*Commandline tool providing interactive statistical pairwise ranking and sorting of items*( )

created:

*7 Sep 2015*; modified:

*29 Nov 2016*; status:

*finished*; belief:

*likely*

User-created datasets using ordinal scales (such as media ratings) have tendencies to drift or

clumptowards the extremes and fail to be informative as possible, falling prey to ceiling effects and making it difficult to distinguish between the mediocre and truly excellent. This can be counteracted by rerating the dataset to create a more uniform (and hence, informative) distribution of ratings, but such manual rerating is difficult. I provide an anytime CLI program,`resorter`

, which keeps track of comparisons, infers underlying ratings assuming that they are noisy in the ELO-like Bradley-Terry model, and interactively & intelligently queries the user with comparisons of the media with the most uncertain current ratings, until the user ends the session and a fully rescaled set of ratings are output.

# Use

`resorter`

reads in a CSV file of media (with an optional second column of ratings), and then, with a number of options, will ask the user about specific comparisons until such time as the user decides that the rankings are probably accurate enough (unlike standard comparison sorts, the comparisons are allowed to be noisy!), and quits the interactive session, at which point the underlying rankings are inferred and a uniformly-distributed re-ranked set of ratings are printed or written out.

Available features:

```
$ ./resorter --help
usage: resorter [--help] [--verbose] [--no-scale] [--no-progress] [--opts OPTS] [--input INPUT] [--output OUTPUT] [--queries QUERIES]
[--levels LEVELS] [--quantiles QUANTILES]
sort a list using comparative rankings under the Bradley-Terry statistical model; see https://www.gwern.net/Resorter
flags:
-h, --help show this help message and exit
-v, --verbose whether to print out intermediate statistics
-ns, --no-scale Do not discretize/bucket the final estimated latent ratings into 1-l levels/ratings; print out inferred latent scores.
--no-progress Do not print out mean standard error of items
optional arguments:
-x, --opts OPTS RDS file containing argument values
-i, --input INPUT input file - a CSV file of items to sort: one per line, with up to two columns. (eg both 'Akira\n' and 'Akira, 10\n' are valid).
-o, --output OUTPUT output file: a file to write the final results to. Default: printing to stdout.
-n, --queries QUERIES Maximum number of questions to ask the user; if already rated, O(items) is a good max, but the more items and more levels in
the scale, the more comparisons are needed. [default: 2147483647]
-l, --levels LEVELS The highest level; rated items will be discretized into 1-l levels, so l=5 means items are bucketed into 5 levels: [1,2,3,4,5],
etc [default: 5]
-q, --quantiles QUANTILES What fraction to allocate to each level; space-separated; overrides `--levels`. This allows making one level of ratings
narrower (and more precise) than the others, at their expense; for example, one could make 3-star ratings rarer with quantiles
like `--quantiles '0 0.25 0.8 1'`. Default: uniform distribution (1-5 ~> '0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0').
```

