mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Model-brain comparison using inter-animal transforms

arXiv 2510.02523 ↗First posted 2 Oct 2025cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Artificial neural network models have emerged as promising mechanistic models of the brain. However, there is little consensus on the correct method for comparing model activations to brain responses. Drawing on recent work in philosophy of neuroscience, we propose a comparison methodology based on the Inter-Animal Transform Class (IATC) - the strictest set of functions needed to accurately map neural responses between subjects in an animal population. Using the IATC, we can map bidirectionally between a candidate model's responses and brain data, assessing how well the model can masquerade as a typical subject using the same kinds of transforms needed to map across real subjects. We identify the IATC in three settings: a simulated population of neural network models, a population of mouse subjects, and a population of human subjects. We find that the IATC resolves detailed aspects of the neural mechanism, such as the non-linear activation function. Most importantly, we find that the IATC enables accurate predictions of neural activity while also achieving high specificity in mechanism identification, evidenced by its ability to separate response patterns from different brain areas while strongly aligning same-brain-area responses between subjects. In other words, the IATC is a proof-by-existence that there is no inherent tradeoff between the neural engineering goal of high model-brain predictivity and the neuroscientific goal of identifying mechanistically accurate brain models. Using IATC-guided transforms, we obtain new evidence in favor of topographical deep neural networks (TDANNs) as models of the visual system. Overall, the IATC enables principled model-brain comparisons, contextualizing previous findings about the predictive success of deep learning models of the brain, while improving upon previous approaches to model-brain comparison.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2025.

Builds on

9 of 38 references.

References · 9

  1. 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,695
  2. 2023Getting aligned on representational alignmentcited by 142
  3. 2021Generalized Shape Metrics on Neural Representationscited by 109
  4. 2021Explanatory models in neuroscience: Part 1 -- taking mechanistic abstraction seriouslycited by 18
  5. 2023Soft Matching Distance: A metric on neural representations that captures single-neuron tuningcited by 16
  6. 2023A Spectral Theory of Neural Prediction and Alignmentcited by 14
  7. 2023Duality of Bures and Shape Distances with Implications for Comparing Neural Representationscited by 14
  8. 2023Neural Foundations of Mental Simulation: Future Prediction of Latent Representations on Dynamic Scenescited by 13
  9. 2016Inferring brain-computational mechanisms with models of activity measurementscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 2.

3 papers.