IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/biomet/v92y2005i4p937-950.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? A conflict between model indentification and regression estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Yuhong Yang

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. Copyright 2005, Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Yuhong Yang, 2005. "Can the strengths of AIC and BIC be shared? A conflict between model indentification and regression estimation," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 92(4), pages 937-950, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:92:y:2005:i:4:p:937-950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/biomet/92.4.937
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:biomet:v:92:y:2005:i:4:p:937-950. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/biomet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.