# Is a "hurdle model" really one model? Or just two separate, sequential models?

Consider a hurdle model predicting count data y from a normal predictor x:

set.seed(1839)
# simulate poisson with many zeros
x <- rnorm(100)
e <- rnorm(100)
y <- rpois(100, exp(-1.5 + x + e))

# how many zeroes?
table(y == 0)

FALSE  TRUE
31    69


In this case, I have count data with 69 zeros and 31 positive counts. Nevermind for the moment that this is, by definition of the data-generation procedure, a Poisson process, because my question is about hurdle models.

Let's say I want to handle these excess zeros by a hurdle model. From my reading about them, it seemed like hurdle models aren't actual models per se—they are just doing two different analyses sequentially. First, a logistic regression predicting whether or not the value is positive versus zero. Second, a zero-truncated Poisson regression with only including the non-zero cases. This second step felt wrong to me because it is (a) throwing away perfectly good data, which (b) could lead to power issues since much of the data are zeros, and (c) basically not a "model" in and of itself, but just sequentially running two different models.

So I tried a "hurdle model" versus just running the logistic and zero-truncated Poisson regression separately. They gave me identical answers (I'm abbreviating the output, for brevity's sake):

> # hurdle output
> summary(pscl::hurdle(y ~ x))

Count model coefficients (truncated poisson with log link):
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)  -0.5182     0.3597  -1.441   0.1497
x             0.7180     0.2834   2.533   0.0113 *

Zero hurdle model coefficients (binomial with logit link):
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)  -0.7772     0.2400  -3.238 0.001204 **
x             1.1173     0.2945   3.794 0.000148 ***

> # separate models output
> summary(VGAM::vglm(y[y > 0] ~ x[y > 0], family = pospoisson()))

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)  -0.5182     0.3597  -1.441   0.1497
x[y > 0]      0.7180     0.2834   2.533   0.0113 *

> summary(glm(I(y == 0) ~ x, family = binomial))

Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept)   0.7772     0.2400   3.238 0.001204 **
x            -1.1173     0.2945  -3.794 0.000148 ***
---


This seems off to me since many different mathematical representations of the model include the probability that an observation is non-zero in the estimation of positive count cases, but the models I ran above completely ignore one another. For example, this is from Chapter 5, page 128 of Smithson & Merkle's Generalized Linear Models for Categorical and Continuous Limited Dependent Variables:

...Second, the probability that $y$ assumes any value (zero and the positive integers) must equal one. This is not guaranteed in Equation (5.33). To deal with this issue, we multiply the Poisson probability by the Bernoulli success probability $\pi$.
These issues require us to express the above hurdle model as
$$P(Y=y|\boldsymbol{x,z,\beta,\gamma}) = \begin{cases} 1-\hat\pi &\text{for } y=0 \\ \hat\pi\times\frac{\exp(-\hat\lambda)\hat\lambda^y/y!}{1-\exp(-\hat\lambda)} &\text{for } y=1,2,\ldots \end{cases} \tag{5.34}$$ where $\hat\lambda=\exp(\boldsymbol{x\beta})$, $\hat\pi = {\rm logit}^{-1}(\boldsymbol{z\gamma})$, $\boldsymbol x$ are the covariates for the Poisson model, $\boldsymbol z$ are the covariates for the logistic regression model, and $\hat{\boldsymbol{\beta}}$ and $\hat{\boldsymbol{\gamma}}$ are the respective regression coefficients....

By doing the two models completely separate from one another—which seems to be what hurdle models do—I don't see how $\hat{\pi}$ is incorporated into the prediction of positive count cases. But based on how I was able to replicate the hurdle function by just running two different models, I don't see how $\text{logit}^{-1}(z\hat{\gamma})$ plays a role in the truncated Poisson regression at all.

Am I understanding hurdle models correctly? They seem two be just running two sequential models: First, a logistic; Second, a Poisson, completely ignoring cases where $y = 0$. I would appreciate if someone could clear-up my confusion with the $\hat{\pi}$ business.

If I am correct that that is what hurdle models are, what is the definition of a "hurdle" model, more generally? Imagine two different scenarios:

• Imagine modeling competitiveness of electoral races by looking at competitiveness scores (1 - (winner's proportion of vote - runner up's proportion of vote)). This is [0, 1), because there are no ties (e.g., 1). A hurdle model makes sense here, because there is one process (a) was the election uncontested? and (b) if it wasn't, what predicted competitiveness? So we first do a logistic regression to analyze 0 vs. (0, 1). Then we do beta regression to analyze the (0, 1) cases.

