Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 73 references

scSSL-Bench: Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning for Single-Cell Data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A benchmark of nineteen self-supervised methods finds that the best method depends on the task: specialized models win uni-modal batch correction, while generic SimCLR and VICReg win multi-omics and cell typing.

desk verdict A useful, broad benchmark with one overclaimed conclusion; the multi-modal generic-wins result mostly holds but the fairness caveat and the 'masking across tasks' overstatement need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10031 v1 pith:FMUJI42Z submitted 2025-06-10 q-bio.QM cs.LG

Olga Ovcharenko , Florian Barkmann , Philip Toma , Imant Daunhawer , Julia Vogt , Sebastian Schelter , Valentina Boeva This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.LG
keywords self-supervisedlearningsingle-cellRNA-seqmulti-omicsintegrationbatchcorrectioncelltypeannotationmissingmodalitypredictioncontrastivedataaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper benchmarks nineteen self-supervised learning (SSL) methods on nine single-cell datasets, asking whether methods designed for genomics beat generic ones. It claims that specialized methods do win at correcting batch effects in single-modality RNA data, with scVI, CLAIRE, and fine-tuned scGPT leading. But for multi-omics data, and for cell-type annotation and missing-modality prediction, generic contrastive methods SimCLR and VICReg perform best. The paper also claims that random masking is the most effective augmentation, beating biology-inspired neighbor-based augmentations, and that concatenation is the best way to combine modalities. The benchmark matters because it gives practitioners a concrete recipe for which method, augmentation, and integration strategy to use.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the benchmark protocol itself: a fixed two-layer encoder shared by all generic methods, a projection head used only during training, and a common set of augmentations that create two views of each cell. Within that protocol, the decisive components are the augmentation operators (masking, Gaussian noise, InnerSwap, CrossOver, and the neighbor-based MNN and BBKNN) and the downstream probes, since the same embeddings are scored by batch-correction metrics, a k-nearest-neighbour classifier for cell typing, and kNN-based Pearson correlation for missing-modality prediction. The protocol is what makes the rankings comparable, and it is also the source of the paper's central caveat: hyperparameters such as representation size 64 and temperature 0.5 are fixed across all methods.

What would settle it

Re-run the multi-modal benchmarks while letting each method use its own preferred encoder, pretraining corpus, and tuned hyperparameters; if specialized multi-modal methods such as totalVI, scCLIP, or scButterfly then match or beat SimCLR and VICReg on cell typing and missing-modality prediction, the paper's main comparative claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the task determines which family of methods wins. For merging single-modal scRNA-seq batches, the specialized generative and contrastive frameworks scVI, CLAIRE, and fine-tuned scGPT preserve biological signal best, and the paper attributes their edge to using experimental batch labels during training. On multi-modal CITE-seq data, however, generic self-supervised methods SimCLR and VICReg outperform specialized multi-modal methods across batch integration, cell typing, and missing-modality prediction; the paper reads this as evidence that current specialized multi-modal frameworks are not yet competitive. A second discovery, from the ablation study, is that random masking wins as the augmentation strategy, both alone and in combination, and that concatenation is the most effective way to integrate modalities.

Load-bearing premise

The rankings assume that comparing every method under one shared encoder architecture and one set of hyperparameters is fair, even though specialized methods were designed with their own training setups and some foundation models rely on large external pretraining data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For multi-omics single-cell projects, SimCLR or VICReg with random masking and concatenated modality embeddings is the recommended default, not a biology-specific SSL framework.
  • For uni-modal scRNA-seq batch correction, scVI, CLAIRE, or fine-tuned scGPT remain the better choice, so the best method depends on the downstream task.
  • Masking should replace domain-specific augmentations as the default view-generation strategy for contrastive single-cell SSL.
  • Retaining the projector or adding per-batch batch normalization is not worth the extra complexity, since it generally lowers the total integration score.
  • Because current specialized multi-modal frameworks lag generic ones, new multi-modal SSL methods are needed, and this benchmark supplies the evaluation protocol for testing them.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The fixed-encoder protocol may understate specialized generative and foundation models, which were designed for other architectures; a per-method hyperparameter search could change the multi-modal rankings.
  • Masking's success is consistent with viewing single-cell SSL as denoising: zeroing a fraction of genes forces the encoder to infer expression from context, which may transfer well to missing-modality prediction.
  • A natural next test is whether the same recipe (SimCLR or VICReg plus masking plus concatenation) scales to atlases with hundreds of cell types, where the benchmark only hints with a single run on a million-cell dataset.
  • If the field adopts the benchmark's fixed-protocol ranking, future methods may be tuned to this specific evaluation, so protocol choices such as embedding size 64 and temperature 0.5 should be re-validated as method designs evolve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces scSSL-Bench, an open-source benchmark that evaluates nineteen self-supervised learning (SSL) methods on nine single-cell datasets across three downstream tasks: batch correction, cell type annotation, and missing modality prediction. It compares generic SSL methods (SimCLR, MoCo, VICReg, etc.) with single-cell-specific contrastive and generative methods, including foundation models, and includes ablations of augmentations, embedding and projection dimensionality, temperature, batch normalization variants, and multi-modal integration strategies. The main claims are that specialized methods (scVI, CLAIRE, finetuned scGPT) are best for uni-modal batch correction; that generic SSL methods (SimCLR, VICReg) are best for multi-omics integration, cell typing, and missing modality prediction; and that random masking is the most effective augmentation across all tasks. The authors release their code and evaluate most experiments with five random seeds.

