Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Elimination tournaments make match networks less hierarchical and more cyclic than round-robin formats.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Elimination-style tournaments yield more circular win-loss patterns and less apparent hierarchy than round-robin play, and network centrality scores predict match winners as accurately as Elo or official rankings.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection A solid empirical study of round-robin vs elimination formats, but the headline claim about elimination increasing cycles is overreached and rests on a pooled null that needs phase-specific checks. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2508.19848 v1 pith:BHP7KP2U submitted 2025-08-27 physics.soc-ph

Hierarchy and ranking in pairwise sports contests

Bogd\'an Asztalos , Boldizs\'ar Bal\'azs , Gergely Palla , Tam\'as Vicsek This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph
keywords sports networkstournament designhierarchycyclesrankingmatch predictiontennisfencing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper builds directed networks from years of tennis and fencing matches, with each node a player and each directed edge pointing from the winner to the loser. Its central claim is that the tournament format itself, not just player ability, shapes the network's structure: single-elimination phases show weaker hierarchy and more three-player circular upsets than round-robin pools, even after accounting for strength differences. A second claim is that position in the network hierarchy, including a reversed PageRank score, predicts match winners about as well as Elo or official federation points. If both hold, the design of a competition changes how much dominance rankings can reveal, with practical consequences for seeding, ranking fairness, and forecasting outcomes.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the key result is that elimination tournaments lead to networks with a smaller level of hierarchy and thus an increased probability of circular win-loss situations (cycles). When match directions are resampled according to the fitted two-parameter Bradley-Terry-type model of Eq. (2), the observed number of 3-cycles in the direct-elimination phase exceeds the expected number (cycle enrichment above 1), while round-robin pools show enrichment below 1. The paper interprets this as evidence that knockout formats generate more upsets relative to estimated player strengths, and that a substantial part of the perceived hierarchy in such sports comes from the tree-shaped or

What carries the argument

Directed match networks built from a one-year sliding window over past results, combined with three global hierarchy measures (flow hierarchy FH, global reaching centrality GRC, and random walk hierarchy RWH), cycle abundance metrics (cycle density and cycle-FFL ratio), and a cycle-enrichment statistic that compares observed 3-cycles with those produced by resampling each match direction from a two-parameter logistic model of win probability. Reversed PageRank (RPR) serves as both a hierarchical centrality and a ranking score.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that elimination phases contain more upsets than expected rests on the fitted two-parameter model being an unbiased generator of every match's direction; if that model is misspecified, the expected cycle count is wrong and the format effect conclusion does not follow.

What would settle it

Take the same datasets and repeat the cycle-enrichment calculation with an alternative outcome model (for example, one that adds surface effects or a different rating formula); if the direct-elimination phase no longer shows cycle enrichment above 1 while pool phases stay below 1, the claimed format effect would not survive the change of model.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Knockout-style tournaments can be expected to produce more non-transitive outcomes among the same field of players than round-robin pools.
  • Official rankings built primarily from elimination events may overstate the true dominance of top players, because the format itself creates a pyramid of wins.
  • Network-derived scores such as reversed PageRank can predict match outcomes with accuracy close to Elo and official points, offering a ranking method independent of federation points.
  • The power-law tail observed in reversed PageRank scores identifies a 'doorstep' separating the very best players from other elite athletes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The cycle-enrichment statistic could be used as a design tool: organizers wanting fewer upsets could favour round-robin phases, while those wanting higher upset rates would use knockout formats.
  • The same analysis could be applied to other head-to-head sports (badminton, boxing, MMA) to test whether the format effect generalizes beyond tennis and fencing.
  • Because the enrichment calculation relies on a specific parametric model of match outcomes, the claim should be re-tested with alternative outcome models (including surface-dependent or time-varying strengths) before being taken as a universal law of tournament design.
  • The finding that reversed PageRank has a two-segment power-law distribution suggests a natural, data-driven threshold for 'elite' status that does not require arbitrary point cutoffs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs time-evolving directed networks from elite tennis and fencing match data (nodes = players, directed edges = winner to loser) and studies hierarchy and ranking. It applies three global hierarchy measures (flow hierarchy, global reaching centrality, random walk hierarchy), cycle-abundance statistics, and five node-level ranking scores (official sports federation score, Elo, reversed PageRank, 2-reach centrality, random walk centrality). The two central claims are: (1) networks built from elimination-format matches show a smaller level of hierarchy and an increased probability of cyclic (upset) outcomes compared with round-robin-style matches, and (2) hierarchy-based network metrics predict future match outcomes with accuracy comparable to official rankings and Elo. The prediction analysis uses a temporal out-of-sample split: scores are computed from matches before the prediction year, the parameters of the model in Eq. (2) are fitted on a preceding fitting period, and accuracy is evaluated on the next year's matches.

