rewirebio.iobenchmarks
Evaluation

No change on Norman doubles (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025)

Benchmark run by the paper's authors. The per-model mean is computed by Rewire from the authors' Source Data rows; not reproduced.

Evaluation results

1 evaluation · 1 result. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Filter evaluations

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configurationProtocol and datasetFindingEvidence and details
Configuration: No change (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025)Protocol: Norman double perturbations: expression prediction for held-out double perturbations (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025 Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a)
Dataset: Norman et al. 2019 Perturb-seq, K562 CRISPRa single and double perturbations (scFoundation reprocessing, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025)
5.62 L2 distance (1,000 most highly expressed control genes; mean over held-out perturbations and splits)Computed by Rewire from the authors' source data
unit-unreported · lower

Uncertainty: Not reported by the source: No spread of the mean is stated; Rewire did not compute one

Coverage: 310/310 perturbation-split rows scored

Author-reported evaluation · Source checked
Methods, coverage and source

No change on Norman doubles (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025)

perturbation-ahlmann-20261011-protocol-norman-double

Aggregation: Not reported

Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines; Source Data Fig. 1, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025 · Source Data Fig. 1 (MOESM3), sheet "Panel A", rows with dataset_name "norman_from_scfoundation" and method "no_change", column "l2"; plotted as the red line in Fig. 1a

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6.

Research readiness

0 of 4 readiness checks met. These checks assess whether the evidence supports a reproducible investigation; a source-checked score alone does not meet them.

Readiness checks, gaps and artifacts

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Evidence verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Replay metrics

Exact outcomes, predictions, identifiers and evaluator are connected.

Missing or unresolved evidence

  • No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
  • File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
  • Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
  • Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
  • Metrics are recomputed from the saved predictions: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Investigate discrepancies

Replay evidence includes annotations and an assessment of dependence. Unknown independence permits descriptive analysis only.

Missing or unresolved evidence

  • No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
  • File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
  • Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
  • Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
  • Metrics are recomputed from the saved predictions: not yet verified
  • Sample annotations are recorded: not yet verified
  • Dependence between samples is assessed: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Run locally

A pinned recipe describes the inputs, environment and resource requirements.

Missing or unresolved evidence

  • No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
  • File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
  • Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
  • Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
  • A pinned run recipe exists: not yet verified
  • Compute requirements are estimated: not yet verified

Verified: Not verified

Evidence incomplete

Validate independently

Separate data and exposure records support an independent test.

Missing or unresolved evidence

  • No verified artifact manifest is linked to this exact record.
  • File checksums match the recorded files: not yet verified
  • Predictions are matched to the right samples: not yet verified
  • Score meaning and direction are confirmed: not yet verified
  • Independent validation data exist: not yet verified
  • Overlap with training data is checked: not yet verified

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.

Artifacts and reproduction

No verified artifact manifest is connected to this record yet. The gaps above identify what is needed before analysis can begin.

Evaluation procedure

Norman double perturbations: expression prediction for held-out double perturbations (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025 Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a)

Configuration
No change (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025)
Protocol
Norman double perturbations: expression prediction for held-out double perturbations (Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025 Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a)
Dataset
Norman et al. 2019 Perturb-seq, K562 CRISPRa single and double perturbations (scFoundation reprocessing, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025)
origin
Author-reported evaluation
configuration
Primary source as retrieved 2026-10-11
protocol id
perturbation-ahlmann-20261011-protocol-norman-double
dataset version
scFoundation reprocessing, figshare file 44477939
split
All 100 single perturbations and a random half (62) of the 124 doubles for training; the other 62 doubles held out (31 labelled test and 31 val in the Source Data); repeated with five random splits
population
62 held-out double perturbations in each of five splits (310 rows per model)
inputs
Expression of training perturbations and control; identity of the perturbed genes
adaptation
Fine-tuned, fitted or applied per split by the paper's authors with default parameters where possible
metric implementation
L2 distance and Pearson delta over the 1,000 most highly expressed genes in the control condition (Methods 'Evaluation metrics')
aggregation
Arithmetic mean per model over held-out perturbations, pooling test and val rows and all splits
budget
Not reported

Metadata review: source checked. Unreported conditions prevent automatic comparisons.

Reproduction

Split
All 100 single perturbations and a random half (62) of the 124 doubles for training; the other 62 doubles held out (31 labelled test and 31 val in the Source Data); repeated with five random splits
Adaptation
Fine-tuned, fitted or applied per split by the paper's authors with default parameters where possible
Scoring implementation
L2 distance and Pearson delta over the 1,000 most highly expressed genes in the control condition (Methods 'Evaluation metrics')

No execution recipe has been verified for this exact configuration and evaluation. A benchmark's general instructions may use different inputs, splits or model settings.

Reproducing this published result requires matching its model configuration, data, split and scorer. Source checking or a successful smoke test does not establish score reproduction.

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

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.

