rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Evidence and investigation

Contested results

Where one study disagrees with what other studies report for the same models, and what we are doing to resolve each case.

These are automatic leads, not findings of error. Each release, a check compares how every study ranks the models it shares with other studies. It flags a study that reverses the order the others agree on, or whose gap to a shared reference model lies well outside theirs. Different tasks, populations or metrics often explain a flag.

A flag never hides a result. Flagged results stay in every table, page and download, marked Contested. A result is withheld only when a reviewer marks it disputed.

How the check works, and how each follow-up is recorded: discrepancies between studies.

In this release

  • 220open
  • 0settled
  • 1resolved
  • 1high severity
  • 12medium severity
  • 208low severity

Release 2026-10-23-5347695500ed · 221 findings in all · rules version 3

Findings

Status: All · Open · Settled · Resolved

Severity: All · High · Medium · Low

State: All · Not yet reviewed · Confirmed error

Showing findings that compare scGPT. All models

4 findings match, most severe first.

Geneformer and scGPT: Wu et al. 2025, Additional file 3 (Supplementary Tables S1-S13) reverses the order

  • Medium severity
  • Not yet reviewed
  • Ordering reversal
  • Different tasks across studies

Wu et al. 2025, Additional file 3 (Supplementary Tables S1-S13) ranks Geneformer above scGPT in 3 of 4 comparisons; other studies rank scGPT above Geneformer in 95 of 98.

3 papers rank scGPT above Geneformer in 95 of their 100 comparisons and Geneformer higher in 3; 2 are ties. Of those papers, Deep-learning-based gene perturbation… ranks Geneformer higher on its own (2 of 2). Wu et al. 2025 ranks Geneformer above scGPT in 3 of its 4 comparisons and scGPT higher in 1.

Comparisons in which each paper scores scGPT or Geneformer higher3 other papers: scGPT higher in 95, Geneformer higher in 3, 2 ties. Wu et al. 2025 (disagrees): scGPT higher in 1, Geneformer higher in 3, 0 ties.3 other papers95 scGPT higher952 tie3 Geneformer higherDisagrees: Wu et al. 2025Wu et al. 2025, Additional file 3 (Supplementary Tables S1-S13)1 scGPT higher13 Geneformer higher3
scGPT higherTieGeneformer higher
Compared
Geneformer, scGPT

Not reviewed yet.

Geneformer and scGPT: Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines reverses the order

  • Medium severity
  • Not yet reviewed
  • Ordering reversal
  • Different tasks across studies

Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines ranks Geneformer above scGPT in 2 of 2 comparisons; other studies rank scGPT above Geneformer in 96 of 100.

3 papers rank scGPT above Geneformer in 96 of their 102 comparisons and Geneformer higher in 4; 2 are ties. Of those papers, Wu et al. 2025 ranks Geneformer higher on its own (3 of 4). Deep-learning-based gene perturbation… ranks Geneformer above scGPT in all 2 of its comparisons.

Comparisons in which each paper scores scGPT or Geneformer higher3 other papers: scGPT higher in 96, Geneformer higher in 4, 2 ties. Deep-learning-based gene perturbation… (disagrees): scGPT higher in 0, Geneformer higher in 2, 0 ties.3 other papers96 scGPT higher962 tie4 Geneformer higherDisagrees: Deep-learning-based gene perturbation…Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines2 Geneformer higher2
scGPT higherTieGeneformer higher
Compared
Geneformer, scGPT

Not reviewed yet.

scFoundation and scGPT: Csendes et al. 2025, Supplementary Material 4 (Supplementary Tables 1-3) reverses the order

  • Low severity
  • Not yet reviewed
  • Ordering reversal
  • Different tasks across studies

Csendes et al. 2025, Supplementary Material 4 (Supplementary Tables 1-3) ranks scGPT above scFoundation in 15 of 16 comparisons; other studies rank scFoundation above scGPT in 4 of 5.

2 papers rank scFoundation above scGPT in 4 of their 6 comparisons and scGPT higher in 1; 1 is a tie. Csendes et al. 2025 ranks scGPT above scFoundation in 15 of its 20 comparisons and scFoundation higher in 1; 4 are ties.

Comparisons in which each paper scores scFoundation or scGPT higher2 other papers: scFoundation higher in 4, scGPT higher in 1, 1 tie. Csendes et al. 2025 (disagrees): scFoundation higher in 1, scGPT higher in 15, 4 ties.2 other papers4 scFoundation higher41 tie11 scGPT higher1Disagrees: Csendes et al. 2025Csendes et al. 2025, Supplementary Material 4 (Supplementary Tables 1-3)1 scFoundation higher4 tie415 scGPT higher15
scFoundation higherTiescGPT higher
Compared
scFoundation, scGPT

Not reviewed yet.

scFoundation and scGPT: Wu et al. 2025, Additional file 3 (Supplementary Tables S1-S13) reverses the order

  • Low severity
  • Not yet reviewed
  • Ordering reversal
  • Different tasks across studies

Wu et al. 2025, Additional file 3 (Supplementary Tables S1-S13) ranks scFoundation above scGPT in 3 of 3 comparisons; other studies rank scGPT above scFoundation in 16 of 18.

2 papers rank scGPT above scFoundation in 16 of their 22 comparisons and scFoundation higher in 2; 4 are ties. Wu et al. 2025 ranks scFoundation above scGPT in all 3 comparisons that are not ties (1 is a tie).

Comparisons in which each paper scores scGPT or scFoundation higher2 other papers: scGPT higher in 16, scFoundation higher in 2, 4 ties. Wu et al. 2025 (disagrees): scGPT higher in 0, scFoundation higher in 3, 1 tie.2 other papers16 scGPT higher164 tie42 scFoundation higher2Disagrees: Wu et al. 2025Wu et al. 2025, Additional file 3 (Supplementary Tables S1-S13)1 tie13 scFoundation higher3
scGPT higherTiescFoundation higher
Compared
scFoundation, scGPT

Not reviewed yet.