Here is an example demonstrating the use of `resorter`

to have the user make 10 comparisons, rescale the scores into 1-3 ratings (where 3 is rare), and write the new rankings to a file:

```
$ cat anime.txt
"Cowboy Bebop", 10
"Monster", 10
"Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion", 10
"Gankutsuou", 10
"Serial Experiments Lain", 10
"Perfect Blue", 10
"Jin-Rou", 10
"Death Note", 10
"Last Exile", 9
"Fullmetal Alchemist", 9
"Gunslinger Girl", 9
"RahXephon", 9
"Trigun", 9
"Fruits Basket", 9
"FLCL", 9
"Witch Hunter Robin", 7
".hack//Sign", 7
"Chobits", 7
"Full Metal Panic!", 7
"Mobile Suit Gundam Wing", 7
"El Hazard: The Wanderers", 7
"Mai-HiME", 6
"Kimi ga Nozomu Eien", 6
$ ./resorter.R --input anime.txt --output new-ratings.txt --queries 10 --quantiles '0 0.33 0.9 1'
Comparison commands: 1=yes, 2=tied, 3=second is better, p=print estimates, s=skip, q=quit
Mean stderr: 70182 | Do you like 'RahXephon' better than 'Perfect Blue'? 2
Mean stderr: 21607 | Do you like 'Monster' better than 'Death Note'? 1
Mean stderr: 13106 | Do you like 'Kimi ga Nozomu Eien' better than 'Gunslinger Girl'? 3
Mean stderr: 13324 | Do you like 'Kimi ga Nozomu Eien' better than 'Gankutsuou'? p
Media Estimate SE
Mai-HiME -2.059917500e+01 18026.307910587
Kimi ga Nozomu Eien -2.059917500e+01 18026.308021536
Witch Hunter Robin -1.884110950e-15 2.828427125
.hack//Sign -7.973125767e-16 2.000000000
Chobits 0.000000000e+00 0.000000000
Full Metal Panic! 2.873961741e-15 2.000000000
Mobile Suit Gundam Wing 5.846054261e-15 2.828427125
El Hazard: The Wanderers 6.694628513e-15 3.464101615
Last Exile 1.911401531e+01 18026.308784841
Fullmetal Alchemist 1.960906858e+01 18026.308743986
Gunslinger Girl 2.010412184e+01 18026.308672318
FLCL 2.059917511e+01 18026.308236990
Fruits Basket 2.059917511e+01 18026.308347939
RahXephon 2.059917511e+01 18026.308569837
Trigun 2.059917511e+01 18026.308458888
Jin-Rou 2.109422837e+01 18026.308740073
Death Note 2.109422837e+01 18026.308765943
Perfect Blue 2.109422837e+01 18026.308672318
Serial Experiments Lain 2.158928163e+01 18026.308767629
Gankutsuou 2.208433490e+01 18026.308832127
Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion 2.257938816e+01 18026.308865814
Cowboy Bebop 2.307444143e+01 18026.308979636
Monster 2.307444143e+01 18026.308868687
Mean stderr: 13324 | Do you like 'Monster' better than 'Jin-Rou'? s
Mean stderr: 13324 | Do you like 'Last Exile' better than 'Death Note'? 3
Mean stderr: 13362 | Do you like 'Mai-HiME' better than 'Serial Experiments Lain'? 3
Mean stderr: 16653 | Do you like 'Trigun' better than 'Kimi ga Nozomu Eien'? 1
Mean stderr: 14309 | Do you like 'Death Note' better than 'Kimi ga Nozomu Eien'? 1
Mean stderr: 12644 | Do you like 'Trigun' better than 'Monster'? 3
$ cat new-ratings.txt
"Media","Quantile"
"Cowboy Bebop","3"
"Monster","3"
"Neon Genesis Evangelion: The End of Evangelion","3"
"Death Note","2"
"FLCL","2"
"Fruits Basket","2"
"Fullmetal Alchemist","2"
"Gankutsuou","2"
"Gunslinger Girl","2"
"Jin-Rou","2"
"Last Exile","2"
"Perfect Blue","2"
"RahXephon","2"
"Serial Experiments Lain","2"
"Trigun","2"
"Chobits","1"
"El Hazard: The Wanderers","1"
"Full Metal Panic!","1"
".hack//Sign","1"
"Kimi ga Nozomu Eien","1"
"Mai-HiME","1"
"Mobile Suit Gundam Wing","1"
"Witch Hunter Robin","1"
```

# Source code

This R script requires the BradleyTerry2 & argparser libraries to be available or installable. Save it as a script somewhere in your $PATH named `resorter`

