Model seçiminde AIC kuralları

BIC'yi genellikle benim anlayışım olarak, para cezasına AIC'den daha güçlü bir şekilde değer verdiği için kullanıyorum. Ancak şimdi daha kapsamlı bir yaklaşım kullanmaya karar verdim ve AIC'yi de kullanmak istiyorum. Raftery'nin (1995) BIC farklılıkları için güzel kurallar sunduğunu biliyorum: 0-2 zayıf, 2-4 bir modelin daha iyi olduğunun kanıtıdır.

Ders kitaplarına baktım ve AIC'de garip görünüyorlar (daha büyük bir farkın zayıf olduğu ve AIC'deki daha küçük bir farkın bir modelin daha iyi olduğu anlamına geliyor gibi görünüyor). Bu bana öğretildiğimi bildiğim şeylere aykırı. Anladığım kadarıyla düşük AIC istiyorsun.

Raftery'nin kılavuz ilkelerinin AIC'ye kadar uzanıp uzatmadığını veya bir modelden diğerine "kanıt gücü" için bazı kılavuzlardan alıntı yapabileceğimi bilen var mı?

And yes, cutoffs are not great (I kind of find them irritating) but they are helpful when comparing different kinds of evidence.

AIC and BIC hold the same interpretation in terms of model comparison. That is, the larger difference in either AIC or BIC indicates stronger evidence for one model over the other (the lower the better). It's just the the AIC doesn't penalize the number of parameters as strongly as BIC. There is also a correction to the AIC (the AICc) that is used for smaller sample sizes. More information on the comparison of AIC/BIC can be found here.

You are talking about two different things and you are mixing them up. In the first case you have two models (1 and 2) and you obtained their AIC like $AIC_1$ and $AIC_2$. IF you want to compare these two models based on their AIC's, then model with lower AIC would be the preferred one i.e. if $AIC_1< AIC_2$ then you pick up model 1 and vise versa.
In the 2nd case, you have a set of candidate models like models $(1, 2, ..., n)$ and for each model you calculate AIC differences as $\Delta_i= AIC_i- AIC_{min}$, where $AIC_i$ is the AIC for the $i$th model and $AIC_{min}$ is the minimum of AIC among all the models. Now the model with $\Delta_i >10$ have no support and can be ommited from further consideration as explained in Model Selection and Multi-Model Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach by Kenneth P. Burnham, David R. Anderson, page 71. So the larger is the $\Delta_i$, the weaker would be your model. Here the best model has $\Delta_i\equiv\Delta_{min}\equiv0.$

I generally never use AIC or BIC objectively to describe adequate fit for a model. I do use these ICs to compare the relative fit of two predictive models. As far as whether an AIC of "2" or "4" is concerned, it's completely contextual. If you want to get a sense of how a "good" model fits, you can (should) always use a simulation. Your understanding of the AIC is right. AIC receives a positive contribution from the parameters and a negative contribution from the likelihood. What you're trying to do is maximize the likelihood without loading up your model with a bunch of parameters. So, my bubble bursting opinion is that cut offs for AIC are no good out of context.

Here is a related question when-is-it-appropriate-to-select-models-by-minimising-the-aic?. It gives you a general idea of what people not unrecognizable in academic world consider appropriate to write and what references to leave in as important.

Generally, it is the differences between the likelihoods or AICs that matter, not their absolute values. You have missed the important word "difference" in your "BIC: 0-2 is weak" in the question - check Raftery's TABLE 6 - and it's strange that no-one wants to correct that.

I myself have been taught to look for MAICE (Minimum AIC Estimate - as Akaike called it). So what? Here is what one famous person wrote to an unknown lady:

Dear Miss -- 
I have read about sixteen pages of your manuscript ... I suffered exactly the same 
treatment at the hands of my teachers who disliked me for my independence and passed 
over me when they wanted assistants ... keep your manuscript for your sons and
daughters, in order that they may derive consolation from it and not give a damn for
what their teachers tell them or think of them. ... There is too much education
altogether.

My teachers never heard of papers with titles like "A test whether two AIC's differ significantly" and I can't even remember they ever called AIC a statistic, that would have a sampling distribution and other properties. I was taught AIC is a criterion to be minimized, if possible in some automatic fashion.

Yet another important issue, which I think have been expressed here a few years ago by IrishStat (from memory so apologies if I am wrong as I failed to find that answer) is that AIC, BIC and other criteria have been derived for different purposes and under different conditions (assumptions) so you often can't use them interchangeably if your purpose is forecasting, say. You can't just prefer something inappropriate.

My sources show that I used a quote to Burnham and Anderson (2002, p.70) to write that delta (AIC differences) within 0-2 has a substantial support; delta within 4-7 considerably less support and delta greater than 10 essentially no support. Also, I wrote that "the authors also discussed conditions under which these guidelines may be useful". The book is cited in the answer by Stat, which I upvoted as most relevant.

With regard to information criteria, here is what SAS says:

"Note that information criteria such as Akaike's (AIC), Schwarz's (SC, BIC), and QIC can be used to compare competing nonnested models, but do not provide a test of the comparison. Consequently, they cannot indicate whether one model is significantly better than another. The GENMOD, LOGISTIC, GLIMMIX, MIXED, and other procedures provide information criteria measures."

There are two comparative model testing procedure: a) Vuong test and b) non-parametric Clarke test. See this paper for details.