really similar AIC
Posted on
valentinav
Joined: 06/15/2020
Forums
Hi All,
I run the ACE model and submodels, and the AIC are really similar.
ACE 2579
AE 2577.5
CE 2577.3
E 2584
I run the ACE model and submodels, and the AIC are really similar.
ACE 2579
AE 2577.5
CE 2577.3
E 2584
Overall, I always get a difference of 1 between the AIC.
The best winning model is always coherent with the results of the correlation analysis, so I tend to trust it, however, the difference is really little.
Is there a way to establish what is a significant difference between AIC?
Thank you all!
Valentina
confidence set
omxAkaikeWeights()
.Log in or register to post comments
In reply to confidence set by AdminRobK
Formal test for AIC difference significance
The reason I am asking this is because sometimes it is not possible to get a p-value when comparing models. For example, when comparing ACE and ADE models I do not get a p-value since the number of parameters is the same in both models.
Sometimes delta AIC > 2 is recommended as a rule of thumb, but perhaps there is a formal test for AIC difference significance.
Thanks,
Mike
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to Formal test for AIC difference significance by Micanzach
Hi Mark,
so the AIC difference needs to be higher than 2 to be significant?
Is there any references for this?
Best
Valentina
Log in or register to post comments
answers
The question of "significant difference in AIC" is ill-posed. Model-comparison via AIC is not a statistical test in any sense. Besides, unless you only have two models in your candidate set, you should be simultaneously comparing each model's AIC to all the other models' AICs, and not getting preoccupied with pairwise AIC comparisons.
Again, I refer you to the documentation of
omxAkaikeWeights()
and the references it cites.Log in or register to post comments
In reply to answers by AdminRobK
thanks!
I tried to run it and I obtained
omxAkaikeWeights(models=list(fitACE,fitAE,fitCE,fitE))
model AIC delta AkaikeWeight inConfidenceSet
2 oneAEvc 55.85886 0.0000000 0.44719740 *
3 oneCEvc 56.27869 0.4198268 0.36252257 *
1 ACEvc 57.83433 1.9754648 0.16654536 *
4 oneEvc 61.73099 5.8721260 0.02373468
But I am not sure how I should interpret this, that the first three models are all plausible?
Furthermore, the AIC obtained with this function are different from the one I obtained previously
mxCompare( fitACE, nested <- list(fitAE, fitCE, fitE) ) 5 47.83433 515 -982.1657 NA NA NA
base comparison ep minus2LL df AIC diffLL diffdf p
1 ACEvc
2 ACEvc oneAEvc 4 47.85886 516 -984.1411 0.02453522 1 0.87553076
3 ACEvc oneCEvc 4 48.27869 516 -983.7213 0.44436197 1 0.50502460
4 ACEvc oneEvc 3 55.73099 517 -978.2690 7.89666118 2 0.01928687
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to thanks! by valentinav
more
Basically, yes.
If you use `summary()` on a fitted MxModel object, you will see two values of AIC. One is calculated in terms of a "df Penalty", and the other is calculated in terms of a "Parameters Penalty". The AIC calculated in terms of a "Parameters Penalty" is AIC as originally explicated by Hirotugu Akaike. I don't know the basis for the AIC calculated in terms of the "df Penalty", so I always just ignore it. I coded `omxAkaikeWeights()`, so it always uses the "Parameters Penalty" AIC.
Log in or register to post comments
In reply to more by AdminRobK
I had a follow-up question to
Log in or register to post comments