On the Use of Information Criteria for Model Selection in Phylogenetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The information criteria Akaike information criterion (AIC), AICc, and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) are widely used for model selection in phylogenetics, however, their theoretical justification and performance have not been carefully examined in this setting. Here, we investigate these methods under simple and complex phylogenetic models. We show that AIC can give a biased estimate of its intended target, the expected predictive log likelihood (EPLnL) or, equivalently, expected Kullback-Leibler divergence between the estimated model and the true distribution for the data. Reasons for bias include commonly occurring issues such as small edge-lengths or, in mixture models, small weights. The use of partitioned models is another issue that can cause problems with information criteria. We show that for partitioned models, a different BIC correction is required for it to be a valid approximation to a Bayes factor. The commonly used AICc correction is not clearly defined in partitioned models and can actually create a substantial bias when the number of parameters gets large as is the case with larger trees and partitioned models. Bias-corrected cross-validation corrections are shown to provide better approximations to EPLnL than AIC. We also illustrate how EPLnL, the estimation target of AIC, can sometimes favor an incorrect model and give reasons for why selection of incorrectly under-partitioned models might be desirable in partitioned model settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.073 | 0.275 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".