, and `chmod +x resorter`

to make it executable.

```
#!/usr/bin/Rscript
# attempt to load a library implementing the Bradley-Terry model for inferring rankings based on
# comparisons; if it doesn't load, try to install it through R's in-language package management;
# otherwise, abort and warn the user
# http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i09/paper
loaded <- library(BradleyTerry2, quietly=TRUE, logical.return=TRUE)
if (!loaded) { write("warning: R library 'BradleyTerry2' unavailable; attempting to install locally...", stderr())
install.packages("BradleyTerry2")
loadedAfterInstall <- library(BradleyTerry2, quietly=TRUE, logical.return=TRUE)
if(!loadedAfterInstall) { write("error: 'BradleyTerry2' unavailable and cannot be installed. Aborting.", stderr()); quit() }
}
# similarly, but for the library to parse commandline arguments:
loaded <- library(argparser, quietly=TRUE, logical.return=TRUE)
if (!loaded) { write("warning: R library 'argparser' unavailable; attempting to install locally...", stderr())
install.packages("argparser")
loadedAfterInstall <- library(argparser, quietly=TRUE, logical.return=TRUE)
if(!loadedAfterInstall) { write("error: 'argparser' unavailable and cannot be installed. Aborting.", stderr()); quit() }
}
p <- arg_parser("sort a list using comparative rankings under the Bradley-Terry statistical model; see https://www.gwern.net/Resorter", name="resorter")
p <- add_argument(p, "--input", short="-i",
"input file - a CSV file of items to sort: one per line, with up to two columns. (eg both 'Akira\\n' and 'Akira, 10\\n' are valid).", type="character")
p <- add_argument(p, "--output", "output file: a file to write the final results to. Default: printing to stdout.")
p <- add_argument(p, "--verbose", "whether to print out intermediate statistics", flag=TRUE)
p <- add_argument(p, "--queries", short="-n", default=.Machine$integer.max,
"Maximum number of questions to ask the user; if already rated, O(items) is a good max, but the more items and more levels in the scale, the more comparisons are needed.")
p <- add_argument(p, "--levels", short="-l", default=5, "The highest level; rated items will be discretized into 1-l levels, so l=5 means items are bucketed into 5 levels: [1,2,3,4,5], etc")
p <- add_argument(p, "--quantiles", short="-q", "What fraction to allocate to each level; space-separated; overrides `--levels`. This allows making one level of ratings narrower (and more precise) than the others, at their expense; for example, one could make 3-star ratings rarer with quantiles like `--quantiles '0 0.25 0.8 1'`. Default: uniform distribution (1-5 ~> '0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0').")
p <- add_argument(p, "--no-scale", short="-ns", flag=TRUE, "Do not discretize/bucket the final estimated latent ratings into 1-l levels/ratings; print out inferred latent scores.")
p <- add_argument(p, "--no-progress", flag=TRUE, "Do not print out mean standard error of items")
argv <- parse_args(p)
# read in the data from either the specified file or stdin:
if(!is.na(argv$input)) { ranking <- read.csv(file=argv$input, header=FALSE); } else { ranking <- read.csv(file=file('stdin'), header=FALSE); }
# if user did not specify a second column of initial ratings, then put in a default of '1':
if(ncol(ranking)==1) { ranking$Rating <- 1; }
colnames(ranking) <- c("Media", "Rating")
# A set of ratings like 'foo,1\nbar,2' is not comparisons, though. We *could* throw out everything except the 'Media' column
# but we would like to accelerate the interactive querying process by exploiting the valuable data the user has given us.
# So we 'seed' the comparison dataset based on input data: higher rating means +1, lower means -1, same rating == tie (0.5 to both)
comparisons <- NULL
for (i in 1:(nrow(ranking)-1)) {
rating1 <- ranking[i,]$Rating
media1 <- ranking[i,]$Media
rating2 <- ranking[i+1,]$Rating
media2 <- ranking[i+1,]$Media
if (rating1 == rating2)
{
comparisons <- rbind(comparisons, data.frame("Media.1"=media1, "Media.2"=media2, "win1"=0.5, "win2"=0.5))
} else { if (rating1 > rating2)
{
comparisons <- rbind(comparisons, data.frame("Media.1"=media1, "Media.2"=media2, "win1"=1, "win2"=0))
