand{\boldalpha}{\mbox{\boldmath$\alpha$}}
\newcommand{\boldzero}{\mathbf 0}

\newcommand{\mcf}{\mathcal F}
\newcommand{\mcm}{\mathcal M}
\newcommand{\mcs}{\mathcal S}
\newcommand{\mcw}{\mathcal W}

\newcommand{\pG}{p_{\mbox{\frakfamily g}}}

\SweaveOpts{}
\begin{document}
\SweaveOpts{concordance=TRUE}
\section{Introduction}

<<set_seed_chunk,echo=FALSE,print=FALSE>>=
library("hyper2")
set.seed(0)
@ 

<<time_saver,echo=FALSE,print=FALSE>>=
calc_from_scratch <- FALSE
@ 

<<echo=FALSE,print=FALSE>>=
ignore <- require(magrittr,quietly=TRUE)
@ 

\section{Introduction: the Bradley-Terry model}

The Bradley-Terry model for datasets involving paired comparisons has
wide uptake in the {R} community.  However, existing
functionality\footnote{In theory, the \pkg{hyperdirichlet}
package~\citep{hankin2010} provides similar functionality but it is
slow and inefficient.  It is limited to a small number of players and
cannot cope with the examples considered here.} is restricted to
paired comparisons.  The canonical problem is to consider~$n$ players
who compete against one another; the basic inference problem is to
estimate numbers~$\mathbf{p}=\left({p_1,\ldots,p_n}\right)$,
$p_i\geqslant 0$, $\sum p_i=1$ which correspond to player
``strengths''.  Information about the~$p_i$ may be obtained from the
results of paired comparisons between the players.

Applications are legion.  The technique is widely used in a
competitive sport context~\citep{turner2012}, in which matches are
held between two opposing individuals or teams.  It can also be
applied to consumer choice experiments in which subjects are asked to
choose a favourite from among two choices~\citep{hatzinger2012}, in
which case the~$p_i$ are known as ``worth parameters''.

If player~$i$ competes against player~$j$, and wins with
probability~$P_{ij}$ then the likelihood function for~$p_1,\ldots p_n$
corresponding to a win for~$i$ is~$\frac{p_i}{p_i+p_j}$.
As~\cite{turner2012} point out, this may be expressed as

\[
\operatorname{logit}\left(P_{ij}\right)=\log p_i-\log p_j
\]

\noindent
and this fact may be used to estimate~$\mathbf{p}$ using generalized
linear models.  However, consider the case where three competitors,
$i$, $j$, and~$k$ compete.  The probability that~$i$ wins is
then~$\frac{p_i}{p_i+p_j+p_k}$~\citep{luce1959}; but there is no
simple way to translate this likelihood function into a GLM.  However,
working directly with the likelihood function for~$\mathbf{p}$ has
several advantages which are illustrated below.  The resulting
likelihood functions may readily be generalized to accommodate more
general order statistics, as in a race.  In addition, likelihood
functions may be specified for partial order statistics; also,
observations in which a \emph{loser} is identified may be given a
likelihood function using natural {R} idiom.

\subsection{Further generalizations}

Observing the winner~$w$ from a preselected set of
competitors~$\mathcal{C}$ has a likelihood function
of~$p_w/\sum_{i\in\mathcal{C}} p_i$.  But consider a more general
situation in which two disjoint teams $\mathcal{A}$ and~$\mathcal{B}$
compete; this would have likelihood~$\sum_{i\in\mathcal{A}}
p_i/\sum_{i\in\mathcal{A}\cup\mathcal{B}} p_i$.  Such datasets
motivate consideration of likelihood
functions~$\mathcal{L}\left(\cdot\right)$ with

\begin{equation}\label{hyper2likelihood}
\mathcal{L}\left(\mathbf{p}\right)=
\prod_{s\in \mathcal{O}}\left({\sum_{i\in s}}p_i\right)^{n_s}
\end{equation}

