pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.19606 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.AI · cs.MA

Recognition: unknown

AblateCell: A Reproduce-then-Ablate Agent for Virtual Cell Repositories

Chengkai Yao, Cheng Tan, Hao Wu, Jiaqi Wei, Lang Yu, Mengdi Liu, Mingyu Tsoi, Siqi Sun, Wenxuan Huang, Xinjie Mao, Xue Xia, Yuejin Yang, Zhangyang Gao

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI cs.MA
keywords AblateCellvirtual cell repositoriesablation studiessingle-cell perturbationreproduction agentcode verificationperformance attributionAI for biology
0
0 comments X

The pith

AblateCell is an agent that first reproduces reported baselines from virtual cell AI repositories by fixing environments and dependencies automatically, then ablates components to identify what drives performance.

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

The paper presents AblateCell as a reproduce-then-ablate agent that tackles the difficulty of systematic testing in biological AI codebases. These repositories for virtual cells are typically under-standardized, with tight couplings to specific data and formats that make manual reproduction and ablation rare. AblateCell auto-configures environments, resolves issues to rerun official evaluations, then builds a graph of isolated mutations and selects experiments adaptively using a reward that balances performance impact against execution cost. On three single-cell perturbation prediction repositories, it reaches 88.9 percent end-to-end success and 93.3 percent accuracy in recovering ground-truth critical components, far above human experts or heuristics. Sympathetic readers would care because this turns anecdotal model improvements into verifiable, component-level attributions at scale.

Core claim

AblateCell closes the verification gap in virtual cell research by first reproducing reported baselines end-to-end through automatic environment configuration, dependency resolution, and rerunning of official evaluations while emitting verifiable artifacts, then conducting closed-loop ablation by generating a graph of isolated repository mutations and adaptively selecting experiments under a reward that trades off performance impact and execution cost, achieving 88.9 percent workflow success and 93.3 percent accuracy in recovering ground-truth critical components on the CPA, GEARS, and BioLORD repositories.

What carries the argument

The reproduce-then-ablate agent, which generates a graph of isolated repository mutations and adaptively selects experiments under a reward trading performance impact against execution cost.

If this is right

  • Systematic ablations become feasible directly on biological codebases instead of remaining rare.
  • Performance gains in AI virtual cells can be attributed to specific components with verifiable artifacts.
  • Research shifts from one-off model releases toward repository-grounded verification and attribution.
  • Scalable closed-loop testing reduces reliance on manual expert intervention for code validation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same reproduce-then-ablate pattern could apply to other domains with messy scientific codebases, such as molecular dynamics or imaging pipelines.
  • Widespread use might standardize verification practices and reduce unreproducible claims in computational biology.
  • Integrating the agent with ongoing model development could allow automatic discovery of better module combinations during training.
  • Testing on larger or more heterogeneous repositories would reveal whether the reported success rates generalize beyond the three evaluated cases.

Load-bearing premise

Biological repositories are sufficiently under-standardized that an agent can reliably resolve dependency, data, and format issues automatically without domain-specific human intervention or access to private resources.

