Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 35 references

Capturing Intransitive Dominance in Tennis Forecasting: A Graph Neural Network Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A graph neural network that explicitly models intransitive dominance between tennis players gains predictive and betting edges on exactly the matchups where rock-paper-scissors patterns occur, even though it does not beat strong ratings on

desk verdict GNN tennis forecasting with honest evaluation, but the intransitivity claim is confounded with head-to-head volume, and the arXiv abstract overstates what's in the paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.20454 v2 pith:FFSSZ7FU submitted 2025-10-23 cs.LG

Lawrence Clegg , John Cartlidge This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords tennisforecastinggraphneuralnetworksintransitivedominancesportsbettingmarketefficiencyprobabilitymagneticLaplaciantemporalgraphs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that intransitive player dominance—where A beats B, B beats C, yet C beats A—carries a forecasting signal that traditional transitive rating systems and bookmakers discard, and that a graph neural network built to learn from directed cycles can exploit it. The model matches the accuracy of a strong Elo-style baseline in general, but a forecast-encompassing test shows it holds complementary information, and combined forecasts significantly outperform the baseline. On matches with high intransitivity, the model's disadvantage to the Pinnacle Sports bookmaker narrows significantly, and a Kelly staking strategy restricted to such matchups returns 3.26% ROI over 1,903 out-of-sample bets (bootstrap p=0.005), while the same strategy with a conventional rating baseline loses money. If correct, this means tennis betting markets systematically misprice intransitive matchups, and cyclic-aware graph learning is a way to capture that signal.

What carries the argument

The central object is MagNet, a spectral graph convolutional network for directed graphs whose key component is the magnetic Laplacian—a complex Hermitian matrix whose magnitude encodes whether two players have a head-to-head history and whose phase encodes who dominated; with q=0.25 the model maximally respects direction, and a two-layer, K=2 Chebyshev filter aggregates over an effective four-hop local neighbourhood, allowing it to detect directed cycles. The second mechanism is the evidence-weighted intransitivity measure I*(A_uv), defined as the Hodge-decomposition ratio of cyclic to transitive components of a common-opponent advantage matrix, scaled by the square root of accumulated head

What would settle it

Run the same betting strategy on a held-out period with the threshold γ=2.55 pre-committed and not re-tuned, or train the model on graphs where edge directions within each intransitive local neighbourhood are randomly shuffled while preserving the head-to-head evidence weight; if the 3.26% ROI persists after shuffling, the intransitivity mechanism is not the cause, and if the pre-committed threshold fails on fresh data, the claimed systematic inefficiency would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors build temporal directed surface graphs of tennis history, apply MagNet (a spectral GCN with a magnetic Laplacian that encodes head-to-head existence and direction), and achieve 65.7% accuracy, 0.215 Brier score—competitive with a strong Elo-style baseline (66.4%, 0.212) but behind Pinnacle Sports (69.0%, 0.196). A forecast-encompassing test shows they carry complementary information; combined forecasts significantly outperform the baseline. Using an evidence-weighted intransitivity measure, their Brier disadvantage to Pinnacle narrows from +0.023 (no prior meetings) to +0.007 in the most intransitive tertile (ρ=+0.049, p<0.001). A betting simulation targeting high-intransitivity

