rewire.itbenchmarks
Task

GENEB LINEAR-PROBE: Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe

Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe. Scored with Macro-MCC on GENEB representative task subset. Frozen embeddings scored with a probe over the thirteen representative tasks, one from each functional category (Table 7).

11 evaluations · 11 results

Overview

Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe. Scored with Macro-MCC on GENEB representative task subset. Frozen embeddings scored with a probe over the thirteen representative tasks, one from each functional category (Table 7).

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

Results

Each comparison retains its reviewed evaluation scope, dataset and metric. Results are shown without a pooled ranking.

GENEB LINEAR-PROBE: Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe

macro_mcc (correlation) · Higher values are better.

GENEB LINEAR-PROBE: Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe · GENEB representative task subset (GENEB split)

Evidence origin: Author-reported evaluation.

GENEB: Why Genomic Models Are Hard to Compare · Table 8, column(Linear MCC)
  • These are averages over the thirteen representative tasks, not a score on any single task.
  • The paper's own point is that these rankings shift with the probe and the protocol, so a position here is not a general ranking.
Comparison details and limitations

Every method GENEB reports on Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe, scored with Macro-MCC on GENEB representative task subset.

  • Author-reported numbers, source checked but not independently reproduced.

Automated source review: 2026-09-18. Numerical source review does not establish independent reproduction.

Dots show point estimates. Whiskers show only explicitly defined uncertainty (standard deviation, standard error or a labelled interval); their definitions remain in Table. Unresolved uncertainty is not plotted. Differences do not establish statistical significance.

Showing 11 of 11 matching rows.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

Evaluation design

Benchmarks bring together tasks and protocols. A task describes the biological question; a protocol defines a particular test.

Benchmarks

These source-backed links do not make different protocols or scores interchangeable.

Recorded evaluations

Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.

Run instructions

No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this task. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.

A task describes a biological question. Choose a linked protocol to obtain concrete split and scoring instructions.

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.

1 evidence row matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220
Property and statementOriginal source and locationReview and provenance
Relationship: part of
discovery-benchmark-geneb
Individual claims
GENEB: Why Genomic Models Are Hard to Compare

Original source ↗

Table 8, column(Linear MCC)

Version: 2606.04525v1
Retrieved: 2026-09-17T07:56:09.460928+00:00

source checked

automated source review · 2026-09-18

Audit details

Primary-source transcription with no human sign-off and no independent reproduction.

Field: links:part_of:discovery-benchmark-geneb

Claim: geneb-association-linear-probe

Source artifact SHA-256: 47975089c0ca738d5e2d6e6ea91cd4e7b80498c3f175803d8ec39ca77aa41629

Hash scope: Exact retrieved primary paper artifact bytes.

Inspected artifact

Sources and history

View linked audit checks and correction history

Release 2026-09-29-06401fd5b220 · Record review: source checked

1 source records and release historyDownload this release
Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: geneb-task-linear-probe

areas
dna-genomes
tasks
Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe
metric
Macro-MCC
metric direction
higher
dataset
GENEB representative task subset
protocol
Frozen embeddings scored with a probe over the thirteen representative tasks, one from each functional category (Table 7).
source locator
Table 8, column(Linear MCC)
comparison panels
id: geneb-panel-linear-probe; title: GENEB LINEAR-PROBE: Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe; protocol id: geneb-task-linear-probe; dataset id: geneb-dataset-geneb-representative-task-subset; metric: macro_mcc; unit: correlation; direction: higher; result ids: geneb-result-generator-eukaryote-3b-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-generator-eukaryote-1-2b-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-lucaone-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-genomeocean-4b-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-omni-dna-1b-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-genomeocean-500m-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-gena-lm-large-t2t-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-mutbert-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-nt-v2-50m-ms-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-grover-linear-probe-macro-mcc; geneb-result-hyenadna-large-1m-linear-probe-macro-mcc; source ids: evidence-expansion-p2-evidence-discovery-final-geneb-47975089c0ca; source locator: Table 8, column(Linear MCC); context: Every method GENEB reports on Average macro-MCC across the 13 representative tasks, linear probe, scored with Macro-MCC on GENEB representative task subset.; caveats: Author-reported numbers, source checked but not independently reproduced.; These are averages over the thirteen representative tasks, not a score on any single task.; The paper's own point is that these rankings shift with the probe and the protocol, so a position here is not a general ranking.; review: method: automated_source_review; date: 2026-09-18
Related records

Suggest a correction