Significance. If the hierarchy/cycle claim were established, the paper would make a useful contribution to the literature on tournament design and network-based ranking: it would show that the format of competition itself shifts the directed network away from transitivity, and that simple network centralities are competitive with established rating systems. The manuscript has clear strengths: it uses publicly available data across eight competition categories, it compares multiple hierarchy measures and multiple ranking scores, and the prediction protocol is a genuine out-of-sample evaluation. The central cycle-enrichment claim, however, currently rests on a null model whose calibration is not demonstrated, and the abstract generalizes the finding beyond what the data show (men's tennis, itself an elimination format, shows enrichment near 1, not above 1). These issues are fixable but require new evidence or a substantial claim restriction.

major comments (5)
  1. [Methods: 'Cycle abundance and cycle enrichment'; Figure 3] The cycle-enrichment analysis uses a single set of fitted parameters (α, β) from Eq. (2), apparently pooled across all matches in a given year, to generate the expected cycle count for both pool-phase and DE-phase subnetworks. If the true upset propensity differs by phase, the pooled null is miscalibrated: DE matches will appear enriched whenever their upset rate exceeds the pooled average, even if a phase-specific model would predict the observed cycle count exactly. The paper does not report phase-specific α/β fits or any goodness-of-fit of Eq. (2) separately for pool and DE. It also does not state clearly whether the α/β used in Figure 3 are fitted in-sample on the same year's matches (descriptive goodness-of-fit) or out-of-sample as in the prediction analysis. Please provide phase-specific fits, an explicit statement of the fitting window, and a calibration check; without this, the c
  2. [Abstract and Results, Figure 3(a) vs Figure 3(d)] The abstract states that 'elimination tournaments lead to networks with a smaller level of hierarchy and thus, importantly, to an increased probability of circular win-loss situations (cycles).' The data in Figure 3 do not support this as a general statement about elimination formats. Men's tennis, which the text itself describes as single-elimination, shows cycle enrichment near 1 (Figure 3a), not above 1, whereas the elevated enrichment appears only for the DE phase of fencing (Figure 3d). The claim should be restricted to the fencing DE phase, or the authors must supply an explanation for why tennis's elimination format behaves differently and why the universal wording is justified.
  3. [Results, Figure 2(e)–(h)] The headline claim of 'smaller level of hierarchy' in elimination networks is in tension with the raw hierarchy measures: FH and RWH/RWC are larger for the DE-phase network than for the pool-phase network (Figure 2g vs Figure 2e). The authors attribute this to the tree-shaped skeleton of DE graphs, but the abstract and Discussion do not carry this caveat. The comparison to Erdős–Rényi ratios is suggestive, but the paper should either report a structure-controlled hierarchy comparison explicitly or temper the abstract's unqualified statement. The current text moves from raw measures to ratios to cycle enrichment without a single, clearly defined quantity that supports 'smaller level of hierarchy' across all measures.
  4. [Table 4] The rows for Women's épée and Women's foil are identical: FM 0.329, SE 0.213, LE 0.417 for 2RC, RWC, SFS, ELO, and RPR. This is almost certainly a data-entry or copy-paste error. Since Table 4 is the main evidence for the prediction claim across all categories, these duplicated rows need to be corrected before the comparison can be assessed. If the values are genuinely identical, the manuscript should explain why.
  5. [Figure 3; Results paragraph on 'significantly larger'] The text states that cycle enrichment values are 'significantly larger' for DE matches, but no confidence intervals, standard errors, or significance tests are reported for the enrichment ratios. The shaded regions are only described as standard deviations of an unspecified number of relinking trials; the Methods section describes relinking in the singular ('we relinked the network'), so the number of null realizations is unclear. Please state the number of relinking samples and provide error bars or confidence intervals for the enrichment values, and preferably a formal test comparing pool and DE enrichment distributions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption says 'the tennis tournament is in a round-robin format,' which contradicts the Results section where tennis is correctly described as single-elimination. Tennis Grand Slams and tour-level events are not round-robin; this is also relevant to the abstract's wording about 'round-robin data.' Please correct the caption and adjust the abstract to avoid conflating sport identity with tournament format.
  2. [Results, paragraph after Figure 2(e)] The text reads 'FH and RWC values are firmly larger for the direct elimination network' but the corresponding measures in the figure and Methods are FH, GRC, and RWH (random walk hierarchy), not RWC (random walk centrality). Please correct the acronym.