Load-bearing premise

The entire robustness and profitability result rests on the evidence-weighted intransitivity score I*, which is zero for every matchup with no prior head-to-head meetings, so the measured effect could be driven by the mere presence of historical edges the graph can read rather than by intransitive cycles; the authors never separate these two factors, and the betting threshold is also selected on the validation set.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Bookmakers (at least Pinnacle Sports) systematically misprice high-intransitivity tennis matchups, since a model using only public match history can profit after filtering on intransitivity.
  • Transitive rating systems that assign each player a single scalar strength discard a real forecasting signal; blending such systems with cyclic-aware graph predictions improves accuracy.
  • Women's tennis exhibits roughly 11.5% more measured intransitivity than men's, so the exploitable signal may be gender-dependent and could justify gendered modelling in practice.
  • Betting-market efficiency is not uniform across matchup types: local neighbourhoods with high intransitive complexity appear less efficiently priced than the market average.
  • Because the model is unprofitable when applied indiscriminately, the practical use is as a targeted overlay on high-intransitivity matches rather than a standalone predictor.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The I* measure conflates intransitivity with the presence of head-to-head evidence: I*=0 whenever two players have never met, so the profitability threshold may be selecting matches where the graph has direct edges to read rather than cyclic structure per se; an ablation holding evidence weight fixed while permuting edge directions would separate these effects.
  • The same cyclic-learning mechanism may transfer to other individual sports with strong stylistic matchups (e.g., mixed martial arts) or to any head-to-head prediction domain where preferences are non-transitive.
  • The validation-selected threshold γ=2.55 should be evaluated on a fresh out-of-sample period without re-tuning; persistent profitability under those conditions would substantially strengthen the claim of a real market inefficiency.
  • If the effect is real, a graph-observable intransitivity score could serve as a general diagnostic for conditional market inefficiency in other sports-betting markets, not just tennis.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MagNet, a temporal directed graph neural network for tennis match forecasting. Historical matches are encoded as surface-specific edge weights (Eq. 3) with time decay, surface transferability, and tournament prestige; a magnetic-Laplacian spectral GCN predicts set and match win probabilities. In out-of-sample evaluation on 8,375 matches (2023-2025), the model achieves 65.7% accuracy / 0.215 Brier, slightly worse than Weighted Elo (66.4% / 0.212) and clearly worse than Pinnacle odds (69.0% / 0.196). The paper's central positive claims are: (i) MagNet's Brier disadvantage to Pinnacle narrows as an evidence-weighted intransitivity measure I* (Eq. 10) increases; and (ii) a Kelly strategy on matches with I* >= 2.55 yields 3.26% ROI over 1,903 out-of-sample bets, suggesting bookmakers misprice intransitive matchups. The abstract additionally claims a forecast-encompassing test and a combined-forecast improvement over Weighted Elo.

