Learning representations that are robust to nuisance factors is essential for reliable deployment, but remains challenging when the representations lie on non-Euclidean manifolds. Existing debiasing methods typically assume Euclidean representations or apply linear interventions, which can distort the geometry of structured latent spaces. We propose IsoAct, a post-hoc framework that accounts for geometry in both nuisance identification and representation editing. It identifies nuisance-predictive directions using Fisher discriminant analysis (FDA) in tangent coordinates and applies corrections through manifold-native actions that preserve manifold membership. Controlled and real-world experiments on hyperspherical, hyperbolic, and SE(3) representations evaluate nuisance reduction, utility preservation, and manifold validity jointly. IsoAct reduces nuisance recoverability while retaining competitive utility. Its clearest joint result is on KLIFS, combining reduced kinase-group recoverability, strong structural prediction, and valid rigid poses.
Figures & tables
Manifold
Representation
Constraints
Hypersphere
x∈Sd−1
1) ∥x∥2=1
Lorentz hyperboloid
x∈Hcd
1) ⟨x,x⟩L=−1/c
2) x0>0
SE(3)
x=(R,t)∈SE(3)
1) R⊤R=I3
2) det(R)=1
Table 1: Target manifolds and the membership constraints that admissible edits must preserve. The Lorentz model has curvature −c<0 , with ⟨x,x⟩L=−x02+∑j=1dxj2 and time coordinate x0 .
Figure 1: Overview of IsoAct on the hypersphere. FDA identifies nuisance directions in tangent coordinates around a coordinate reference r constructed from training data. A neutral target n from low-confidence training examples supplies the correction reference. The right panel shows one update along uk while preserving unit norm. Lorentz and SE(3) instances use the same pipeline with geometry-specific actions.
Figure 2: Controlled debiasing on three manifolds. IsoAct combines Oracle-matched nuisance-probe scores with preservation of the designated utility proxy and near-zero constraint residuals. All axes improve outward; constraint scales are panel-specific. † marks the learning-based CMF adaptation.
Figure 3: SE(3) mechanism check. Colors denote nuisance groups; the dashed line marks the neutral angle. The light-green band is the shared translation-magnitude range used as a utility proxy. IsoAct removes angular group separation while keeping all samples in this band, matching the Oracle pattern. In contrast, CMF and SFID move many samples outside the band. Rotation residuals and detailed results are given in Figure 2 and Appendix C.1 .
Debiasing Capability
Utility Preservation
Manifold Constraint Violation
Method
Kinase Group
α C-helix State
Pocket Occupancy
Constraint 1
Constraint 2
Acc ↓
F1 ↓
Recall ↑
AUROC ↑
Recall ↑
AUROC ↑
Mean ↓
Mean ↓
KLIFS
Original
0.1398
0.1409
0.3362
0.7163
0.7357
0.9708
6.5065e-08
2.2077e-08
Null
0.0827
0.0679
—
—
—
—
—
—
CMF
0.1988
0.1858
0.3046
0.7087
0.8173
0.9732
3.6900e-01
1.1368e-01
SFID
0.1398
0.1409
0.3247
0.7176
0.7388
0.9712
6.5065e-08
2.2077e-08
Table 2: KLIFS results. IsoAct combines reduced kinase-group predictability with strong structural utility and numerical-precision rotation residuals. Constraints 1 and 2 report mean rotation orthogonality and determinant errors, respectively. Bold/underline mark best/second-best values among debiasing methods; Original and Null are reference rows excluded from ranking.
Figure 4: KLIFS debiasing-utility trade-offs. Each point is one configuration’s test result; higher and farther right is better. Debiasing gain D measures progress from Original ( 0 ) toward the shuffled-label Null ( 1 ). Mean utility retention quantifies utility preservation by averaging Recall and AUROC ratios to Original across both structural tasks; 1 denotes unchanged aggregate utility. Outlined diamonds mark the IsoAct Pareto frontier. Its high-utility point combines D≈0.51 with mean retention of 1.07 , while other frontier points achieve stronger debiasing at lower retention. Definitions and configuration pools are detailed in Appendix C.3 .
