|
| 1 | +# ADR 0005: AICc reconstruction and the DIC boundary |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +- Status: Accepted |
| 4 | +- Date: 2026-08-25 |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +## Context |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +`aefa()` selects among candidates by an information criterion. Current |
| 9 | +`mirt` fits supply `AIC` and `logLik` but do not consistently expose |
| 10 | +`AICc`. The maximum-likelihood / MAP models from current `mirt` |
| 11 | +versions also do not expose the posterior deviance quantities needed to |
| 12 | +reconstruct DIC. |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +## Decision |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +AICc is reconstructed only from the Hurvich and Tsai (1989) |
| 17 | +small-sample correction. When the fit does not already supply a finite |
| 18 | +`AICc`, kaefa recovers `k = (AIC + 2 * logLik) / 2` and applies |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | + AICc = AIC + 2 * k * (k + 1) / (n - k - 1) |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +The statistic is undefined when `n <= k + 1`; kaefa reports that reason |
| 23 | +rather than returning a fabricated finite score. |
| 24 | + |
| 25 | +DIC is accepted only when the fitted model supplies a finite posterior |
| 26 | +DIC (Spiegelhalter et al., 2002). DIC is never reconstructed from AIC |
| 27 | +and is never relabelled from AIC. `CAIC` is not treated as an alias for |
| 28 | +`AICc`. |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +## Consequences |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +- Default search can use AIC, AICc, BIC, or saBIC without a posterior |
| 33 | + sample. |
| 34 | +- Requesting DIC on an ML/MAP `mirt` fit that lacks a finite DIC is an |
| 35 | + error, not a silent fall-back to AIC. |
| 36 | +- Sequential DIF selection also refuses to substitute AIC for DIC. |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +## References |
| 39 | + |
| 40 | +Hurvich, C. M., & Tsai, C.-L. (1989). Regression and time series model |
| 41 | +selection in small samples. *Biometrika, 76*(2), 297–307. |
| 42 | +https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/76.2.297 |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & van der Linde, A. |
| 45 | +(2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. *Journal of the |
| 46 | +Royal Statistical Society: Series B, 64*(4), 583–639. |
| 47 | +https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00353 |
0 commit comments