\noindent
where~$\mathcal{O}$ is a set of observations and~$s$ a subset
of~$\left[n\right]=\left\{1,2,\ldots,n\right\}$; numbers~$n_s$ are
integers which may be positive or negative.  The approach adopted by
the~\pkg{hyperdirichlet} package~ is to store each of the~$2^n$
possible subsets of~$\left[n\right]$ together with an exponent:

\begin{equation}\label{hyperdirichletlikelihood}
\prod_{s\in 2^{\left[n\right]}}\left({\sum_{i\in s}}p_i\right)^{n_s}.
\end{equation}

\noindent
but this was noted as being needlessly memory intensive and slow; it
is limited, in practice, to~$n\leqslant 9$.  Use of the more efficient
equation~\ref{hyper2likelihood} necessitates some mechansim of keeping
track of which subsets of~$\left[n\right]$ have nonzero powers.

\section{The {hyper2} package}

One such mechanism is furnished by the \code{C++} Standard Template
Library's ``map'' class \citep{musser2009} to store and retrieve
elements.  A \emph{map} is an associative container that stores values
indexed by a key, which is used to sort and uniquely identify the
values.  In the package, the key is a (STL) \code{set} of strictly
positive integers~$\leqslant n$.  The relevant \code{typedef}
statements are:

\begin{verbatim}
typedef set<unsigned int> bracket;
typedef map<bracket, double> hyper2;
\end{verbatim}

\noindent
In the \code{STL}, a map object stores keys and associated values in
whatever order the software considers to be most propitious. This
allows faster access and modification times but the order in which the
maps, and indeed the elements of a set, are stored is not defined.  In
the case of likelihood functions such as
Equation~\ref{hyper2likelihood}, this is not an issue because both
multiplication and addition are associative and commutative
operations.  One side-effect of using this system is that the order of
the bracket-power key-value pairs is not preserved.





\section{The package in use}

\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|ccc|c|}\hline
Topalov  & Anand & Karpov & total\\ \hline
22 & 13 & -  & 35\\ 
-  & 23 & 12 & 35\\ 
8  &  -  & 10 & 18 \\ \hline
30 & 36 & 22 & 88 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Results of 88 chess matches \label{chess} (dataset
  \code{chess} in the \pkg{aylmer} package) between three
  Grandmasters; entries show number of games won up to 2001 (draws are
  discarded).  Topalov beats Anand 22-13; Anand beats Karpov 23-12;
  and Karpov beats Topalov 10-8}
\end{table}

Consider the \code{Chess} dataset of the \pkg{hyperdirchlet} package,
in which matches between three chess players are tabulated
(table~\ref{chess}).  The Bradley-Terry model~\citep{bradley1952} is
appropriate here~\citep{caron2012}, and the \pkg{hyper2} package
provides a likelihood function for the strengths of the players,
$p_1,p_2,p_3$ with~$p_1+p_2+p_3=1$.  A likelihood function might be

\[
\frac{p_1^{30}p_2^{36}p_3^{22}}{
  \left(p_1+p_2\right)^{35}
  \left(p_2+p_3\right)^{35}
  \left(p_1+p_3\right)^{18}
  }
\]

Using the \pkg{hyper2} package, the \proglang{R} idiom to create this
likelihood function is as follows:


<<chess_setup>>=
chess <- hyper2()
chess["Topalov"] <- 30
chess["Anand"  ] <- 36
chess["Karpov" ] <- 22
chess[c("Topalov","Anand" )] <- 35
chess[c("Anand","Karpov"  )] <- 35
chess[c("Karpov","Topalov")] <- 18
chess
@ 

The internal representation of \code{hyper2} objects is that of a
\proglang{map}, an associative array implemented as part of the
standard template library (\proglang{STL}) of \proglang{C++}.  It is
thus an unordered collection of (\emph{key}, \emph{value}) pairs.  In
this case the \emph{value} is the power and the \emph{key} is the
content of the bracket, which is a subset of
$\left\lbrace\mbox{Topalov},\mbox{Anand},\mbox{Karpov}\right\rbrace$.
The \proglang{stl} provides a \proglang{set} class for efficient
manipulation of such objects, and this is used in the package.