} else {
comparisons <- rbind(comparisons, data.frame("Media.1"=media1, "Media.2"=media2, "win1"=0, "win2"=1))
} } }
# the use of '0.5' is recommended by the BT2 paper, despite causing quasi-spurious warnings:
# > In several of the data examples (e.g., `?CEMS`, `?springall`, `?sound.fields`), ties are handled by the crude but
# > simple device of adding half of a 'win' to the tally for each player involved; in each of the examples where this
# > has been done it is found that the result is very similar, after a simple re-scaling, to the more sophisticated
# > analyses that have appeared in the literature. Note that this device when used with `BTm` typically gives rise to
# > warnings produced by the back-end glm function, about non-integer 'binomial' counts; such warnings are of no
# > consequence and can be safely ignored. It is likely that a future version of `BradleyTerry2` will have a more
# > general method for handling ties.
suppressWarnings(priorRankings <- BTm(cbind(win1, win2), Media.1, Media.2, ~ Media, id = "Media", data = comparisons))
if(argv$verbose) {
print("higher=better:")
print(summary(priorRankings))
print(sort(BTabilities(priorRankings)[,1]))
}
set.seed(2015-09-10)
cat("Comparison commands: 1=yes, 2=tied, 3=second is better, p=print estimates, s=skip, q=quit\n")
for (i in 1:argv$queries) {
# with the current data, calculate and extract the new estimates:
suppressWarnings(updatedRankings <- BTm(cbind(win1, win2), Media.1, Media.2, ~ Media, id = "Media", data = comparisons))
coefficients <- BTabilities(updatedRankings)
if(argv$verbose) { print(i); print(coefficients); }
# pick two media to compare at random but weighted by relative size of standard-error,
# which is a crude indicator of its uncertainty and the ones where value of information is high:
targets <- sample(row.names(coefficients), 2, prob=coefficients[,2])
media1 <- targets[1]
media2 <- targets[2]
if (!(argv$`no-progress`)) { cat(paste0("Mean stderr: ", round(mean(coefficients[,2]))), " | "); }
cat(paste0("Do you like '", as.character(media1), "' better than '", as.character(media2), "'? "))
rating <- scan("stdin", character(), n=1, quiet=TRUE)
switch(rating,
"1" = { comparisons <- rbind(comparisons, data.frame("Media.1"=media1, "Media.2"=media2, "win1"=1, "win2"=0)) },
"3" = { comparisons <- rbind(comparisons, data.frame("Media.1"=media1, "Media.2"=media2, "win1"=0, "win2"=1)) },
"2" = { comparisons <- rbind(comparisons, data.frame("Media.1"=media1, "Media.2"=media2, "win1"=0.5, "win2"=0.5))},
"p" = { estimates <- data.frame(Media=row.names(coefficients), Estimate=coefficients[,1], SE=coefficients[,2]);
print(estimates[order(estimates$Estimate),], row.names=FALSE) },
"s" = {},
"q" = { break; }
)
}
# results of all the questioning:
if(argv$verbose) { print(comparisons); }
suppressWarnings(updatedRankings <- BTm(cbind(win1, win2), Media.1, Media.2, ~ Media, id = "Media", data = comparisons))
coefficients <- BTabilities(updatedRankings)
if(argv$verbose) { print(rownames(coefficients)[which.max(coefficients[2,])]);
print(summary(updatedRankings))
print(sort(coefficients[,1])) }
ranking2 <- as.data.frame(BTabilities(updatedRankings))
ranking2$Media <- rownames(ranking2)
rownames(ranking2) <- NULL
if(!(argv$`no-scale`)) {
# if the user specified a bunch of buckets using `--quantiles`, parse it and use it, otherwise, take `--levels` and make a uniform distribution
quantiles <- if (!is.na(argv$quantiles)) { (sapply(strsplit(argv$quantiles, " "), as.numeric))[,1]; } else { seq(0, 1, length.out=(argv$levels+1)); }
ranking2$Quantile <- with(ranking2, cut(ability,
breaks=quantile(ability, probs=quantiles),
labels=1:(length(quantiles)-1),
include.lowest=TRUE))
df <- subset(ranking2[order(ranking2$Quantile, decreasing=TRUE),], select=c("Media", "Quantile"));
if (!is.na(argv$output)) { write.csv(df, file=argv$output, row.names=FALSE) } else { print(df); }
} else { # return just the latent continuous scores:
df <- data.frame(Media=rownames(coefficients), Estimate=coefficients[,1]);
if (!is.na(argv$output)) { write.csv(df[order(df$Estimate, decreasing=TRUE),], file=argv$output, row.names=FALSE); } else { print(finalReport); }
}
```