Significance. If the claims hold, scSSL-Bench provides a practically useful reference for choosing SSL methods and augmentations in single-cell genomics, and its open-source implementation is a valuable community resource. The breadth of the comparison (19 methods, 9 datasets, 3 tasks) and the use of multiple seeds are clear strengths. However, the headline recommendations are currently stated more strongly than the evidence supports: the comparison between generic and specialized methods rests on an asymmetric hyperparameter protocol, and the masking conclusion is tested only on batch correction, not on all three tasks. These issues are addressable and do not invalidate the benchmark itself, but they need to be fixed before the paper's practical recommendations can be accepted at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2 and Appendix D] The comparison between generic and specialized methods is confounded by an asymmetric hyperparameter protocol. Generic methods have their embedding dimensionality, temperature, augmentation strengths, and VICReg regularization parameters selected by grid search on the HIC and MCA datasets using the same scIB total score that later generates the rankings in Table 1, whereas scVI/totalVI, scCLIP, Concerto, and the foundation models are run with their original/default or pretrained configurations. The multi-modal gaps in Table 1 (e.g., VICReg total 0.761 vs. totalVI total 0.562 on BMMC; SimCLR total 0.700 vs. scCLIP total 0.546 on PBMC-M) could shift if these specialized methods received a comparable tuning budget. Because the paper's central recommendation for multi-omics integration rests on these rankings, the manuscript should either include a sensitivity analysis in which the specialized methods are tuned over latent dimensionality, learning rate, and training epochs, or explicitly restrict the claim to performance under the fixed common configuration.
  2. [Abstract, Section 4.2, and Section 5] The paper claims that random masking is the most effective augmentation 'across all tasks,' but the augmentation ablation in Section 4.2 and Figure 5 evaluates only batch-correction total scores on HIC, MCA, and PBMC. No augmentation ablation is reported for cell-type annotation or missing modality prediction. The experiments should be extended to those tasks, or the claim should be revised to state that masking is the most effective augmentation for batch correction under the evaluated settings.
  3. [Appendix E and Section 4.2] Appendix E states that the MNN augmentation 'refers to our implementation of CLAIRE’s augmentation' but omits CLAIRE's early-training representation-similarity filtering. The conclusion in Section 4.2 that masking 'surpasses even sophisticated biology-specific approaches that incorporate batch information, such as MNN and BBKNN' therefore compares masking against a simplified variant of MNN. Please either implement the original MNN procedure or qualify the conclusion so that it refers to the simplified MNN variant used in this benchmark.
  4. [Table H11] The Tabula Sapiens results are based on a single run and therefore carry no variance estimate. Since the main text refers to these results when discussing scalability, the single-run nature of these scores should be stated prominently in the main text, not only in the table caption.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5] The sentence 'For multi-omics data, the generic methods SimCLR and VICReg perform the best and even outperform all other methods in the cell type annotation and missing modality prediction tasks for single-modal data' is internally confusing; please clarify whether the outperformance is on multi-modal or single-modal data.
  2. [Figure 5 and Figure G7] The row and column labels 'Augmentation 1' and 'Augmentation 2' use the same six augmentation names on both axes, which makes it difficult to see the order in which the two augmentations are applied; a note explaining the sequential order would help.
  3. [Table 1 and Table H1] Because batch-correction scores are min-max scaled within each dataset, total scores are not directly comparable across datasets; the paper should acknowledge this limitation in the passages that summarize which methods are 'best' across datasets.
  4. [Section 3.2] The definitions of the augmentations would benefit from a brief note that the probabilities and strengths are applied sequentially and that the order matters, since Figure 5 and Figure G7 present pairwise combinations without stating the order of application.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Empirical benchmark is self-contained; no prediction reduces to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain.

