Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Estimating Shape Distances on Neural Representations with Limited Samples

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.05742 v2 pith:BCJLV3FD submitted 2023-10-09 stat.ML cs.LGq-bio.NC

classification stat.MLcs.LGq-bio.NC
keywords high-dimensionalestimatorshapeboundsestimatorslowerneuralproposed
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Measuring geometric similarity between high-dimensional network representations is a topic of longstanding interest to neuroscience and deep learning. Although many methods have been proposed, only a few works have rigorously analyzed their statistical efficiency or quantified estimator uncertainty in data-limited regimes. Here, we derive upper and lower bounds on the worst-case convergence of standard estimators of shape distance$\unicode{x2014}$a measure of representational dissimilarity proposed by Williams et al. (2021).These bounds reveal the challenging nature of the problem in high-dimensional feature spaces. To overcome these challenges, we introduce a new method-of-moments estimator with a tunable bias-variance tradeoff. We show that this estimator achieves substantially lower bias than standard estimators in simulation and on neural data, particularly in high-dimensional settings. Thus, we lay the foundation for a rigorous statistical theory for high-dimensional shape analysis, and we contribute a new estimation method that is well-suited to practical scientific settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Can Biologically Plausible Temporal Credit Assignment Rules Match BPTT for Neural Similarity? E-prop as an Example

    cs.NE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At matched task accuracy, e-prop trained RNNs reach neural data similarity comparable to BPTT trained RNNs on Mante 2013 and Sussillo 2015 datasets, with initialization and architecture influencing similarity more tha...

Pith tools