One side-effect of using this system is that the order of the
bracket-power key-value pairs is not preserved; above, note how the
terms appear in an essentially random order.  Also note that the use
of the \proglang{set} class means that the \proglang{R} idiom is
insensitive to the order of the terms within a bracket:

<<use_chess>>=
chess[c("Karpov","Topalov")] 
chess[c("Topalov","Karpov")] 

@ 

The package can calculate log-likelihoods:

<<loglikelihoodchess>>=
loglik(c(1/3,1/3),chess)
@ 

[the first argument of function \code{loglik()} is a vector of length
  2, third element of $\boldp$ being the ``fillup''
  value~\citep{aitchison1986}]; the gradient of the log-likelihood is
given by function \code{gradient()}:

<<gradientloglikelihoodchess>>=
gradient(chess,c(1/3,1/3))
@ 

Such functionality allows the rapid location of the maximum likelihood
estimate for~$\boldp$:

<<maxlikechess>>=
maxp(chess)
@ 

\section{Men's single sculling in the 2016 Summer Olympic Games}%'

In this section, I will take results from the 2016 Summer Olympic
Games and create a likelihood function for the finishing order in
Men's single sculling.  In Olympic sculling, up to six individual
competitors race a small boat called a scull over a course of length
2\,km; the object is to cross the finishing line first.  Note that
actual timings are irrelevant, given the model, as the sufficient
statistic is the order in which competitors cross the finishing line.
The 2016 Summer Olympics is a case in point: the gold and silver
medallists finished less than~5 milliseconds apart, corresponding to a
lead of~$\sim 2.5\,\mathrm{cm}$.

We may use a generalization of the Bradley-Terry model due
to~\citet{luce1959}, in which the probability of competitor~$i$
winning in a field of~$j=1,\ldots, n$ is

\[
\frac{p_i}{p_1+\cdots +p_n}.\]

However, there is information in the whole of the finishing order, not
just the first across the line.  Once the winner has been identified,
then the runner-up may plausibly be considered to be the winner among
the remaining competitors; and so on down the finishing order.
Without loss of generality, if the order of finishing
were~$1,2,3,4,5,6$, then a suitable likelihood function would be,
following~\cite{plackett1975}:

\begin{equation}\label{competitors_1_to_6_likelihood}
\frac{p_1}{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5+p_6}\cdot
\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5+p_6}\cdot
\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_4+p_5+p_6}\cdot
\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_5+p_6}\cdot
\frac{p_5}{p_5+p_6}\cdot
\frac{p_6}{p_6}
\end{equation}


We may represent the result of
Heat~1 as
\[
\mathrm{fournier}\succ
\mathrm{cabrera}\succ
\mathrm{bhokanal}\succ
\mathrm{saensuk}\succ
\mathrm{kelmelis}\succ
\mathrm{teilemb}
\]

(a full list of the finishing order for all~25 events is given in the
package as \code{rowing.txt}).  Incorporating the information from
Heat~1 into a likelihood function corresponding to
equation~\ref{competitors_1_to_6_likelihood} is straightforward using
the \code{rankvec\_likelihood()} function:

<<2016_olympics_heat1_first>>=
heat1 <- c("fournier", "cabrera", "bhokanal", "saensuk", "kelmelis", "teilemb")
H <- rankvec_likelihood(heat1)
H
@ 

(variable \code{heat1} shows the finishing order for Heat~1: Fournier
came first, then Cabrera, etc).  We can add the information from
heat~2 easily:

<<2016_olympics_heat1_first>>=
heat2 <- c("drysdale", "molnar", "esquivel", "garcia", "khafaji", "monasterio")
H <- H + rankvec_likelihood(heat2)
head(H)
@ 

Again observe that object \code{H} includes its terms in no apparent
order.  Although it would be possible to incorporate information from
subsequent heats in a similar manner, the package includes a
ready-made dataset, \code{rowing}:

<<rowers>>=
head(rowing)   # see rowing.Rd
@ 
 
Finding the maximum likelihood estimate for the
parameter~$p_\mathrm{banna},\ldots,p_\mathrm{zambrano}$ is
straightforward using the \code{maxp()} function, provided with the
package~(Figure~\ref{maxp_sculls2016}).  The optimization routine has
access to derivatives which means that the estimate is found very
quickly.


\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
<<rowing_maxp,echo=TRUE,fig=TRUE>>=
dotchart(rowing_maxp)
@
\caption{Maximum likelihood estimate for the strengths of the~32
  competitors\label{maxp_sculls2016} in the Men's singles sculls in
  the 2016 Summer Olympics
}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{maxp_sculls2016} shows very directly that the competitor
with the highest strength is Drysdale, the gold medallist for this
event.  The bronze and silver medallists were Synek and Martin
respectively, whose estimated strengths were second and third highest
in the field.
 
\section{MasterChef Australia}

MasterChef Australia is a game show in which amateur cooks compete for
a title~\citep{wikipedia_masterchef2017}.  From a statistical
perspective the contest is interesting because the typical show format
is to identify the \emph{weakest} player, who is then eliminated from
the competition.  Here, results from MasterChef Australia
Series~6~\citep{wikipedia_masterchef_australia_series6} will be
analysed; an extended discussion of the data used is given in the
package at~\code{masterchef.Rd}.

We wish to make inferences about the contestants' generalized
Bradley-Terry strengths~$p_1,\ldots,p_n$, $\sum p_i=1$.  One
informative event was a team challenge in which the contestants were
split randomly into two teams, red and blue:
  
<<setupteams>>=
team_red <- c("Jamie","Tracy","Ben","Amy","Renae","Georgia")
team_blue <- c("Brent","Laura","Emelia","Colin","Kira","Tash")
@ 
 
We may represent the fact that the red team won as 
\begin{equation}\label{redteamwon}
\left\{
\mbox{Jamie}+\mbox{Tracy}+\mbox{Ben}+
\mbox{Amy}+\mbox{Renae}+\mbox{Georgia}
\right\}
\succ
\left\{
\mbox{Brent}+\mbox{Laura}+\mbox{Emelia}+
\mbox{Colin}+\mbox{Kira}+\mbox{Tash}
\right\}
\end{equation}

The likelihood function for the observation given in
equation~\ref{redteamwon} would be

\begin{equation}\label{redbluelikelihood}
\frac{p_\mathrm{Jamie}+p_\mathrm{Tracy}+p_\mathrm{Ben}+p_\mathrm{Amy}+p_\mathrm{Renae}+p_\mathrm{Georgia}}{
p_\mathrm{Jamie}+p_\mathrm{Tracy}+p_\mathrm{Ben}+p_\mathrm{Amy}+p_\mathrm{Renae}+p_\mathrm{Georgia}+p_\mathrm{Brent}+p_\mathrm{Laura}+p_\mathrm{Emelia}+p_\mathrm{Colin}+p_\mathrm{Kira}+p_\mathrm{Tash}}
\end{equation}
  
To generate a likelihood function in \proglang{R}, we need to set up a
\code{hyper2} object with appropriate contestants:

<<masterchef_example>>=
H <- hyper2(pnames = c(
                "Amy", "Ben", "Brent", "Colin", "Emelia",
                "Georgia", "Jamie", "Kira", "Laura", "Renae",
                "Sarah", "Tash", "Tracy"))
H
@ 

Object \code{H} is a uniform likelihood function.  The package \proglang{R} idiom
for incorporating likelihood from Equation~\ref{redbluelikelihood} is
straightforward and natural:
<<redteamwins>>=
H[team_red] <- +1
H[c(team_red,team_blue)] <- -1
H
@ 

(Sarah did not take part).  The above idiom makes it possible to
define likelihood functions for observations that have a peculiar
probability structure, and I give two examples below.

One event involved eight competitors who were split randomly into four
teams of two.  The show format was specified in advance as follows:
The teams were to be judged, and placed in order.  The two top teams
were to be declared safe, and the other two teams sent to an
elimination trial from which an individual winner and loser were
identified, the loser being obliged to leave the competition.  The
format for this event is also typical in MasterChef.

