Aristotelian Manifolds: Leveraging Platonic Perceptual Features for Backpropagation Free Rapid Concept Learning
Organizations: Photogrammetric Computer Vision Lab The Ohio State University Columbus, OH, USA
Abstract
This paper formalizes and systematically characterizes Aristotelian Manifolds, a generalized structural framework built upon the Platonic Representation Hypothesis. We position high-capacity foundation models as universal perceptual filters and conduct a comprehensive layer-wise investigation to map how knowledge is functionally synthesized within these latent subspaces. Across diverse architectural paradigms and multi-domain datasets, we rigorously chart the interplay between network depth, dimensionality reduction, and distance metrics. Our characterization reveals that semantic maturation does not follow a singular, monotonic path; instead, different data domains exhibit highly distinct geometric response profiles, characterized by intermediate mound-like peaks for specialized clinical modalities and sigmoidal plateaus for natural visual tasks. By profiling the exact coordinates where these manifolds achieve peak representational efficiency, we establish a predictable taxonomy for layer selection and feature compression. Ultimately, this systematic characterization demonstrates that mapping the internal geometry of frozen representations provides a robust, backpropagation-free, and interpretable framework for understanding and exploiting foundation model latent spaces.
Figures & tables
| Category | Parameter / Stage | Specification / Search Grid |
| Evaluation Setup | Unsupervised Training | 1000 random images |
| Supervised Training | 64 images/class | |
| Test Evaluation | 200 random images | |
| Inference Classifier | ( ), Mahalanobis distance | |
| Sweep Stages | Stage 1: Raw Encoding | Uncompressed sweep across all backbone layers. |
| Stage 2: Component Encoding | Layer sweep with PCA: . |
| Metric | MedMNIST Paradigm | FSL Benchmark Paradigm |
|---|---|---|
| Backbone Model | DINOv2 ViT-Large/14 | ViT-Large/16 |
| Evaluation Style | All-Way (All classes jointly) | Episodic -Way (5-Way) |
| Data Regime | 512-Shot Fixed Target | 1-Shot and 5-Shot Regimes |
| Statistical Depth | 5 random support trials | 600 episodes ( ) |
| Query Pool | Full Test Split ( ) | 15 samples/class/episode |
| Unsupervised Pool | 5,000 samples/class | 500 unlabeled background images |
| Method | Backbone | MiniImageNet | TieredImageNet | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-way 1-shot | 5-way 5-shot | 5-way 1-shot | 5-way 5-shot | ||
| SYNTRANS [ Tang et al.(2025)Tang, He, and Qin ] | ResNet-12 | 76.20 0.69 | 86.12 0.54 | 79.69 0.81 | 87.78 0.60 |
| SYNTRANS [ Tang et al.(2025)Tang, He, and Qin ] | ViT-S | 81.30 0.61 | 89.96 0.42 | 84.31 0.54 | 91.73 0.44 |
| RGEE-Raw [ Karnes and Yilmaz(2026b) ] | DINOv2-L | 83.36 0.75 | 96.51 0.24 | 83.61 0.84 | 94.96 0.40 |
| RGEE-PCA 512 [ Karnes and Yilmaz(2026b) ] | DINOv2-L | 84.11 0.74 | 96.18 0.26 | 84.01 0.81 | 94.50 0.42 |
| RGEE-PCA 256 [ Karnes and Yilmaz(2026b) ] | DINOv2-L | 84.16 0.78 | 95.34 0.31 | 82.23 0.81 | 93.09 0.46 |
| Method | Backbone | CIFAR-FS | FC100 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5-way 1-shot | 5-way 5-shot | 5-way 1-shot | 5-way 5-shot | ||
| SYNTRANS [ Tang et al.(2025)Tang, He, and Qin ] | ResNet-12 | 82.58 0.75 | 89.42 0.56 | 52.30 0.75 | 64.91 0.59 |
| SYNTRANS [ Tang et al.(2025)Tang, He, and Qin ] | ViT-S | 84.64 0.65 | 90.81 0.41 | 56.38 0.69 | 69.45 0.54 |
| RGEE-Raw [ Karnes and Yilmaz(2026b) ] | DINOv2-L | 90.92 0.58 | 97.66 0.19 | 56.01 0.92 | 77.67 0.71 |
| RGEE-PCA 512 [ Karnes and Yilmaz(2026b) ] | DINOv2-L | 91.35 0.57 | 97.53 0.20 | 55.34 0.89 | 76.00 0.71 |
| RGEE-PCA 256 [ Karnes and Yilmaz(2026b) ] | DINOv2-L | 90.71 0.61 | 97.14 0.23 | 53.56 0.86 | 73.20 0.72 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Neural Representation Geometry
Neural representation geometry studies how learned features are arranged and how that structure relates to model behavior and performance.
See all 259 papers