Cited by 4,316Statistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods in EpidemiologySurvey Sampling and Estimation Techniques

Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data

Open access
King, Gary, Zeng, Langche·2001·Political Analysis

Abstract

We study rare events data, binary dependent variables with dozens to thousands of times fewer ones (events, such as wars, vetoes, cases of political activism, or epidemiological infections) than zeros (“nonevents”). In many literatures, these variables have proven difficult to explain and predict, a problem that seems to have at least two sources. First, popular statistical procedures, such as logistic regression, can sharply underestimate the probability of rare events. We recommend corrections that outperform existing methods and change the estimates of absolute and relative risks by as much as some estimated effects reported in the literature. Second, commonly used data collection strategies are grossly inefficient for rare events data. The fear of collecting data with too few events has led to data collections with huge numbers of observations but relatively few, and poorly measured, explanatory variables, such as in international conflict data with more than a quarter-million dyads, only a few of which are at war. As it turns out, more efficient sampling designs exist for making valid inferences, such as sampling all available events (e.g., wars) and a tiny fraction of nonevents (peace). This enables scholars to save as much as 99% of their (nonfixed) data collection costs or to collect much more meaningful explanatory variables. We provide methods that link these two results, enabling both types of corrections to work simultaneously, and software that implements the methods developed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004868

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Using King and Zeng's rare-events logit estimator, the two modernization variables remain individually significant and jointly significant when entered together.

    “In columns 5 to 7, we report results using this estimator.The two modernization variables remain individually signi…cant and jointly signi…cant when entered together.”

