This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (48) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Kuha, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

AIC and BIC

Comparisons of Assumptions and Performance

London School of Economics

The two most commonly used penalized model selection criteria, the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC), are examined and compared. Their motivations as approximations of two different target quantities are discussed, and their performance in estimating those quantities is assessed. Despite their different foundations, some similarities between the two statistics can be observed, for example, in analogous interpretations of their penalty terms. The behavior of the criteria in selecting good models for observed data is examined with simulated data and also illustrated with the analysis of two well-known data sets on social mobility. It is argued that useful information for model selection can be obtained from using AIC and BIC together, particularly from trying as far as possible to find models favored by both criteria.

Key Words: Bayesian inference • Kullback-Leibler divergence • mobility tables • model selection • parsimony • prediction

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 33, No. 2, 188-229 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124103262065


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P Hardelid, M Cortina-Borja, D Williams, P A Tookey, C S Peckham, W D Cubitt, and C Dezateux Rubella seroprevalence in pregnant women in North Thames: estimates based on newborn screening samples J Med Screen, March 1, 2009; 16(1): 1 - 6. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Lavoue and P. O. Droz Multimodel Inference and Multimodel Averaging in Empirical Modeling of Occupational Exposure Levels Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2009; 53(2): 173 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. C. Liu and P. L. Smith Comparing time-accuracy curves: Beyond goodness-of-fit measures Psychon Bull Rev, February 1, 2009; 16(1): 190 - 203. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. K. Azad and J. G. Lawrence Detecting laterally transferred genes: use of entropic clustering methods and genome position Nucleic Acids Res., July 9, 2007; 35(14): 4629 - 4639. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. J. Welch Estimating the Genomewide Rate of Adaptive Protein Evolution in Drosophila Genetics, June 1, 2006; 173(2): 821 - 837. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. L. Weakliem Introduction to the Special Issue on Model Selection Sociological Methods Research, November 1, 2004; 33(2): 167 - 187. [PDF]