The observation was that Laura and Jamie's team won, followed by
Emelia and Amy, then Brent and Tracy.  Ben and Renae's team came last:

\begin{equation}
\left\{{\mathrm{Laura}  + \mathrm{Jamie}}\right\}\succ
\left\{{\mathrm{Emelia} + \mathrm{Amy}  }\right\}\succ
\left\{{\mathrm{Brent}   + \mathrm{Tracy}}\right\}\succ
\left\{{\mathrm{Ben}    + \mathrm{Renae}}\right\}
\end{equation}


A plausible likelihood function can be generated using the standard
assumption~\citep{hankin2010} that the competitive strength of a team
is the sum of the strengths of its members.  We can then combine this
assumption with the order statistic technique of~\cite{plackett1975}:

\begin{align}
\frac{p_\mathrm{Laura}+p_\mathrm{Jamie}
}{
  p_\mathrm{Laura}  + p_\mathrm{Jamie} + 
  p_\mathrm{Emelia} + p_\mathrm{Amy}   +
  p_\mathrm{Brent}  + p_\mathrm{Tracy} +
  p_\mathrm{Ben}    + p_\mathrm{Renae}
  }\cdot\nonumber\\
\frac{
  p_\mathrm{Emelia} + p_\mathrm{Amy} 
}{
  p_\mathrm{Emelia} + p_\mathrm{Amy}   +
  p_\mathrm{Brent}  + p_\mathrm{Tracy} +
  p_\mathrm{Ben}    + p_\mathrm{Renae}
  }\cdot
\frac{
  p_\mathrm{Brent}  + p_\mathrm{Tracy}
}{  
  p_\mathrm{Brent}  + p_\mathrm{Tracy} +
  p_\mathrm{Ben}    + p_\mathrm{Renae}
  }
\end{align}

We would like to incorporate information from this observation into
object~\code{H}, which is a likelihood function for the two-team
challenge discussed above.  The corresponding \proglang{R} idiom is
natural:

<<teamchallenge>>=
blue   <- c("Laura","Jamie")   # first
yellow <- c("Emelia","Amy")    # second
green  <- c("Brent","Tracy")   # third
red    <- c("Ben","Renae")     # fourth

H[blue] <- 1
H[c(blue,yellow,green,red)] <- -1
H[yellow] <- 1
H[c(yellow,green,red)] <- -1
H[green] <- 1
H[c(green,red)] <- -1
H
@

We may incorporate subsequent observations relating to the elimination
trial among the four competitors comprising the losing two teams.  The
observation was that Laura won, and Renae came last, being eliminated.
We might write

\begin{equation}\label{renae_eliminated}
\left\{
\mbox{Laura}
\right\}
\succ
\left\{{\mbox{Brent},\mbox{Tracey},\mbox{Ben}}\right\}
\succ
\left\{\mbox{Renae}\right\},
\end{equation}

which indicates that Laura came first, then Brent/Tracey/Ben in some
order, then Renae came last.  For this observation a likelihood
function, following~\cite{plackett1975}, might be

\begin{align}
  \mathcal{L}\left({p_1,p_2,p_3,p_4,p_5}\right) &=
  \Prob\left({
    p_1\succ p_2\succ p_3\succ p_4\succ p_5
    \cup
    p_1\succ p_2\succ p_4\succ p_3\succ p_5
    \cup\ldots
  }\right)\\ \label{ggrlmath}
  &=\Prob\left({\bigcup_{\left[{abc}\right]} p_1\succ p_a\succ p_b\succ p_c\succ p_5
  }\right)\\ \nonumber
  &=    \frac{p_1}{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_5}\\ \nonumber
  &{\qquad+}\frac{p_1}{p_1+p_2+p_4+p_3+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_4+p_3+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_3+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_5}\\ \nonumber
  &{\qquad{}+}\frac{p_1}{p_1+p_3+p_2+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_2+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_5}\\ \nonumber
  &{\qquad{}+}\cdots
\end{align}

where Laura's strength is shown as~$p_1$ etc for brevity.  The
\proglang{R} idiom is as follows:

<<>>=
L <- ggrl(H, 
          winner     = "Laura",
          btm4       = c("Brent", "Tracy","Ben"),
          eliminated = "Renae")
@ 

Arguments to \code{ggrl()} are disjoint subsets of the players, the
subsets themselves being passed in competition order from best to
worst.  Object \code{L} includes information from the team challenge
(via first argument \code{H}) and the elimination results.  It is a
list of length~$3!=6$ objects of class \code{hyper2}, each of which
gives a \citeauthor{luce1959} likelihood function for a consistent
total ordering of the competitors.