What would settle it

Running AblateCell on a fourth single-cell perturbation prediction repository with comparable reported baselines and observing whether it fails to reproduce the results or to recover the ground-truth critical components at similar accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.19606 by Chengkai Yao, Cheng Tan, Hao Wu, Jiaqi Wei, Lang Yu, Mengdi Liu, Mingyu Tsoi, Siqi Sun, Wenxuan Huang, Xinjie Mao, Xue Xia, Yuejin Yang, Zhangyang Gao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Motivation for AblateCell. Existing AI Agents scale idea synthesis but not idea attribution. Automated ablation bridges this gap by systematically verify which components truly matter. 1. Introduction Recently, the advent of large language models (LLMs) (Ope￾nAI, 2025; Anthropic, 2025; DeepMind, 2025) has demon￾strated remarkable capabilities in natural language under￾standing, reasoning, and code generati… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the AblateCell reproduce-then-ablate framework. The system (i) reproduces baselines via planner-executor agents in Docker container, then (ii) conducts autonomous ablation by selecting hypotheses with bandit sampling and executing via graph-based workflow in isolated worktrees, guided by domain knowledge throughout. 2024); (ii) GNN-based methods that inject gene-regulatory or interaction priors… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Component importance across BioLORD, CPA, and GEARS. The x-axis shows component indices (names omitted), and the y-axis shows mean reward. RQ3: Identification of performance-critical components [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: An example of AblateCell applied to GEARS for end-to￾end reproduce-then-ablate execution. level message passing is essential for capturing complex interactions between genetic perturbations and their down￾stream effects, validating this architectural design choice. Throughout the experiment, AblateCell showcased its core capabilities: automatic component extraction, intelligent hypothesis generation, and f… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Detailed Distribution of Error Categories 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: System prompt and interface specification for Hypothesis Agent. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: System prompt and interface specification for Generation Agent. Prompt for Ranking Agent System Prompt: You are a scientific analyst specializing in ablation studies and experimental design. Your task is to compare inference results across multiple ablation study candidates and provide detailed comparative analysis. Guidelines: • Focus on quantitative comparison of inference metrics (mean value, std value,… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: System prompt and interface specification for Ranking Agent. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: System prompt and interface specification for Reflection Agent. Prompt for Analysis Agent System Prompt: You are a scientific analyst responsible for aggregating and interpreting ablation results. Guidelines: • Analyze candidate-level metrics and statuses across the full ablation run • Identify global trends, best configurations, and failure patterns • Produce concise, structured summaries and recommendati… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: System prompt and interface specification for Analysis Agent. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: System and user prompt for Planner Agent Prompt for Coding Agent System template: You are a helpful assistant that can interact with a computer. Your response must contain exactly ONE bash code block with ONE direct command (no chaining with &&, ||, or ;). You may use heredocs (e.g., cat << EOF > file.py ...EOF) to write files when needed. Include a THOUGHT section before your command where you explain yo… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: System and user prompt for Code Agent 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Systematic ablations are essential to attribute performance gains in AI Virtual Cells, yet they are rarely performed because biological repositories are under-standardized and tightly coupled to domain-specific data and formats. While recent coding agents can translate ideas into implementations, they typically stop at producing code and lack a verifier that can reproduce strong baselines and rigorously test which components truly matter. We introduce AblateCell, a reproduce-then-ablate agent for virtual cell repositories that closes this verification gap. AblateCell first reproduces reported baselines end-to-end by auto-configuring environments, resolving dependency and data issues, and rerunning official evaluations while emitting verifiable artifacts. It then conducts closed-loop ablation by generating a graph of isolated repository mutations and adaptively selecting experiments under a reward that trades off performance impact and execution cost. Evaluated on three single-cell perturbation prediction repositories (CPA, GEARS, BioLORD), AblateCell achieves 88.9% (+29.9% to human expert) end-to-end workflow success and 93.3% (+53.3% to heuristic) accuracy in recovering ground-truth critical components. These results enable scalable, repository-grounded verification and attribution directly on biological codebases.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces AblateCell, a reproduce-then-ablate agent for virtual cell repositories. It first reproduces reported baselines end-to-end via auto-configuration of environments, resolution of dependencies and data issues, and rerunning of official evaluations while emitting verifiable artifacts. It then performs closed-loop ablation by constructing a graph of isolated repository mutations and adaptively selecting experiments under a reward balancing performance impact and execution cost. Evaluated on three single-cell perturbation prediction repositories (CPA, GEARS, BioLORD), AblateCell reports 88.9% (+29.9% over human expert) end-to-end workflow success and 93.3% (+53.3% over heuristic) accuracy in recovering ground-truth critical components.

Significance. If the central performance claims hold under fuller scrutiny, this work would provide a concrete mechanism for scalable, repository-grounded verification and component attribution in AI for biology. The reproduce-then-ablate loop with external ground-truth components and closed-loop experiment selection directly addresses the rarity of systematic ablations in under-standardized biological codebases, offering a template that could be extended beyond the three evaluated repositories.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section: The headline metrics (88.9% workflow success, 93.3% component recovery) are reported without error bars, variance across runs, or full baseline implementation details (e.g., exact human-expert and heuristic procedures), which is load-bearing for the claim that AblateCell outperforms these comparators by the stated margins.
  2. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The manuscript evaluates exclusively on CPA, GEARS, and BioLORD without describing systematic attempts on additional repositories or quantifying failure modes when data access requires licenses, private resources, or when the initial reproduction step fails; this directly limits support for the broader claim of scalable verification across under-standardized biological codebases.
  3. [Methods] Methods section: The closed-loop ablation procedure (graph construction, adaptive selection under the performance-cost reward) lacks sufficient algorithmic detail or pseudocode to allow reproduction of the experiment-selection logic, which is central to the agent's claimed advantage over non-adaptive ablations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction could more explicitly state the three repositories at the outset rather than only in the evaluation paragraph.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions for the ablation graphs should include the exact reward function formulation and stopping criteria used in the closed-loop selection.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. The comments highlight important areas for improving clarity, rigor, and support for our claims. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: The headline metrics (88.9% workflow success, 93.3% component recovery) are reported without error bars, variance across runs, or full baseline implementation details (e.g., exact human-expert and heuristic procedures), which is load-bearing for the claim that AblateCell outperforms these comparators by the stated margins.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of error bars, variance reporting, and detailed baseline procedures weakens the substantiation of the performance margins. In the revised manuscript, we will add variance measures (standard deviation across runs where multiple executions were feasible) to the headline metrics. We will also expand the description of the human-expert and heuristic baselines with exact procedural steps, including how each was implemented and evaluated, to allow direct comparison and verification of the +29.9% and +53.3% improvements. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The manuscript evaluates exclusively on CPA, GEARS, and BioLORD without describing systematic attempts on additional repositories or quantifying failure modes when data access requires licenses, private resources, or when the initial reproduction step fails; this directly limits support for the broader claim of scalable verification across under-standardized biological codebases.

