When Does Closeness in Distribution Imply Representational Similarity? An Identifiability Perspective
Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Emanuele Marconato, Andrea Dittadi, Luigi Gresele
Abstract
When and why representations learned by different deep neural networks are similar is an active research topic. We choose to address these questions from the perspective of identifiability theory, which suggests that a measure of representational similarity should be invariant to transformations that leave the model distribution unchanged. Focusing on a model family which includes several popular pre-training approaches, e.g., autoregressive language models, we explore when models which generate distributions that are close have similar representations. We prove that a small Kullback--Leibler divergence between the model distributions does not guarantee that the corresponding representations are similar. This has the important corollary that models with near-maximum data likelihood can still learn dissimilar representations -- a phenomenon mirrored in our experiments with models trained on CIFAR-10. We then define a distributional distance for which closeness implies representational similarity, and in synthetic experiments, we find that wider networks learn distributions which are closer with respect to our distance and have more similar representations. Our results thus clarify the link between closeness in distribution and representational similarity.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 8750e090-26c2-4e5f-96ac-05570d0d181cCited by top-tier papers4
- Shortcuts and Identifiability in Concept-based Models from a Neuro-Symbolic LensSamuele Bortolotti, Emanuele Marconato, Paolo Morettin, Andrea Passerini et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 17 citations
- Connecting Neural Models Latent Geometries with Relative Geodesic RepresentationsHanlin Yu, Berfin Inal, Georgios Arvanitidis, Søren Hauberg et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 5 citations
- Statistical and structural identifiability in representation learningWalter Nelson, Marco Fumero, Theofanis Karaletsos, Francesco LocatelloICLR 2026 · 4 citations
- Necessary Conditions for Compositional Generalization of Embedding ModelsArnas Uselis, Andrea Dittadi, Seong Joon OhICML 2026
Builds on33
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Does Knowledge Distillation Really Work?Samuel Stanton, Pavel Izmailov, Polina Kirichenko, Alexander A. Alemi et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 318 citations
- Revisiting Model Stitching to Compare Neural RepresentationsYamini Bansal, Preetum Nakkiran, Boaz BarakNeurIPS 2021 · 253 citations
- Weakly supervised causal representation learningJohann Brehmer, Pim de Haan, Phillip Lippe, Taco S. CohenNeurIPS 2022 · 196 citations
- Generalized Shape Metrics on Neural RepresentationsAlex H. Williams, Erin Kunz, Simon Kornblith, Scott W. LindermanNeurIPS 2021 · 182 citations
Related papers
- Logit Distance Bounds Representational SimilarityBeatrix M. G. Nielsen, Emanuele Marconato, Luigi Gresele, Andrea Dittadi et al.ICML 2026
- Efficient Distribution Matching of Representations via Noise-Injected Deep InfoMaxIvan Butakov, Alexander Semenenko, Alexander Tolmachev, Andrey Gladkov et al.ICLR 2025
- Identifiable Equivariant Networks are Layerwise EquivariantVahid Shahverdi, Giovanni Luca Marchetti, Georg Bökman, Kathlén KohnICML 2026
- Identifying through Flows for Recovering Latent RepresentationsShen Li, Bryan Hooi, Gim Hee LeeICLR 2020 · 15 citations
- On Linear Identifiability of Learned RepresentationsGeoffrey Roeder, Luke Metz, Durk KingmaICML 2021 · 107 citations
