The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) are perhaps the most widely-used information criteria (IC) in model building and selection. A fourth, Minimum Description Length (MDL), is closely related to the BIC. In a nutshell, they provide guidance as which alternative model provides the most "bang for buck," i.e., the best fit after penalizing for model complexity. Penalizing for complexity is important since, given candidate models of similar predictive or explanatory power, the simplest model is most likely to be the best choice. In line with Occam's razor, complex models sometimes perform poorly on data not used in the model building. There are several others, including AIC3, SABIC, and CAIC, and no clear consensus among authorities as far as I am aware as to which is "best" overall. IC will not necessarily agree on which model should be chosen. Cross-validation, Predicted Residual Error Sum of Squares (PRESS) statistic, a kind of cross-validation, and Mallows’ Cp are also used instead of IC. Information criteria are covered in varying levels in detail in most statistics textbooks and are the subject of numerous academic papers. I know of no single go-to source on this topic.
The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), and the Deviance Information Criterion (DIC) are perhaps the most widely-used information criteria (IC) in model building and selection. A fourth, Minimum Description Length (MDL), is closely related to the BIC. In a nutshell, they provide guidance as which alternative model provides the most "bang for buck," i.e., the best fit after penalizing for model complexity. Penalizing for complexity is important since, given candidate models of similar predictive or explanatory power, the simplest model is most likely to be the best choice. In line with Occam's razor, complex models sometimes perform poorly on data not used in the model building. There are several others, including AIC3, SABIC, and CAIC, and no clear consensus among authorities as far as I am aware as to which is "best" overall. IC will not necessarily agree on which model should be chosen. Cross-validation, Predicted Residual Error Sum of Squares (PRESS) statistic, a kind of cross-validation, and Mallows’ Cp are also used instead of IC. Information criteria are covered in varying levels in detail in most statistics textbooks and are the subject of numerous academic papers. I know of no single go-to source on this topic.
Telegram auto-delete message, expiring invites, and more
elegram is updating its messaging app with options for auto-deleting messages, expiring invite links, and new unlimited groups, the company shared in a blog post. Much like Signal, Telegram received a burst of new users in the confusion over WhatsApp’s privacy policy and now the company is adopting features that were already part of its competitors’ apps, features which offer more security and privacy. Auto-deleting messages were already possible in Telegram’s encrypted Secret Chats, but this new update for iOS and Android adds the option to make messages disappear in any kind of chat. Auto-delete can be enabled inside of chats, and set to delete either 24 hours or seven days after messages are sent. Auto-delete won’t remove every message though; if a message was sent before the feature was turned on, it’ll stick around. Telegram’s competitors have had similar features: WhatsApp introduced a feature in 2020 and Signal has had disappearing messages since at least 2016.
The global forecast for the Asian markets is murky following recent volatility, with crude oil prices providing support in what has been an otherwise tough month. The European markets were down and the U.S. bourses were mixed and flat and the Asian markets figure to split the difference.The TSE finished modestly lower on Friday following losses from the financial shares and property stocks.For the day, the index sank 15.09 points or 0.49 percent to finish at 3,061.35 after trading between 3,057.84 and 3,089.78. Volume was 1.39 billion shares worth 1.30 billion Singapore dollars. There were 285 decliners and 184 gainers.
