Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representations

A multitude of (dis)similarity measures between neural network representations have been proposed, resulting in a fragmented research landscape. Most of these measures fall into one of two categories. First, measures such as linear regression, canonical correlations analysis (CCA), and shape distanc...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:arXiv.org 2023-11
Hauptverfasser: Harvey, Sarah E, Larsen, Brett W, Williams, Alex H
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title arXiv.org
container_volume
creator Harvey, Sarah E
Larsen, Brett W
Williams, Alex H
description A multitude of (dis)similarity measures between neural network representations have been proposed, resulting in a fragmented research landscape. Most of these measures fall into one of two categories. First, measures such as linear regression, canonical correlations analysis (CCA), and shape distances, all learn explicit mappings between neural units to quantify similarity while accounting for expected invariances. Second, measures such as representational similarity analysis (RSA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and normalized Bures similarity (NBS) all quantify similarity in summary statistics, such as stimulus-by-stimulus kernel matrices, which are already invariant to expected symmetries. Here, we take steps towards unifying these two broad categories of methods by observing that the cosine of the Riemannian shape distance (from category 1) is equal to NBS (from category 2). We explore how this connection leads to new interpretations of shape distances and NBS, and draw contrasts of these measures with CKA, a popular similarity measure in the deep learning literature.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2894089969</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2894089969</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_28940899693</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjLsKwjAYRoMgWLTv8INzIaYXm9Wq6OKgbg4l1NSmpEnMBfHtLegDOH1wzuGboIik6SopM0JmKHauxxiTYk3yPI3QbRuYFP4NuoVNsNwBU3e4dMxw2ArnmWpG9hK-g-NgpGiYF1o5aLWFSg-GWaEecOLBMglnbsYHrvw3WqBpy6Tj8W_naLnfXatDYqx-Bu583etg1ahqUtIMl5QWNP2v-gB46UNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2894089969</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representations</title><source>Free E- Journals</source><creator>Harvey, Sarah E ; Larsen, Brett W ; Williams, Alex H</creator><creatorcontrib>Harvey, Sarah E ; Larsen, Brett W ; Williams, Alex H</creatorcontrib><description>A multitude of (dis)similarity measures between neural network representations have been proposed, resulting in a fragmented research landscape. Most of these measures fall into one of two categories. First, measures such as linear regression, canonical correlations analysis (CCA), and shape distances, all learn explicit mappings between neural units to quantify similarity while accounting for expected invariances. Second, measures such as representational similarity analysis (RSA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and normalized Bures similarity (NBS) all quantify similarity in summary statistics, such as stimulus-by-stimulus kernel matrices, which are already invariant to expected symmetries. Here, we take steps towards unifying these two broad categories of methods by observing that the cosine of the Riemannian shape distance (from category 1) is equal to NBS (from category 2). We explore how this connection leads to new interpretations of shape distances and NBS, and draw contrasts of these measures with CKA, a popular similarity measure in the deep learning literature.</description><identifier>EISSN: 2331-8422</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</publisher><subject>Kernels ; Mathematical analysis ; Neural networks ; Representations ; Similarity</subject><ispartof>arXiv.org, 2023-11</ispartof><rights>2023. This work is published under http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Harvey, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larsen, Brett W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Alex H</creatorcontrib><title>Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representations</title><title>arXiv.org</title><description>A multitude of (dis)similarity measures between neural network representations have been proposed, resulting in a fragmented research landscape. Most of these measures fall into one of two categories. First, measures such as linear regression, canonical correlations analysis (CCA), and shape distances, all learn explicit mappings between neural units to quantify similarity while accounting for expected invariances. Second, measures such as representational similarity analysis (RSA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and normalized Bures similarity (NBS) all quantify similarity in summary statistics, such as stimulus-by-stimulus kernel matrices, which are already invariant to expected symmetries. Here, we take steps towards unifying these two broad categories of methods by observing that the cosine of the Riemannian shape distance (from category 1) is equal to NBS (from category 2). We explore how this connection leads to new interpretations of shape distances and NBS, and draw contrasts of these measures with CKA, a popular similarity measure in the deep learning literature.</description><subject>Kernels</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Neural networks</subject><subject>Representations</subject><subject>Similarity</subject><issn>2331-8422</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjLsKwjAYRoMgWLTv8INzIaYXm9Wq6OKgbg4l1NSmpEnMBfHtLegDOH1wzuGboIik6SopM0JmKHauxxiTYk3yPI3QbRuYFP4NuoVNsNwBU3e4dMxw2ArnmWpG9hK-g-NgpGiYF1o5aLWFSg-GWaEecOLBMglnbsYHrvw3WqBpy6Tj8W_naLnfXatDYqx-Bu583etg1ahqUtIMl5QWNP2v-gB46UNw</recordid><startdate>20231119</startdate><enddate>20231119</enddate><creator>Harvey, Sarah E</creator><creator>Larsen, Brett W</creator><creator>Williams, Alex H</creator><general>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</general><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20231119</creationdate><title>Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representations</title><author>Harvey, Sarah E ; Larsen, Brett W ; Williams, Alex H</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_28940899693</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Kernels</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Neural networks</topic><topic>Representations</topic><topic>Similarity</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Harvey, Sarah E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Larsen, Brett W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Williams, Alex H</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Harvey, Sarah E</au><au>Larsen, Brett W</au><au>Williams, Alex H</au><format>book</format><genre>document</genre><ristype>GEN</ristype><atitle>Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representations</atitle><jtitle>arXiv.org</jtitle><date>2023-11-19</date><risdate>2023</risdate><eissn>2331-8422</eissn><abstract>A multitude of (dis)similarity measures between neural network representations have been proposed, resulting in a fragmented research landscape. Most of these measures fall into one of two categories. First, measures such as linear regression, canonical correlations analysis (CCA), and shape distances, all learn explicit mappings between neural units to quantify similarity while accounting for expected invariances. Second, measures such as representational similarity analysis (RSA), centered kernel alignment (CKA), and normalized Bures similarity (NBS) all quantify similarity in summary statistics, such as stimulus-by-stimulus kernel matrices, which are already invariant to expected symmetries. Here, we take steps towards unifying these two broad categories of methods by observing that the cosine of the Riemannian shape distance (from category 1) is equal to NBS (from category 2). We explore how this connection leads to new interpretations of shape distances and NBS, and draw contrasts of these measures with CKA, a popular similarity measure in the deep learning literature.</abstract><cop>Ithaca</cop><pub>Cornell University Library, arXiv.org</pub><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 2331-8422
ispartof arXiv.org, 2023-11
issn 2331-8422
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2894089969
source Free E- Journals
subjects Kernels
Mathematical analysis
Neural networks
Representations
Similarity
title Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representations
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-31T00%3A31%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=document&rft.atitle=Duality%20of%20Bures%20and%20Shape%20Distances%20with%20Implications%20for%20Comparing%20Neural%20Representations&rft.jtitle=arXiv.org&rft.au=Harvey,%20Sarah%20E&rft.date=2023-11-19&rft.eissn=2331-8422&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2894089969%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2894089969&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true