A Better Metric Will Not Save You: What You Compare Beats How You Compare It

Comparing large language models can reveal shared representational structure and systematic differences between them. However, aggregate similarity measures can obscure how agreement varies across geometric scales and which linguistic properties support it. We introduce two complementary methods to resolve where models agree and what supports that agreement. Standard representational similarity analysis (RSA) summarizes similarity across all stimulus pairs, potentially obscuring differences in alignment between nearby and distant inputs. Neighborhood-Weighted RSA (NW-RSA) addresses this limitation by weighting stimulus pairs according to their proximity in representational space, placing alignment from local neighborhoods to global geometry on a common scale. Counterfactual RSA (CF-RSA) tests which linguistic properties support alignment by comparing intact representations in one model with representations under controlled linguistic perturbations in another. Across diverse language models, we find strong agreement in coarse representational geometry but substantial divergence in local neighborhoods. Alignment is observed both across broadly sampled natural text and within linguistic equivalence classes that preserve particular aspects of meaning or structure. Counterfactual analyses reveal selective sensitivity: changes to logical scope reduce alignment substantially more than the tested changes to hierarchical syntax, event roles, or discourse structure. Alignment also decreases when sentence structure or lexical meaning is disrupted in word lists and jabberwocky sentences, suggesting that the regularities of natural language support stronger convergence. These findings refine claims of representational universality by showing that strong overall similarity need not imply agreement in how models represent finer linguistic distinctions.

Mean-pooled cosine similarity is the default metric for comparing neural representations across languages, modalities, and tasks. We establish that this metric is not length-invariant: under the anisotropy that characterizes modern transformer representations, mean-pooled cosine grows monotonically in sequence length, independent of representational content. Empirically, on HumanEvalPack across four code LLMs, the length ratio alone explains $R^2 = 0.52$--$0.75$ of cross-language "Python proximity," while AST depth and shared-token fraction add less than 3% of explained variance beyond length. Substituting Centered Kernel Alignment (CKA) reduces explained variance by 83% and reverses the sign of the length coefficient ($β_{\mathrm{len}}: +0.86 \to -0.37$). The same pattern holds in Mistral-7B on parallel WMT pairs ($R^2 = 0.23$ EN-FR, $R^2 = 0.33$ EN-DE for cosine; $R^2 < 0.01$ for CKA). In CLIP ViT-B/32, mean-pooling reduces the length effect relative to EOS-pooling ($R^2: 0.21 \to {<}0.01$), as predicted by the theory's dependence on anisotropy. We argue that length-invariant metrics such as CKA should be the default for cross-representation comparisons, and that recent claims of cross-lingual representational convergence built on mean-pooled cosine warrant re-examination.

Evaluating representation similarity is fundamental to representation learning. However, existing metrics suffer from significant limitations: they lack interpretability due to shifting baselines, lack robustness to outliers, and are computationally intractable for large datasets, forcing reliance on heuristic approximations. To address this, we develop an ordinal-similarity framework, instantiated by the Triplet (TSI) and Quadruplet (QSI) Similarity Indices, which measure alignment by quantifying the consistency of ordinal relationships. We theoretically demonstrate this formulation is inherently interpretable, robust to outliers, and computationally efficient. Finally, we establish a formal equivalence between TSI and local neighborhood alignment, measured by Mutual Nearest Neighbors. Empirically, we validate these properties and show that ordinal similarity offers a scalable approach to measuring alignment, enabling practitioners to better understand and design representations.