  3. [Throughout] The phrase 'revered pagerank' appears several times (e.g., Figure 4, Figure 6, SI captions); it should be 'reversed PageRank.' Also, Figure 7 caption and one SI caption contain 'rank-socre' instead of 'rank-score.'
  4. [SI captions S40–S55] Several SI captions mislabel the year: e.g., Figure S41 says 'men's tennis, 2015' in the caption text while the panel header says 2023. Similar copy-paste issues occur in other SI captions. Please standardize.
  5. [Methods: 'Making predictions using score differences'] The description of the fitting procedure is somewhat indirect ('trial probabilities for matches at t'). A precise statement of which matches are in ts, which in tf, and how they relate to the calendar-year scores would help reproducibility. Also, the Elo update formula and the PageRank equation contain notation (e.g., M(i), L(j)) that should be defined explicitly, since L(j) is also used for the number of links in the FH definition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the paper's predictions are genuinely out-of-sample and its cycle-enrichment analysis is a standard goodness-of-fit comparison, not a definitional or fitted-input tautology.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims are supported by two distinct analyses. The prediction of match outcomes (Table 4) is explicitly out-of-sample: parameters (α, β) in Eq. (2) are fitted on matches from year t and then applied to predict matches in year t+1, using scores from year t−1 or the score-counting period. This is a genuine forecast, not a re-description of the input. The cycle-enrichment analysis (Figure 3) compares the observed number of 3-cycles to the number expected under a null model in which each match direction is redrawn from the Bernoulli distribution implied by Eq. (2) with the fitted parameters. Although those parameters are fitted to the same year's matches, the expected cycle count is not statistically forced to equal the observed cycle count; it is a goodness-of-fit residual, and the paper does not label it a prediction. The hierarchy measures (FH, GRC, RWH) and the cycle-abundance measures are computed independently from the same network, and the conclusion that elimination tournaments show lower hierarchy relative to random models is based on comparisons to configuration-model and Erdős–Rényi baselines, not on a definitional equivalence. Self-citations (e.g., refs. 29 and 31 for GRC and RWH/RWC) are used as pre-existing mathematical tools, not as load-bearing evidence for a novel claim, and they do not smuggle in an ansatz or a uniqueness theorem. The paper's own caveat about interpreting randomization comparisons is a statistical caution, not an admission of circularity. No equation or fitted parameter is defined in terms of the quantity it is used to explain. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The main free parameters are the fitted alpha/beta per year and the unspecified f in the random walk measures. The axioms are standard domain assumptions about strength, time windows, and null models. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • alpha(t), beta(t) = not reported in main text
    Two-parameter extension of Elo win probability (Eq. 2), fitted by maximum likelihood on each year's matches; used for both prediction and cycle-enrichment null.
  • f (random walk hierarchy parameter) = not specified
    Free parameter of the random walk hierarchy/centrality (RWC and RWH); no value given anywhere in the text, so the reported hierarchy values depend on an undisclosed choice.
  • d (PageRank teleportation) = 0.85
    Teleportation probability in PageRank; standard but arbitrary choice, affects RPR values.
  • K, S (Elo update parameters) = K=32, S=400
    Standard chess Elo parameters, chosen without justification for tennis/fencing; affect the ELO scores.
  • t_nb = t_s = t_f = 1 year = 1 year
    Time windows for network building, score counting, and parameter fitting; chosen to match official one-year ranking but not tested.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Match outcomes reflect an underlying but noisy player strength (dominance).
    The whole hierarchy analysis presumes a transitive strength ordering exists underneath the noise; the paper never validates this assumption independently.
  • domain assumption The one-year window captures the relevant timescale of ability change.
    Used to set tnb=1, ts=1, tf=1; if player strength changes faster or slower, hierarchy measures and predictions degrade.
  • domain assumption The restricted elite-event dataset is representative of true relationships.
    The paper limits to elite events, arguing lower levels are less reliable; this filters the player population and may affect cycle statistics.
  • domain assumption The null models (configuration model, Erdős-Rényi) provide appropriate baselines for hierarchy.
    Used throughout to interpret whether observed hierarchy is significant; the paper itself cautions about the configuration model's structural dependence.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchy and ranking in pairwise sports contests." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BHP7KP2U