Significance. If the intransitivity attribution were established, this would be a useful contribution: it would provide one of the first GNN applications to pre-match tennis forecasting, a concrete mechanism (cyclical dominance) for a market inefficiency, and an out-of-sample betting result with a feasible threshold rule. The paper has real strengths: a carefully constructed temporal graph, walk-forward validation, comparisons against Elo, Weighted Elo, Bradley-Terry and Pinnacle odds, player-clustered bootstrap inference, and an explicit Hodge-decomposition-based intransitivity measure. However, the load-bearing inference from I* to intransitive structure is confounded by direct head-to-head evidence, and the abstract advertises a forecast-encompassing/combined-forecast result that does not appear in the full text. With the confound resolved or the claims appropriately narrowed, the paper could make a valuable contribution; in its current form the central conclusion is not yet supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Sections 5–7] The abstract states: 'a forecast-encompassing test shows that it carries complementary information. A combined forecast significantly outperforms Weighted Elo.' I could not find any forecast-encompassing test, any combined forecast, or any corresponding significance test anywhere in Sections 5–7 or the appendices. Unconditional accuracy and Brier are reported in Table 4, and binwise Brier gaps and betting returns are reported in Tables 5–6, but there is no encompassing regression, no forecast combination, and no test of whether a combined forecast beats WElo. This is a central advertised result. The authors should either add the missing analysis (e.g., a Clark-West or encompassing regression of outcomes on MagNet and WElo probabilities) or remove/replace the sentence in the abstract and temper the corresponding wording in the conclusion.
  2. [§6.1, Eq. (10); Table 5] The evidence-weighted measure I*(A_uv) = I(A_uv) * sqrt(sum_k alpha beta phi) multiplies the Hodge intransitivity measure by the accumulated head-to-head evidence. Since the evidence factor is zero exactly when u and v have no prior meetings, Bin 0 in Table 5 (I*=0, n=4,871) is a no-history bin, not simply a low-intransitivity bin. The narrowing Model-PS Brier gap across Bins 0–3 (+0.023 to +0.007) and the Spearman rho=+0.049 could therefore be driven by MagNet reading the direct dominance edge of Eq. (3) — a signal that Weighted Elo also uses — rather than by cyclic intransitivity. The manuscript nowhere conditions on the evidence sum while varying I(A_uv), and the fixed q=0.25 (§4.2) is never ablated to q=0 to remove directional/cyclic information. The paper's own text in §6.3 ('highlighting the importance of player interaction history') concedes this alternative explanation. This conf
  3. [§6.3, Table 6] The profitability claim is based on a validation-selected threshold: gamma = 2.55 was chosen by maximizing mean return on the validation set, and the reported p_bs values (0.005 for Kelly, 0.022 for unit) are computed for the single rule defined by this cutoff. The p-values do not account for the implicit search over gamma (Figure 8), over the two staking rules, or over the choice of the I* measure itself. The threshold also inherits the evidence confound of Eq. (10), since gamma filters on an evidence-weighted product. The out-of-sample evaluation is legitimate for the fixed rule, but the paper overstates the strength of the evidence for a systematic market inefficiency. I recommend reporting the distribution of out-of-sample ROI across a grid of gamma values, with a multiple-testing adjustment, or justifying a pre-registered threshold.
  4. [Section 7 (Conclusion)] The concluding sentence, 'preserving and learning from intransitive player relationships provides advantages to tasks like forecasting tennis match outcomes,' overstates the evidence. Table 4 shows MagNet does not improve on Weighted Elo or Pinnacle in unconditional forecasting; the only suggested advantage appears under the I* >= 2.55 filter, which is confounded as described above. The conclusion should be narrowed to the betting/robustness result (or the confound must be removed) so that the claims match what the data actually show.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract vs. Table 4] The arXiv abstract reports a Brier score of 0.214, while the full-text abstract and Table 4 report 0.215. Please reconcile.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'Pinnacle Sports poorly handles matches with high intransitive complexity' is stronger than Table 5, where PS retains the best absolute Brier score in every bin. Consider saying 'relatively worse' or 'less robust' rather than 'poorly handles.'
  3. [Table 5 note] The note says 'Overall validation Brier scores: Model = 0.215, PS = 0.196, WElo = 0.212,' but these numbers match the out-of-sample test scores in Table 4. Label them as test-set scores to avoid confusion.
  4. [Eq. (11)] The Kelly formula uses decimal odds o, but o is not explicitly defined in that equation. Please define it as decimal odds for clarity.
  5. [Figure 8] The caption could be clearer: the numbers above the curve are bet counts, not ROI values. State this explicitly in the caption or legend.
  6. [Appendix B] There is a typo in the text: 'the results from the original out-of-sample test set are shown are shown' should read 'are shown.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central results are empirical out-of-sample evaluations; the I* evidence-weighting confound is a validity concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The claimed derivation chain is empirical rather than definitional. Graph edge weights (Eq. 3) are built from historical outcomes with tuned decay/surface/prestige parameters; MagNet is then trained in a walk-forward scheme and evaluated on a held-out test window (Sections 4.3, 5). The intransitivity measure I*(A_uv) (Eq. 10) is used to condition or bin predictions, not to construct them, and the reported Brier gaps and Kelly ROI are computed on out-of-sample matches (Tables 5, 6). The betting threshold gamma=2.55 is selected on the validation set and then applied to the test set; this is conventional model selection and does not make the test ROI a fitted prediction. The paper's self-citations (Clegg & Cartlidge 2025a,b) appear in a novelty footnote, the Appendix B comparison, and a data-quality caveat; they are not the load-bearing justification for MagNet's behaviour, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' own work. A genuine methodological confound exists: because I* multiplies Hodge intransitivity by the accumulated head-to-head weight, I*=0 coincides exactly with no prior meetings (Eq. 10 and Table 5's Bin 0), and Figure 8 itself notes 'the importance of player interaction history'; moreover the fixed q=0.25 with no q=0 ablation leaves the intransitivity-specific mechanism unisolated. However, this is an identification/validity problem, not a case where a claimed prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The abstract's forecast-encompassing claim is not substantiated in the full text, but missing support is not circularity. No circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a long list of parameters fitted to the validation set (time decay, six surface-transfer weights, three tournament-prestige weights, label smoothing, architecture choices, and the betting threshold γ). The intransitivity measure itself is built from the same fitted edge weights, so it is not an independent benchmark. No new theoretical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Time decay λ = 0.38
    Optimized on the validation set via TPE (Table 3); governs exponential down-weighting of older matches in Eq. 2.
  • Surface transferability α values (6) = α_h,g=0.37, α_h,c=0.01, α_c,g=0.09, α_c,h=0.07, α_g,c=0.05, α_g,h=0.45
    Optimized on validation (Table 3); used to weight cross-surface historical matches in Eq. 3.
  • Tournament prestige β values = β_1000=0.85, β_Finals=0.94, β_500=0.69
    Optimized on validation (Table 3); weights match k by tournament tier in Eq. 3.
  • Label smoothing = 0.19
    Optimized on validation (Table 3); regularizes MagNet training.
  • Betting intransitivity threshold γ = 2.55
    Chosen as the I* threshold maximizing mean Kelly/unit return on the validation set (Section 6.3); applied to out-of-sample bets in Table 6.
  • Model architecture hyperparameters = K=2, L=2, hidden=64, no activation, q=0.25 fixed
    Selected from Pareto-optimal TPE trials on validation (Section 4.4); q is fixed at 0.25 rather than learned.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math MagNet's magnetic Laplacian spectral filters (K=2, L=2) propagate directional and cyclic information through the graph as described in Appendix A.
    The paper relies on Zhang et al. (2021) MagNet results that directed-cycle information is encoded in the complex phase of the magnetic Laplacian; no independent verification in this paper.
  • standard math Hodge decomposition of the logit advantage matrix A_uv into gradient and cyclic components correctly quantifies intransitivity in the common-opponent subgraph.
    The adapted measure (Eqs. 8-10) follows Hamilton et al. (2024); its validity for matchup-level intransitivity is assumed.
  • domain assumption Set-win probabilities generated by MagNet are independent and identically distributed within a match, so match-win probabilities are computed by binomial expansion (Eq. 4).
    Explicit i.i.d. assumption used to convert set probability to match probability.
  • domain assumption Pinnacle Sports closing odds, after Shin (1993) margin adjustment, are unbiased estimates of true match probabilities.
    The betting simulation's expected value computation (Eq. 11) treats the implied probability as the fair market probability; bias here would create or erase apparent edge.
  • domain assumption The evidence-weighted intransitivity measure I*(A_uv) (Eq. 10) measures intransitive dominance rather than merely the volume of head-to-head evidence.
    I* is the Hodge intransitivity multiplied by the square root of accumulated edge weight; matchups with no prior meetings have I*=0, so high-I* bins are also high-head-to-head-history bins, creating a confound.
  • domain assumption Historical match data from tennis-data.co.uk and player characteristics from tennisexplorer.com are accurate and complete; missing player characteristics are representatively imputed by gender-specific median/mode.
    Data quality underpins all computed dominance scores and betting odds; acknowledged by authors only in the context of odds data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Capturing Intransitive Dominance in Tennis Forecasting: A Graph Neural Network Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFSSZ7FU

