Distribution comparison by AIC I'd like to compare several distributions fitted to one dataset (of i.i.d. random variables) by AIC. Do there exist some specific rules of thumb for such a situation?
It seems that most of such rules are either for regression models or some extra conditions are needed (e.g. models are nested and sample sizes are large, as in book by Burnham and Anderson).
To be precise, I have a distribution $F$ and a distribution $G$, the sample size $n=100$,
$$ 
AIC(G) - AIC(F) = 17.9.   
$$
Can I claim that there is substantial evidence that the fit of $F$ is better than that one of $G$?

Distributions are statistical models, therefore you can quantify the evidence in a way that is semantically clearer using Akaike weights or evidence ratios (see section 2.9 and 2.10 in the book by Burnham and Anderson).
In you case, say $\Delta_G = AIC(G)−AIC_{\text{min}}=17.9$ (where $AIC_{\text{min}}$ is the smallest AIC among the set of models considered) we have that
$$
\exp \left( { - \frac{1}{2}{\Delta _G}} \right)=0.0001297372
$$
can be understood as the 'unnormalized' likelihood of $G$. The unnormalized likelihood of $F$ insted is $1$, since $AIC(F)−AIC_{\text{min}}=0$.
Thus you can say that the model $F$ is $\frac{1}{0.0001297372}=7707.892$ times more likely to be the best approximating model in a K-L sense; this would be the evidence ratio for model $F$ (see page 78 in Burnham and Anderson). (One way to think about this is that this is the model more likely to make better predictions of new data.)
