Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Source content · Analysis pending2 min read

Do Perturbation Predictors Learn Gene Interactions? Diagnosing Extrapolation in Agentic Screening

Summary

arXiv:2610.18880v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: High-throughput perturbation screens increasingly use machine-learning models to predict the effects of gene combinations that were never measured. A difficult case arises when both genes in a test pair were seen individually during training, but their combination was not. In this setting, standard OOD methods often fail because neither gene appears unfamiliar on its own. We therefore compare each model prediction with a simple additive prediction obtained by summing the two observed single-gene effects. The difference between them, which we call additive disagreement (AD), measures how much extra interaction effect the model introduces for an unseen combination. Across eight prediction methods and three Perturb-seq datasets, specialised neu…

SourcearXiv Machine LearningAuthor: Ziyuan Gao
Do Perturbation Predictors Learn Gene Interactions? Diagnosing Extrapolation in Agentic Screening
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 1 Oct 2026]

Title:Do Perturbation Predictors Learn Gene Interactions? Diagnosing Extrapolation in Agentic Screening

View a PDF of the paper titled Do Perturbation Predictors Learn Gene Interactions? Diagnosing Extrapolation in Agentic Screening, by Ziyuan Gao

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:High-throughput perturbation screens increasingly use machine-learning models to predict the effects of gene combinations that were never measured. A difficult case arises when both genes in a test pair were seen individually during training, but their combination was not. In this setting, standard OOD methods often fail because neither gene appears unfamiliar on its own. We therefore compare each model prediction with a simple additive prediction obtained by summing the two observed single-gene effects. The difference between them, which we call additive disagreement (AD), measures how much extra interaction effect the model introduces for an unseen combination. Across eight prediction methods and three Perturb-seq datasets, specialised neural predictors do not consistently outperform this simple additive baseline. More importantly, predictions with larger deviations from the additive baseline tend to have larger errors. Conventional output-based and embedding-based confidence signals are inconsistent across datasets and models, whereas AD remains informative across all evaluated compositional settings. We further study how this signal can guide decisions in an agentic perturbation-screening workflow. The code is available at this https URL.

Comments: Accepted at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop ML4Molecules: Agentic Systems for Molecular Sciences

Subjects:

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Genomics (q-bio.GN)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.18880 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2610.18880v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.18880

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: Ziyuan Gao [view email] [v1] Thu, 1 Oct 2026 02:29:02 UTC (2,117 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Do Perturbation Predictors Learn Gene Interactions? Diagnosing Extrapolation in Agentic Screening, by Ziyuan Gao

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.LG

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs cs.AI q-bio q-bio.GN

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

IArxiv recommender toggle

IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • AI generation is temporarily unavailable; this entry was preserved with deterministic fallback metadata.
  • arXiv:2610.18880v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: High-throughput perturbation screens increasingly use machine-learning models to predict the effects of gene combinations that were…

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.