Do the robot
Abstract
Increasingly, scholars interested in understanding conflict processes have turned to evaluating out-of-sample forecasts to judge and compare the usefulness of their models. Research in this vein has made significant progress in identifying and avoiding the problem of overfitting sample data. Yet there has been less research providing strategies and tools to practically improve the out-of-sample performance of existing models and connect forecasting improvement to the goal of theory development in conflict studies. In this article, we fill this void by building on lessons from machine learning research. We highlight a set of iterative tasks, which David Blei terms ‘Box’s loop’, that can be summarized as build, compute, critique, and think. While the initial steps of Box’s loop will be familiar to researchers, the underutilized process of model criticism allows researchers to iteratively learn more useful representations of the data generation process from the discrepancies between the trained model and held-out data. To benefit from iterative model criticism, we advise researchers not only to split their available data into separate training and test sets, but also sample from their training data to allow for iterative model development, as is common in machine learning applications. Since practical tools for model criticism in particular are underdeveloped, we also provide software for new visualizations that build upon already existing tools. We use models of civil war onset to provide an illustration of how our machine learning-inspired research design can simultaneously improve out-of-sample forecasting performance and identify useful theoretical contributions. We believe these research strategies can complement existing designs to accelerate innovations across conflict processes.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Over the last few years, the field of civil war prediction has switched to predictive modeling using complex ML models such as Random Forests and Adaboost instead of LR.
“Over the last few years, this field has switched to predictive modeling using complex ML models such as Random Forests and Adaboost instead of LR (see Figure 2), with several papers claiming near-perfect performance of these models for civil war prediction.75,76,77,78”
From Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
Colaresi and Mahmood and Wang incorrectly reuse an imputed dataset.
“Colaresi and Mahmood76 and Wang77 incorrectly reuse an imputed dataset”
From Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
Several papers claim near-perfect performance of complex ML models for civil war prediction.
“Over the last few years, this field has switched to predictive modeling using complex ML models such as Random Forests and Adaboost instead of LR (see Figure 2), with several papers claiming near-perfect performance of these models for civil war prediction.75,76,77,78”
From Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science (2023) · cites this paper as [76]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 34 · Cited by 82
- Authors
- Colaresi, M., & Mahmood, Z.
- Affiliations
- Michigan State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Colaresi, Michael
- ORCID
- Colaresi, Michael
- Venue
- Journal of Peace Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2017-02-22
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 193-214
- ISSN
- 0022-3433 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-3578
- OpenAlex
- W2591090211
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 20.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Peace Research (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Michigan State University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Computational and Text Analysis Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Keywords
- out-of-sample forecasting, conflict prediction, model criticism, overfitting, civil war onset, machine learning, iterative model development, data generation process, conflict processes, research design
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