@misc{pith2026250819848,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchy and ranking in pairwise sports contests},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BHP7KP2U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.19848}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Ranking athletes by their performance in competitions and tournaments is common in every popular sport and has significant benefits that contribute to both the organization and strategic aspects of competitions. Although rankings are perhaps the most concise and most straightforward representation of the relative strength among the competitors, beyond this one-dimensional characterization, it is also possible to capture the relationships between athletes in greater detail. Following this approach, our study examines the networks between athletes in individual sports such as tennis and fencing, where the nodes are associated with the contestants and the edges are directed from the winner to the loser. We demonstrate that the connections formed through matches arrange themselves into a time-evolving hierarchy, with the top players positioned at its apex. The structure of the resulting networks exhibits detectable differences depending on whether they are constructed purely from round-robin data or from purely elimination-style tournaments. We find that elimination tournaments lead to networks with a smaller level of hierarchy and thus, importantly, to an increased probability of circular win-loss situations (cycles). The position within the hierarchy, along with other network metrics, can be used to predict match outcomes. In the systems studied, these methods provide predictions with an accuracy comparable to that of forecasts based on official sports ranking points or the Elo rating system. A deeper understanding of the delicate aspects of the networks of pairwise contests enhances our ability to model, predict, and optimize the behaviour of many complex systems, whether in sports tournaments, social interactions, or other competitive environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.19848 by Bogd\'an Asztalos, Boldizs\'ar Bal\'azs, Gergely Palla, Tam\'as Vicsek.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of sport match networks. In panels (a) and (c), we plotted the networks constructed from men’s tennis and men’s sabre matches in the year 2015, as described in the text. Although differences in their structural feature can be observed (the system of relations between nodes of the tennis network in panel (a) is apparent, while the relatively large number of pool matches makes the fencing networ… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Hierarchy measures and 3-cycle abundance in the network of matches. (a) The flow hierarchy (blue), the global reaching centrality based on 2-reach (orange), and the random walk hierarchy (red) for the network of men’s tennis matches over time, displaying both the measured value in the original networks (circles) and also the average value in randomised networks according to the configuration model (triangl… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Cycle enrichment calculated with SFS and ELO rankings in the network of matches. The fraction of the number of 3-cycles and the expected number of 3-cycles from a given player strength distribution. The shaded regions around the averages indicate the standard deviation. (a) The cycle enrichment values for the network of men’s tennis matches over the years. (b) The cycle enrichment values for the network of… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The structure of the hierarchy for men’s tennis. The distribution of nodes along the 2-reach centrality (orange), the random walk centrality (red), the official sport ranking (pink), the Elo score (cyan), and the revered pagerank (purple) for the network of men’s tennis matches played in 2015. The width of the bars represents the relative number of nodes having a specific centrality value on log-scale. hig… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The structure of the hierarchy for men’s sabre. The distribution of nodes along the 2-reach centrality (orange), the random walk centrality (red), the official sport ranking (pink), the Elo score (cyan), and the revered pagerank (purple) for the network of men’s sabre matches played in 2015. The width of the bars represents the relative number of nodes having a specific centrality value on log-scale. 8/20 … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The rank–score distribution of local measures for men’s tennis. The rank–score distribution of nodes along the 2-reach centrality (orange), the random walk centrality (red), the official sport ranking (pink), the Elo score (cyan), and the reverse pagerank (purple) for the network of men’s tennis matches played in 2015. In the case of reversed pagerank two segments can be found following power-law scaling. … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The rank-score distribution of local measures for men’s sabre. The rank–score distribution of nodes along the 2-reach centrality (orange), the random walk centrality (red), the official sport ranking (pink), the Elo score (cyan), and the revered pagerank (purple) for the network of men’s sabre matches played in 2015. In the case of reversed pagerank two segments can be found following power-law scaling. 12… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of the fitting process. We use matches from the score-counting period ts (yellow) before certain times (t1, t2, t3) to calculate prediction scores (s1, s2, s3) then, we use such scores from the fitting period tf (blue) before time t to find the optimal parameter values αˆ(t) and ˆβ(t) which gives us the best trial prediction at t. Finally, in the possession of the fitted parameters, we can pre… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Barabási, A.-L

