Shared Geometry Is Not Shared Physics: A Layerwise Test of the Platonic Representation Hypothesis in Astronomy
Organizations: UniverseTBD · EleutherAI · INTI International College Penang, Malaysia · Center for Astrophysics, Harvard & Smithsonian ·
Abstract
In this paper we investigate whether geometrically aligned astronomical representations are also scientifically interchangeable. We analyze every layer's representation from 36 pretrained models using cross-matched optical images, infrared images, and spectra. All 139 analyzed model-survey comparisons show significant local-neighborhood alignment somewhere in the network after accounting for the search over depth. However, alignment does not generally increase with network depth and can be stronger for the changes between consecutive computational blocks than for the block outputs themselves. We find that geometry-selected stages under-perform label-selected stages in every image-transfer comparison; moreover, every final HSC-COSMOS-Web model pair is aligned while every redshift transfer has negative R^2. Models can therefore recover a similar cross-survey geometry among astronomical objects without recovering a survey-invariant linear encoding of the physical properties tested here.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables17 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| HSC paired with | Released rows | Analyzed rows | Models | Primary use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DESI spectra | 20,465 | 20,321 | 36 | Geometry and common-space retrieval |
| Legacy Survey images | 101,725 | 101,619 | 36 | Color and shape transfer |
| JWST images | 1,496 | 929 | 36 | Magnitude and size transfer |
| COSMOS-Web images | 56,322 | 56,322 | 31 | Layerwise geometry |
| COSMOS-Web final product | 45,000 | 45,000 | 31 | Five-target final transfer |
| Family | Model variants |
|---|---|
| AstroPT | astropt_015M , astropt_095M , astropt_850M |
| CLIP | clip_base , clip_large |
| ConvNeXt | convnext_nano , convnext_tiny , convnext_base , convnext_large |
| DINO | dino_small , dino_base , dino_large , dino_giant |
| DINOv3 | dinov3_vits16 , dinov3_vits16plus , dinov3_vitb16 , dinov3_vitl16 , dinov3_vith16plus , dinov3_vit7b16 |
| I-JEPA | ijepa_huge , ijepa_giant |
| ID | Question |
|---|---|
| E1 | Is local alignment significant anywhere along each complete depth curve? |
| E2 | Does alignment increase from early to late saved stages? |
| E3 | Does label-free geometric selection identify scientifically useful saved stages? |
| E4 | Does an explicitly fitted common space improve image–spectrum retrieval? |
| E5 | Which consecutive block updates write the shared geometry? |
| E6 | Do model scale, architecture, or training objective explain alignment? |
| Survey | Target | Transfer | Median | Median | Range | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Legacy Survey | Color | HSC Legacy | |||||
| Legacy Survey | Color | Legacy HSC | |||||
| Legacy Survey | Shape | HSC Legacy | |||||
| Legacy Survey | Shape | Legacy HSC | |||||
| JWST | Magnitude | HSC JWST | |||||
| JWST | Magnitude | JWST HSC |
| Legacy Survey | JWST | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Color H L | Color L H | Shape H L | Shape L H | Magnitude H J | Magnitude J H | Size H J | Size J H |
| AstroPT | 0.084 | 0.040 | 0.375 | 0.692 | 4.665 | 4.120 | 3.618 | 0.598 |
| CLIP | 0.041 | 0.055 | 1.001 | 0.931 | 1.400 | 0.365 | 1.828 | 0.843 |
| ConvNeXt | 0.015 | 0.190 | 1.605 | 1.099 | 0.931 | 0.433 | 2.818 | 0.445 |
| DINO | 0.045 | 0.093 | 0.745 | 1.003 | 1.361 | 0.402 | 0.674 | 0.262 |
| DINOv3 | 0.097 | 0.088 | 0.269 | 0.408 | 1.679 | 0.152 | 0.265 | 0.275 |
| Control | Matched reference | MKNN | CKA | Procrustes | MRR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shuffle correspondence | Raw | ||||
| Matched Gaussian data | Raw | ||||
| Random projection to 32 dimensions | Raw | ||||
| Random projection to 64 dimensions | Raw | ||||
| Remove first five principal components | Raw held-out | ||||
| Regress magnitude, color, and redshift | Raw complete-case held-out |
| Outcome | Permutation | Family 95% interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum alignment | ||||
| Final-stage alignment | ||||
| Area under depth curve | ||||
| Peak saved-stage index | ||||
| Final minus early alignment | ||||
| Maximum update alignment |
| Physical target | Alignment coefficient | Family 95% interval | Permutation | Secondary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HSC color | ||||
| Magnitude | ||||
| Stellar mass | ||||
| Redshift (primary) | — | |||
| Specific star-formation rate |
| Analysis | Outcome | Families improved | Mean MSE ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| E6 | Maximum alignment | ||
| E6 | Final-stage alignment | ||
| E6 | Area under depth curve | ||
| E6 | Maximum update alignment | ||
| E6 | Final minus early alignment | ||
| E6 | Peak saved-stage index |
| Computing Resource | Usage |
|---|---|
| Shared GPU infrastructure | GPU-based embedding extraction and analysis |
| 8 NVIDIA A100 node | GPU-based embedding extraction and analysis |
| 128 CPU cores / 1 TB RAM | CPU-intensive downstream analyses |
| Local workstation | Supplementary experiments and analysis |
| Estimated total GPU usage | GPU-hours |
Platonic Representation Hypothesis
Platonic Representation Hypothesis asks whether independently trained models converge on shared internal structures that reflect the world.
See all 18 papers