A common approach in neuroscience is to study neural representations as a means to understand a system -- increasingly, by relating the neural representations to the internal representations learned by computational models. However, a recent work in machine learning (Lampinen, 2024) shows that learned feature representations may be biased to over-represent certain features, and represent others more weakly and less-consistently. For example, simple (linear) features may be more strongly and more consistently represented than complex (highly nonlinear) features. These biases could pose challenges for achieving full understanding of a system through representational analysis. In this perspective, we illustrate these challenges -- showing how feature representation biases can lead to strongly biased inferences from common analyses like PCA, regression, and RSA. We also present homomorphic encryption as a simple case study of the potential for strong dissociation between patterns of representation and computation. We discuss the implications of these results for representational comparisons between systems, and for neuroscience more generally.

Representation learning, and interpreting learned representations, are key areas of focus in machine learning and neuroscience. Both fields generally use representations as a means to understand or improve a system's computations. In this work, however, we explore surprising dissociations between representation and computation that may pose challenges for such efforts. We create datasets in which we attempt to match the computational role that different features play, while manipulating other properties of the features or the data. We train various deep learning architectures to compute these multiple abstract features about their inputs. We find that their learned feature representations are systematically biased towards representing some features more strongly than others, depending upon extraneous properties such as feature complexity, the order in which features are learned, and the distribution of features over the inputs. For example, features that are simpler to compute or learned first tend to be represented more strongly and densely than features that are more complex or learned later, even if all features are learned equally well. We also explore how these biases are affected by architectures, optimizers, and training regimes (e.g., in transformers, features decoded earlier in the output sequence also tend to be represented more strongly). Our results help to characterize the inductive biases of gradient-based representation learning. These results also highlight a key challenge for interpretability $-$ or for comparing the representations of models and brains $-$ disentangling extraneous biases from the computationally important aspects of a system's internal representations.

Sharpness-Aware Minimization (SAM) has emerged as a promising alternative optimizer to stochastic gradient descent (SGD). The originally-proposed motivation behind SAM was to bias neural networks towards flatter minima that are believed to generalize better. However, recent studies have shown conflicting evidence on the relationship between flatness and generalization, suggesting that flatness does fully explain SAM's success. Sidestepping this debate, we identify an orthogonal effect of SAM that is beneficial out-of-distribution: we argue that SAM implicitly balances the quality of diverse features. SAM achieves this effect by adaptively suppressing well-learned features which gives remaining features opportunity to be learned. We show that this mechanism is beneficial in datasets that contain redundant or spurious features where SGD falls for the simplicity bias and would not otherwise learn all available features. Our insights are supported by experiments on real data: we demonstrate that SAM improves the quality of features in datasets containing redundant or spurious features, including CelebA, Waterbirds, CIFAR-MNIST, and DomainBed.