bioRxivBioinformaticsPreprint
Information contracts determine what inverse perturbation benchmarks measure
Jianfu LiiD, L. Frank Huang, Wenyu Song, Ying LiiD, James W. JakubiD, Hong QiniD, Yan LuoiD, Cui TaoiD
Abstract
Inverse perturbation benchmarks rank interventions toward a desired cellular state, but high accuracy can answer a different question from biological prioritization. We present InverseBench, which makes candidate information and endpoint construction explicit, and FSTN, a linear pipeline evaluated under it. With identical inputs, candidates and validation, nested ridge reaches Spearman 0.959 for a transcriptional principal-component proxy but 0.445 for independently measured K562 growth fitness across 7,354 genes. Controlled response-entry availability across seven tasks gives heterogeneous gains, 0.442 for CD4 activation and 0.116 for external fitness. Yet predefined shortlist comparisons show no primary-cutoff penalty in K562 or a melanoma co-culture screen, and secondary cutoffs reverse the K562 ordering. FSTN's nonnegative set selector recovers 0.840 of measured two-gene constituents in three picks, against 0.771 for an unconstrained greedy. The framework separates proxy reconstruction, response-informed prioritization and unseen-intervention ranking: an endpoint-dependent accuracy gap does not by itself mean worse biological decisions.
- organism: human
- assay: bulk RNA-seq
- research focus: benchmarking
- research focus: differential expression
- research focus: gene regulatory network inference
- approach: statistical model
- approach: machine learning (classical)
- Citations
- 0
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- RevPert: predicting candidate drivers of transcriptomic state transitions via gallery-native reverse perturbation
Shiyang Liang, Cheng Yang, … Yunqi Li·bioRxiv·Sep 6, 2026
- Averaging in gene perturbation benchmarks hides perturbation-strength variation: Consequences for model evaluation
Yash Sharma, Madhav Subramaniyam, … Márió Szegedy·bioRxiv·Oct 23, 2026
- Genetic Perturbation Prediction Models Fail Out-of-Distribution: A Rigorous Benchmark and Systematic Evaluation
Kanupriya Tiwari, Gaurang Mahajan, … Abhishek K Jha·bioRxiv·Oct 19, 2026
- Signature Recontextualization: Mapping perturbational signatures across biological contexts
Andrew Chen, Noa Rappaport, … Stefano Monti·bioRxiv·Aug 19, 2026
- Structured hierarchical models for probabilistic inference from perturbation screening data
Simon Dirmeier, Niko Beerenwinkel·The Annals of Applied StatisticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 21, 2022
- Method Choice, Not Biology, Determines In Silico Perturbation Results: A Systematic Evaluation of Eight Methods Across Four Datasets
Shixiang Wu, Shixiang Wu, … Wenjie Ge·bioRxiv·Aug 19, 2026