full rationale

scSSL-Bench is an empirical benchmark rather than a derivation chain: representations are trained with fixed protocols and downstream scores (scIB totals, macro-F1/accuracy, Pearson correlation of kNN-inferred missing modalities) are computed against held-out annotations and held-out protein/ADT measurements. No parameter is fitted to the target result and then reported as a prediction. Embedding size 64 is selected on HIC and MCA and then applied to other datasets; temperature 0.5 is inspected across datasets including PBMC-M and BMMC, but the headline multi-modal and cell-typing comparisons are generated by the same fixed protocol for all nineteen methods, and the missing-modality Pearson correlations use held-out query batches via kNN probing. The single self-citation (Toma et al., 2024) is used only to motivate the knowledge gap and is not load-bearing for any result. The skeptic-flagged fairness confound - generic methods receive hyperparameter selection on the scIB metric while specialized methods run with defaults or pretrained weights - is a genuine validity concern for ordinal rankings, but it is a confound, not a circular reduction: no equation is defined in terms of the conclusion, and no reported value equals its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark's conclusions rest on dataset annotations, evaluation metrics, and a fixed common training protocol rather than on fitted parameters; the hyperparameters listed are tuned on validation datasets (HIC, MCA) and then applied across all datasets, which is standard benchmark practice.

free parameters (4)
  • embedding_dim = 64
    Grid search over {8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024} on HIC and MCA; used for all subsequent experiments (Section 4.2).
  • temperature = 0.5
    PyTorch default; evaluated values {0.1,0.5,1,5,10}; lower temperature generally better; 0.5 chosen for subsequent experiments (Section 4.2).
  • augmentation_strengths = masking alpha=0.5, gaussian alpha=0.3 sigma=0.2, innerSwap alpha=0.3, CrossOver alpha=0.1, BBKNN/MNN alpha=0.5 knn=3
    Grid search per augmentation on HIC (Table H10, Appendix E).
  • VICReg_lambda_alpha = 5
    Grid search over {5,10,25,50} for invariance and variance terms on HIC and MCA (Appendix D).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cell type annotations in the nine public datasets are accurate ground truth.
    Used for evaluating bio conservation, cell type annotation, and missing modality tasks; errors in annotations would bias all methods similarly but affect conclusions.
  • domain assumption scIB metrics (bio conservation, batch correction) and kNN-based probing are valid proxies for downstream utility.
    The benchmark claims are based on these metrics (Section 3.1, Appendix C); if they do not reflect real biological utility, rankings may mislead.
  • domain assumption Training the same encoder architecture and hyperparameters for all generic SSL methods provides a fair comparison.
    Common design choice in benchmarks, but it may disadvantage methods whose performance depends on architecture-specific hyperparameters; stated in Appendix D.
  • domain assumption Pretrained foundation models (scGPT, Geneformer, scBERT) are evaluated fairly despite being pretrained on external corpora.
    Finetuned and zero-shot results are compared against methods trained from scratch; differences in pretraining data are not controlled (Section 3.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of scSSL-Bench: Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning for Single-Cell Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FMUJI42Z

@misc{pith2026250610031,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: scSSL-Bench: Benchmarking Self-Supervised Learning for Single-Cell Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FMUJI42Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10031}
}
read the original abstract

Self-supervised learning (SSL) has proven to be a powerful approach for extracting biologically meaningful representations from single-cell data. To advance our understanding of SSL methods applied to single-cell data, we present scSSL-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark that evaluates nineteen SSL methods. Our evaluation spans nine datasets and focuses on three common downstream tasks: batch correction, cell type annotation, and missing modality prediction. Furthermore, we systematically assess various data augmentation strategies. Our analysis reveals task-specific trade-offs: the specialized single-cell frameworks, scVI, CLAIRE, and the finetuned scGPT excel at uni-modal batch correction, while generic SSL methods, such as VICReg and SimCLR, demonstrate superior performance in cell typing and multi-modal data integration. Random masking emerges as the most effective augmentation technique across all tasks, surpassing domain-specific augmentations. Notably, our results indicate the need for a specialized single-cell multi-modal data integration framework. scSSL-Bench provides a standardized evaluation platform and concrete recommendations for applying SSL to single-cell analysis, advancing the convergence of deep learning and single-cell genomics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10031 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Outline of scSSL-Bench: 1 As input, scSSL-Bench takes scRNA-seq data (cell-by-gene count matrix), where each value in the matrix represents the number of reads in a cell for the corresponding gene. 2 scSSL-Bench trains one of nineteen methods: Generic, specialized contrastive (Bio Contrast), specialized generative (Bio Gen), and baselines. For self-supervised generic methods, scSSL-Bench uses augmentations 3 to crea… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Uni-modal cell-typing with one sequencing technology (10X 5’ v2) of the Immune Cell Atlas as a hold-out set. We train the encoder and classifier. The finetuned scGPT and Geneformer perform the best, while the generic VICReg method is a close third. The methods are grouped by category (baselines, specialized generative, specialized contrastive, and generic). where unique batches were used as hold-out data. The best-p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Missing modality prediction for models trained on the multi-modal datasets, PBMC and BMMC. We show the average Pearson correlation between the original and inferred missing modality: protein for PBMC-M and ADT (protein abundance) for BMMC. The methods are sorted from worst (left) to best (right) within group (specialized contrastive, generative, and generic). 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Temperature impact on the loss of three contrastive meth￾ods on four datasets (columns). Bio conservation, batch correction, and total scores are represented on the y-axis. The results are not min-max scaled for easier comparison. Overall, smaller tempera￾ture leads to…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation of individual and combined data augmenta￾tions for the VICReg method based on total score for batch correc￾tion. Diagonal entries correspond to a single augmentation, and off-diagonal entries correspond to the two sequentially applied augmentations. Hyperpar…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION format.date year duplicate empty "emp...