    Albert, R. & Barabási, A.-L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 47–97, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47 (2002)

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.74.47 2002

  2. [2]

    Dorogovtsev, S. N. & Mendes, J. F. F.Evolution of Networks: From Biological Nets to the Internet and WWW (Oxford University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    & Watts, D

    Newman, M., Barabási, A.-L. & Watts, D. J. The Structure and Dynamics of Networks (Princeton University Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    & Saramäki, J

    Holme, P. & Saramäki, J. Temporal networks. Phys. Reports 519, 97 – 125, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2012. 03.001 (2012)

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2012 2012

  5. [5]

    & Vespignani, A

    Barrat, A., Barthélemy, M. & Vespignani, A. Dynamical processes on complex networks (Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    & Temesi, J

    Bozóki, S., Csató, L. & Temesi, J. An application of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices for ranking top tennis players. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 248, 211–218, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.069 (2016)

    doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.069 2015

  7. [7]

    De Bacco, C., Larremore, D. B. & Moore, C. A physical model for efficient ranking in networks. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar8260, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8260 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.aar8260 2018

  8. [8]

    Zappalà, C., Pluchino, A., Rapisarda, A., Biondo, A. E. & Sobkowicz, P. On the role of chance in fencing tournaments: An agent-based approach. Plos one 17, e0267541, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267541 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267541 2022

  9. [9]

    Newman, M. E. J. Efficient computation of rankings from pairwise comparisons. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 24, 1–25 (2023)

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    E., Pluchino, A

    Zappalà, C., Biondo, A. E., Pluchino, A. & Rapisarda, A. The paradox of talent: how chance affects success in tennis tournaments. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 176, 114088, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2023.114088 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Ranking: The Unwritten Rules of the Social Game We All Play (Oxford University Press, 2019)

    Érdi, P. Ranking: The Unwritten Rules of the Social Game We All Play (Oxford University Press, 2019)

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    & Newman, M

    Clauset, A., Moore, C. & Newman, M. E. J. Hierarchical structure and the prediction of missing links in networks. Nature 453, 98–101, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06830 (2008). 18/20

    doi:10.1038/nature06830 2008

  13. [13]

    Hierarchy in Natural and Social Sciences, vol

    Pumain, D. Hierarchy in Natural and Social Sciences, vol. 3 of Methodos Series (Springer, 2005)

    work page 2005

  14. [14]

    & Vicsek, T

    Zafeiris, A. & Vicsek, T. Why we live in hierarchies?: A quantitative treatise (Springer, 2017)

    work page 2017

  15. [15]

    & Zeng, A.-P

    Ma, H.-W., Buer, J. & Zeng, A.-P. Hierarchical structure and modules in the escherichia coli transcriptional regulatory network revealed by a new top-down approach. BMC Bioinforma. 5, 199, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-5-199 (2004)

    work page doi:10.1186/1471-2105-5-199 2004

  16. [16]

    Palla, G. et al. Hierarchy and control of ageing-related methylation networks. PLoS Comput. Biol. 17, e1009327, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009327 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009327 2021

  17. [17]

