Partial Soft-Matching Distance for Neural Representational Comparison with Partial Unit Correspondence
Chaitanya Kapoor, Alex H. Williams, Meenakshi Khosla

TL;DR
This paper introduces a partial soft-matching distance for neural representational comparison that allows some units to remain unmatched, improving robustness and interpretability in noisy or outlier-prone data.
Contribution
It extends soft-matching to a partial optimal transport framework, enabling selective unit matching and efficient neuron ranking for better neural and brain data analysis.
Findings
Preserves correct matches under outliers and noise.
Automatically excludes low-reliability voxels in fMRI data.
Achieves higher alignment precision than standard soft-matching.
Abstract
Representational similarity metrics typically force all units to be matched, making them susceptible to noise and outliers common in neural representations. We extend the soft-matching distance to a partial optimal transport setting that allows some neurons to remain unmatched, yielding rotation-sensitive but robust correspondences. This partial soft-matching distance provides theoretical advantages -- relaxing strict mass conservation while maintaining interpretable transport costs -- and practical benefits through efficient neuron ranking in terms of cross-network alignment without costly iterative recomputation. In simulations, it preserves correct matches under outliers and reliably selects the correct model in noise-corrupted identification tasks. On fMRI data, it automatically excludes low-reliability voxels and produces voxel rankings by alignment quality that closely match…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
1. The method is theoretically well-grounded, providing a principled extension of optimal transport to solve the well-documented problem of spurious alignments in noisy, partially corresponding neural data. 2. The paper provides compelling evidence of practical utility by showing that a single $\mathcal{O}(n^3 \log n)$ optimization can rank unit alignment as accurately as a computationally prohibitive $\mathcal{O}(n^4 \log n)$ brute-force ablation. 3. The method provides highly interpretable out
1. The method's autonomy relies entirely on an L-curve heuristic to select the optimal matched mass, a technique the authors concede has unclear generality and is known to be unstable in non-ideal (e.g., smooth) cost-regularization landscapes. 2. By relaxing mass conservation, the proposed method sacrifices formal metric properties, specifically the triangle inequality, limiting its use in downstream algorithms or theoretical proofs that require a true metric. 3. The "correlation-based ordering"
In summary, I think the originality and significance of this paper are good. - I believe the paper addresses an important and timely problem. - Recasting as average matched correlation gives an interpretable score in [−1,1], which helps. - Experiments seem thorough. Simulations show recovery with outliers and correct model selection. NSD shows exclusion of low noise ceiling voxels and higher within-area precision than balanced soft matching. DNNs show matched units have similar MEIs and tha
- Novelty relative to existing unbalanced OT and partial matching methods could be clearer. The authors cite Chapel et al. and related work, but I am not sure what is gained over the existing partial OT with dummy nodes plus a simple threshold. - My understanding is that the tuning curves are centered as unit-normalized before being used for the unbalanced soft-matching. However, there are many cases where the neuronal units have very small responses (dead neurons). This normalization scheme wo
- The paper addresses a relevant question that is of great interest to the community. - It adds a sensible extension to soft matching, creating a promising candidate for a good neural similarity measure. The proposed unbalanced soft matching is well-motivated and initial sanity checks are promising. - The writing is clear and logical. - I see no issues with quality or correctness.
- Arguably, the fact that there are unmatched units between two systems is a difference that we might not want to ignore. Suppose there were two essentially identical candidate models to be evaluated, but one has (many) random noise units added. Unbalanced soft matching with optimally chosen s (for each model) would not find a difference between these models, correct? Standard soft matching thus has an implicit bias for simpler models, which might be desirable, but is somewhat lost by your metho
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsFace Recognition and Perception · Functional Brain Connectivity Studies · Cell Image Analysis Techniques
