Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41689510›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2026

Comparing Partition and Mixture Models with Akaike Information Criteria.

Edward Susko, Robert Lanfear, Andrew J Roger

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Edward SuskoDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4R2, Canada.
Robert LanfearDivision of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1140-2596
Andrew J RogerDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4H7, Canada.

Funding

Australian Research Council DP200103151Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons Foundation 735923LPI
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sophisticated phylogenetic models often include mixture and/or partition model components. It was recently noted that information criteria tend to favour partition models over mixture models even in some cases where the latter are misspecified and give poor topological estimation. We show that this problem arises because partition models and mixture models fundamentally differ in their probability calculations: mixture models calculate likelihood contributions from sites as the marginal probability of the data averaging over parameter vectors that might have arisen at a site whereas partition model likelihood contributions are calculated as the probability of the site pattern conditional upon a fixed assigned parameter vector at that site. These differing probability calculations lead to AIC estimates that are not always comparable. We explore three generally applicable ways of correcting the issue.

Indexed as

ClassificationModels, BiologicalPhylogenyAkaike information criteriacross validationmixture modelmodel selectionpartition modelphylogenetics

Identifiers

PMID41689510
PMCPMC13637621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.