Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36575813›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2023

Performance of Akaike Information Criterion and Bayesian Information Criterion in Selecting Partition Models and Mixture Models.

Qin Liu, Michael A Charleston, Shane A Richards, Barbara R Holland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Predicting the Potential Distribution ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Reproducible Workflow for Modelling ofMagnetic resonance in chemistry : MRC · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Qin LiuSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Michael A CharlestonSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8385-341X
Shane A RichardsSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Barbara R HollandSchool of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In molecular phylogenetics, partition models and mixture models provide different approaches to accommodating heterogeneity in genomic sequencing data. Both types of models generally give a superior fit to data than models that assume the process of sequence evolution is homogeneous across sites and lineages. The Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), an estimator of Kullback-Leibler divergence, and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) are popular tools to select models in phylogenetics. Recent work suggests that AIC should not be used for comparing mixture and partition models. In this work, we clarify that this difficulty is not fully explained by AIC misestimating the Kullback-Leibler divergence. We also investigate the performance of the AIC and BIC at comparing amongst mixture models and amongst partition models. We find that under nonstandard conditions (i.e. when some edges have small expected number of changes), AIC underestimates the expected Kullback-Leibler divergence. Under such conditions, AIC preferred the complex mixture models and BIC preferred the simpler mixture models. The mixture models selected by AIC had a better performance in estimating the edge length, while the simpler models selected by BIC performed better in estimating the base frequencies and substitution rate parameters. In contrast, AIC and BIC both prefer simpler partition models over more complex partition models under nonstandard conditions, despite the fact that the more complex partition model was the generating model. We also investigated how mispartitioning (i.e., grouping sites that have not evolved under the same process) affects both the performance of partition models compared with mixture models and the model selection process. We found that as the level of mispartitioning increases, the bias of AIC in estimating the expected Kullback-Leibler divergence remains the same, and the branch lengths and evolutionary parameters estimated by partition models become less accurate. We recommend that researchers are cautious when using AIC and BIC to select among partition and mixture models; other alternatives, such as cross-validation and bootstrapping, should be explored, but may suffer similar limitations [AIC; BIC; mispartitioning; partitioning; partition model; mixture model].

Indexed as

GenomicsBayes TheoremPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID36575813
PMCPMC10198649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.