Measuring the Measures: Discriminative Capacity of Representational Similarity Metrics Across Model Families

Representational similarity metrics are fundamental tools in neuroscience and AI, yet we lack systematic comparisons of their discriminative power across model families. We introduce a quantitative framework to evaluate representational similarity measures based on their ability to separate model families-across architectures (CNNs, Vision Transformers, Swin Transformers, ConvNeXt) and training regimes (supervised vs. self-supervised). Using three complementary separability measures-dprime from signal detection theory, silhouette coefficients and ROC-AUC, we systematically assess the discriminative capacity of commonly used metrics including RSA, linear predictivity, Procrustes, and soft matching. We show that separability systematically increases as metrics impose more stringent alignment constraints. Among mapping-based approaches, soft-matching achieves the highest separability, followed by Procrustes alignment and linear predictivity. Non-fitting methods such as RSA also yield strong separability across families. These results provide the first systematic comparison of similarity metrics through a separability lens, clarifying their relative sensitivity and guiding metric choice for large-scale model and brain comparisons.

Evaluating Representational Similarity Measures from the Lens of Functional Correspondence

Neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI) both face the challenge of interpreting high-dimensional neural data, where the comparative analysis of such data is crucial for revealing shared mechanisms and differences between these complex systems. Despite the widespread use of representational comparisons and the abundance classes of comparison methods, a critical question remains: which metrics are most suitable for these comparisons? While some studies evaluate metrics based on their ability to differentiate models of different origins or constructions (e.g., various architectures), another approach is to assess how well they distinguish models that exhibit distinct behaviors. To investigate this, we examine the degree of alignment between various representational similarity measures and behavioral outcomes, employing group statistics and a comprehensive suite of behavioral metrics for comparison. In our evaluation of eight commonly used representational similarity metrics in the visual domain -- spanning alignment-based, Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA)-based, inner product kernel-based, and nearest-neighbor methods -- we found that metrics like linear Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) and Procrustes distance, which emphasize the overall geometric structure or shape of representations, excelled in differentiating trained from untrained models and aligning with behavioral measures, whereas metrics such as linear predictivity, commonly used in neuroscience, demonstrated only moderate alignment with behavior. These insights are crucial for selecting metrics that emphasize behaviorally meaningful comparisons in NeuroAI research.