Papers › Stimulus symmetries can confound representational similarity analyses

Stimulus symmetries can confound representational similarity analyses

20 May 2026arXiv:2605.21324added by Syntology

Farhad Pashakhanloo, Jacob A. Zavatone-Veth

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

What can representational similarity matrices (RSMs) tell us about a neural code? As the popularity of these summary statistics grows, so too does the need for a more complete characterization of their properties. Here, we show that symmetries in network inputs can confound RSM-based analyses. Stimulus symmetries render many representations functionally equivalent, but these different configurations can lead to different RSMs. These different RSMs reflect qualitatively different representational geometries. We show that stochastic gradient descent or energetic regularization can generate sparse, drifting codes, leading in turn to drifting RSMs. Moreover, we demonstrate that these phenomena are present in networks trained to encode image data, where the symmetry is latent. Our results illustrate the challenges inherent in comparing nonlinear neural codes, when functionally-equivalent representations are not related by a simple rotation.

PaperPDF

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

rois-codh/kmnist found in paper text by Syntology report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.21324, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections