I know I can only use the log-likelihoods of two models as selection criterion if they are nested. However, I don't understand this completely. Why isn't it possible to apply this reasoning to non-nested models? I think the higher the log-likelihood the better fits the model the data. I am also aware of other criteria as AIC but this doesn't helps me to understand the issue with the log-likelihoods.


1 Answer 1


You can compare the log-likelihoods of two non-nested models. See Cox (1961), "Tests of separate families of hypotheses"), Proc. Fourth Berkeley Symp. on Math. Statist. and Prob., 1 & Cox (1962), "Further results on tests of separate families of hypotheses", JRSS B, 24, 2. But the log-likelihood ratio test statistic doesn't have the asymptotic chi-square distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the no. estimated parameters that is so convenient when the models compared are nested. See Wilks (1938), "The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses", Ann. Math. Statist., 9, 1.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If it is comparable, what is needed to be sure to conclude one model is superior? $\endgroup$
    – random_guy
    Commented Feb 13, 2015 at 13:16
  • $\begingroup$ @Scortchi; The comparability you speak can be intended as follow? if the LLF of model A is greater than one of model B, where the number of parameters of A is equal or lower than B, A is better. This is ok? This my question is related: stats.stackexchange.com/questions/546328/… $\endgroup$
    – markowitz
    Commented Oct 4, 2021 at 14:57

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.