    & Vicsek, T

    Nagy, M., Ákos, Z., Biro, D. & Vicsek, T. Hierarchical group dynamics in pigeon flocks. Nature 464, 890––893, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08891 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1038/nature08891 2010

  18. [18]

    Nagy, M. et al. Context-dependent hierarchies in pigeons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 13049–13054, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1305552110 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1305552110 2013

  19. [19]

    & Vicsek, T

    Ozogány, K. & Vicsek, T. Modeling the emergence of modular leadership hierarchy during the collective motion of herds made of harems. J. Stat.l Phys. 158, 628–646, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-014-1131-7 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1007/s10955-014-1131-7 2015

  20. [20]

    & Palla, G

    Tibély, G., Sousa-Rodrigues, D., Pollner, P. & Palla, G. Comparing the hierarchy of keywords in on-line news portals. PLOS ONE 11, e0165728, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165728 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165728 2016

  21. [21]

    & Vicsek, T

    Palla, G., Tibély, G., Mones, E., Pollner, P. & Vicsek, T. Hierarchical networks of scientific journals. Palgrave Commun. 1, 1–9, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2015.16 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1057/palcomms.2015.16 2015

  22. [22]

    G., Zagyva, D., Pollner, P

    Balogh, S. G., Zagyva, D., Pollner, P. & Palla, G. Time evolution of the hierarchical networks between pubmed mesh terms. PLOS ONE 14, e0220648, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220648 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220648 2019

  23. [23]

    & Ulanowicz, R

    Hirata, H. & Ulanowicz, R. E. Information theoretical analysis of the aggregation and hierarchical structure of ecological networks. J. Theor. Biol. 116, 321—-341, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5193(85)80271-X (1985)

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(85)80271-x 1985

  24. [24]

    Wickens, J. S. & Ulanowicz, R. E. On quantifying hierarchical connections in ecology. J. Socioal Biol. Struct. 11, 369––377, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1750(88)90066-8 (1988)

    work page doi:10.1016/0140-1750(88)90066-8 1988

  25. [25]

    Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern evolutionary thought (Oxford University Press, 1985)

    Eldredge, N. Unfinished synthesis: biological hierarchies and modern evolutionary thought (Oxford University Press, 1985)

    work page 1985

  26. [26]

    McShea, D. W. The hierarchical structure of organisms: a scale and documentation of a trend in the maximum.Paleobiology 27, 405–423 (2001)

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    & Clune, J

    Mengistu, H., Huizinga, J., Mouret, J.-B. & Clune, J. The evolutionary origins of hierarchy. PLOS Comput. Biol. 12, 1–23, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004829 (2016)

    doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004829 2016

  28. [28]

    & Sneppen, K

    Trusina, A., Maslov, S., Minnhagen, P. & Sneppen, K. Hierarchy measures in complex networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 178702, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.178702 (2004)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.178702 2004

  29. [29]

    & Vicsek, T

    Mones, E., Vicsek, L. & Vicsek, T. Hierarchy measure for complex networks. PlOS ONE 7, e33799, DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033799 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033799 2012

  30. [30]

    Corominas-Murtra, B., Goñi, J., Solé, R. V . & Rodríguez-Caso, C. On the origins of hierarchy in complex networks. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 110, 13316–13321, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1300832110 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1300832110 2013

  31. [31]

    & Palla, G

    Czégel, D. & Palla, G. Random walk hierarchy measure: What is more hierarchical, a chain, a tree or a star? Sci. reports 5, 17994, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17994 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1038/srep17994 2015

  32. [32]

    & Iftode, L

    Gupte, M., Shankar, P., Li, J., Muthukrishnan, S. & Iftode, L. Finding hierarchy in directed online social networks. In Proceedings of the 20th international conference on World wide web, 557–566, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405. 1963484 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2011)

    doi:10.1145/1963405 2011

  33. [33]

    & Lillo, F

    Letizia, E., Barucca, P. & Lillo, F. Resolution of ranking hierarchies in directed networks. PLOS ONE 13, e0191604, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191604 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191604 2018

  34. [34]