A final example (taken from MasterChef series 8, week 10) is given as
a generalization of the \citeauthor{luce1959} likelihood.  The format
was as follows.  Eight contestants were split randomly into four teams
of two, the top two teams being declared safe.  Note that the
likelihood interpretation differs from the previous team challenge, in
which the observation was an unambiguous team ranking: here, there is
only a partial ranking of the teams and one might expect this
observation to be less informative.  Without loss of generality, the
result may be represented as

\begin{equation}
  \left\{{p_1+p_2,p_3+p_4}\right\}\succ
  \left\{{p_5+p_6,p_7+p_8}\right\}
  \end{equation}
      
and a likelihood function on~$p_1,\ldots p_8$ for this observation
might be

\begin{align}
  \mathcal{L}\left( {p_1,\ldots, p_8} \right) &=
  \Prob\left({
    \left\{ {p_1+p_2} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_3+p_4} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_5+p_6} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_7+p_8} \right\} \cup\vphantom{\bigcup}
  }\right. \nonumber\\
  &\qquad \left.{
    \left\{ {p_1+p_2} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_3+p_4} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_7+p_8} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_5+p_6} \right\}\cup
  }\right.\nonumber\\
  &\qquad \left.{
    \left\{ {p_3+p_4} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_1+p_2} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_5+p_6} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_7+p_8} \right\}\cup
  }\right.\nonumber\\
  &\qquad \left.{
    \left\{ {p_3+p_4} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_1+p_2} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_5+p_6} \right\}\succ 
    \left\{ {p_7+p_8} \right\}\vphantom{\bigcup}
  }\right)\\
&=\frac{p_1+p_2}{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5+p_6+p_7+p_8}\cdot
  \frac{p_3+p_4}{p_3+p_4+p_5+p_6+p_7+p_8}\cdot\frac{p_5+p_6}{p_5+p_6+p_7+p_8}\nonumber\\
&{}\qquad+\cdots+\nonumber\\
&{}\frac{p_3+p_4}{p_3+p_4+p_1+p_2+p_7+p_8+p_5+p_6}\cdot
  \frac{p_1+p_2}{p_3+p_4+p_7+p_8+p_5+p_6}\cdot\frac{p_7+p_8}{p_7+p_8+p_5+p_6}\nonumber\\
\nonumber
\end{align}



%\begin{align}
%  \mathcal{L}\left({p_1,\ldots, p_8}\right) &=
%  \Prob\left({
%    \left\{ {p_1, p_2}\right\}\succ 
%    \left\{ {p_3, p_4}\right\}\succ 
%    \left\{ {p_5, p_6}\right\}\succ 
%    \left\{ {p_7, p_8}\right\}
%  }\right)\\ \label{ggrlmath}
%  &=\Prob\left({\bigcup_{\left[{abc}\right]} p_1\succ p_a\succ p_b\succ p_c\succ p_5
%  }\right)\\ \nonumber
%  &=    \frac{p_1}{p_1+p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_3+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_5}\\ \nonumber
%  &{\qquad+}\frac{p_1}{p_1+p_2+p_4+p_3+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_4+p_3+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_3+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_5}\\ \nonumber
%  &{\qquad{}+}\frac{p_1}{p_1+p_3+p_2+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_3}{p_3+p_2+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_2}{p_2+p_4+p_5}\cdot\frac{p_4}{p_4+p_5}\\ \nonumber
%  &{\qquad{}+}\cdots
% \end{align}

\subsection{Maximum likelihood estimation}

The package provides an overall likelihood function for all
informative judgements in the series on the final 13 players in object
\code{masterchef\_series6}, documented at \code{masterchef.Rd}.  We
may assess a number of related hypotheses using the package.  The
first step is to calculate the likelihood for the hypothesis that all
players are of equal strength:
 
<<like_series1>>=
data("masterchef")
n <- 13   # 13 players
equal_strengths <- rep(1/n,n-1)
like_series(equal_strengths, masterchef)  # see masterchef.Rd
@ 