# Background

In rating hundreds of media on a review site like GoodReads, Amazon, MyAnimeList etc, the distributions tend to become lumpy

and concentrate on the top few possible ratings: if it’s a 10-point scale, you won’t see many below 7, usually, or if it’s 5-stars then anything below 4-stars indicates profound hatred, leading to a J-shaped distribution and the Internet’s version of grade inflation. After enough time and inflation, the ratings have degenerated into a noninformative binary rating scale, and some sites, recognizing this, abandon the pretense, like YouTube switching from 5-stars to like/dislike.

This is unfortunate if you want to provide ratings & reviews to other people and indicate your true preferences; when I like on MALgraph and see that over half my anime ratings are in the range 8-10, then, my ratings having degenerated into a roughly 1-3 scale (crap-good-great) makes it harder to see which ones are truly worth watching & also which ones I might want to go back and rewatch. So the ratings carry much less information than one might have guessed from the scale (a 10-point scale has 3.32 bits of information in each rating, but if it’s de facto degenerated into a 3-point scale, then the information has halved to 1.58 bits). If instead, my ratings were uniformly distributed over the 1-10 scale, such that 10% were rated 1, 10% were rated 2, etc, then my ratings would be much more informative, and my opinion clearer. (First-world problems, perhaps, but still annoying.)

For only a few ratings like 10 or 20, it’s easy to manually review and rescale ratings and resolve the ambiguities (which 8

is worse than the other ’8’s and should be knocked down to 7?), but past that, it starts to become tedious and because judgment is so fragile and subjective and choice fatigue

begins to set in, I find myself having to repeatedly scan the list and ask myself is X

. So unsurprisingly, for a large corpus like my 408 anime or 2059 books, I’ve never bothered to try to do this - much less do it occasionally as the ratings drift.*really* better than Y…? hm…

If I had some sort of program which could query me repeatedly for new ratings, store the results, and then spit out a consolidated list of exactly how to change ratings, then I might be able to, once in a great while, correct my ratings. This would help us re-rate our existing media corpuses, but it could also help us sort other things: for example, we could try to prioritize future books or movies by taking all the ones we marked to read

and then doing comparisons to rank each item by how excited we are about it or how important it is or how much we want to read it soon. (If we have way too many things to do, we could also sort our overall To Do lists this way, but probably it’s easy to sort them by hand.)

But it can’t ask me for absolute ratings, because if I was able to easily give uniformly-distributed ratings, I wouldn’t have this problem in the first place! So instead it should calculate rankings, and then take the final ranking and distribute them across however many buckets there are in the scale: if I rate 100 anime for MAL’s 1-10 ranking, then it will put the bottom 10 in the 1

bucket, the 10-20th into the 2

bucket, etc This cannot be done automatically.

How to get rankings: if there are 1000 media, it’s impossible for me to explicitly rank a book #952

, or #501

. Nobody has that firm a grip. Perhaps it would be better for it to ask me to compare pairs of media? Comparison is much more natural, less fatiguing, and helps my judgment by reminding me of what other media there are and how I think of them - when a terrible movie gets mentioned in the same breath as a great movie, it reminds you why one was terrible and the other great. Comparison also immediately suggests an implementation as the classic comparison sort algorithms like Quicksort or Mergesort, where the comparison argument is an IO function which simply calls out to the user; yielding a reasonable $O(n \cdot log(n))$ number of queries (and possibly much less, $O(n)$, if we have the pre-existing ratings and can treat it as an adaptive sort). So we could solve this with a simple script in any decent programming language like Python, and this sort of re-sorting is provided by websites such as Flickchart

The comparison-sort algorithms make an assumption that is outrageously unrealistic in this context: they assume that the comparison is 100% accurate. That is, say, you have two sorted lists of 1000 elements each and you compare the lowest element of one with the highest element of the other and the first is higher, then all 1000 items in the first are higher than all 1000 items in the second, that of the 1000^{2}=1000000 possible pairwise comparisons, the sorting algorithms assume that not a single item is out of place, not a single pairwise comparison would be incorrect. This assumption is fine in programming, since the CPU is good at comparing bits for equality & may go trillions of operations without making a single mistake; but it’s absurd to expect this level of reliability of a human for any task, much less one in which we are clumsily feeling for the invisible movements of our souls in response to great artists.

Our comparisons of movies, or books, or music, *are* error-prone and so we need some sort of statistical sorting algorithm.

