Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 605

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

Yang, Yuhong·2005·Biometrika

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/biomet/92.4.937

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 605

Metadata

Authors
Yang, Y.
Venue
Biometrika
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.