    From From Open to Secret Ballot: Vote Buying and Modernization (2012) · cites this paper as King and Zeng (2001)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Agresti, A. 1992. "A Survey of Exact Inference for Contingency Tables (with discussion)." Statistical Science 7(1):131-177.
  2. Amemiya, Takeshi, and Quang H. Vuong. 1987. "A Comparison of Two Consistent Estimators in the Choice-Based Sampling Qualitative Response Model." Econometrica 55(3):699-702.
  3. Beck, Nathaniel, Gary King, and Langche Zeng. 2000. "Improving Quantitative Studies of International Conflict: A Conjecture." American Political Science Review 94(1):1-15. (Preprint at http://GKing.Harvard.Edu.)
  4. Breslow, Norman E. 1996. "Statistics in Epidemiology: The Case-Control Study." Journal of the American Sta- tistical Association 91:14-28.
  5. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David Lalman. 1992. War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  6. Cordeiro, Gauss M., and Peter McCullagh. 1991. "Bias Correction in Generalized Linear Models." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B 53(3):629-643.
  7. Cosslett, Stephen R. 1981a. "Maximum Likelihood Estimator for Choice-Based Samples." Econometrica 49(5):1289-1316.
  8. Charles F. Manski and Daniel McFadden. MIT Press. MA: Cambridge.
  9. Firth, David. 1993. "Bias Reduction of Maximum Likelihood Estimates." Biometrika 80(1):27-38.
  10. Geller, Daniel S., and J. David Singer. 1998. Nations at War: A Scientific Study of International Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Holland, Paul W., and Donald B. Rubin. 1988. "Causal Inference in Retrospective Studies," Evaluation Review 12(3):203-231.
  12. Hsieh, David A., Charles F. Manski, and Daniel McFadden. 1985. "Estimation of Response Probabilities from Augmented Retrospective Observations." Journal of the American Statistical Association 80(391):651-662.
  13. Huth, Paul K. 1988. "Extended Deterrence and the Outbreak of War." American Political Science Review 82(2):423- 443.
  14. Imbens, Guido. 1992. "An Efficient Method of Moments Estimator for Discrete Choice Models with Choice-Based Sampling." Econometrica 60(5):1187-1214.
  15. King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2000a. "Inference in Case-Control Studies with Limited Auxilliary Information" (in press). (Preprint at http://Gking.harvard.edu.)
  16. King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2000b. "Explaining Rare Events in International Relations." International Orga- nization (in press).
  17. King, Gary, Michael Tomz, and Jason Wittenberg. 2000. "Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improv- ing Interpretation and Presentation." American Journal of Political Science 44(2):341-355. (Preprint at http://Gking.harvard.edu.)
  18. Lancaster, Tony, and Guido Imbens. 1996a. "Case-Control with Contaminated Controls." Journal of Econometrics 71:145-160.
  19. Lancaster, Tony, and Guido Imbens. 1996b. "Efficient Estimation and Stratified Sampling." Journal of Economet- rics 74:289-318.
  20. Levy, Jack S. 1989. "The Causes of War: A Review of Theories and Evidence." In Behavior, Society, and Nuclear War, Vol. 1, eds.
  21. Phillip E. Tetlock, Jo L. Husbands, Robert Jervis, Paul C. Stern, and Charles Tilly. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2120-2333.
  22. Manski, Charles F. 1999. "Nonparametric Identification Under Response-Based Sampling." In Nonlinear Statis- tical Inference: Essays in Honor of Takeshi Amemiya, eds. C. Hsiao, K. Morimune, and J. Powell. New York: Cambridge University Press (in press).
  23. Manski, Charles F., and Steven R. Lerman. 1977. "The Estimation of Choice Probabilities from Choice Based Samples." Econometrica 45(8):1977-1988.
  24. Manski, Charles F., and Daniel McFadden. 1981. "Alternative Estimators and Sample Designs for Discrete Choice Analysis." In Structural Analysis of Discrete Data with Econometric Applications, eds. Charles F. Manski and Daniel McFadden. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
  25. Maoz, Zeev, and Bruce Russett. 1993. "Normative and Structural Causes of Democratic Peace, 1946-86." American Political Science Review 87(3):624-638.
  26. Mehta, Cyrus R., and Nitin R. Patel. 1997. "Exact Inference for Categorical Data," unpublished paper. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and Cytel Software Corporation.
  27. Ripley, Brian D. 1996. Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Rosenau, James N., ed. 1976. In Search of Global Patterns. New York: Free Press.
  29. Rothman, Kenneth J., and Sander Greenland. 1998. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott- Raven.
  30. Scott, A. J., and C. J. Wild. 1986. "Fitting Logistic Models Under Case-Control or Choice Based Sampling." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B 48(2):170-182.
  31. Signorino, Curtis S. 1999. "Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict." American Political Science Review 93(2):279-298.
  32. Signorino, Curtis S., and Jeffrey M. Ritter. 1999. "Tau-b or Not Tau-b: Measuring the Similarity of Foreign Policy Positions." International Studies Quarterly 40(1):115-144.
  33. Smith, Richard L. 1998. "Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches to Parametric Predictive Inference." In Bayesian Statistics, eds. J. M. Bernardo, J. O. Berger, A. P. Dawid, and A. F. M. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press.
  34. Tanner, M. A. 1996. Tools for Statistical Inference: Methods for the Exploration of Posterior Distributions and Likelihood Functions, 3rd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag.
  35. Vasquez, John A. 1993. The War Puzzle. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  37. Wang, C. Y., and R. J. Caroll. 1995. "On Robust Logistic Case-Control Studies with Response-Dependent Weights." Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 43:331-340.
  38. Xie, Yu, and Charles F. Manski. 1989. "The Logit Model and Response-Based Samples." Sociological Methods and Research 17(3):283-302.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, G., & Zeng, L.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
Venue
Political Analysis
Published
2001
Volume
9
Issue
2
Pages
137-163
ISSN
  • 1047-1987 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4989
OpenAlex
W2163848058
Cited by
4,316
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 273 · 2025: 223 · 2024: 261 · 2023: 235 · 2022: 277 · 2021: 362 · 2020: 316 · 2019: 307 · 2018: 236 · 2017: 176 · 2016: 205 · 2015: 189 · 2014: 238 · 2013: 185 · 2012: 142
FWCI
61.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Political Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9729884, 9753126)
  • University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Survey Sampling and Estimation Techniques
Keywords
rare events, logistic regression, binary dependent variables, sampling design, event sampling, war, risk estimation, data collection efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review