The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Focused Information Criterion
Abstract
A variety of model selection criteria have been developed, of general and specific types. Most of these aim at selecting a single model with good overall properties, for example, formulated via average prediction quality or shortest estimated overall distance to the true model. The Akaike, the Bayesian, and the deviance information criteria, along with many suitable variations, are examples of such methods. These methods are not concerned, however, with the actual use of the selected model, which varies with context and application. The present article takes the view that the model selector should instead focus on the parameter singled out for interest; in particular, a model that gives good precision for one estimand may be worse when used for inference for another estimand. We develop a method that, for a given focus parameter, estimates the precision of any submodel-based estimator. The framework is that of large-sample likelihood inference. Using an unbiased estimate of limiting risk, we propose a focused information criterion for model selection. We investigate and discuss properties of the method, establish some connections to Akaike's information criterion, and illustrate its use in a variety of situations.
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
Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach.
Guthery, F. S., Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2003) · The Journal of Wildlife Management · doi:10.2307/3802723 · Cited by 41,495
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118
Model Selection and Accounting for Model Uncertainty in Graphical Models Using Occam's Window
Madigan, D., & Raftery, A. E. (1994) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1994.10476894 · Cited by 1,205
Model uncertainty, data mining and statistical inference
Chatfield, C. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983440 · Cited by 1,103
Calibration and empirical Bayes variable selection
George, E. (2000) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/87.4.731 · Cited by 520
McCullagh, P. (2002) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1035844977 · Cited by 248
Goodness-of-fit processes for logistic regression: simulation results
Hosmer, D. W., & Hjort, N. L. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1200 · Cited by 164
Self-citation
Cited by
Generalized additive models for location, scale and shape.
Rigby, R. A., & Stasinopoulos, D. M. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C: Applied Statistics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9876.2005.00510.x · Cited by 3,228
Hansen, B. E. (2007) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0262.2007.00785.x · Cited by 837
Ellison, A. M. (2004) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00603.x · Cited by 786
Frequentist Model Average Estimators
Hjort, N. L., & Claeskens, G. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/016214503000000828 · Cited by 688
Self-citationValid post-selection inference
Berk, R., Brown, L., Buja, A., Zhang, K., & Zhao, L. (2013) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/12-aos1077 · Cited by 599
Metadata
- Authors
- Claeskens, G., & Hjort, N. L.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Statistical Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 464
- Pages
- 900-916
- ISSN
- 0162-1459 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-274X
- OpenAlex
- W2067838071
- Cited by
- 380
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 7.17
- 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: The Focused Information Criterion. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1198/016214503000000819
- The paper
- Claeskens, G., & Hjort, N. L. (2003). The Focused Information Criterion. Journal of the American Statistical Association. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214503000000819
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.