Mean-Pooled Cosine Similarity is Not Length-Invariant: Theory and Cross-Domain Evidence for a Length-Invariant Alternative

The standard way to compare two text embeddings is cosine similarity. Scattered studies report that a different metric does better, but never pin down the geometric condition that decides when, or why. We settle both with a comprehensive empirical study: nineteen parameter-free similarity metrics on nineteen encoders, from compact sentence transformers up to seven-billion-parameter large language models, across seven datasets. The answer is geometric. When an encoder spreads its variance evenly across directions, cosine is the best parameter-free choice and no other metric helps by a usable margin. When the variance concentrates into a few dominant directions, a property known as anisotropy, rank-based and L1-type metrics beat cosine by a clear margin. The absolute gain is modest, but because cosine starts low on these encoders it is a sizable relative improvement, around twenty percent on average and largest where cosine is weakest. What decides this is the geometry of the embedding space, not how the model was trained: where the two disagree, the metric follows the geometry. One number, the fraction of variance held by the single most dominant dimension, predicts how much the alternatives help across all nineteen encoders, with a rank correlation of 0.86 and a linear correlation of 0.95. To test this as the cause rather than a correlate, we project out the dominant directions: cosine recovers and the advantage of the other metrics nearly vanishes, but only on the encoders that were anisotropic to begin with. The effect is directional, not magnitude based, since it survives normalizing every vector to unit length. Among parameter-free metrics, then, cosine is the right tool wherever an encoder is well spread, which includes the fine-tuned embedders commonly deployed for retrieval, and we give a one-number diagnostic for when it is not.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing. Understanding their internal mechanisms is crucial for developing more interpretable and optimized architectures. Mechanistic interpretability has led to the development of various methods for assessing layer relevance, with cosine similarity being a widely used tool in the field. On this work, we demonstrate that cosine similarity is a poor proxy for the actual performance degradation caused by layer removal. Our theoretical analysis shows that a layer can exhibit an arbitrarily low cosine similarity score while still being crucial to the model's performance. On the other hand, empirical evidence from a range of LLMs confirms that the correlation between cosine similarity and actual performance degradation is often weak or moderate, leading to misleading interpretations of a transformer's internal mechanisms. We propose a more robust metric for assessing layer relevance: the actual drop in model accuracy resulting from the removal of a layer. Even though it is a computationally costly metric, this approach offers a more accurate picture of layer importance, allowing for more informed pruning strategies and lightweight models. Our findings have significant implications for the development of interpretable LLMs and highlight the need to move beyond cosine similarity in assessing layer relevance.

Language model benchmarking is a difficult task. Outcome reasoning alone does not test the model's conceptualization of language and popular open-source benchmarks are quickly saturated or ingested as training data. It is important to test the model's output, but augmenting these tests by characterizing semantic structure gives more insight to how models relate abstract concepts. However, the high dimensional embedding spaces are not easy to interpret. This work demonstrates how topological methods can be used to rigorously compare these spaces to low dimensional and interpretable baselines like ontologies and curated knowledge graphs. These multi-modal alignment tests make it possible to track model adaptations and test phrase understanding across multiple languages.