Quality of Classification Approaches for the Quantitative Analysis of International Conflict

  • Adalbert F. X. WilhelmEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Classification, Data Analysis, and Knowledge Organization book series (STUDIES CLASS)


We provide an evaluative comparison of some modern classification algorithms, such as CART, AdaBoost, bagging and random forests, to predict the incidences of military conflicts and other political relevant events. Our evaluative comparison is based on two main aspects: the importance of variables within the classifier as well as the prediction accuracy. While modern classification procedures are able to improve the prediction accuracy as compared to the traditionally used logistic regression, the logistic regression still holds a large advantage in terms of interpretability of the variables’ relevancy.


Logistic regression Classification trees Boosting Rare events 


  1. 1.
    Colgan, J.D.: Oil, domestic conflict, and opportunities for democratization. J. Peace Res. 52(1), 3–16 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craft, C., Smaldone, J.P.: The arms trade and the incidence of political violence in sub-Saharan Africa, 1967–97. J. Peace Res. 39(6), 693–710 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghobarah, H.A., Huth, P., Russett, B.: Civil wars kill and maim people-long after the shooting stops. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 97(2), 189–202 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    King, G., Zeng, L.: Explaining rare events in international relations. Int. Organ. 55(6), 693–715 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuhn, M.: Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28(5), 1–26 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., Sergenti, E.: Economic shocks and civil conflict: an instrumental variables approach. J. Political Econ. 112(4), 725–753 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Muchlinski, D., Siroky, D., He, J., Kocher, M.: Comparing random forest with logistic regression for predicting class-imbalanced civil war onset data. Political Anal. 24(1), 87–103 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Palmer, G., D’Orazio, V., Kenwick, M., Lane, M.: The mid4 data set: Procedures, coding rules, and description. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 32(2), 222–242 (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R Core Team: R—A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sambanis, N.: A review of recent advances and future directions in the quantitative literature on civil war. Def. Peace Econ. 13(3), 215–243 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Themnér, L., Wallensteen, P.: Armed conflicts, 1946–2013. J. Peace Res. 51(4), 541–554 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Jacobs University BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations