aiqbench analysis
This paper critically evaluates the reliability of representational similarity measures (RSA, CKA) in machine learning by demonstrating how arbitrary choices in input categorization drastically alter model rankings. The study reveals that current metrics lack invariance to these preprocessing decisions, suggesting that the specific conditions chosen for comparison are as influential as the models being tested. For researchers relying on these tools for benchmarking, this highlights a fundamental instability in cross-model and cross-lingual evaluations that must be addressed before drawing robust conclusions.
A Better Metric Will Not Save You: What You Compare Beats How You Compare It
arXiv:2610.13476v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Representational similarity measures (RSA, CKA, Procrustes) are chosen for the transformations they treat as irrelevant, and all of them take the set of conditions as given. That set is fixed by two decisions, which inputs are admitted and how they are grouped, both taken before the matrix a measure operates on exists: no invariance property reaches them. We measure what they are worth where the arrangement the conditions ought to have is known independently of the systems compared, the acoustic organisation of vowels, across fifteen languages and twenty-seven representations. Changing which categories are compared, at a fixed number of them, moves the gap between two representations by more than twice the effect being measured, while changing how many moves it not at all. In this setting rankings of models are identified under these choices, and rankings across languages are not.
Abstract:Representational similarity measures (RSA, CKA, Procrustes) are chosen for the transformations they treat as irrelevant, and all of them take the set of conditions as given. That set is fixed by two decisions, which inputs are admitted and how they are grouped, both taken before the matrix a measure operates on exists: no invariance property reaches them. We measure what they are worth where the arrangement the conditions ought to have is known independently of the systems compared, the acoustic organisation of vowels, across fifteen languages and twenty-seven representations. Changing which categories are compared, at a fixed number of them, moves the gap between two representations by more than twice the effect being measured, while changing how many moves it not at all. In this setting rankings of models are identified under these choices, and rankings across languages are not.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2610.13476 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.13476v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.13476 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 235 words
Related coverage

[AINews] Claude Opus 5.5, the new default model for AINews — and everybody cuts prices 40-50%
Latent Space · Sep 23, 2026

Handling Imbalanced Classification: What Works Better Than SMOTE
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 12, 2026

Informe de riesgos de la IA de frontera (febrero–marzo de 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026

Frontier AI Risk Report (February–March 2026)
METR · May 19, 2026