@misc{pith2026251020454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Capturing Intransitive Dominance in Tennis Forecasting: A Graph Neural Network Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFSSZ7FU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.20454}
}
read the original abstract

Intransitive player dominance, where player A beats B, B beats C, but C beats A, is common in competitive tennis. Yet, there are few known attempts to incorporate it within forecasting methods. We address this problem with a graph neural network approach that explicitly models these intransitive relationships through temporal directed graphs, with players as nodes and their historical match outcomes as directed edges. Our model (65.7% accuracy, 0.214 Brier score) forecasts competitively with established rating systems such as Weighted Elo. Although it does not improve on the baseline in unconditional accuracy, a forecast-encompassing test shows that it carries complementary information. A combined forecast significantly outperforms Weighted Elo, and there is some indication that the gain grows more strongly on the intransitive matchups our model targets. A graph-based representation of player interactions thus captures a forecasting signal that transitive rating systems discard, even between players who share no common opponents.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.20454 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the graph construction process. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The walk-forward validation process. After each pass, predictions are generated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Brier scores from 300 parameter optimisation trials, with Pareto-optimal trials [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Calibration curves for the men’s and women’s predictions, showing predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: An intransitive triangle among Federer, Nadal, and Davydenko. The edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of evidence-weighted intransitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Two strong intransitive cycles involving Maria Sakkari and Aryna Sabalenka [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Kelly Staking ROI by intransitivity threshold. Values at the top of the chart [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Appendix B. Extended Initial Model In earlier work (Clegg and Cartlidge, 2025b) we proposed an unoptimised temporal graph model with a less sophisticated graph structure for the same task of tennis forecasting. To evaluate the robustness of this unoptimised approach, we increased the out-of-sample dataset to cover the period 31 October 2023 to 8 June

    2023

  2. [7]

    European Journal of Operational Research 248, 211–218

    An application of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices for ranking top tennis players. European Journal of Operational Research 248, 211–218. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.069. Bradley, R.A., Terry, M.E.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.069 2015

  3. [12]

    International Journal of Photoenergy 2022, 1898132

    Forecasting tennis match results using the Bradley-Terry model. International Journal of Photoenergy 2022, 1898132. doi:10.1155/2022/ 1898132. Garnica-Caparrós, M., Memmert, D., Wunderlich, F.,

    doi:10.1155/2022/ 2022

  4. [13]

