Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Non-identifiability demonstrates that bounded metrics cannot effectively capture unbounded reasoning outcomes, implying limitations in model belief estimation.
On a certified reasoning task the hidden answer Z is constructed to be statistically independent of every chain-of-thought trace the model can emit. A calibrated reasoner's answer-belief must therefore be invariant to its own trace, and the self-predictive information E has a known ideal value of exactly zero. This makes E an attractive certificate of false epiphany: the manufacture of conviction out of self-generated text that provably carries no information about the truth. E is a sound detector: under logit readout its null is an exact, variance-free zero and its finite-sample bias is negative, so any positive estimate is conservative. Our main result is that it is nonetheless a worthless severity measure, and not by accident. Certification makes the true posterior known rather than estimated, so the regret decomposes exactly, with G >= 0 the regret price of dispersion — the nats a model burns by letting a provably uninformative trace move its belief. We prove that E does not identify G: for every epsilon in (0, epsilon*), the supremum of G given E = epsilon is infinite. We exhibit a family holding E at exactly 0.1000 bits while G ranges over orders of magnitude and diverges; E can also exceed G, so the two are not monotonically related in either direction. The obstruction is boundedness, not E. Semantic entropy, predictive entropy, BALD/epistemic mutual information, max-probability, verbalised confidence and belief variance are all bounded, and the result applies to each.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Madison Charlton (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: