I haven't used BIC, so there may be some differences, but I have used AIC a lot. I will generally report (some variant of) AICcmodavg::aictab
results. Exactly what you report will depend on your audience, e.g. different journals may have different reporting requirements, or you may want a very brief summary if it's for a non-technical audience.
An example from the help package for aictab
gives
> aictab(cand.set = Cand.models, modnames = Modnames, sort = TRUE)
Model selection based on AICc:
K AICc Delta_AICc AICcWt Cum.Wt LL
mod 2 9 89.98 0.00 0.8 0.8 -35.18
mod 1 7 92.77 2.79 0.2 1.0 -38.89
mod 5 6 115.52 25.54 0.0 1.0 -51.39
mod 4 5 121.02 31.04 0.0 1.0 -55.25
mod 3 4 138.14 48.16 0.0 1.0 -64.90
Where
- the row name is a description of the model,
K
is the number of parameters,
AICc
is the small-sample AIC (you'd use BIC here),
Delta_AICc
is the difference between the minimum AICc and that particular model's AICc
AICcWt
is the "model probability" out of the candidate set
CumWt
is the cumulative sum of the model probabilities
LL
is the log-likelihood of the model