Binomial Regression - Comparison Between Binomial Regression and Binary Choice Models

Comparison Between Binomial Regression and Binary Choice Models

A binary choice model assumes a latent variable Un, the utility (or net benefit) that person n obtains from taking an action (as opposed to not taking the action). The utility the person obtains from taking the action depends on the characteristics of the person, some of which are observed by the researcher and some are not:

where is a set of regression coefficients and is a set of independent variables (also known as "features") describing person n, which may be either discrete "dummy variables" or regular continuous variables. is a random variable specifying "noise" or "error" in the prediction, assumed to be distributed according to some distribution. Normally, if there is a mean or variance parameter in the distribution, it cannot be identified, so the parameters are set to convenient values — by convention usually mean 0, variance 1.

The person takes the action, yn = 1, if Un > 0. The unobserved term, εn, is assumed to have a logistic distribution.

The specification is written succinctly as:

    • Un = βsn + εn
    •  Y_n = \begin{cases}
1, & if \, U_n > 0, \\
0, & if \, U_n \le 0
\end{cases}
    • ε ∼ logistic, standard normal, etc.

Let us write it slightly differently:

    • Un = βsn - en
    •  Y_n = \begin{cases}
1, & if \, U_n > 0, \\
0, & if \, U_n \le 0
\end{cases}
    • e ∼ logistic, standard normal, etc.

Here we have made the substitution en = -εn. This changes a random variable into a slightly different one, defined over a negated domain. As it happens, the error distributions we usually consider (e.g. logistic distribution, standard normal distribution, standard Student's t-distribution, etc.) are symmetric about 0, and hence the distribution over en is identical to the distribution over εn.

Denote the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of as and the quantile function (inverse CDF) of as

Note that


\begin{align}
\Pr(Y_n=1) &= \Pr(U_n > 0) \\
&= \Pr(\boldsymbol\beta \cdot \mathbf{s_n} - e_n > 0) \\
&= \Pr(-e_n > -\boldsymbol\beta \cdot \mathbf{s_n}) \\
&= \Pr(e_n \le \boldsymbol\beta \cdot \mathbf{s_n}) \\
&= F_e(\boldsymbol\beta \cdot \mathbf{s_n})
\end{align}

Since Y_n is a Bernoulli trial, where we have

or equivalently

Note that this is exactly equivalent to the binomial regression model expressed in the formalism of the generalized linear model.

If i.e. distributed as a standard normal distribution, then

which is exactly a probit model.

If i.e. distributed as a standard logistic distribution with mean 0 and scale parameter 1, then the corresponding quantile function is the logit function, and

which is exactly a logit model.

Note that the two different formalisms — generalized linear models (GLM's) and discrete choice models — are equivalent in the case of simple binary choice models, but can be exteneded if differing ways:

  • GLM's can easily handle arbitrarily distributed response variables (dependent variables), not just categorical variables or ordinal variables, which discrete choice models are limited to by their nature. GLM's are also not limited to link functions that are quantile functions of some distribution, unlike the use of an error variable, which must by assumption have a probability distribution.
  • On the other hand, because discrete choice models are described as types of generative models, it is conceptually easier to extend them to complicated situations with multiple, possibly correlated, choices for each person, or other variations.

Read more about this topic:  Binomial Regression

Famous quotes containing the words comparison between, comparison, choice and/or models:

    The comparison between Coleridge and Johnson is obvious in so far as each held sway chiefly by the power of his tongue. The difference between their methods is so marked that it is tempting, but also unnecessary, to judge one to be inferior to the other. Johnson was robust, combative, and concrete; Coleridge was the opposite. The contrast was perhaps in his mind when he said of Johnson: “his bow-wow manner must have had a good deal to do with the effect produced.”
    Virginia Woolf (1882–1941)

    Clay answered the petition by declaring that while he looked on the institution of slavery as an evil, it was ‘nothing in comparison with the far greater evil which would inevitably flow from a sudden and indiscriminate emancipation.’
    State of Indiana, U.S. public relief program (1935-1943)

    European society has always been divided into classes in a way that American society never has been. A European writer considers himself to be part of an old and honorable tradition—of intellectual activity, of letters—and his choice of a vocation does not cause him any uneasy wonder as to whether or not it will cost him all his friends. But this tradition does not exist in America.
    James Baldwin (1924–1987)

    French rhetorical models are too narrow for the English tradition. Most pernicious of French imports is the notion that there is no person behind a text. Is there anything more affected, aggressive, and relentlessly concrete than a Parisan intellectual behind his/her turgid text? The Parisian is a provincial when he pretends to speak for the universe.
    Camille Paglia (b. 1947)