Beatrix M. G. Nielsen

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Anders Christensen, Andrea Dittadi et al.

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.

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Emanuele Marconato, Luigi Gresele et al.

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 agree 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.

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Lars Kai Hansen

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.

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen

Cosine similarity is often used to measure the similarity of vectors. These vectors might be the representations of neural network models. However, it is not guaranteed that cosine similarity of model representations will tell us anything about model behaviour. In this paper we show that when using a softmax classifier, be it an image classifier or an autoregressive language model, measuring 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 for any softmax classifier model, given two label representations, it is possible to make another model which gives the same probabilities for all labels and inputs, but where the cosine similarity between the representations is now either 1 or -1. We give specific examples of models with very high or low cosine simlarity between representations and show how to we can make equivalent models where the cosine similarity is now -1 or 1. This translation ambiguity can be fixed by centering the label representations, however, labels with representations with low cosine similarity can still have high probability for the same inputs. Fixing the length of the representations still does not give a guarantee that high(or low) cosine similarity will give high(or low) probability to the labels for the same inputs. This means that when working with softmax classifiers, cosine similarity values between label representations should not be used to explain model probabilities.

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Emanuele Marconato, Andrea Dittadi et al.

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.

Beatrix M. G. Nielsen, Iuri Macocco, Marco Baroni

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.