Age
Gender
Race
Model
Method
Debias ↑
Utility ↑
Constraint ↓
Debias ↑
Utility ↑
Constraint ↓
Debias ↑
Utility ↑
Constraint ↓
CLIP
Original
0.0000
1.0000
2.2612e-08
0.0000
1.0000
2.2935e-08
0.0000
1.0000
2.2181e-08
Null
1.0000
—
—
1.0000
—
—
1.0000
—
—
CMF
0.6339
0.0096
8.8207e-02
0.4481
0.0130
7.0113e-02
0.6890
0.0115
1.1123e-01
SFID
0.0117
1.0005
3.8070e-03
0.0389
0.9788
8.1287e-03
-0.0085
0.9975
8.3426e-03
SPD
0.7536
0.9867
1.8327e-02
0.8243
0.9938
1.0768e-02
0.9656
0.9891
5.3183e-02
Table 3: CLIP and MERU results across protected attributes. IsoAct combines high retrieval retention with the strongest MERU debiasing and attribute-dependent CLIP gains. Debias averages normalized Accuracy/macro-F1 proximity to Null; Utility averages Original-normalized R@1/5/10. Constraint reports CLIP unit-norm or aggregated MERU Lorentz residuals. Bold/underline mark best/second-best method values, excluding reference rows and numerical-precision MERU residuals.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Acc
F1
Dtoy
U
Mean C1
Mean C2
Hypersphere
CMF
0.50000000
0.49944383
0.98280340
0.10500000
0.02109016
—
SFID
0.50000000
0.49776786
0.98110009
0.05250000
0.08129425
—
SPD
0.50000000
0.49986107
0.98322745
0.30500000
0.02415661
—
IsoAct
0.50833333
0.50802585
1.00000000
1.00000000
2.33146835e-17
—
Lorentz
Appendix
Table 4: Detailed results underlying the toy starplots. Acc and macro-F1 are ranked by proximity to Oracle; higher Dtoy and U and lower residuals are better. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best edited methods within each geometry; ties share a rank.
Nuisance metric / Oracle discrepancy
Task
Residual mean
Method
Acc
Recall
F1
AUROC
MAE
U
C1
C2
Hypersphere
Original
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
—
Oracle
0.5083
0.5083
0.5080
0.4956
0.0000
1.0000
0.0000
—
CMF
0.0083
0.0083
0.0086
0.0023
3.2653
0.1050
0.0211
—
SFID
0.0083
0.0083
0.0103
0.0000
13.1276
0.0525
0.0813
—
Appendix
Table 5: Additional controlled results. Nuisance columns show raw scores for Original/Oracle and absolute Oracle discrepancies for edited methods. Lower discrepancies, MAE, and residuals and higher U are better. Bold/underline mark best/second-best edited methods within each geometry; ties share a rank at displayed precision. Table 4 gives higher-precision residuals.
Figure 5: Hyperspherical mechanism check. The horizontal angle carries nuisance and the polar angle is the shared utility proxy. IsoAct collapses group separation while preserving the proxy. Shading is a visual guide; utility uses each sample’s original-angle 2∘ tolerance.
Figure 6: Lorentz mechanism check. IsoAct removes angular group separation while retaining the shared radial utility range. The dashed line marks the neutral angle and shading marks the shared range; the accompanying residuals assess manifold validity.
Model
Attribute
K
ρ
Passes
Strengths
Within-axis order
CLIP
Age
7
0.1
1
α=1
—
Gender
1
0.01
1
α=1
—
Race
6
0.1
2
α=1
—
MERU
Age
8
0.01
1
αang=0.75 , αtr=1
Ang. → Trans.
Gender
1
0.03
1
αang=0.5 , αtr=1
Trans. → Ang.
Race
6
0.1
1
αang=0.5 , αtr=1
Trans. → Ang.
Appendix
Table 6: Selected IsoAct settings for CLIP and MERU. K is the retained rank and ρ the FDA ridge. Ang. and Trans. denote angular and translation actions composed within each direction; a dash indicates a single spherical action.
Method
Acc
F1
R@1
R@5
R@10
Age
Original
0.2987
0.2614
0.5876
0.8350
0.9004
Null
0.1477
0.1060
—
—
—
CMF
0.1920
0.1742
0.0012
0.0070
0.0166
SFID
0.2967
0.2599
0.5892
0.8354
0.8990
SPD
0.1860
0.1431
0.5764
0.8268
0.8906
Appendix
Table 7: CLIP raw test probe and retrieval metrics. F1 denotes macro-F1. Bold/underline mark best/second-best methods within each attribute: smaller absolute distance to Null for Acc/F1, higher values for retrieval. Original and Null are unranked; ties share a rank. Table 3 reports normalized summaries.
Method
Acc
F1
R@1
R@5
R@10
Age
Original
0.2747
0.2465
0.2096
0.4242
0.5216
Null
0.1439
0.1055
—
—
—
CMF
0.2573
0.2359
0.0372
0.1188
0.1778
SFID
0.2587
0.2424
0.2030
0.4194
0.5160
SPD
0.1373
0.1236
0.1986
0.4146
0.5094
Appendix
Table 8: MERU raw test probe and retrieval metrics. F1 denotes macro-F1. Bold/underline mark best/second-best methods within each attribute: smaller absolute distance to Null for Acc/F1, higher values for retrieval. Original and Null are unranked; ties share a rank. Table 3 reports normalized summaries.