So we’d like a command-line tool which consumes a list of pairs of media & ratings, then queries the user repeatedly with pairs of media to get the user’s rating of which one is better, somehow modeling underlying scores while allowing for the user to be wrong in multiple comparisons and ideally picking whatever is the most informative

next pair to ask about to converge on accurate rankings as quickly as possible, and after enough questions, do a final inference of the full ranking of media and mapping it onto a uniform distribution over a particular rating scale.

The natural way to see the problem is to treat every competitor as having an unobserved latent variable quality

or ability

or skill

on a cardinal scale which is measured with error by comparisons, and then weaken transitivity to chain our comparisons: if A beats B and B beats C, then *probably* A beats C, weighted by how many times we’ve observed beating and have much precise our estimate of A-C’s latent variables are.

## Implementation

Paired or comparison-based data comes up a lot in competitive contexts, such as the famous Elo rating system or the Bayesian TrueSkill. A general model for dealing with it is the Bradley–Terry model.

There are at least two packages in R for dealing with Bradley-Terry models, `BradleyTerry2`

and `prefmod`

. The latter supports more sophisticated analyses than the former, but it wants its data in an inconvenient format, while `BradleyTerry2`

is more easily incrementally updated. (I want to supply my data to the library as a long list of triplets of media/media/rating, which is then easily updated with user-input by simply adding another triplet to the bottom; but `prefmod`

wants a column for each possible media, which is awkward to start with and gets worse if there are 1000+ media to compare.)

We start with two vectors: the list of media, and the list of original ratings. The original ratings, while lumpy and in need of improving, are still useful information which should not be ignored; if BT-2 were a Bayesian library, we could use them as informative priors, but it’s not, so instead I adopt a hack in which the program runs through the list, comparing each anime with the next anime, and if equal, it’s treated as a tie, and otherwise they are recorded as a win/loss - so even from the start we’ve made a lot of progress towards inferring their latent scores.

Then a loop asks the user *n* comparisons; we want to ask about the media whose estimates are most uncertain, and a way of estimating that is looking at which media have the biggest standard error. You might think that asking about only the two media with the current biggest standard error would be the best exploration strategy (since this corresponds to reinforcement learning and multi-armed bandit approaches where you start off by exploring the most uncertain things), but surprisingly, this leads to asking about the same media again and again, even as the standard error plummets. I’m not sure why this happens, but I think it has to do with the prior information creating an ordering or hierarchy on all the media, and then the maximum-likelihood estimating leads to repeating the same question again and again to shift the ordering up or down the cardinal scale (even our discretized ratings will be invariant no matter how the estimates are translated up and down). So instead, it picks randomly with weights for each media of its standard error, so it usually focuses on the most uncertain ones but will occasionally ask about other media as well. (Somewhat analogous to fixed-epsilon exploration in RL.)

After all the questions are asked, a final estimation is done, the media are sorted by rank, and mapped back onto the user-specified rating scale.

### Why not Bayes?

#### Bayesian improvements

There are two problems with this approach:

- it does not come with any principled indication of uncertainty,
- and as a consequence, it may not be asking the optimal questions

The first is the biggest problem because we have no way of knowing when to stop. Perhaps after 10 questions, the *real* uncertainty is still high and our final ratings will still be missorted; or perhaps diminishing returns had set in and it would have taken so many more questions to stamp out the error that we would prefer just to correct the few erroneous ratings manually in a once-over. And we don’t want to crank up the question-count to something burdensome like 200 just on the off-chance that the sorting is insufficient. Instead, we’d like some comprehensible probability that each media is assigned to its correct bucket, and perhaps a bound on overall error: for example, I would be satisfied if I could specify something like 90% probability that all media are at least in their correct bucket

.^{1}

Since BF-2 is fundamentally a frequentist library, it will never give us this kind of answer; all it has to offer in this vein are *p*-values - which are answers to questions I’ve never asked - and standard errors, which are *sort* of indicators of uncertainty & better than nothing but still imperfect. Between our interest in a sequential trial approach and our interest in producing meaningful probabilities of errors (and my own preference for Bayesian approaches in general), this motivates looking at Bayesian implementations.

