# Zero-inflation on steroids: choose among Poisson, negative binomial and zero-inflated regressions

I am struggling to fit alternative count models into my data. I guess my problem is just too many zeros.

This is my data

> summary(smpl)
response        predict1          predict2
Min.   :0.000   Min.   :   1.00   Min.   :    22005
1st Qu.:0.000   1st Qu.:   3.00   1st Qu.:  4669705
Median :0.000   Median :   8.00   Median : 12540318
Mean   :0.017   Mean   :  23.27   Mean   : 20382574
3rd Qu.:0.000   3rd Qu.:  20.00   3rd Qu.: 25468156
Max.   :3.000   Max.   :1584.00   Max.   :145348049

> table(smpl$response) 0 1 2 3 987 10 2 1  I tried three regressions: basic Poisson, negative binomial and zero-inflated but the only formula returning coefficients without warnings is the Poisson: > summary(glm(response ~ ., data = smpl, family = poisson)) Call: glm(formula = response ~ ., family = poisson, data = smpl) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.3871 -0.2214 -0.1722 -0.1148 4.7861 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -3.472e+00 3.521e-01 -9.862 < 2e-16 *** predict1 3.229e-03 7.271e-04 4.442 8.93e-06 *** predict2 -6.258e-08 3.060e-08 -2.045 0.0409 * --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 (Dispersion parameter for poisson family taken to be 1) Null deviance: 150.67 on 999 degrees of freedom Residual deviance: 135.84 on 997 degrees of freedom AIC: 170.06 Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 8  The negative binomial returns a warnings on both the convergence and the alternation limit summary(glm.nb(response ~ ., data = smpl)) Call: glm.nb(formula = response ~ ., data = smpl, init.theta = 0.04901296596, link = log) Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.28844 -0.17677 -0.14542 -0.09808 2.38314 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -3.899e+00 4.587e-01 -8.499 < 2e-16 *** predict1 1.226e-02 2.144e-03 5.720 1.06e-08 *** predict2 -5.982e-08 3.407e-08 -1.756 0.0791 . --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 (Dispersion parameter for Negative Binomial(0.049) family taken to be 1) Null deviance: 69.927 on 999 degrees of freedom Residual deviance: 55.940 on 997 degrees of freedom AIC: 152.37 Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 1 Theta: 0.0490 Std. Err.: 0.0251 Warning while fitting theta: alternation limit reached 2 x log-likelihood: -144.3700 Warning messages: 1: glm.fit: algorithm did not converge 2: In glm.nb(response ~ ., data = smpl) : alternation limit reached  and the zero-inflated (from the pscl package) doesn't return anything at all > summary(zeroinfl(response ~ ., data = smpl, dist = "negbin")) Call: zeroinfl(formula = response ~ ., data = smpl, dist = "negbin") Pearson residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -0.45252 -0.08817 -0.05515 -0.04210 19.56118 Count model coefficients (negbin with log link): Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -1.477e+00 NA NA NA predict1 2.678e-03 NA NA NA predict2 -1.160e-07 NA NA NA Log(theta) -1.241e+00 NA NA NA Zero-inflation model coefficients (binomial with logit link): Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) 4.869e+00 NA NA NA predict1 -1.329e-01 NA NA NA predict2 -1.346e-07 NA NA NA Error in if (getOption("show.signif.stars") & any(rbind(x$coefficients\$count,  :
missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed


Then my questions are:

1. Is there anything I can do in terms of "formula tweaking" with the negative binomial (to avoid the warnings) and with the zero-inflated (to get the coefficients)?
2. Looking only at the results above (thus including problems with convergence and alternation limit) should I select the negative binomial model since it seems, looking at the AIC, to fit better than the Poisson in my data?
• One thing relating to the convergence: if at all possible, I'd look at the log-likelihood function to see what the issues might be. – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica May 1 '14 at 22:52
• Why are you so interested in zero inflation or negative binomial. The deviance from Poisson I wouldn't consider to be so great as to cause immediate concern. The expected number of zeroes with a mean of 0.017 is 0.983 and the observed proportion is 0.987 - 4 cases off isn't so bad! (And that is just the marginal model, if your predictors are any good they should correct that.) Zero inflated are typically motivated by a separate process for the zeroes and the counts. – Andy W May 2 '14 at 13:07
• @AndyW So do you suggest the Poisson is good enough? I also don't want a model that is too complicated and unintuitive to interpret... – Francesco May 2 '14 at 13:22
• The mean function in Poisson and negative binomial are the same, so the only changes are in terms of the effects are the variance around the estimated coefficients (I would be wary of accepting the neg. bin. here given the problems with model convergence). So yes Poisson is probably fine here. ZIP models are inherently more complicated, as they involve two steps of models. – Andy W May 2 '14 at 13:31