Setting
Method
Mean C1
Mean C2
KLIFS
Original
6.5065e-08
2.2077e-08
CMF
3.6900e-01
1.1368e-01
SFID
6.5065e-08
2.2077e-08
SPD
9.4948e-01
3.7450e-01
IsoAct
6.9510e-16
3.5723e-16
CLIP age
Original
2.2612e-08
—
Appendix
Table 9: Mean manifold-constraint residuals on selected test representations. IsoAct maintains unit-norm and rotation constraints to numerical precision. Lower is better. Bold/underline mark best/second-best methods within each setting, excluding Original and all MERU residuals. MERU’s Lorentz quadratic and upper-sheet residuals are reported separately.
Semantic-preserving transformations can induce substantial motion in learned representations, while small changes may strongly affect model predictions, raising a basic question: what local metric best captures semantically consequential variation? We propose Fisher-induced invariant representation geometry (Fisher-IRG), which measures local representation directions through their predictive sensitivity. Around each representation, we construct semantic-preserving and semantic-changing neighborhoods, aggregate their local Fisher information, and recover invariant directions through a contrastive generalized eigenvalue problem. Controlled displacement analyses first show that comparable Euclidean motion can have substantially different predictive consequences, supporting the need for a predictive geometry. Across language and vision models, Fisher-IRG yields stronger semantic-versus-nuisance predictive selectivity and generally more reproducible subspaces than covariance-based geometry, while recovering systematically distinct local directions. Representation interventions further localize semantic effects to the Fisher-derived subspace, and held-out separation and retrieval show that the recovered geometry generalizes beyond the discovery neighborhoods. These results support Fisher-IRG as a principled framework for characterizing local invariant representation geometry.
Abdullah All Tanvir, Xin Zhong
Department of Computer Science University of Nebraska Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA
Recent Joint-Embedding Predictive Architectures (JEPAs) prevent representation collapse by constraining learned representations to follow a prescribed target distribution, such as an isotropic Gaussian or the uniform distribution on a hypersphere. Klindt et al. (2026) showed that, under their Euclidean assumptions, matching a Gaussian target can recover Gaussian latent variables up to a linear transformation, and that the Gaussian is the unique distribution with this guarantee. We extend their analysis to latent variables supported on embedded Riemannian manifolds and derive conditions on the latent geometry and positive-pair dynamics under which alignment and exact distribution matching guarantee linear recovery. In particular, when the latent variables are uniformly distributed on a sphere and the representations are matched to the same spherical distribution, every optimal representation recovers the latent state up to an orthogonal transformation. This shows that Gaussian uniqueness is not a universal property of distribution-matched JEPAs: non-Euclidean latent geometries can admit other linearly recoverable distributions. We further derive an approximate-recovery bound that is strictly tighter for the spherical world than for the Gaussian world. Experiments on Gaussian, spherical, and toroidal latent spaces show that geometrically compatible targets yield better linear recovery when optimization succeeds, whereas mismatched targets distort the latent structure. This advantage persists in high-dimensional Clifford-torus worlds.
Léo Nicollier, Enric Meinhardt-Llopis, Marc Pic +2
CB, ATT · Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, ENS Paris-Saclay, Centre Borelli, France · Advanced Track and Trace +5
A prevailing paradigm in modern representation learning is the map-first approach, in which a representation map is learned from reconstruction, embedding, or task objectives. At the optimum, when the learned map accurately recovers a global coordinate chart, it should exhibit three structural properties whose geometric meaning can be illustrated through a face-editing example: Commutativity requires that changing pose and then expression gives the same result as applying them in the reverse order; Time Coherence requires that the same variation along one coordinate induces the same expression change across faces; Common-Reference requires that all faces are organized relative to a common reference face. However, small approximation errors in the learned map need not translate into small errors in these structural properties, and can therefore disrupt the global organization of the representation. Based on this observation, we consider the converse of the map-first formulation and ask whether a global representation can instead emerge by directly learning these properties. We represent variations along individual coordinates through vector fields defined in the ambient space and introduce a non-contraction condition preventing one transformation from destroying directions associated with the others. We derive an unsupervised objective that learns these structural properties and establish theoretical results connecting its minimization to tangent-space recovery. Experiments on controlled manifolds validate the predicted tangent-space recovery and global structure, while an autoencoder baseline shows that small map-first errors can still produce substantial violations of the targeted properties.
David Vigouroux, Lucas Drumetz, Ronan Fablet +1
ANITI, IMT Atlantique - DSD, LaTIM · IRT Saint Exupery, ANITI, Toulouse, France · IMT Atlantique, LaTIM UMR 1101 INSERM, Brest, France +5