Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 891

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists

Hooten, M. B., Hobbs, N. T.·2015·Ecological Monographs

Abstract

The steady upward trend in the use of model selection and Bayesian methods in ecological research has made it clear that both approaches to inference are important for modern analysis of models and data. However, in teaching Bayesian methods and in working with our research colleagues, we have noticed a general dissatisfaction with the available literature on Bayesian model selection and multimodel inference. Students and researchers new to Bayesian methods quickly find that the published advice on model selection is often preferential in its treatment of options for analysis, frequently advocating one particular method above others. The recent appearance of many articles and textbooks on Bayesian modeling has provided welcome background on relevant approaches to model selection in the Bayesian framework, but most of these are either very narrowly focused in scope or inaccessible to ecologists. Moreover, the methodological details of Bayesian model selection approaches are spread thinly throughout the literature, appearing in journals from many different fields. Our aim with this guide is to condense the large body of literature on Bayesian approaches to model selection and multimodel inference and present it specifically for quantitative ecologists as neutrally as possible. We also bring to light a few important and fundamental concepts relating directly to model selection that seem to have gone unnoticed in the ecological literature. Throughout, we provide only a minimal discussion of philosophy, preferring instead to examine the breadth of approaches as well as their practical advantages and disadvantages. This guide serves as a reference for ecologists using Bayesian methods, so that they can better understand their options and can make an informed choice that is best aligned with their goals for inference.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1890/14-0661.1

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 891

Metadata

Authors
Hooten, M. B., & Hobbs, N. T.
Venue
Ecological Monographs
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02
Volume
85
Issue
1
Pages
3-28
ISSN
  • 0012-9615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7015
OpenAlex
W2048776980
Cited by
891
References
9
FWCI
64.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1890/14-0661.1
The paper
Hooten, M. B., & Hobbs, N. T. (2015). A guide to Bayesian model selection for ecologists. Ecological Monographs. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-0661.1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.