    Information Systems and e-Business Management 20, 551–580

    Artificial data in sports forecasting: A simulation framework for analysing predictive models in sports. Information Systems and e-Business Management 20, 551–580. doi:10.1007/s10257-022-00560-9. Hamilton, A.H., Roughan, M., Kalenkova, A.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s10257-022-00560-9

  5. [18]

    Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 12, 127–138

    Searching for the GOAT of tennis win prediction. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 12, 127–138. doi:10.1515/ jqas-2015-0059. Leitner, C., Zeileis, A., Hornik, K.,

    2015

  6. [21]

    Master’s thesis

    Sports match outcome prediction with graph rep- resentation learning. Master’s thesis. School of Computing Science, 32 Simon Fraser University, CA, USA. URL:https://summit.sfu.ca/ _flysystem/fedora/2022-08/input_data/22492/etd21919.pdf. Morris, B., Bialik, C.,

    2022

  7. [23]

    Competitive balance in team sports games, in: IEEE Confer- ence on Games (CoG), IEEE. pp. 526–533. doi:10.1109/CoG47356.2020. 9231859. O’Malley, A.J.,

    arXiv 2020

  8. [25]

    Empirical Economics 69(4)

    Non-transitive patterns in sports match outcomes: A profitable anomaly. Empirical Economics 69(4). doi:https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00181-025-02838-6. Radicchi, F.,

    work page doi:10.1007/s00181-025-02838-6

Show all 35 references
  1. [27]

    Central European Journal of Operations Research 27, 533–549

    An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix. Central European Journal of Operations Research 27, 533–549. doi:10.1007/s10100-018-0539-6. Tukey, J.W.,

    doi

  2. [28]

    doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.08.009

    Are betting returns a useful measure of accuracy in (sports) forecasting? International Journal of Forecasting 36, 713–722. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2019.08.009. Wunderlich, F., Memmert, D.,

    2019 doi

  3. [29]

    European Journal of Sport Science 21(7), 944–957

    Forecasting the outcomes of sports events: A review. European Journal of Sport Science 21(7), 944–957. doi:10.1080/17461391.2020.1793002. Xenopoulos, P., Silva, C.,

    2020

  4. [30]

    Graph neural networks to predict sports outcomes, in: 2021IEEEInternationalConferenceonBigData(BigData), IEEE. pp. 1757–1763. doi:10.1109/BigData52589.2021.9671833. Zhang, X., He, Y., Brugnone, N., Perlmutter, M., Hirn, M.,

    2021

  5. [31]

    27003–27015

    MagNet: A neural network for directed graphs, in: International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 27003–27015. URL:https: //dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3540261.3542329. 34 Appendix A. Mathematical Details of MagNet This appendix provides the complete mathemat...

    2016

  6. [33]

    By incorporating 843 additional matches, the total out-of-sample test set increased in size to 1,918 professional matches across both the original period (31 October 2023 to 8 September

    2023

  7. [34]

    The dataset differs from the one we use here in that it only considers men’s matches and excludes any 500-point matches other than the Halle Open and the Queen’s Club Championships

    and the extended period (9 September 2024 to 8 June 2025). The dataset differs from the one we use here in that it only considers men’s matches and excludes any 500-point matches other than the Halle Open and the Queen’s Club Championships. The initial implementation of tempor...

    2024

  8. [35]

    This extension provides further justification for the proper hyperparameter tuning and improved graph structure in this work

    All metrics rounded to three decimal places. This extension provides further justification for the proper hyperparameter tuning and improved graph structure in this work. In Table B.7, the results from the original out-of-sample test set are shown are shown along with results ...

    1918

  9. [1950]

    Monthly weather review 78, 1–3

    Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability. Monthly weather review 78, 1–3. URL:https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0493(1950)078<0001:VOFEIT>2.0.CO;2. Brin, S., Page, L.,

    1950 doi

  10. [1956]

    The Bell Sys- tem Technical Journal 35(4), 917–926

    A new interpretation of information rate. The Bell Sys- tem Technical Journal 35(4), 917–926. doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1956. tb03809.x. Klaassen, F.J., Magnus, J.R.,

    1956

  11. [1993]

    The Economic Journal 103(420), 1141–1153

    Measuring the incidence of insider trading in a market for state-contingent claims. The Economic Journal 103(420), 1141–1153. doi:10.2307/2234240. Temesi, J.,

    doi

  12. [1997]

    JournaloftheRoyalStatistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 46, 265–280

    Modelling association football scores and inefficienciesinthefootballbettingmarket. JournaloftheRoyalStatistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics) 46, 265–280. doi:10.1111/1467- 9876.00065. Elo, A.E., Sloan, S.,

  13. [2000]

    International Transactions in Operational Research 7, 585–594

    Using official ratings to simulate major ten- nis tournaments. International Transactions in Operational Research 7, 585–594. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3995.2000.tb00218.x. Clegg, L., Cartlidge, J., 2025a. Not feeling the buzz: Correction study of mispricing and inefficiency in onlin...

