ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2025
Information-Theoretic Measures of Metacognition: Bounds and Relation to Group Performance.
Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Metacognition comprises the ability to differentiate the accuracy of predictions about the world. This is often called Type 2 performance (with Type 1 performance being the overall accuracy). Typical measures of metacognition are based on signal detection theory and require the strong assumption of truncated normal noise underlying confidence ratings. To minimize distributional assumptions, measures based on classical information theory have been proposed. We further this approach by providing bounds on its key quantity, the transmitted information. We show that classifiers making predictions with a certain accuracy can transmit information only within a limited range, depending on the underlying noise distribution: The lowest transmitted information indicates the worst Type 2 performance and corresponds to binary noise; the highest transmitted information indicates the best Type 2 performance and corresponds to uniform noise. Because normal noise is only an intermediate case, traditional measures based on this assumption can bias interpretations of Type 2 performance. Based on these bounds, we suggest a new measure: Relative metainformation (RMI). RMI scales from 0 (lower bound) to 1 (upper bound) and therefore advances towards the much-needed decoupling of Type 2 from Type 1 performance measures. To demonstrate the strengths of RMI, we apply it to groups: In a setting where multiple independent group members with fixed accuracies combine their predictions in an optimal way, we show that the group performance depends directly on RMI: Group accuracy is best vs. worst if the group members have highest vs. lowest RMI values. Overall, our theoretical bounds allow to better evaluate measures of Type 2 and group performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.