    An approach for quantifying paired comparisons and rank order

    Guttman, L. An approach for quantifying paired comparisons and rank order. The Annals Math. Stat. 17, 144–163, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730977 (1946)

    arXiv 1946

  35. [35]

    Elo, A. E. The proposed uscf rating system, its development, theory, and applications. Chess Life XXII, 242–247 (1967)

    work page 1967

  36. [36]

    Who is the best player ever? a complex network analysis of the history of professional tennis

    Radicchi, F. Who is the best player ever? a complex network analysis of the history of professional tennis. PLOS ONE 6, e17249, DOI: https://10.1371/journal.pone.0017249 (2011). 19/20

    doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017249 2011

  37. [37]

    Giorgi, P., Koopman, S. J. & Lit, R. The analysis and forecasting of tennis matches by using a high dimensional dynamic model. J. Royal Stat. Soc. Ser. A (Statistics Soc. 182, 1393–1409, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12464 (2019)

    doi:10.1111/rssa.12464 2019

  38. [38]

    C., Chou, E

    Yue, J. C., Chou, E. P., Hsieh, M.-H. & Hsiao, L.-C. A study of forecasting tennis matches via the glicko model. PLOS ONE 17, e0266838, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266838 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0266838 2022

  39. [39]

    & Grassi, R

    Arcagni, A., Candila, V . & Grassi, R. A new model for predicting the winner in tennis based on the eigenvector centrality. Annals Oper. Res. 325, 615–632, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-022-04594-7 (2023)

    doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04594-7 2023

  40. [40]

    Bradley, R. A. & Terry, M. E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 39, 324–345, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2334029 (1952)

    doi:10.2307/2334029 1952

  41. [41]

    & Newman, M

    Jerdee, M. & Newman, M. E. J. Luck, skill, and depth of competition in games and social hierarchies. Sci. Adv. 10, eadn2654, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adn2654 (2024)

    doi:10.1126/sciadv.adn2654 2024

  42. [42]

    Atp tennis data

    Sackmann, J. Atp tennis data. https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_atp (2025). Accessed: 01 Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Wta tennis data

    Sackmann, J. Wta tennis data. https://github.com/JeffSackmann/tennis_wta (2025). Accessed: 01 Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    Fie fencing data

    Post-Michaelsen, A. Fie fencing data. https://github.com/amichaelsen/fie-fencing-dataset (2025). Accessed: 01 Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    & Magee, C

    Luo, J. & Magee, C. L. Detecting evolving patterns of self-organizing networks by flow hierarchy measurement.Complexity 16, 53–61, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.20368 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1002/cplx.20368 2011

  46. [46]

    Borgatti, S. P. The key player problem. In Breiger, R., Carley, K. & Pattison, P. (eds.)Dynamic Social Network Modeling and Analysis: Workshop Summary and Papers, 376–387, DOI: https://doi.org/10.17226/10735 (National Academies Press, 2003)

    work page doi:10.17226/10735 2003

  47. [47]

    & Page, L

    Brin, S. & Page, L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput. networks ISDN systems 30, 107–117, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7552(98)00110-X (1998)

    doi:10.1016/s0169-7552(98)00110-x 1998

  48. [48]

    PIF ATP rankings

    ATP Tour, Inc. PIF ATP rankings. https://www.atptour.com/en/rankings/singles (2025). Accessed: 01 Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    PIF WTA rankings

    WTA Tour, Inc. PIF WTA rankings. https://www.wtatennis.com/rankings/singles (2025). Accessed: 01 Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Federation, F. I. F. Athletes & rankings. https://fie.org/athletes (2025). Accessed: 01 Jan 2025

    work page 2025

  51. [51]

    & Rényi, A

    Erd˝os, P. & Rényi, A. On random graphs. i. Publ. Math. 6, 290–297 (1959)

    work page 1959

  52. [52]

    A probabilistic proof of an asymptotic formula for the number of labelled regular graphs

    Bollobás, B. A probabilistic proof of an asymptotic formula for the number of labelled regular graphs. Eur. J. Comb. 1, 311–316, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6698(80)80030-8 (1980). Acknowledgements This project was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office under grant no. SNN139598, and by the EKÖP-24 University Excellen...

    doi:10.1016/s0195-6698(80)80030-8 1980

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.