• Imagine a typical psychological study. Responses are [1, 7], like a traditional Likert scale, with a huge ceiling effect at 7. One could do a hurdle model that's logistic regression of [1, 7) vs. 7, and then a Tobit regression for all cases where observed responses are < 7.

Would it be safe to call both of these situations "hurdle" models, even if I estimate them with two sequential models (logistic and then beta in the first case, logistic and then Tobit in the second)?

• I believe hurdle models are equivalent to running the two separate (binary + zero-truncated) models. The technical reason it works is that the first model uses only zero/non-zero to estimate $\pi$; the second model conditions on a non-zero response to estimate $\lambda$. Dec 30 '17 at 18:36
• So $\hat{\pi}$ would then be $1$ for every $i$ whose $y > 0$? Dec 30 '17 at 20:05
• No. The conditional model leaves out the $\hat \pi$ term, i.e. $P(Y=y|Y>0) = \exp(-\hat \lambda) \textrm{etc.}$ ... Dec 30 '17 at 22:08
• Ah, thank you. So I suppose that equation from Smithson and Merkle describes a different model than is implemented in pscl::hurdle, but it looks the same in Equation 5 here: cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pscl/vignettes/countreg.pdf Or perhaps I'm still missing something basic that would make it click for me? Dec 31 '17 at 0:10
• It's the same model. Mike and Ed focus on the simplest case (logit + Poisson) which is the default in hurdle(). In our paired/ vignette, we try to emphasize the more general building blocks, though. Dec 31 '17 at 2:21

### Separating the log-likelihood

It is correct that most hurdle models can be estimated separately (I would say, instead of sequentially). The reason is that the log-likelihood can be decomposed into two parts that can be maximized separately. This is because $\hat \pi$ is a just a scaling factor in (5.34) that becomes an additive term in the log-likelihood.

In the notation of Smithson & Merkle: $$\begin{eqnarray*} \ell(\beta, \gamma; y, x, z) & = & \ell_1(\gamma; y, z) + \ell_2(\beta; y, x) \\ & = & \sum_{i: y_i = 0} \log\left\{1 - \mathrm{logit}^{-1}(z_i^\top \gamma)\right\} + \sum_{i: y_i > 0} \log\left\{\mathrm{logit}^{-1}(z_i^\top \gamma)\right\} + \\ & & \sum_{i: y_i > 0} \left[ \log \left\{f(y_i; \exp(x_i^\top \beta)\right\} - \log\left\{ 1 - f(0; \exp(x_i^\top \beta)\right\}\right] \end{eqnarray*}$$ where $f(y; \lambda) = \exp(-\lambda) \lambda^y/y!$ is the density of the (untruncated) Poisson distribution and $1 - f(0; \lambda) = 1 - \exp(-\lambda)$ is the factor from the zero truncation.

Then it becomes obvious that $\ell_1(\gamma)$ (binary logit model) and $\ell_2(\beta)$ (zero-truncated Poisson model) can be maximized separately, leading to the same parameter estimates, covariances, etc. as in the case where they are maximized jointly.

The same logic also works if the zero hurdle probability $\pi$ is not parametrized through a logit model but any other binary regression model, e.g., a count distribution right-censored at 1. And, of course, $f(\cdot)$ could also be another count distribution, e.g., negative binomial. The whole separation only breaks down if there are shared parameters between the zero hurdle and the truncated count part.

A prominent example would be if negative binomial distributions with separate $\mu$ but common $\theta$ parameters are employed in the two components of the model. (This is available in hurdle(..., separate = FALSE, dist = "negbin", zero.dist = "negbin") in the countreg package from R-Forge, the successor to the pscl implementation.)

### Concrete questions

(a) Throwing away perfectly good data: In your case yes, in general no. You have data from a single Poisson model without excess zeros (albeit many zeros). Hence, it is not necessary to estimate separate models for the zeros and non-zeros. However, if the two parts are really driven by different parameters then it is necessary to account for this.

(b) Could lead to power issues since much of the data are zeros: Not necessarily. Here, you have a third of the observations that are "successes" (hurdle crossings). This wouldn't be considered very extreme in a binary regression model. (Of course, if it is unnecessary to estimate separate models you would gain power.)

(c) Basically not a 'model' in and of itself, but just sequentially running two different models: This is more philosophical and I won't try to give "one" answer. Instead, I will point out pragmatic points of view. For model estimation, it can be convenient to emphasize that the models are separate because - as you show - you might not need a dedicated function for the estimation. For model application, e.g., for predictions or residuals etc., it can be more convenient to see this as a single model.