The Bradley-Terry model can be fit easily in Bugs/JAGS; two less and more elaborate examples are in Jim Albert’s implementation & Shawn E. Hallinan. Although it doesn’t implement the extended B-T with ties, Albert’s example is easily adapted, and we could try to infer rankings like thus:

```
comparisons2 <- comparisons[!(comparisons$win1==0.5),]
teamH = as.numeric(comparisons2$Media.1)
teamA = as.numeric(comparisons2$Media.2)
y = comparisons2$win1
n = comparisons2$win1 + comparisons2$win2
N = length(y)
J = length(levels(comparisons$Media.1))
data = list(y = y, n = n, N = N, J = J, teamA = teamA, teamH = teamH)
model1 <- "model {
for (i in 1:N){
y[i] ~ dbin (p[i], n[i])
logit(p[i]) <- a[teamH[i]] - a[teamA[i]]
}
for (j in 1:J){
a[j] ~ dnorm(0, tau)
}
tau <- pow(sigma, -2)
sigma ~ dunif (0, 100)
}"
library(runjags)
j1 <- autorun.jags(model=model1, monitor=c("a", "y"), data=data); j1
```

(This reuses the converting-priors-to-data trick from before.) This yields sensible ratings but MCMC unavoidably have overhead compared to a quick iterative maximum-likelihood algorithm which only estimates the parameters - it takes about 1s to run on the example data. 1s is too long for particularly pleasant interactive use (total time from response to next question should be <0.1s for best UX) but maybe it’s worth paying if we can get much better questions? There might be speedups available; this is about estimating latent normal/Gaussian variables, which frequently has very fast implementations. For example, it would not surprise me if it turned out that the Bayesian inference could be done outside of MCMC through an analytic solution, or more likely, a Laplacian approximation, such as implemented in INLA which supports latent Gaussians.

#### Optimal exploration

So moving on, with a MCMC implementation, we can look at how to optimally sample data. In this case, since we’re collecting data and the user can stop anytime they feel like, we aren’t interesting in loss functions so much as maximizing information gain - figuring out which pair of media yields the highest expected information gain

.

EI is not too well documented at an implementation level, but the algorithm seems to go: for each possible action (in this case, each possible pair of media), draw a sample from the posterior as a hypothetical action (from the MCMC object, draw a score estimate for both media and compare which is higher), rerun & update the analysis (add the result of the comparison to the dataset & run the MCMC again on it to yield a new MCMC object), and on these two old and new MCMC objects, calculate the entropy of the distributions (in this case, the sum of all the logs of probability of the higher in each possible pair of media being higher?), and subtract new from old; do that ~10 times for each so the estimated change in entropy is reasonably stable; then find the possible action with the largest change in entropy, and execute that.

##### Computational requirement

Without implementing it, this is infeasible. From a computational perspective: there are media^{2} possible actions; each MCMC run takes ~1s; there must be 10 MCMC runs; and the entropy calculations require a bit of time. With just 20 media, that’d require $>\frac{20^2 \cdot 10 \cdot 1}{60} = >66$ minutes.

We could run these in parallel, could try to cut down the MCMC iterations even more and risk the occasional non-convergence, could try calculating EI for only a limited number of choices (perhaps 20 randomly chosen options), or look for some mindbending closed-form equations written down by a bearded Russian math professor 50 years ago which we wouldn’t understand - but it’s hard to see how to get total runtime down to 0.5s - much less ~0.1s. And on the packaging side of things, requiring users to have JAGS installed at all makes `resorter`

harder to install and much more likely that there will be opaque runtime errors.

If asking the user to compare two things was rare and expensive data, if we absolutely had to maximize the informational value of every single question, if we were doing hardcore science like astronomical observations where every minute of telescope time might be measured in thousands of dollars, then a runtime of 1 hour to optimize question choice would be fine. But we’re not. If the user needs to be asked 5 additional questions because the standard-error exploration heuristic is suboptimal, that costs them a couple seconds. Not a big deal. And if we’re not exploiting the additional power of Bayesian methods, why bother switching from BF-2 to JAGS?

I think this could be done by sampling the posterior: draw a random sample of the estimated score from the posterior for each media and discretize them all down; do this, say, 100 times; compare the 100 discretized and see how often any media changes categories. If every media is in the same bucket, say, in 95 of those samples -

*The Godfather*is in the 5-star bucket in 95 of the 100 samples and in the 4-star bucket in the other 5 - then the remaining uncertainty in the estimated scores must be small.↩