  2. [2]

    VICReg: Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization for Self-Supervised Learning

    Bardes, A., Ponce, J., and LeCun, Y. VICReg: Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization for Self-Supervised Learning . In ICLR, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    The technological landscape and applications of single-cell multi-omics

    Baysoy, A., Bai, Z., Satija, R., and Fan, R. The technological landscape and applications of single-cell multi-omics . Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, 24 0 (10): 0 695--713, Oct 2023. ISSN 1471-0080. doi:10.1038/s41580-023-00615-w. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-023-00615-w

    doi:10.1038/s41580-023-00615-w 2023

  4. [4]

    A., Teichmann, S

    B \"u ttner, M., Miao, Z., Wolf, F. A., Teichmann, S. A., and Theis, F. J. A test metric for assessing single-cell RNA-seq batch correction . Nature Methods, 16 0 (1): 0 43--49, Jan 2019. ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0254-1. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-018-0254-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0254-1 2019

  5. [5]

    An empirical study on disentanglement of negative-free contrastive learning

    Cao, J., Nai, R., Yang, Q., Huang, J., and Gao, Y. An empirical study on disentanglement of negative-free contrastive learning . In NeurIPS, 2024 a . ISBN 9781713871088

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    scButterfly: a versatile single-cell cross-modality translation method via dual-aligned variational autoencoders

    Cao, Y., Zhao, X., Tang, S., Jiang, Q., Li, S., Li, S., and Chen, S. scButterfly: a versatile single-cell cross-modality translation method via dual-aligned variational autoencoders . Nature Communications , 15 0 (1): 0 2973, Apr 2024 b . ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47418-x. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-47418-x

    doi:10.1038/s41467-024-47418-x 2024

  7. [7]

    Domain-specific batch normalization for unsupervised domain adaptation

    Chang, W.-G., You, T., Seo, S., Kwak, S., and Han, B. Domain-specific batch normalization for unsupervised domain adaptation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 7354--7362, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Chen, T., Kornblith, S., Norouzi, M., and Hinton, G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations . In ICML, pp.\ 1597--1607, 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    and He, K

    Chen, X. and He, K. Exploring Simple Siamese Representation Learning , 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.10566

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A joint analysis of single cell transcriptomics and proteomics using transformer

    Chen, Y., Fan, X., Shi, C., Shi, Z., and Wang, C. A joint analysis of single cell transcriptomics and proteomics using transformer . npj Systems Biology and Applications, 11 0 (1): 0 1, Jan 2025. ISSN 2056-7189. doi:10.1038/s41540-024-00484-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s4154...

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    D., Xu, C., Jarvis, L

    Conde, C. D., Xu, C., Jarvis, L. B., Rainbow, D. B., Wells, S. B., et al. Cross-tissue immune cell analysis reveals tissue-specific features in humans. Science, 376 0 (6594): 0 eabl5197, 2022. doi:10.1126/science.abl5197. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.abl5197

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    scGPT: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative AI

    Cui, H., Wang, C., Maan, H., Pang, K., Luo, F., Duan, N., and Wang, B. scGPT: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative AI . Nature Methods, 21 0 (8): 0 1470--1480, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding . In Burstein, J., Doran, C., and Solorio, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North A merican Chapter of the Association for ...

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding . In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technolo...

    2019

  7. [15]

    K., Kowalczyk, M

    Ding, J., Adiconis, X., Simmons, S. K., Kowalczyk, M. S., Hession, C. C., et al. Systematic comparison of single-cell and single-nucleus rna-sequencing methods. Nature Biotechnology , 38 0 (6): 0 737--746, Jun 2020. ISSN 1546-1696. doi:10.1038/s41587-020-0465-8. URL https://do...

