ML Interview Q Series: How would you describe the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) in machine learning, and how is it typically applied for choosing models?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

AIC, or Akaike Information Criterion, is a widely used metric for model selection in statistical modeling and machine learning. It provides a way to balance model fit against model complexity to help practitioners avoid overfitting.

Core Mathematical Formula

Below is the central formula for computing the AIC of a model, where k is the number of parameters in the model, and ln(L-hat) is the maximum log-likelihood achieved by the model:

# $$ \mathrm{AIC} = 2k - 2 \ln(\hat{L}) $$

Here, k is the total number of parameters that the model needs to estimate from the data, and ln(L-hat) indicates the best possible log-likelihood for the model. The term 2k penalizes complex models having a large number of parameters, while -2 ln(L-hat) reflects how well the model fits the data. A lower AIC score is generally better, signifying a more optimal balance between simplicity and fit.

Rationale Behind AIC

The motivation for AIC is rooted in information theory. It attempts to estimate the relative information loss when using a model to represent the data. A model with an excessively large number of parameters might overfit and not generalize well. Conversely, an overly simple model might underfit. AIC encourages practitioners to look for a model that uses as few parameters as possible while still providing a good fit to the data.

Comparison with Other Metrics

While accuracy or other performance metrics can compare how different models fit the data, they often do not incorporate any explicit penalty for complexity. AIC, on the other hand, integrates a penalty term (2k), which grows with the number of estimated parameters. This penalty discourages needless complexity. Other model selection criteria, such as the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), have a similar structure but penalize model complexity more strongly, especially when the sample size is large.

Practical Implementation

AIC is frequently calculated in practice by fitting a model, obtaining its log-likelihood, and counting the number of parameters. Then the formula is applied. Many statistical libraries, such as statsmodels in Python, provide a direct AIC value for fitted models. For custom models in a deep learning context, one might compute the log-likelihood directly or approximate it if the negative log-likelihood is used as the loss function.

Below is a simple example of Python code that demonstrates how one might compute AIC if you already know log_likelihood and the number_of_params.

import numpy as np

def compute_aic(log_likelihood, number_of_params):
    # AIC = 2 * number_of_params - 2 * log_likelihood
    return 2 * number_of_params - 2 * log_likelihood

# Example usage:
log_likelihood_value = -120.5
k = 5  # number of parameters
aic_value = compute_aic(log_likelihood_value, k)
print("AIC:", aic_value)

One critical point is ensuring you correctly identify the number of parameters. This includes any intercepts, coefficients, or distribution parameters used in the model.

Interpreting AIC Values

When comparing multiple candidate models, one can compute the AIC for each model. The model with the smallest AIC is often selected as the most appropriate. The interpretation is relative: AIC by itself doesn’t convey how “good” your model is in an absolute sense, but rather how it compares to other models tested on the same dataset.

Limitations and Potential Pitfalls

A key limitation is that AIC does not consider the prior distributions of parameters (unlike BIC’s link with Bayesian methods). It also assumes that the model errors are i.i.d. and normally distributed in many standard implementations. Furthermore, if the sample size is not sufficiently large, or if the likelihood estimation is poor, AIC-based selection may be unreliable.

Possible Follow-Up Questions

How do you interpret AIC differences across models?

When comparing models, one often looks at the difference in AIC values between the best-scoring model and competing models. If the difference is very small (less than about 2), the models may be equally suitable. A difference greater than 10 generally indicates that the model with the higher AIC is far less supported by the data. These thresholds are rules of thumb and should be combined with domain knowledge.

How does AIC compare to BIC, and when might one be preferred over the other?

AIC and BIC (Bayesian Information Criterion) both penalize model complexity but differ in how strongly they do so. BIC’s penalty term grows more aggressively with the sample size, so in large datasets BIC often selects simpler models than AIC. AIC is sometimes preferred for model selection when you prioritize predictive accuracy, while BIC is often favored when the goal is to find the true model if one exists and you have plenty of data.

