An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.
Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.
12 recorded evaluations, 12 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.
Sorted by Macro F1 (averaged macro F1 (Figure 3 caption: 'averaged macro F1'), printed on a 0 to 100 scale) (higher is better). The best value in each column is highlighted. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.
Tested configuration
Macro F1 (averaged macro F1 (Figure 3 caption: 'averaged macro F1'), printed on a 0 to 100 scale)
Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.
0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.
No execution recipe linked to this protocol. Recipe availability does not establish a completed evaluation.
Author-reported evaluations
12
Literature evidence is not a Rewire measurement. Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.
Null control
Proposed control: requires review
Training-set class prior where supervised fitting is permitted
Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.
This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.
Conventional reference
Proposed control: requires review
Regularised classifier on simple permitted features, or protocol's conventional reference
Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.
This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.
Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.
Run instructions
No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this protocol. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.
Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions
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.
0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters
Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statement
Original source and location
Review and provenance
No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.
Train on the task's training split and score Subcellular localization (PEER) on its test split; five random seeds per method, mean and standard deviation reported.
metric
macro-f1
metric direction
higher
unit
percent
metric qualifier
averaged macro F1 (Figure 3 caption: 'averaged macro F1'), printed on a 0 to 100 scale
version
As published 2025
source locator
Subcellular localization (PEER): column 'Averaged F1 ↑' of its table in Tables 2 to 8
replicates
Five random seeds (table footnote a: 'we used five different random seeds to perform independent runs, reporting the average results along with their standard deviations')
limitations
Author-reported results: the DeepProtein authors ran every method.