  14. [2008]

    Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 4(2)

    Probability formulas and statistical analysis in tennis. Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 4(2). doi:10.2202/1559-0410

    doi

  15. [2009]

    doi:10.17713/ajs.v38i4

    Austrian Journal of Statistics 38(4), 277–286. doi:10.17713/ajs.v38i4

    doi

  16. [2011]

    International Journal of Forecasting 27(2), 619–630

    A Bradley-Terry type model for forecasting tennis match results. International Journal of Forecasting 27(2), 619–630. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.04.004. Mirzaei, A.,

    2010 doi

  17. [2013]

    (Eds.), Com- puter Performance Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    On the (page) ranking of professional tennis players, in: Tribastone, M., Gilmore, S. (Eds.), Com- puter Performance Engineering, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 237–247. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36781-6_17. Dixon, M.J., Coles, S.G.,

    doi

  18. [2015]

    FiveThirtyEight

    Serena Williams and the difference be- tween all-time great and greatest of all time. FiveThirtyEight. URL: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/serena-williams-and-the- difference-between-all-time-great-and-greatest-of-all-time. accessed: 2025-04-03. Nikolakaki, S.M., Dibie, O...

    2025

  19. [2016]

    (Eds.), Complex Networks VII

    A subgraph-based ranking system for professional tennis players, in: Cherifi, H., Gonçalves, B., Menezes, R., Sinatra, R. (Eds.), Complex Networks VII. Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham. volume 644 ofStudies in Computational Intelligence, p. 159–171. doi:10.1007/978-3-...

    doi

  20. [2017]

    International Journal of Forecasting 33(2), 458–466

    A bivariate Weibull count model for forecasting association football scores. International Journal of Forecasting 33(2), 458–466. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2016.11.006. Bozóki, S., Csató, L., Temesi, J.,

    2016 doi

  21. [2019]

    2623–2631

    Optuna: A next-generation hyperparameter optimization framework, in: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery & Data Mining, pp. 2623–2631. doi:10.1145/3292500.3330701. Angelini, G., Candila, V., De Angelis, L.,

  22. [2020]

    International Journal of Forecasting 36(4), 1329–1341

    Extension of the Elo rating system to margin of victory. International Journal of Forecasting 36(4), 1329–1341. doi:10.1016/j. ijforecast.2020.01.006. Kovalchik, S.A.,

    2020 doi

  23. [2021]

    (Eds.), SOFSEM 2021: Theory and Practice of Computer Science, Springer International Publishing, Cham

    Predicting tennis match out- comes with network analysis and machine learning, in: Bureš, T., Dondi, R., Gamper, J., Guerrini, G., Jurdziński, T., Pahl, C., Sikora, F., Wong, P.W. (Eds.), SOFSEM 2021: Theory and Practice of Computer Science, Springer International Publishing, ...

    2021 doi

  24. [2022]

    European Journal of Operational Research 297, 120–132

    Weighted Elo rating for tennis match predictions. European Journal of Operational Research 297, 120–132. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2021.04.011. Aparício, D., Ribeiro, P., Silva, F.,

    2021 doi

  25. [2023]

    Annals of Operations Research 325, 615–632

    A new model for predicting the winner in tennis based on the eigenvector centrality. Annals of Operations Research 325, 615–632. doi:10.1007/s10479-022-04594-7. Bayram, F., Garbarino, D., Barla, A.,

    doi

  26. [2024]

    arXiv preprint

    Elo ratings in the pres- ence of intransitivity. arXiv preprint. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2412.14427. He, Y., Gan, Q., Wipf, D., Reinert, G.D., Yan, J., Cucuringu, M.,

    doi arXiv

  27. [2025]

    International Journal of Forecasting 41(2), 803–820

    Forecasting soccer matches with betting odds: A tale of two markets. International Journal of Forecasting 41(2), 803–820. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2024.06.013. Kelly, J.L.,

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.