Cited by 2,104Statistical Methods and InferenceStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceStatistical Methods and Applications

Understanding predictive information criteria for Bayesian models

Open access
Gelman, Andrew, Hwang, Jessica, Vehtari, Aki·2014·Statistics and Computing

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11222-013-9416-2

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Information criteria are based on asymptotic results and assumptions about the data that may not always hold.

    “Although information criteria are computationally convenient, they are based on asymptotic results and assumptions about the data that may not always hold [89].”

    From Comparing Bayesian and non-Bayesian accounts of human confidence reports (2018) · cites this paper as [89]

    Section 3.4 (p. 10) says other information criteria rely on Fisher’s asymptotic theory and assume a regular model; Section 2.2 (p. 4) explains why those assumptions fail for singular models. The claim overgeneralizes to information criteria as a whole, since the paper says WAIC also works with singular models. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • WAIC is a more Bayesian approach to information criteria that adds a correction for the effective number of parameters.

    “WAIC is a more Bayesian approach to information criteria that adds a correction for the effective number of parameters [89].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Watanabe, S. (2009). Algebraic Geometry and Statistical Learning Theory . Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gelman, A., Hwang, J., & Vehtari, A.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Gelman, Andrew
Venue
Statistics and Computing
Published
2013-08-20
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
997-1016
ISSN
  • 0960-3174 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1375
OpenAlex
W2130902307
Cited by
2,104
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 153 · 2025: 202 · 2024: 198 · 2023: 203 · 2022: 227 · 2021: 266 · 2020: 213 · 2019: 195 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 136 · 2016: 90 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
45.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Statistics and Computing (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Institute of Education Sciences
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
Keywords
information criteria, Akaike information criterion, deviance information criterion, Bayesian model selection, out-of-sample prediction error, bias correction, model comparison

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