Measuring geometric similarity between high-dimensional network representations is a topic of longstanding interest to neuroscience and deep learning. Although many methods have been proposed, only a few works have rigorously analyzed their statistical efficiency or quantified estimator uncertainty in data-limited regimes. Here, we derive upper and lower bounds on the worst-case convergence of standard estimators of shape distance—a measure of representational dissimilarity proposed by Williams et al. (2021). These bounds reveal the challenging nature of the problem in high-dimensional feature spaces. To overcome these challenges, we introduce a novel method-of-moments estimator with a tunable bias-variance tradeoff parameterized by an upper bound on bias. We show that this estimator achieves superior performance to standard estimators in simulation and on neural data, particularly in high-dimensional settings. Our theoretical work and estimator thus respectively define and dramatically expand the scope of neural data for which geometric similarity can be accurately measured.

The correlation coefficient squared, r2, is commonly used to validate quantitative models on neural data, yet it is biased by trial-to-trial variability: as trial-to-trial variability increases, measured correlation to a model's predictions decreases. As a result, models that perfectly explain neural tuning can appear to perform poorly. Many solutions to this problem have been proposed, but no consensus has been reached on which is the least biased estimator. Some currently used methods substantially overestimate model fit, and the utility of even the best performing methods is limited by the lack of confidence intervals and asymptotic analysis. We provide a new estimator, [Formula: see text], that outperforms all prior estimators in our testing, and we provide confidence intervals and asymptotic guarantees. We apply our estimator to a variety of neural data to validate its utility. We find that neural noise is often so great that confidence intervals of the estimator cover the entire possible range of values ([0, 1]), preventing meaningful evaluation of the quality of a model's predictions. This leads us to propose the use of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as a quality metric for making quantitative comparisons across neural recordings. Analyzing a variety of neural data sets, we find that up to ∼ 40% of some state-of-the-art neural recordings do not pass even a liberal SNR criterion. Moving toward more reliable estimates of correlation, and quantitatively comparing quality across recording modalities and data sets, will be critical to accelerating progress in modeling biological phenomena.