The strengths of the 13 players may be estimated using standard
maximum likelihood techniques.  This requires constrained optimization
in order to prevent the search from passing through inadmissible
points in p-space:

<<unconstrained_optimization,eval=FALSE>>=
UI <- rbind(diag(n-1),-1)  # p_i >= 0
CI <- c(rep(0,n-1),-1)     # p_1+...+p_{n-1} <= 1

constrOptim(  # maxp() does not work for masterchef_series6
    theta = equal_strengths,  # starting point for optimization
    f = function(p){-like_series(p,masterchef)}, # see masterchef.Rd
    ui=UI, ci=CI,
    grad=NULL)
@ 

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
<<masterchef_maxp,echo=TRUE,fig=TRUE>>=
masterchef_maxp
dotchart(masterchef_maxp)
@
\caption{Maximum likelihood estimate for the strengths of the top~13
  competitors\label{masterchef} in Series~6 of \emph{MasterChef Australia}
}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The resulting maximum likelihood estimate, \code{masterchef_maxp} in
the package, is shown pictorially in Figure~\ref{masterchef}.  The
support at the precalculated evaluate is

<<like_series2>>=
like_series(indep(masterchef_maxp), masterchef)
@ 

and this allows us to test the hypothesis of equal player strengths:
by Wilks's theorem, $-2\log\Lambda$ has an asymptotic null distribution
of~$\chi^2_{12}$.  This corresponds to a $p$-value of

<<pvalcalcequalstrengths>>=
pchisq(2*(78.7-66.2),df=12,lower.tail=FALSE)
@ 

showing that the observations do constitute evidence for differential
player strengths.  Figure~\ref{masterchef6} suggests that Laura, the
runner-up, is actually a stronger competitor than the winner, Brent.
We may assess this statistically by finding the maximum likelihood
for~${\mathbf p}$, subject to the constraint
that~$p_\mathrm{Laura}\leqslant p_\mathrm{Brent}$:

<<brent.gt.laura, eval=FALSE>>=
UI <- rbind(UI,c(0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,-1,0,0,0,0))  # Brent >= Laura
CI <- c(CI,0)
ans2 <-
constrOptim(  # maxp() does not work for masterchef_series6
    theta = equal_strengths,
    f = function(p){-like_series(p,masterchef_series6)},  # see masterchef.Rd
    grad=NULL,
    ui = UI, ci=CI)
@ 

Object \code{maxp_masterchef6_constrained} in the package is the
result of the above optimization, at which point the likelihood is

<<>>=
like_series(indep(masterchef_constrained_maxp), masterchef)
@ 

The two estimates differ by about~$1.18$, less than the
two-units-of-support criterion of~\citet{edwards1992}; alternatively,
one may observe that the likelihood ratio is not in the tail region of
its asymptotic distribution ($\chi^2_1$) as the $p$-value is about 0.12.
This shows that there is no strong evidence for Laura's competitive
strength being higher than that of Brent.  Similar techniques can be
used to give a profile likelihood function; the resulting support interval
for Laura's strength is~$\left[{0.145,0.465}\right]$, which does not
include~$\frac{1}{13}\simeq 0.077$, the mean player strength.  

However, further work would be needed to make statistically robust
inferences from these findings.  Even given equal competitive ability,
one would expect the player with the highest estimated Bradley-Terry
strength to have an elevated support interval; and it is not clear to
what extent Wilks, being asymptotic, is relevant to the data at hand.


\section{Conclusions}

Several generalization of Bradley-Terry strengths are appropriate to
describe competitive situations in which order statistics are
sufficient.

The \code{hyper2} package is introduced, providing a suite of
functionality for generalizations of the partial rank analysis
of~\cite{critchlow1985}.  The software admits natural \proglang{R}
idiom for translating commonly occurring observations into a
likelihood function.

The package is used to calculate maximum likelihood estimates for
generalized Bradley-Terry strengths in two competitive situations:
Olympic rowing, and \emph{MasterChef Australia}.  The estimates for
the competitors' strengths are plausible; and several meaningful
statistical hypotheses are assessed quantitatively.

\bibliography{hyper2}
\end{document}
 
