Akaike Information Criterion (AIC)
Akaike Information Criterion · Also known as: AIC
The Akaike Information Criterion is an information-theoretic measure for model selection that balances goodness of fit against model complexity. Introduced by Hirotugu Akaike in 1974, AIC estimates the relative quality of models for a given dataset, penalizing additional parameters to prevent overfitting.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use AIC when comparing multiple candidate models fit to the same dataset. It is particularly valuable for model selection in regression, time-series, and mixed-effect contexts. AIC assumes the true model is in your candidate set and is most useful for comparing non-nested models. For very large sample sizes, the penalty 2k may be too lenient; consider BIC instead. AIC is prediction-focused, not fit-focused.
Strengths & limitations
- Information-theoretic foundation: estimates relative quality of out-of-sample prediction
- Works with non-nested models: directly comparable across different model structures
- Prevents overfitting by penalizing complexity
- Consistent with maximum likelihood estimation framework
- Only relative values matter; absolute AIC is uninterpretable
- Assumes observations are independent; violates with time-series autocorrelation
- Requires full likelihood specification; not applicable to all model types
- Bias toward complex models with large samples; penalty 2k stays constant
Frequently asked
How many points AIC difference is meaningful?
As a rough guide: delta AIC < 2 suggests negligible difference, 4-7 suggests less support for the higher AIC model, > 10 suggests very little support. However, context matters; always use domain knowledge in addition to AIC rankings.
Should I use AIC or BIC?
AIC is prediction-focused; BIC is explanation-focused. AIC tends to select more complex models (as sample size increases, penalty stays 2k), while BIC penalty grows with n log(n). Use AIC for prediction, BIC for understanding true model structure.
Can I use AIC with time-series data?
With caution. AIC assumes independence; time-series data violate this. Some time-series models (ARIMA, GARCH) still provide proper likelihoods, making AIC valid. However, auto-correlated residuals can bias AIC comparisons.
Why does AIC increase with sample size for fixed k?
As n grows, the likelihood magnitude changes (more observations, larger product). This is expected; AIC values across datasets are not comparable. Only compare AIC within the same dataset.
How does AIC relate to cross-validation?
Both estimate out-of-sample prediction error. AIC is faster (no need to refit), but cross-validation is more direct and requires fewer assumptions. For critical decisions, use both methods.
Sources
- Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716-723. DOI: 10.1109/TAC.1974.1100705 ↗
- Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. DOI: 10.2307/3802723 ↗
- Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and sufficiency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1), 79-86. DOI: 10.1214/aoms/1177729694 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Akaike Information Criterion. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/model-evaluation/akaike-information-criterion
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Adjusted R-squaredModel Evaluation↔ compare
- Bayesian Information CriterionModel Evaluation↔ compare
- Mean Squared ErrorModel Evaluation↔ compare
- R-squaredModel Evaluation↔ compare