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    With a Little Help from My Friends: Nearest-Neighbor Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations , 2021

    Dwibedi, D., Aytar, Y., Tompson, J., Sermanet, P., and Zisserman, A. With a Little Help from My Friends: Nearest-Neighbor Contrastive Learning of Visual Representations , 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.14548

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M., Waldman, J., et al

    Eraslan, G., Drokhlyansky, E., Anand, S., Fiskin, E., Subramanian, A., Slyper, M., Wang, J., Van Wittenberghe, N., Rouhana, J. M., Waldman, J., et al. Single-nucleus cross-tissue molecular reference maps toward understanding disease gene function . Science, 376 0 (6594): 0 eab...

    2022

  10. [18]

    L., Streets, A., and Yosef, N

    Gayoso, A., Steier, Z., Lopez, R., Regier, J., Nazor, K. L., Streets, A., and Yosef, N. Joint probabilistic modeling of single-cell multi-omic data with totalVI . Nature Methods, 18 0 (3): 0 272--282, Mar 2021. ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/s41592-020-01050-x. URL https://doi.or...

    2021 doi

  11. [19]

    A Cookbook of Self-Supervised Learning , 2023

    Geiping, J., Garrido, Q., Fernandez, P., Bar, A., Pirsiavash, H., LeCun, Y., and Goldblum, M. A Cookbook of Self-Supervised Learning , 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.12210

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C., Modi, H., Kampman, L., and Corces, M

    Grandi, F. C., Modi, H., Kampman, L., and Corces, M. R. Chromatin accessibility profiling by ATAC-seq . Nature Protocols, 17 0 (6): 0 1518--1552, Jun 2022. ISSN 1750-2799. doi:10.1038/s41596-022-00692-9. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-022-00692-9

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning

    Grill, J.-B., Strub, F., Altch \'e , F., Tallec, C., Richemond, P., Buchatskaya, E., Doersch, C., Avila Pires, B., Guo, Z., Gheshlaghi Azar, M., et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. NeurIPS, 33: 0 21271--21284, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Self-supervised contrastive learning for integrative single cell RNA-seq data analysis

    Han, W., Cheng, Y., Chen, J., Zhong, H., Hu, Z., Chen, S., Zong, L., Hong, L., Chan, T.-F., King, I., Gao, X., and Li, Y. Self-supervised contrastive learning for integrative single cell RNA-seq data analysis . Briefings in Bioinformatics, 23 0 (5): 0 bbac377, 09 2022. ISSN 14...

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    M., Zheng, S., Butler, A., Lee, M

    Hao, Y., Hao, S., Andersen-Nissen, E., Mauck, W. M., Zheng, S., Butler, A., Lee, M. J., et al. Integrated analysis of multimodal single-cell data. Cell, 184 0 (13): 0 3573--3587.e29, 2021. ISSN 0092-8674. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.04.048. URL https://www.scienced...

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    H., Choudhary, S., Hoffman, P., et al

    Hao, Y., Stuart, T., Kowalski, M. H., Choudhary, S., Hoffman, P., et al. Dictionary learning for integrative, multimodal and scalable single-cell analysis . Nature Biotechnology , 42 0 (2): 0 293--304, Feb 2024. ISSN 1546-1696. doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01767-y. URL https://doi.o...

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning

    He, K., Fan, H., Wu, Y., Xie, S., and Girshick, R. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning . In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp.\ 9729--9738, 2020

    2020

  18. [26]

    D., Zhang, Y.-z., and Imoto, S

    Heryanto, Y. D., Zhang, Y.-z., and Imoto, S. Predicting cell types with supervised contrastive learning on cells and their types . Scientific Reports, 14 0 (1): 0 430, Jan 2024. ISSN 2045-2322. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-50185-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-50185-2

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Lance, C., Litinetskaya, A., Drost, F., Zappia, L., L \"u cken, M

    Heumos, L., Schaar, A. C., Lance, C., Litinetskaya, A., Drost, F., Zappia, L., L \"u cken, M. D., Strobl, D. C., Henao, J., Curion, F., et al. Best practices for single-cell analysis across modalities. Nature Reviews Genetics, 24 0 (8): 0 550--572, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Teacher-Student Architecture for Knowledge Distillation: A Survey , 2023

    Hu, C., Li, X., Liu, D., Wu, H., Chen, X., Wang, J., and Liu, X. Teacher-Student Architecture for Knowledge Distillation: A Survey , 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04268

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Understanding Dimensional Collapse in Contrastive Self-supervised Learning

    Jing, L., Vincent, P., LeCun, Y., and Tian, Y. Understanding Dimensional Collapse in Contrastive Self-supervised Learning . In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=YevsQ05DEN7

    2022

  22. [30]

    C., Karkanias, J., Krasnow, M

    Jones, R. C., Karkanias, J., Krasnow, M. A., Pisco, A. O., Quake, S. R., et al. The Tabula Sapiens: A multiple-organ, single-cell transcriptomic atlas of humans . Science, 376 0 (6594): 0 eabl4896, 2022. doi:10.1126/science.abl4896. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/...