38 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
Comparison: adaptation
Fine-tuned, fitted or applied per split by the paper's authors with default parameters where possible
Context-only references
Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Nature Methods 22(8):1657, published online 2025-08-04; PMC12328236 full-text XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.adaptation

Source artifact SHA-256: dc5ccf62cb51d301f327a3c3e629d60be719bb2aaf02b57fb4999be43a4d95c7

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Comparison: adaptation
Fine-tuned, fitted or applied per split by the paper's authors with default parameters where possible
Context-only references
Source Data Fig. 1, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Source Data Fig. 1 (41592_2025_2772_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx) as published with the article
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.adaptation

Source artifact SHA-256: c9bd4d688b8ca8a3d3846593da3bab80cc2e65dbdbdc251a96b2bdcd05b75081

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Comparison: aggregation
Arithmetic mean per model over held-out perturbations, pooling test and val rows and all splits
Context-only references
Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Nature Methods 22(8):1657, published online 2025-08-04; PMC12328236 full-text XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.aggregation

Source artifact SHA-256: dc5ccf62cb51d301f327a3c3e629d60be719bb2aaf02b57fb4999be43a4d95c7

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Comparison: aggregation
Arithmetic mean per model over held-out perturbations, pooling test and val rows and all splits
Context-only references
Source Data Fig. 1, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Source Data Fig. 1 (41592_2025_2772_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx) as published with the article
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.aggregation

Source artifact SHA-256: c9bd4d688b8ca8a3d3846593da3bab80cc2e65dbdbdc251a96b2bdcd05b75081

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Comparison: budget
Not reported
Context-only references
Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Nature Methods 22(8):1657, published online 2025-08-04; PMC12328236 full-text XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

missing or unspecified

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.budget

Source artifact SHA-256: dc5ccf62cb51d301f327a3c3e629d60be719bb2aaf02b57fb4999be43a4d95c7

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Comparison: budget
Not reported
Context-only references
Source Data Fig. 1, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Source Data Fig. 1 (41592_2025_2772_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx) as published with the article
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

missing or unspecified

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.budget

Source artifact SHA-256: c9bd4d688b8ca8a3d3846593da3bab80cc2e65dbdbdc251a96b2bdcd05b75081

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Comparison: dataset version
scFoundation reprocessing, figshare file 44477939
Context-only references
Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Nature Methods 22(8):1657, published online 2025-08-04; PMC12328236 full-text XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.dataset_version

Source artifact SHA-256: dc5ccf62cb51d301f327a3c3e629d60be719bb2aaf02b57fb4999be43a4d95c7

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Comparison: dataset version
scFoundation reprocessing, figshare file 44477939
Context-only references
Source Data Fig. 1, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Source Data Fig. 1 (41592_2025_2772_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx) as published with the article
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.dataset_version

Source artifact SHA-256: c9bd4d688b8ca8a3d3846593da3bab80cc2e65dbdbdc251a96b2bdcd05b75081

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Comparison: inputs
Expression of training perturbations and control; identity of the perturbed genes
Context-only references
Deep-learning-based gene perturbation effect prediction does not yet outperform simple linear baselines

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Nature Methods 22(8):1657, published online 2025-08-04; PMC12328236 full-text XML
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.inputs

Source artifact SHA-256: dc5ccf62cb51d301f327a3c3e629d60be719bb2aaf02b57fb4999be43a4d95c7

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

Inspected artifact

Comparison: inputs
Expression of training perturbations and control; identity of the perturbed genes
Context-only references
Source Data Fig. 1, Ahlmann-Eltze et al. 2025

Original source ↗

Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"

Shared locator for this statement’s cited sources; not a separate locator for each citation.

Version: Source Data Fig. 1 (41592_2025_2772_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx) as published with the article
Retrieved: 2026-10-11T00:48:13Z

not individually reviewed

No individual claim review recorded

author reported

Audit details

Field: attributes.comparison.inputs

Source artifact SHA-256: c9bd4d688b8ca8a3d3846593da3bab80cc2e65dbdbdc251a96b2bdcd05b75081

Hash scope: Hash scope not separately documented; inspect source record

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked

2 source records and release historyDownload this release (gzip)
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: perturbation-ahlmann-20261011-eval-norman-no-change

areas
cells-tissues; single-cell
contexts
research
origin
author_reported
protocol
perturbation-ahlmann-20261011-protocol-norman-double
version
Primary source as retrieved 2026-10-11
comparison
protocol id: perturbation-ahlmann-20261011-protocol-norman-double; dataset version: scFoundation reprocessing, figshare file 44477939; split: All 100 single perturbations and a random half (62) of the 124 doubles for training; the other 62 doubles held out (31 labelled test and 31 val in the Source Data); repeated with five random splits; population: 62 held-out double perturbations in each of five splits (310 rows per model); inputs: Expression of training perturbations and control; identity of the perturbed genes; adaptation: Fine-tuned, fitted or applied per split by the paper's authors with default parameters where possible; metric implementation: L2 distance and Pearson delta over the 1,000 most highly expressed genes in the control condition (Methods 'Evaluation metrics'); aggregation: Arithmetic mean per model over held-out perturbations, pooling test and val rows and all splits; budget: Not reported
source locator
Fig. 1a and Extended Data Fig. 2a; Source Data method "no_change"
limitations
Baseline built or adopted by the paper's authors, who conclude that simple baselines are not outperformed.
Related records

Suggest a correction