When is AIC likely to fail?

AIC can fail under situations where: You have severe violations of the model’s assumptions, such as strong dependence structures in the data (lack of independence). The sample size is too small to reliably estimate parameters. The log-likelihood is hard to compute or approximate accurately. Additionally, if the candidate models are missing key variables or use the wrong functional form, no criterion can compensate for poor model structure.

Why use AIC instead of cross-validation?

Cross-validation directly evaluates out-of-sample performance by repeatedly partitioning the data. AIC, on the other hand, is a more theoretical measure grounded in information theory. In practice, cross-validation is generally more robust for large and complex data, especially in machine learning, while AIC can be very convenient and computationally simpler for traditional statistical models with well-defined likelihoods. However, if cross-validation is feasible and well-implemented, many practitioners trust it more for final model selection because it more explicitly measures generalization performance.

Does AIC apply to neural networks or deep learning models?

While AIC is typically discussed in the context of statistical models, it can be applied to neural networks in principle if one can meaningfully define a likelihood function and count parameters properly. However, neural networks often have such a large parameter space and complex behaviors that other validation approaches (like cross-validation or a held-out test set) are more commonly preferred in deep learning. If you do attempt to use AIC with a neural network, you need to carefully estimate the effective number of parameters and the appropriate likelihood; this can be non-trivial for complex architectures.

Below are additional follow-up questions

How does AIC handle correlated features, and what pitfalls can arise when your parameters are not truly independent?

When using AIC, each parameter essentially contributes to the penalty term. However, AIC presupposes that parameters are distinct in their effects and that their estimation can be treated independently. If some features in your model are highly correlated, the effective number of free parameters may be less than what you are counting. This mismatch can lead to:

• Over-penalization or under-penalization: If you have severe multicollinearity, the model may be penalized too much or too little because the relationship between the parameters is not captured by simply counting them. • Inflated variance in parameter estimates: Correlated features can make estimates unstable, which makes the log-likelihood less reliable and thus impacts AIC calculations. • Misleading comparisons: Two models might differ only slightly in how they treat correlated features, yet the difference in AIC could appear larger or smaller than it really is, because the penalty term does not fully reflect correlation structure.

In practice, you can mitigate these issues by reducing multicollinearity through techniques like principal component analysis (PCA), or by dropping strongly correlated features. In more advanced scenarios, you might adopt alternative information criteria or a Bayesian approach that explicitly handles dependence among parameters.

In what situations could large outliers or a heavy-tailed distribution cause the AIC to be misleading?

AIC relies on the maximum log-likelihood estimate under a specified probability model. If the real data distribution is heavy-tailed but the assumed model is, for example, a normal distribution, the log-likelihood may be significantly biased by outliers. Consequently:

• The chosen model may appear to have a worse fit if outliers drastically reduce its log-likelihood. • Attempts to accommodate outliers by adding additional parameters (such as thicker tails) could lower AIC too aggressively if the penalty for extra parameters is not large enough to account for the outlier distribution.

In these situations, even though you might get a lower AIC by switching to a different family of distributions, it may not necessarily generalize well. Always confirm that your assumed distribution matches the data’s actual nature. Robust regression techniques or models that explicitly handle heavy tails (like Student’s t-distribution) can yield more stable AIC-based conclusions.

When dealing with time-series data, how should you adapt AIC to account for autocorrelation and lag structure?

Time-series models, such as ARIMA or exponential smoothing, often have parameters tied to lagged values. If you simply count each parameter without recognizing the data’s inherent correlation, you might face:

• Overcounting or undercounting of parameters: Each lag introduces correlation in the residuals, potentially violating the assumption that each observation is conditionally independent. • Incorrect log-likelihood: Standard log-likelihood formulas for time-series models already account for the serial correlation structure, but if your method of computing the log-likelihood is naive, you could get inaccurate results. • Edge effects: Fitting time-series models may ignore initial points (burn-in periods). Make sure your likelihood computation includes or properly excludes these edge cases.

