The split of demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs that Genomic Benchmarks evaluated on. The upstream dataset release is not catalogued here, so no claim is made that this matches its original splits.
These checks assess whether the evidence supports a reproducible investigation. A source-checked score alone does not meet these requirements.
Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220 · Evidence verified: Not verified
Exact outcomes, predictions, identifiers and evaluator are connected.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
Replay evidence includes annotations and an assessment of dependence. Unknown independence permits descriptive analysis only.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
A pinned recipe describes the inputs, environment and resource requirements.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
Separate data and exposure records support an independent test.
Missing or unresolved evidence
Verified: Not verified
Readiness describes the evidence in this release. Availability on your computer is checked separately when an investigation runs. Existing data exposure can prevent independent validation even when files are available.
No verified artifact manifest is connected to this record yet. The gaps above identify what is needed before analysis can begin.
2 evaluations · 4 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.
Applied filters: All linked evaluations
| Tested configuration | Protocol and dataset | Finding | Evidence and details |
|---|---|---|---|
| Configuration: Baseline CNN (PyTorch) | Task: Genomic Benchmarks DEMO-CODING-VS-INTERGENOMIC-SEQS-ACCURACY: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs, Accuracy Dataset subset: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs (Genomic Benchmarks split) | 87.6% accuracy percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceThe paper's own three-layer convolutional baseline, trained on each dataset's training split and scored on its test split. Architecture is in Table 1. Aggregation: Not reported Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification · Table 2, row(demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs), column(Baseline CNN (PyTorch) Accuracy) |
| Configuration: Baseline CNN (PyTorch) | Task: Genomic Benchmarks DEMO-CODING-VS-INTERGENOMIC-SEQS-F1: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs, F1 score Dataset subset: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs (Genomic Benchmarks split) | 86.8% f1 percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceThe paper's own three-layer convolutional baseline, trained on each dataset's training split and scored on its test split. Architecture is in Table 1. Aggregation: Not reported Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification · Table 2, row(demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs), column(Baseline CNN (PyTorch) F1 score) |
| Configuration: Baseline CNN (TensorFlow) | Task: Genomic Benchmarks DEMO-CODING-VS-INTERGENOMIC-SEQS-ACCURACY: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs, Accuracy Dataset subset: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs (Genomic Benchmarks split) | 89.6% accuracy percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceThe paper's own three-layer convolutional baseline, trained on each dataset's training split and scored on its test split. Architecture is in Table 1. Aggregation: Not reported Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification · Table 2, row(demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs), column(Baseline CNN (TensorFlow) Accuracy) |
| Configuration: Baseline CNN (TensorFlow) | Task: Genomic Benchmarks DEMO-CODING-VS-INTERGENOMIC-SEQS-F1: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs, F1 score Dataset subset: demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs (Genomic Benchmarks split) | 89.4% f1 percent · higher Uncertainty: Not reported Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible | Author-reported evaluation · Source checkedMethods, coverage and sourceThe paper's own three-layer convolutional baseline, trained on each dataset's training split and scored on its test split. Architecture is in Table 1. Aggregation: Not reported Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification · Table 2, row(demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs), column(Baseline CNN (TensorFlow) F1 score) |
Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220.
This record describes a particular subset or cohort used in an evaluation. Its results do not describe the full dataset.
Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.
Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.
One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.
2 evidence rows matching the loaded filters
| Property and statement | Original source and location | Review and provenance |
|---|---|---|
| description The split of demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs that Genomic Benchmarks evaluated on. The upstream dataset release is not catalogued here, so no claim is made that this matches its original splits. Context-only references | Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification No field-specific location recorded Version: PMC10150520 | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Exact retrieved primary paper artifact bytes. |
| name demo_coding_vs_intergenomic_seqs (Genomic Benchmarks split) Context-only references | Genomic benchmarks: a collection of datasets for genomic sequence classification No field-specific location recorded Version: PMC10150520 | not individually reviewed No individual claim review recorded Audit detailsField: Source artifact SHA-256: Hash scope: Exact retrieved primary paper artifact bytes. |
View linked audit checks and correction history
Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220 · Record review: source checked
Stable ID: genomic-benchmarks-dataset-demo-coding-vs-intergenomic-seqs