(d) Would it be safe to call both of these situations 'hurdle' models: In principle yes. However, jargon may vary across communities. For example, the zero-hurdle beta regression is more commonly (and very confusingly) called zero-inflated beta regression. Personally, I find the latter very misleading because the beta distribution has no zeros that could be inflated - but it's the standard term in the literature anyway. Moreover, the tobit model is a censored model and hence not a hurdle model. It could be extended, though, by a probit (or logit) model plus a truncated normal model. In the econometrics literature this is known as the Cragg two-part model.

The countreg package on R-Forge at https://R-Forge.R-project.org/R/?group_id=522 is the successor implementation to hurdle()/zeroinfl() from pscl. The main reason that it is (still) not on CRAN is that we want to revise the predict() interface, possibly in a way that is not fully backward compatible. Otherwise the implementation is pretty stable. Compared to pscl it comes with a few nice features, e.g.:

• A zerotrunc() function that uses exactly the same code as hurdle() for the zero-truncated part of the model. Thus, it offers an alternative to VGAM.

• Moreover, it as d/p/q/r functions for the zero-truncated, hurdle, and zero-inflated count distributions. This facilitates looking at these as "one" model rather than separate models.

• For assessing the goodness of fit, graphical displays like rootograms and randomized quantile residual plots are available. (See Kleiber & Zeileis, 2016, The American Statistician, 70(3), 296–303. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1173590.)

### Simulated data

Your simulated data comes from a single Poisson process. If e is treated as a known regressor then it would be a standard Poisson GLM. If e is an unknown noise component, then there is some unobserved heterogeneity causing a little bit of overdispersion which could be captured by a negative binomial model or some other kind of continuous mixture or random effect etc. However, as the effect of e is rather small here, none of this makes a big difference. Below, I'm treating e as a regressor (i.e., with true coefficient of 1) but you could also omit this and use negative binomial or Poisson models. Qualitatively, all of these lead to similar insights.

## Poisson GLM
p <- glm(y ~ x + e, family = poisson)
## Hurdle Poisson (zero-truncated Poisson + right-censored Poisson)
library("countreg")
hp <- hurdle(y ~ x + e, dist = "poisson", zero.dist = "poisson")
## all coefficients very similar and close to true -1.5, 1, 1
cbind(coef(p), coef(hp, model = "zero"), coef(hp, model = "count"))
##                   [,1]       [,2]      [,3]
## (Intercept) -1.3371364 -1.2691271 -1.741320
## x            0.9118365  0.9791725  1.020992
## e            0.9598940  1.0192031  1.100175


This reflects that all three models can consistently estimate the true parameters. Looking at the corresponding standard errors shows that in this scenario (without the need for a hurdle part) the Poisson GLM is more efficient:

serr <- function(object, ...) sqrt(diag(vcov(object, ...)))
cbind(serr(p), serr(hp, model = "zero"), serr(hp, model = "count"))
##                  [,1]      [,2]      [,3]
## (Intercept) 0.2226027 0.2487211 0.5702826
## x           0.1594961 0.2340700 0.2853921
## e           0.1640422 0.2698122 0.2852902


Standard information criteria would select the true Poisson GLM as the best model:

AIC(p, hp)
##    df      AIC
## p   3 141.0473
## hp  6 145.9287


And a Wald test would correctly detect that the two components of the hurdle model are not significantly different:

hurdletest(hp)
## Wald test for hurdle models
##
## Restrictions:
## count_((Intercept) - zero_(Intercept) = 0
## count_x - zero_x = 0
## count_e - zero_e = 0
##
## Model 1: restricted model
## Model 2: y ~ x + e
##
##   Res.Df Df  Chisq Pr(>Chisq)
## 1     97
## 2     94  3 1.0562     0.7877


Finally both rootogram(p) and qqrplot(p) show that the Poisson GLM fits the data very well and that there are no excess zeros or hints on further misspecifications.

