Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42511405›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Complexity and Target Preservation in Category Maps.

Christoph D Dahl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Christoph D DahlGraduate Institute of Mind, Brain and Consciousness, Taipei Medical University, New Taipei City 235, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4296-1526

Funding

Ministry of Education Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of EducationNational Science and Technology Council 112-2410-H-038-027-MY2National Science and Technology Council 114-2410-H-038-045
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Categorisation is often treated as a form of compression: a high-dimensional stimulus space is reduced to a smaller set of behaviourally or cognitively useful classes. However, compression alone does not determine whether a category map is useful. The present manuscript develops an information-theoretic framework for evaluating categorisation in terms of both category complexity and target-relevant information preservation. Here, categorisation is treated as a many-to-one mapping from stimulus instances to category labels, and category entropy quantifies the distribution of the resulting labels. Across a set of synthetic demonstrations, alternative category maps over the same stimulus space are shown to preserve different target variables, including identity, action, nuisance, and hierarchical category structure. The framework is then extended to learned visual representations by analysing layer-derived category maps from a pretrained ResNet-50 network applied to CIFAR-10 images. Clean-only, strong- and mild-nuisance controls test whether layer-derived maps preserve object or nuisance information within nuisance conditions. The results show that category maps can have substantial entropy while preserving information about a variable that is not aligned with the specified target and that the value of a categorisation depends on the target variable to be preserved. The manuscript argues that categorisation should therefore be evaluated not only by compression or separability, but by the information retained about a specified cognitive, behavioural, or computational target.

Indexed as

categorisationcategory learningentropyinformation bottleneckmutual informationneural networksnuisance variationrepresentation learningvisual cognition

Identifiers

PMID42511405
PMCPMC13408759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.