From bates at stat.wisc.edu  Mon Apr 18 20:42:06 2005
From: bates at stat.wisc.edu (Douglas Bates)
Date: Mon Apr 18 20:43:18 2005
Subject: [Rd] Why no BIC.default function?
In-Reply-To: <17905.170.54.59.167.1113847926.squirrel@170.54.59.167>
References: <17905.170.54.59.167.1113847926.squirrel@170.54.59.167>
Message-ID: <4263FF7E.9020909@stat.wisc.edu>

kwright@eskimo.com wrote:
> I'm using R 2.0.1.
> 
> I looked in the email archives but didn't see anything on this topic.
> 
> I've noticed a surprising (to me) difference between AIC and BIC:
> 
> 
>>methods("AIC")
> 
> [1] AIC.default* AIC.logLik*
> 
> 
>>methods("BIC")
> 
> [1] BIC.gls*    BIC.lm*     BIC.lme*    BIC.lmList* BIC.logLik* BIC.nls*
> 
> The BIC.gls BIC.lm BIC.lme BIC.lmList and BIC.nls functions appear to have
> exactly the same definition.  (I didn't check with 'diff' though.)
> 
> Would it make sense to treat BIC similarly to AIC and have just
> BIC.default and BIC.logLik?

Yes.  We will do so.


[Rd] Why no BIC.default function?
Douglas Bates