Prashant C. Raju

Prashant C. Raju

Reliable deployment of language models requires two capabilities that appear distinct but share a common geometric foundation: predicting whether a model will accept targeted behavioral control, and detecting when its internal structure degrades. We show that geometric stability, the consistency of a representation's pairwise distance structure, addresses both. Supervised Shesha variants that measure task-aligned geometric stability predict linear steerability with near-perfect accuracy ($ρ= 0.89$-$0.97$) across 35-69 embedding models and three NLP tasks, capturing unique variance beyond class separability (partial $ρ= 0.62$-$0.76$). A critical dissociation emerges: unsupervised stability fails entirely for steering on real-world tasks ($ρ\approx 0.10$), revealing that task alignment is essential for controllability prediction. However, unsupervised stability excels at drift detection, measuring nearly $2\times$ greater geometric change than CKA during post-training alignment (up to $5.23\times$ in Llama) while providing earlier warning in 73\% of models and maintaining a $6\times$ lower false alarm rate than Procrustes. Together, supervised and unsupervised stability form complementary diagnostics for the LLM deployment lifecycle: one for pre-deployment controllability assessment, the other for post-deployment monitoring.

Prashant C. Raju

Foundation models for biology and physics optimize predictive accuracy, but their internal representations systematically fail to preserve the continuous geometry of the systems they model. We identify the root cause: the Geometric Alignment Tax, an intrinsic cost of forcing continuous manifolds through discrete categorical bottlenecks. Controlled ablations on synthetic dynamical systems demonstrate that replacing cross-entropy with a continuous head on an identical encoder reduces geometric distortion by up to 8.5x, while learned codebooks exhibit a non-monotonic double bind where finer quantization worsens geometry despite improving reconstruction. Under continuous objectives, three architectures differ by 1.3x; under discrete tokenization, they diverge by 3,000x. Evaluating 14 biological foundation models with rate-distortion theory and MINE, we identify three failure regimes: Local-Global Decoupling, Representational Compression, and Geometric Vacuity. A controlled experiment confirms that Evo 2's reverse-complement robustness on real DNA reflects conserved sequence composition, not learned symmetry. No model achieves simultaneously low distortion, high mutual information, and global coherence.

Prashant C. Raju

Analysis of learned representations has a blind spot: it focuses on $similarity$, measuring how closely embeddings align with external references, but similarity reveals only what is represented, not whether that structure is robust. We introduce $geometric$ $stability$, a distinct dimension that quantifies how reliably representational geometry holds under perturbation, and present $Shesha$, a framework for measuring it. Across 2,463 configurations in seven domains, we show that stability and similarity are empirically uncorrelated ($ρ\approx 0.01$) and mechanistically distinct: similarity metrics collapse after removing the top principal components, while stability retains sensitivity to fine-grained manifold structure. This distinction yields actionable insights: for safety monitoring, stability acts as a functional geometric canary, detecting structural drift nearly 2$\times$ more sensitively than CKA while filtering out the non-functional noise that triggers false alarms in rigid distance metrics; for controllability, supervised stability predicts linear steerability ($ρ= 0.89$-$0.96$); for model selection, stability dissociates from transferability, revealing a geometric tax that transfer optimization incurs. Beyond machine learning, stability predicts CRISPR perturbation coherence and neural-behavioral coupling. By quantifying $how$ $reliably$ systems maintain structure, geometric stability provides a necessary complement to similarity for auditing representations across biological and computational systems.

Tal Golan, Prashant C. Raju, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte

Distinct scientific theories can make similar predictions. To adjudicate between theories, we must design experiments for which the theories make distinct predictions. Here we consider the problem of comparing deep neural networks as models of human visual recognition. To efficiently compare models' ability to predict human responses, we synthesize controversial stimuli: images for which different models produce distinct responses. We applied this approach to two visual recognition tasks, handwritten digits (MNIST) and objects in small natural images (CIFAR-10). For each task, we synthesized controversial stimuli to maximize the disagreement among models which employed different architectures and recognition algorithms. Human subjects viewed hundreds of these stimuli, as well as natural examples, and judged the probability of presence of each digit/object category in each image. We quantified how accurately each model predicted the human judgments. The best performing models were a generative Analysis-by-Synthesis model (based on variational autoencoders) for MNIST and a hybrid discriminative-generative Joint Energy Model for CIFAR-10. These DNNs, which model the distribution of images, performed better than purely discriminative DNNs, which learn only to map images to labels. None of the candidate models fully explained the human responses. Controversial stimuli generalize the concept of adversarial examples, obviating the need to assume a ground-truth model. Unlike natural images, controversial stimuli are not constrained to the stimulus distribution models are trained on, thus providing severe out-of-distribution tests that reveal the models' inductive biases. Controversial stimuli therefore provide powerful probes of discrepancies between models and human perception.