arXiv subjects

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen

Publications and source records attributed to Beatrix M. G. Nielsen.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Logit Distance Bounds Representational Similarity

For a broad family of discriminative models that includes autoregressive language models, identifiability results imply that if two models induce the same conditional distributions, then their internal representations are equal up to an invertible linear transformation. We ask whether an analogous conclusion holds approximately when the distributions are close instead of equal. Building on the observation of Nielsen et al. (2025) that closeness in KL divergence need not imply high linear representational similarity, we study a distributional distance based on logit differences and show that closeness in this distance does yield linear similarity guarantees. Specifically, we define a representational dissimilarity measure based on the models' identifiability class and prove that it is bounded by the logit distance. We further show that, when model probabilities are bounded away from zero, KL divergence upper-bounds logit distance; yet the resulting bound fails to provide nontrivial control in practice. As a consequence, KL-based distillation can match a teacher's predictions while failing to preserve linear representational properties, such as linear-probe recoverability of human-interpretable concepts. In distillation experiments on synthetic and image datasets, logit-distance distillation yields students with higher linear representational similarity and better preservation of the teacher's linearly recoverable concepts.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

What Cosine Similarity of Label Representations Can and Cannot Tell us

Cosine similarity is often used to measure the similarity of vector representations of neural network models. However, the cosine similarity of representations is not guaranteed to tell us anything about model probabilities. In this paper we show that for a softmax classifier, be it an image classifier or an autoregressive language model, the cosine similarity between label representations (called unembeddings in the paper) does not give any information on the probabilities assigned by the model. Specifically, we prove that given two unembeddings, it is possible to create another model which assigns the same probabilities for all inputs, but where the cosine similarity between the representations is now either 1 or -1. We also show that for a sigmoid classifier (where each input can be assigned multiple labels), all pairwise cosine similarities between the unembeddings define the set of possible label combinations. However, for softmax classifiers (where each input is assigned a ranking of the labels from most to least likely), we need all pairwise cosine similarities between all differences of unembeddings to know which rankings the model can predict. We conclude that it is misleading to interpret the cosine similarity between unembeddings without reference to the classifier that produced them.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

When Does Closeness in Distribution Imply Representational Similarity? An Identifiability Perspective

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.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Prediction hubs are context-informed frequent tokens in LLMs

Hubness, the tendency for a few points to be among the nearest neighbours of a disproportionate number of other points, commonly arises when applying standard distance measures to high-dimensional data, often negatively impacting distance-based analysis. As autoregressive large language models (LLMs) operate on high-dimensional representations, we ask whether they are also affected by hubness. We first prove that the only large-scale representation comparison operation performed by LLMs, namely that between context and unembedding vectors to determine continuation probabilities, is not characterized by the concentration of distances phenomenon that typically causes the appearance of nuisance hubness. We then empirically show that this comparison still leads to a high degree of hubness, but the hubs in this case do not constitute a disturbance. They are rather the result of context-modulated frequent tokens often appearing in the pool of likely candidates for next token prediction. However, when other distances are used to compare LLM representations, we do not have the same theoretical guarantees, and, indeed, we see nuisance hubs appear. There are two main takeaways. First, hubness, while omnipresent in high-dimensional spaces, is not a negative property that needs to be mitigated when LLMs are being used for next token prediction. Second, when comparing representations from LLMs using Euclidean or cosine distance, there is a high risk of nuisance hubs and practitioners should use mitigation techniques if relevant.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

DiffEnc: Variational Diffusion with a Learned Encoder

Diffusion models may be viewed as hierarchical variational autoencoders (VAEs) with two improvements: parameter sharing for the conditional distributions in the generative process and efficient computation of the loss as independent terms over the hierarchy. We consider two changes to the diffusion model that retain these advantages while adding flexibility to the model. Firstly, we introduce a data- and depth-dependent mean function in the diffusion process, which leads to a modified diffusion loss. Our proposed framework, DiffEnc, achieves a statistically significant improvement in likelihood on CIFAR-10. Secondly, we let the ratio of the noise variance of the reverse encoder process and the generative process be a free weight parameter rather than being fixed to 1. This leads to theoretical insights: For a finite depth hierarchy, the evidence lower bound (ELBO) can be used as an objective for a weighted diffusion loss approach and for optimizing the noise schedule specifically for inference. For the infinite-depth hierarchy, on the other hand, the weight parameter has to be 1 to have a well-defined ELBO.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Hubness Reduction Improves Sentence-BERT Semantic Spaces

Semantic representations of text, i.e. representations of natural language which capture meaning by geometry, are essential for areas such as information retrieval and document grouping. High-dimensional trained dense vectors have received much attention in recent years as such representations. We investigate the structure of semantic spaces that arise from embeddings made with Sentence-BERT and find that the representations suffer from a well-known problem in high dimensions called hubness. Hubness results in asymmetric neighborhood relations, such that some texts (the hubs) are neighbours of many other texts while most texts (so-called anti-hubs), are neighbours of few or no other texts. We quantify the semantic quality of the embeddings using hubness scores and error rate of a neighbourhood based classifier. We find that when hubness is high, we can reduce error rate and hubness using hubness reduction methods. We identify a combination of two methods as resulting in the best reduction. For example, on one of the tested pretrained models, this combined method can reduce hubness by about 75% and error rate by about 9%. Thus, we argue that mitigating hubness in the embedding space provides better semantic representations of text.

cs.CL↗