The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? A conflict between model indentification and regression estimation
Abstract
A traditional approach to statistical inference is to identify the true or best model first with little or no consideration of the specific goal of inference in the model identification stage. Can the pursuit of the true model also lead to optimal regression estimation? In model selection, it is well known that BIC is consistent in selecting the true model, and AIC is minimax-rate optimal for estimating the regression function. A recent promising direction is adaptive model selection, in which, in contrast to AIC and BIC, the penalty term is data-dependent. Some theoretical and empirical results have been obtained in support of adaptive model selection, but it is still not clear if it can really share the strengths of AIC and BIC. Model combining or averaging has attracted increasing attention as a means to overcome the model selection uncertainty. Can Bayesian model averaging be optimal for estimating the regression function in a minimax sense? We show that the answers to these questions are basically in the negative: for any model selection criterion to be consistent, it must behave suboptimally for estimating the regression function in terms of minimax rate of covergence; and Bayesian model averaging cannot be minimax-rate optimal for regression estimation.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Calibration and empirical Bayes variable selection
George, E. (2000) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/87.4.731 · Cited by 520
Prediction via Orthogonalized Model Mixing
Clyde, M., Desimone, H., & Parmigiani, G. (1996) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1996.10476989 · Cited by 145
Cited by
A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection
Arlot, S., & Celisse, A. (2010) · Statistics Surveys · doi:10.1214/09-ss054 · Cited by 3,522
Vrieze, S. I. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0027127 · Cited by 1,948
Model selection for ecologists: the worldviews of AIC and BIC
Aho, K., Derryberry, D., & Peterson, T. (2014) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/13-1452.1 · Cited by 1,165
MplusAutomation: An R Package for Facilitating Large-Scale Latent Variable Analyses in M plus
Hallquist, M. N., & Wiley, J. F. (2018) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334 · Cited by 871
Sensitivity and specificity of information criteria
(2019) · doi:10.1093/bib/bbz016 · Cited by 718
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, Y.
- Venue
- Biometrika
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-12-01
- Volume
- 92
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 937-950
- ISSN
- 0006-3444 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3510
- OpenAlex
- W2013805643
- Cited by
- 605
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? A conflict between model indentification and regression estimation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/biomet/92.4.937
- The paper
- Yang, Y. (2005). Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? A conflict between model indentification and regression estimation. Biometrika. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/92.4.937
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.