Some specialized packages compute AIC in time-series contexts correctly (e.g., statsmodels in Python). The best practice is to use these specialized tools rather than manually coding the log-likelihood unless you are fully confident in handling autocorrelation.

Does the AIC scale linearly or in some other fashion as your data size increases, and why might that matter for large datasets?

The penalty term of AIC, 2k, does not scale with sample size, whereas the log-likelihood often grows (in absolute value) with more observations. In large datasets:

• The penalty (2k) can become negligible compared to the magnitude of -2 ln(L-hat) if k is relatively small and the dataset is huge. This may lead to favoring more complex models that can squeeze out small improvements in log-likelihood. • As your dataset grows, the difference in log-likelihood between models can overshadow small differences in complexity, meaning simpler models may be penalized “unfairly” if a slightly more complex model provides a better fit.

In these scenarios, BIC often becomes more relevant because it penalizes parameters more strongly based on the log of the sample size. However, if your main objective is predictive performance rather than identifying the “true” model, AIC can still be a valid measure, though cross-validation is generally recommended for large-sample contexts in machine learning.

Can AIC be used in high-dimensional settings (where the number of features is comparable to or exceeds the number of data points), and what challenges might arise?

In high-dimensional regimes, the number of parameters k can be extremely large, sometimes even larger than the number of observations. Challenges include:

• Likelihood calculation instability: Maximum likelihood estimates can be poorly defined or may not exist if you have more parameters than observations. • Overfitting: Adding more parameters might superficially boost the likelihood, but the penalty 2k might be insufficient when k is very large relative to your dataset size. • Ill-posed optimization problems: Many models in high-dimensional settings incorporate regularization (e.g., L1 or L2). AIC does not inherently account for regularization; naive usage may overlook penalty terms that are critical for stable solutions.

In these scenarios, regularized model selection approaches, cross-validation, or other specialized methods like the Extended Bayesian Information Criterion (EBIC) might be more suitable. AIC can still serve as a heuristic, but interpret it with caution and validate your model on separate data partitions.

How do you handle AIC when the likelihood function is not easy to compute or when it is approximated?

Certain models—like complicated Bayesian hierarchical models or deep learning architectures—lack a closed-form likelihood. You might approximate the likelihood via sampling methods or by using metrics analogous to log-likelihood (like negative log-likelihood loss). Pitfalls include:

• Approximation error: If you rely on approximate inference methods (e.g., Monte Carlo), the resulting AIC may reflect sampling noise rather than the true model quality. • Inconsistent parameter counting: Complex architectures can have effective parameters (e.g., dropout, weight-sharing in convolutional filters) that are not straightforward to enumerate. • Biased comparison: Models with approximate likelihoods may not be comparable on the same scale if different approximation strategies are used.

It is often safer to use an alternative model selection approach—like deviance information criterion (DIC) or widely applicable information criterion (WAIC)—specifically tailored for Bayesian or non-standard likelihood scenarios, or to rely on cross-validation if that is computationally feasible.

Is it possible for a severely misspecified model to still achieve a low AIC, and what does that imply?

Yes, a severely misspecified model can, by chance, fit the data well in its domain of applicability (especially if there are limited data points or an unfortunate set of features). This raises issues such as:

• Overconfidence in a flawed model: A low AIC might incorrectly signal that the model is “best” among the candidate set, even if none of the candidate models are actually suitable. • Overfitting to peculiarities in the dataset: If the dataset doesn’t capture the full complexity or variety of the real-world phenomenon, a simplistic or incorrect model might appear adequate. • Spurious patterns: Particularly in small datasets, random noise can be interpreted as a meaningful signal, driving down the AIC for the wrong reasons.

Always combine AIC results with diagnostic checks: plot residuals, examine domain-specific metrics, and confirm that your model’s assumptions are at least approximately correct. If your real-world knowledge strongly contradicts a model that has the lowest AIC, it’s wise to revisit your set of candidate models or reconsider the data-generation assumptions.