Cited by 910

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Akaike information criterion: Background, derivation, properties, application, interpretation, and refinements

Cavanaugh, Joseph E., Neath, Andrew A.·2019·WIREs Computational Statistics

Abstract

The Akaike information criterion (AIC) is one of the most ubiquitous tools in statistical modeling. The first model selection criterion to gain widespread acceptance, AIC was introduced in 1973 by Hirotugu Akaike as an extension to the maximum likelihood principle. Maximum likelihood is conventionally applied to estimate the parameters of a model once the structure and dimension of the model have been formulated. Akaike's seminal idea was to combine into a single procedure the process of estimation with structural and dimensional determination. This article reviews the conceptual and theoretical foundations for AIC, discusses its properties and its predictive interpretation, and provides a synopsis of important practical issues pertinent to its application. Comparisons and delineations are drawn between AIC and its primary competitor, the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). In addition, the article covers refinements of AIC for settings where the asymptotic conditions and model specification assumptions that underlie the justification of AIC may be violated. This article is categorized under: Software for Computational Statistics > Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems Statistical Models > Model Selection Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Modeling Methods and Algorithms Statistical and Graphical Methods of Data Analysis > Information Theoretic Methods

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wics.1460

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The linear mixed effects model including only diagnosis as a fixed effect and sample nested in case as a random effect was the best fit for the data as assessed with the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC).

    “The linear mixed effects model including only diagnosis as a fixed effect and sample nested in case as a random effect was the best fit for the data as assessed with the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) [9].”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. 10.1017/CBO9780511790485 · DOI
  2. 10.1007/978-0-387-71887-3 · DOI
  3. Lahiri P., 2001, Model selection. Institute of mathematical statistics lecture notes—Monograph series
  4. Akaike H., 1973, 2nd international symposium on information theory, 267
  5. 10.1016/j.csda.2005.05.009 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/2533213 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.csda.2005.05.003 · DOI
  8. 10.1016/S0167-7152(96)00128-9 · DOI
  9. 10.1007/978-0-8176-4619-6_33 · DOI
  10. Cavanaugh J. E., 1997, A bootstrap variant of AIC for state‐space model selection, Statistica Sinica, 7, 473
  11. 10.1016/j.stamet.2005.05.002 · DOI
  12. Hurvich C. M., 1990, Improved estimators of Kullback‐Leibler information for autoregressive model selection in small samples, Biometrika, 77, 709
  13. 10.1093/biomet/76.2.297 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1111/j.1467-9892.1993.tb00144.x · DOI
  15. 10.2307/2533006 · DOI
  16. 10.1023/A:1003158526504 · DOI
  17. 10.2307/2289381 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/biomet/83.4.875 · DOI
  19. Kullback S., 1968, Information theory and statistics
  20. 10.1214/aoms/1177729694 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Linhart H., 1986, Model selection
  22. 10.2307/1267380 · DOI
  23. Neath A. A., 2012, Mathematics in engineering, science and aerospace; special issue on “Theory and applications of divergence and information measures”, 381
  24. 10.1111/j.0006-341X.2001.00120.x · DOI
  25. 10.1214/aos/1176344136 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1214/aos/1176344897 · DOI
  27. 10.1093/biomet/68.1.45 · DOI
  28. Shibata R., 1997, Bootstrap estimate of Kullback‐Leibler information for model selection, Statistica Sinica, 7, 375
  29. Stone M., 1977, An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross‐validation and Akaike's criterion, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39, 44, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01603.x · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1080/03610927808827599 · DOI
  31. Takeuchi K., 1976, Distribution of information statistics and criteria for adequacy of models, Mathematical Sciences, 153, 12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cavanaugh, J. E., & Neath, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Department of Biostatistics University of Iowa, Iowa City Iowa
  • Department of Mathematics and Statistics Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Illinois
Venue
WIREs Computational Statistics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-14
Volume
11
Issue
3
ISSN
  • 1939-5108
  • 1939-0068
Cited by
910
References
4
Language
en

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