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J. Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization , 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    a hnemann, D., K \

    L \"a hnemann, D., K \"o ster, J., Szczurek, E., McCarthy, D. J., Hicks, S. C., Robinson, M. D., Vallejos, C. A., Campbell, K. R., Beerenwinkel, N., Mahfouz, A., et al. Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science . Genome biology, 21 0 (1): 0 1--35, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    D., Burkhardt, D

    Lance, C., Luecken, M. D., Burkhardt, D. B., Cannoodt, R., Rautenstrauch, P., Laddach, A., Ubingazhibov, A., Cao, Z.-J., Deng, K., Khan, S., Liu, Q., Russkikh, N., et al. Multimodal single cell data integration challenge: Results and lessons learned . In NeurIPS Competitions a...

    2022

  26. [34]

    scBridge embraces cell heterogeneity in single-cell RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data integration

    Li, Y., Zhang, D., Yang, M., Peng, D., Yu, J., Liu, Y., Lv, J., Chen, L., and Peng, X. scBridge embraces cell heterogeneity in single-cell RNA-seq and ATAC-seq data integration . Nature Communications, 14 0 (1): 0 6045, Sep 2023. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41795-5....

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Single-Cell RNA-Seq Debiased Clustering via Batch Effect Disentanglement

    Li, Y., Lin, Y., Hu, P., Peng, D., Luo, H., and Peng, X. Single-Cell RNA-Seq Debiased Clustering via Batch Effect Disentanglement . IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 35 0 (8): 0 11371--11381, 2024. doi:10.1109/TNNLS.2023.3260003

    2024

  28. [36]

    CAKE: a flexible self-supervised framework for enhancing cell visualization, clustering and rare cell identification

    Liu, J., Zeng, W., Kan, S., Li, M., and Zheng, R. CAKE: a flexible self-supervised framework for enhancing cell visualization, clustering and rare cell identification . Briefings in Bioinformatics, 25 0 (1): 0 bbad475, 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    B., Jordan, M

    Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I., and Yosef, N. Deep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics . Nature Methods, 15 0 (12): 0 1053--1058, Dec 2018. ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/s41592-018-0229-2

    2018 doi

  30. [38]

    D., Khajavi, M., B \"u ttner, M., Wagenstetter, M., Avsec, Z ., Gayoso, A., Yosef, N., Interlandi, M., Rybakov, S., Misharin, A

    Lotfollahi, M., Naghipourfar, M., Luecken, M. D., Khajavi, M., B \"u ttner, M., Wagenstetter, M., Avsec, Z ., Gayoso, A., Yosef, N., Interlandi, M., Rybakov, S., Misharin, A. V., and Theis, F. J. Mapping single-cell data to reference atlases by transfer learning . Nature Biote...

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    A sandbox for prediction and integration of DNA, RNA, and proteins in single cells

    Luecken, M., Burkhardt, D., Cannoodt, R., Lance, C., Agrawal, A., Aliee, H., Chen, A., Deconinck, L., Detweiler, A., Granados, A., et al. A sandbox for prediction and integration of DNA, RNA, and proteins in single cells . In Vanschoren, J. and Yeung, S. (eds.), NeurIPS Track ...

    2021

  32. [40]

    u ttner, M., Chaichoompu, K., Danese, A., Interlandi, M., M \

    Luecken, M. D., B \"u ttner, M., Chaichoompu, K., Danese, A., Interlandi, M., M \"u ller, M. F., Strobl, D. C., Zappia, L., Dugas, M., Colom \'e -Tatch \'e , M., et al. Benchmarking atlas-level data integration in single-cell genomics . Nature Methods, 19 0 (1): 0 41--50, 2022

    2022

  33. [41]

    A closer look at benchmarking self-supervised pre-training with image classification

    Marks, M., Knott, M., Kondapaneni, N., Cole, E., Defraeye, T., Perez-Cruz, F., and Perona, P. A closer look at benchmarking self-supervised pre-training with image classification. International Journal of Computer Vision, Apr 2025. ISSN 1573-1405. doi:10.1007/s11263-025-02402-...

