A Critique of the Bayesian Information Criterion for Model Selection
Abstract
The Bayesian information criterion (BIC) has become a popular criterion for model selection in recent years. The BIC is intended to provide a measure of the weight of evidence favoring one model over another, or Bayes factor. It has, however, some important drawbacks that are not widely recognized. First, Bayes factors depend on prior beliefs about the expected distribution of parameter values, and there is no guarantee that the Bayes factor implied by the BIC will be close to one calculated from a prior distribution that an observer would actually regard as appropriate. Second, to obtain the Bayes factors that follow from the BIC, investigators would have to vary their prior distributions depending on the marginal distributions of the variables and the nature of the hypothesis. Such variations seem unwarranted in principle and tend to make the BIC inclined to favor excessively simple models in practice. These points are illustrated by the analysis of several examples, and alternatives to use of the BIC are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Weakliem (1999) gave sociological examples where the UIP is clearly too spread out.
“Weakliem (1999) gave sociological examples where the UIP is clearly too spread out”
From Bayesian model averaging: a tutorial (with comments by M. Clyde, David Draper and E. I. George, and a rejoinder by the authors (1999) · cites this paper as Weakliem (1999)
Cites
Berger, J. O., & Delampady, M. (1987) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1177013238 · Cited by 664 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Multimodel Inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in Model Selection
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124104268644 · Cited by 11,648 · see citing works
Hoeting, J. A., Madigan, D., Raftery, A. E., & Volinsky, C. T. (1999) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/ss/1009212519 · Cited by 4,118 · see citing works
Posada, D., & Buckley, T. R. (2004) · Systematic Biology · doi:10.1080/10635150490522304 · Cited by 3,927 · see citing works
Predicting cardiovascular risk in England and Wales: prospective derivation and validation of QRISK2
Hippisley-Cox, J., Coupland, C., Vinogradova, Y., Robson, J., Minhas, R., Sheikh, A., & Brindle, P. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39609.449676.25 · Cited by 1,459 · see citing works
A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing
Masson, M. E. J. (2011) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5 · Cited by 752 · see citing works
- Authors
- WEAKLIEM, D. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Corresponding author
- WEAKLIEM, DAVID L.
- Venue
- Sociological Methods & Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 359-397
- ISSN
- 0049-1241 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8294
- OpenAlex
- W2010529280
- Cited by
- 349
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 15.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sociological Methods & Research (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- Bayesian information criterion, model selection, Bayes factor, prior distributions, model complexity, weight of evidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review