Back

'Occam's bias' undermines inferences from phylogenetic linear models

Guirguis, J.; Goodyear, L. E. B.; Pincheira-Donoso, D.

2026-02-10 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.02.06.704358 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Phylogenetic modelling has consolidated as the analytical standard to address hypotheses about the patterns and dynamics of biodiversity in inter-specific contexts. These analyses are traditionally performed implementing phylogenetic linear models where single outcomes are regressed against multiple predictors without explicitly modelling the relationships amongst predictors. A prevailing, yet largely overlooked consequence of neglecting these relationships is what we introduce as Occams bias - a statistical distortion arising where the model has fewer cause-effect connections than predicted by theory. Here, we propose that Occams bias is likely to have impacted a wide range of inferences about ecological and evolutionary processes made from phylogenetic linear models across the literature, and thus, that the adoption of approaches to address this bias are critical. We present an empirical test of the long-standing hypothesis that interspecific variation in life-history traits influences the likelihood of extinction risk across 13,949 species of terrestrial vertebrates to show the impacts of Occams bias in phenomenological inference. Our study calls for a re-evaluation of hypotheses tested using the traditional linear modelling structure and advocate the use and continued development of multi-response model structures that account for all causal pathways in phylogenetic analyses.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.9%
2
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.1%
3
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
7.9%
4
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
5
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
6
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.2%
7
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Global Ecology and Biogeography
41 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.8%
9
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
10
Ecology Letters
121 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.5%
11
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
12
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
13
Ecography
50 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.6%
14
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 7%
2.6%
15
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.5%
16
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 34%
2.4%
17
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.0%
18
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 29%
2.0%
19
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.4%
20
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
22
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.8%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 76%
0.7%
24
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
26
Journal of Biogeography
37 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
27
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
28
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 70%
0.7%
29
Journal of Theoretical Biology
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%