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    Min, B., Ross, H., Sulem, E., Veyseh, A. P. B., Nguyen, T. H., Sainz, O., Agirre, E., Heintz, I., and Roth, D. Recent advances in natural language processing via large pre-trained language models: A survey . ACM Computing Surveys, 56 0 (2): 0 1--40, 2023. doi:10.1145/3605943. ...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Pearson, K. LIII. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space . The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin philosophical magazine and journal of science, 2 0 (11): 0 559--572, 1901

    1901

  36. [44]

    D., Miao, Z., Meyer, K

    Pola \'n ski, K., Young, M. D., Miao, Z., Meyer, K. B., Teichmann, S. A., and Park, J.-E. BBKNN: Fast Batch Alignment of Single Cell Transcriptomes . Bioinformatics, 2019. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz625

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al

    Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision . In ICML, pp.\ 8748--8763, 2021

    2021

  38. [46]

    S., and Theis, F

    Richter, T., Bahrami, M., Xia, Y., Fischer, D. S., and Theis, F. J. Delineating the effective use of self-supervised learning in single-cell genomics . Nature Machine Intelligence, Dec 2024 a . ISSN 2522-5839. doi:10.1038/s42256-024-00934-3. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-...

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    S., and Theis, F

    Richter, T., Bahrami, M., Xia, Y., Fischer, D. S., and Theis, F. J. Delineating the Effective Use of Self-Supervised Learning in Single-Cell Genomics . bioRxiv, 2024 b . doi:10.1101/2024.02.16.580624. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/02/18/2024.02.16.580624

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    C., Rawat, Y

    Schiappa, M. C., Rawat, Y. S., and Shah, M. Self-supervised learning for videos: A survey . ACM Computing Surveys, 55 0 (13s): 0 1--37, 2023. doi:10.1145/3577925. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3577925

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Gillett, T

    Sikkema, L., Ram \'i rez-Su \'a stegui, C., Strobl, D. C., Gillett, T. E., Zappia, L., Madissoon, E., et al. An integrated cell atlas of the lung in health and disease . Nature Medicine , 29 0 (6): 0 1563--1577, Jun 2023. ISSN 1546-170X. doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02327-2. URL htt...

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    B., Ashenberg, O., Waldman, J., Drokhlyansky, E., Wakiro, I., Smillie, C., Smith-Rosario, G., Wu, J., Dionne, D., et al

    Slyper, M., Porter, C. B., Ashenberg, O., Waldman, J., Drokhlyansky, E., Wakiro, I., Smillie, C., Smith-Rosario, G., Wu, J., Dionne, D., et al. A single-cell and single-nucleus RNA-Seq toolbox for fresh and frozen human tumors . Nature Medicine , 26 0 (5): 0 792--802, 2020

    2020

  43. [51]

    Improved deep metric learning with multi-class N-pair loss objective

    Sohn, K. Improved deep metric learning with multi-class N-pair loss objective . In NeurIPS, pp.\ 1857–1865, 2016. ISBN 9781510838819

    2016

  44. [52]

    K., Swerdlow, H., Satija, R., and Smibert, P

    Stoeckius, M., Hafemeister, C., Stephenson, W., Houck-Loomis, B., Chattopadhyay, P. K., Swerdlow, H., Satija, R., and Smibert, P. Simultaneous epitope and transcriptome measurement in single cells . Nature Methods, 14 0 (9): 0 865--868, Sep 2017. ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/nm...

    2017 doi

  45. [53]

    Lightly , 2023

    Susmelj, I., Heller, M., Wirth, P., Prescott, J., Ebner, M., and et al. Lightly , 2023. URL https://github.com/lightly-ai/lightly

    2023

  46. [54]

    T., Savage, A

    Swanson, E., Lord, C., Reading, J., Heubeck, A. T., Savage, A. K., Green, R., Li, X.-j., Torgerson, T. R., Bumol, T. F., Graybuck, L. T., and Skene, P. J. TEA-seq: a trimodal assay for integrated single cell measurement of transcription, epitopes, and chromatin accessibility ....

    2020 doi

  47. [55]

    B., Siddiqui, A., Lao, K., and Surani, M

    Tang, F., Barbacioru, C., Wang, Y., Nordman, E., Lee, C., Xu, N., Wang, X., Bodeau, J., Tuch, B. B., Siddiqui, A., Lao, K., and Surani, M. A. mRNA-Seq whole-transcriptome analysis of a single cell . Nature Methods, 6 0 (5): 0 377--382, May 2009. ISSN 1548-7105. doi:10.1038/nme...

    2009 doi

  48. [56]

    Tang, Z., Chen, G., Chen, S., Yao, J., You, L., and Chen, C. Y.-C. Modal-nexus auto-encoder for multi-modality cellular data integration and imputation . Nature Communications , 15 0 (1): 0 9021, Oct 2024. ISSN 2041-1723. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-53355-6. URL https://doi.org/10....

