Statistical and structural identifiability in representation learning
Walter Nelson, Marco Fumero, Theofanis Karaletsos, Francesco Locatello

TL;DR
This paper formalizes two types of stability in representation learning—statistical and structural identifiability—and proposes practical methods to achieve near-identifiability and disentanglement in various models, including autoencoders and foundation models.
Contribution
It introduces new definitions of near-identifiability, proves theoretical results for models with nonlinear decoders, and demonstrates practical disentanglement techniques using ICA post-processing.
Findings
ICA improves disentanglement in autoencoders.
State-of-the-art disentanglement on synthetic benchmarks.
Enhanced biological variation separation in microscopy models.
Abstract
Representation learning models exhibit a surprising stability in their internal representations. Whereas most prior work treats this stability as a single property, we formalize it as two distinct concepts: statistical identifiability (consistency of representations across runs) and structural identifiability (alignment of representations with some unobserved ground truth). Recognizing that perfect pointwise identifiability is generally unrealistic for modern representation learning models, we propose new model-agnostic definitions of statistical and structural near-identifiability of representations up to some error tolerance . Leveraging these definitions, we prove a statistical -near-identifiability result for the representations of models with nonlinear decoders, generalizing existing identifiability theory beyond last-layer representations in e.g. generative…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Poster
Please see summary
Please see summary
I believe this work makes contributions which are potentially of substantial interest to the identifiability community. * Namely, providing clarity on the the relationship between identifiability w.r.t. a latent variable model and models being identifiability w.r.t. each other is an important nuance to explore. * Furthermore, Theorem 1 provides very general result characterizing model identifiability which I believe is of interest even if the result relies on a Lipschitz constant which may b
* While I find the author's contributions noteworthy, I found it very difficult to parse the contributions by reading the abstract and introduction of the paper. In the introduction, the authors introduce several purported issues with existing identifiability results and then present their contributions as solving these issues. I found this relationship between these issues and the authors contributions difficult to connect and ultimately obfuscating of the authors main contributions. I would su
Existing works in identifiability usually treat functions $f$ as fully black-box, but in practice are parametrised as neural networks. Arguably the black-box perspective has been taken to its limit and there are not many substantially new developments in identifiability here. If I understand correctly, what this paper does is leverage the neural network (or compositional) structure, noticing that outputs are usually identifiable (e.g., assuming optimization is well-posed), and leveraging that st
- The recoverability section, unless I'm missing something, seems to just be talking about how well-specification is usually assumed in these papers, but it is nice to have it spelled out with examples specific to the theory here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCell Image Analysis Techniques · Generative Adversarial Networks and Image Synthesis · AI in cancer detection
