Akaike-type criteria and the reliability of inference: Model selection versus statistical model specification
Since the 1990s, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and its various modifications/extensions, including BIC, have found wide applicability in econometrics as objective procedures that can be used to select parsimonious statistical models. The aim of this paper is to argue that these model selection procedures invariably give rise to unreliable inferences, primarily because their choice within a prespecified family of models (a) assumes away the problem of model validation, and (b) ignores the relevant error probabilities. This paper argues for a return to the original statistical model specification problem, as envisaged by Fisher (1922), where the task is understood as one of selecting a statistical model in such a way as to render the particular data a truly typical realization of the stochastic process specified by the model in question. The key to addressing this problem is to replace trading goodness-of-fit against parsimony with statistical adequacy as the sole criterion for when a fitted model accounts for the regularities in the data.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521269124 is not listed on IDEAS
- Aris Spanos, 2001. "Revisiting data mining: 'hunting' with or without a license," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 231-264.
- Elena Andreou & Aris Spanos, 2003. "Statistical Adequacy and the Testing of Trend Versus Difference Stationarity," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 217-237, January.
- Spanos, Aris, 1990. "The simultaneous-equations model revisited : Statistical adequacy and identification," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1-2), pages 87-105.
- repec:cup:cbooks:9780521852258 is not listed on IDEAS
- A. Meltzer & Peter Ordeshook & Thomas Romer, 1982. "Introduction," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 1-3, January.
- Aris Spanos, 2006. "Revisiting the omitted variables argument: Substantive vs. statistical adequacy," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 179-218.
- Leeb, Hannes & P tscher, Benedikt M., 2005. "Model Selection And Inference: Facts And Fiction," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(01), pages 21-59, February.
- Spanos, Aris, 1995. "On theory testing in econometrics : Modeling with nonexperimental data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 189-226, May.
- Aris Spanos & Anya McGuirk, 2001. "The Model Specification Problem from a Probabilistic Reduction Perspective," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(5), pages 1168-1176.
- repec:hal:journl:hal-00287137 is not listed on IDEAS
- Qi Li & Jeffrey Scott Racine, 2006. "Nonparametric Econometrics: Theory and Practice," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 8355.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:econom:v:158:y:2010:i:2:p:204-220. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.