    2024 doi

  49. [57]

    V., Xiao, L., Chopra, A., Chaffin, M

    Theodoris, C. V., Xiao, L., Chopra, A., Chaffin, M. D., Al Sayed, Z. R., Hill, M. C., Mantineo, H., Brydon, E. M., Zeng, Z., Liu, X. S., et al. Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology . Nature, 618 0 (7965): 0 616--624, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    E., Barkmann, F., and Boeva, V

    Toma, P., Ovcharenko, O., Daunhawer, I., Vogt, J. E., Barkmann, F., and Boeva, V. Benchmarking self-supervised learning for single-cell data. In NeurIPS 2024 Workshop: Self-Supervised Learning-Theory and Practice, 2024

    2024

  51. [59]

    Tran, H. T. N., Ang, K. S., Chevrier, M., Zhang, X., Lee, N. Y. S., Goh, M., and Chen, J. A benchmark of batch-effect correction methods for single-cell RNA sequencing data . Genome Biology, 21 0 (1): 0 12, Jan 2020. ISSN 1474-760X. doi:10.1186/s13059-019-1850-9. URL https://d...

    2020 doi

  52. [60]

    Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding , 2019

    van den Oord, A., Li, Y., and Vinyals, O. Representation Learning with Contrastive Predictive Coding , 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.03748

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    N., Kaiser, ., and Polosukhin, I

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, ., and Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need . Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  54. [62]

    Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels

    Wang, Y., Ma, X., Chen, Z., Luo, Y., Yi, J., and Bailey, J. Symmetric cross entropy for robust learning with noisy labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp.\ 322--330, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    A., Angerer, P., and Theis, F

    Wolf, F. A., Angerer, P., and Theis, F. J. SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis . Genome Biology, 19 0 (1): 0 15, Feb 2018. ISSN 1474-760X. doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1382-0. URL https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1382-0

    2018 doi

  56. [64]

    scCLIP: Multi-modal Single-cell Contrastive Learning Integration Pre-training

    Xiong, L., Chen, T., and Kellis, M. scCLIP: Multi-modal Single-cell Contrastive Learning Integration Pre-training . In NeurIPS 2023 AI for Science Workshop, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=KMtM5ZHxct

    2023

  57. [65]

    I., and Yosef, N

    Xu, C., Lopez, R., Mehlman, E., Regier, J., Jordan, M. I., and Yosef, N. Probabilistic harmonization and annotation of single‐cell transcriptomics data with deep generative models . Molecular Systems Biology, 17 0 (1): 0 e9620, 2021. doi:https://doi.org/10.15252/msb.20209620. ...

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning

    Xue, Y., Gan, E., Ni, J., Joshi, S., and Mirzasoleiman, B. Investigating the Benefits of Projection Head for Representation Learning . In ICLR, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.11391

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    CLAIRE: contrastive learning-based batch correction framework for better balance between batch mixing and preservation of cellular heterogeneity

    Yan, X., Zheng, R., Wu, F., and Li, M. CLAIRE: contrastive learning-based batch correction framework for better balance between batch mixing and preservation of cellular heterogeneity . Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 39, 02 2023. doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad099

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    scBERT as a large-scale pretrained deep language model for cell type annotation of single-cell RNA-seq data

    Yang, F., Wang, W., Wang, F., Fang, Y., Tang, D., Huang, J., Lu, H., and Yao, J. scBERT as a large-scale pretrained deep language model for cell type annotation of single-cell RNA-seq data . Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (10): 0 852--866, 2022 a

    2022

  61. [69]

    Contrastive learning enables rapid mapping to multimodal single-cell atlas of multimillion scale

    Yang, M., Yang, Y., Xie, C., Ni, M., Liu, J., Yang, H., Mu, F., and Wang, J. Contrastive learning enables rapid mapping to multimodal single-cell atlas of multimillion scale . Nature Machine Intelligence, 4 0 (8): 0 696--709, 2022 b

    2022

  62. [70]

    Batch alignment of single-cell transcriptomics data using deep metric learning

    Yu, X., Xu, X., Zhang, J., and Li, X. Batch alignment of single-cell transcriptomics data using deep metric learning . Nature Communications , 14 0 (1): 0 960, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41467-023-36635-5

    2023 doi

  63. [71]

    Barlow twins: Self-supervised learning via redundancy reduction

    Zbontar, J., Jing, L., Misra, I., LeCun, Y., and Deny, S. Barlow twins: Self-supervised learning via redundancy reduction. In International conference on machine learning, pp.\ 12310--12320. PMLR, 2021

    2021

  64. [72]

    and Ma, K

    Zhang, J. and Ma, K. Rethinking the augmentation module in contrastive learning: Learning hierarchical augmentation invariance with expanded views. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp.\ 16650--16659, 2022

    2022

  65. [73]

    L., Mason, K., Martinez, C

    Zhang, Z., Mathew, D., Lim, T. L., Mason, K., Martinez, C. M., Huang, S., Wherry, E. J., Susztak, K., Minn, A. J., Ma, Z., and Zhang, N. R. Recovery of biological signals lost in single-cell batch integration with cellanova. Nature Biotechnology , Nov 2024. ISSN 1546-1696. doi...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.