• What is the difference between excess zeros and many zeros? Dec 26 '18 at 17:36
• An example: A Poisson distribution with expectation $\lambda = 0.5$ has a probability of about $f(0; \lambda = 0.5) \approx 60\%$. That is surely many zeros. However, if you have a distribution that has the shape of a Poisson(0.5) but more zeros, then the are excess zeros. Dec 27 '18 at 8:51

I agree the difference between zero-inflated and hurdle models is hard to understand. Both are a kind of mixture model. From what I can tell, the important difference is, in a zero-inflated model, you mix a mass at zero with a distribution \textit{that can also take the value zero}. For a hurdle model, you mix a mass at zero with a distribution that only takes values greater than 0. Thus, in the zero-inflated model you can distinguish between 'structural zeros' (corresponding to the mass at zero) and 'sampling zeros' corresponding to the chance occurrence of 0 from the model you are mixing in. Of course, this identification depends strongly on making the right choice of distribution! But, if you have a zero-inflated Poisson, for example, you can distinguish between zeros that come from the Poisson component (sampling zeros) and zeros that come from the mass at zero (structural zeros). If you have a zero-inflated model and the distribution you are mixing in has no mass at zero, it could be interpreted as a hurdle model.

• While the distinction between the two kinds of zeros is a necessity that comes directly out of the model specification, it is possible to compute the same kind of quantity for a hurdle model. The so-called structural zeros can also be computed from the untruncated count distribution (say Poisson) even though its parameters were based on a truncated sample. The probability for structural zeros are then the difference between the probability for zero (overall, from the zero hurdle part) and for sampling zeros. Dec 28 '18 at 15:06

Regarding the philosophical aspect, "when should we consider something a single model and when two separate models", it may be interesting to note that the sample estimates of the model-parameters are correlated.

In the plot below with a simulation you mostly see the correlation between the slope and the intercept of the counts part. But there is also some slight relation between the counts part and the hurdle part. If you change the parameters, e.g. make the lambda in the Poisson distribution smaller or the sample size smaller, then the correlation becomes stronger.

So I would say that you should not consider it as two separate models. Or at least there is some relation even when in practice you can compute the two estimates independent from each other.

set.seed(1839)

Nrep <- 3000
Ns <- 100
pars <- matrix(rep(0,3*Nrep),Nrep)
colnames(pars) <- c("count_intercept","count_slope","hurdle_intercept")

# simulation-loop
# Note that a truncated poisson is used to generate data
# this will make the parameters from the hurdle function easier to interpret and compare
for (i in 1:Nrep) {
x <- rnorm(Ns,0,1)
e <- rbinom(Ns,1,exp(-0.7))
y <- e*truncdist::rtrunc(n=Ns,spec='pois',a=0,b=Inf,lambda=exp(-1.5 + x))
mod <- pscl::hurdle(y ~ 1+x|1, link="log")
pars[i,1]<-mod$$coefficients$$count[1]
pars[i,2]<-mod$$coefficients$$count[2]
pars[i,3]<-mod$$coefficients$$zero[1]
}

# viewing data
plotpars <- pars[pars[,1]>-7,] #clipping
pairs(plotpars,cex=0.7,pch=21,
col= rgb(0,0,0,0.03),
bg = rgb(0,0,0,0.03))

# demonstrating linear relation / significant correlation
summary(lm(pars[,1] ~ pars[,3]))


It doesn't make much sense that there is a correlation between the two parts. But it might probably be due to discrete levels of the estimates for the parameters in the Poisson model, and how these relate to the number of zero's.

• I cannot replicate this. For me: truncdist::rtrunc(n = 100, spec = 'pois', a = 0, b = Inf, lambda = exp(-1.5 + rnorm(100))) yields an error (using version 1.0.2): Error in if (G.a == G.b) { : the condition has length > 1. In any case, using rhpois() from package countreg on R-Forge is easier for simulating from a hurdle Poisson model with given hurdle crossing probability pi and underlying (untruncated) Poisson expectation lambda. If I use these I get only very small empirical correlations between the zero hurdle and truncated count parts. Dec 28 '18 at 14:53
• Data generating process: dgp <- function(n = 100, b = c(-0.5, 2), g = c(0.5, -2)) { x <- runif(n, -1, 1) ; y <- rhpois(n, lambda = exp(b[1] + b[2] * x), pi = plogis(g[1] + g[2] * x)); data.frame(x = x, y = y) } Simulation: set.seed(1); cf <- t(replicate(3000, coef(hurdle(y ~ x, data = dgp())))). Evaluation: pairs(cf) and cor(cf). Checking colMeans(cf) also shows that the estimation has worked reasonably well. Dec 28 '18 at 14:57
• @AchimZeileis at the moment I have no possibilities to look into your error and comment on it. But anyways, the correlation is neither more than very small in the image that I showed. The point was more philosophical/ theoretical. In practice you will most likely have little problems when you treat the model as two seperate, non integrated, steps. Dec 28 '18 at 19:40
• would be great if you could come back to this @SextusEmpiricus, this is a very useful thread! Jan 5 at 13:55