    Authors: Our evaluation focused on CPA, GEARS, and BioLORD due to their public availability and representativeness of single-cell perturbation tasks. We will revise the Evaluation section to include a dedicated subsection describing our systematic attempts to apply AblateCell to additional repositories, along with quantified failure modes for cases involving data access, dependency resolution, and reproduction failures. We will also add an explicit limitations discussion addressing challenges with licensed or private resources to better contextualize the scalability claims. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods section: The closed-loop ablation procedure (graph construction, adaptive selection under the performance-cost reward) lacks sufficient algorithmic detail or pseudocode to allow reproduction of the experiment-selection logic, which is central to the agent's claimed advantage over non-adaptive ablations.

    Authors: We will revise the Methods section to provide full algorithmic detail, including pseudocode for graph construction of isolated repository mutations and the adaptive selection process. The pseudocode will explicitly define the reward function balancing performance impact and execution cost, the selection criteria, and the closed-loop iteration logic to enable independent reproduction of the experiment-selection mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: claims rest on external evaluations without self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper introduces AblateCell as a reproduce-then-ablate agent and reports empirical success rates (88.9% workflow success, 93.3% component recovery) on three named external repositories (CPA, GEARS, BioLORD) using their ground-truth critical components. No equations, fitted parameters, or derivation steps appear in the abstract or described content. No self-citations are invoked as load-bearing premises for uniqueness theorems or ansatzes. The central results are obtained by running the agent on independent codebases and comparing against human experts and heuristics, so they do not reduce to quantities defined by the authors' own prior outputs or by construction. This is the normal case of an empirical systems paper whose evaluation chain remains externally anchored.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities beyond the agent itself; the reward function trading performance impact and execution cost is mentioned at high level but not formalized.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5551 in / 1235 out tokens · 43561 ms · 2026-05-10T02:26:54.081126+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

70 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Langley , title =

    P. Langley , title =. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000) , address =. 2000 , pages =

    2000

  2. [2]

    T. M. Mitchell. The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations. 1980

    1980

  3. [3]

    M. J. Kearns , title =

  4. [4]

    Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. I. 1983

    1983

  5. [5]

    R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification. 2000

    2000

  6. [6]

    GPT-5 System Card , url=

    OpenAI , month=. GPT-5 System Card , url=

  7. [7]

    Claude Sonnet 4.5 System Card , url=

    Anthropic , month=. Claude Sonnet 4.5 System Card , url=

  8. [8]

    Gemini 3 Pro Model Card , url=

    Google DeepMind , year=. Gemini 3 Pro Model Card , url=

  9. [9]

    Newell and P

    A. Newell and P. S. Rosenbloom. Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. 1981

    1981

  10. [10]

    ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

    ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [11]

    Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges

    Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  12. [12]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Hiagent: Hierarchical working memory management for solving long-horizon agent tasks with large language model , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  13. [13]

    The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

    The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19955 , year =

    MLR-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on Open-Ended Machine Learning Research , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19955 , year=

    work page arXiv

  15. [15]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Scicode: A research coding benchmark curated by scientists , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  16. [16]

    The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search

    The ai scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Nature methods , volume=

    Reproducibility standards for machine learning in the life sciences , author=. Nature methods , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  18. [18]

    AI Magazine , volume=

    Reproducibility in machine-learning-based research: Overview, barriers, and drivers , author=. AI Magazine , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  19. [19]

    Advanced Materials , volume=

    SciAgents: automating scientific discovery through bioinspired multi-agent intelligent graph reasoning , author=. Advanced Materials , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  20. [20]

    Ai4research: A survey of artificial intelligence for scientific research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01903, 2025

    AI4Research: A Survey of Artificial Intelligence for Scientific Research , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01903 , year=

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    2025 , doi =

    AI-Researcher: Autonomous Scientific Innovation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.18705 , year=

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Cell , volume=

    How to build the virtual cell with artificial intelligence: Priorities and opportunities , author=. Cell , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  23. [23]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

    Towards scientific discovery with generative ai: Progress, opportunities, and challenges , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

  24. [24]

    Journal of Software: Evolution and Process , volume=

    Llms for science: Usage for code generation and data analysis , author=. Journal of Software: Evolution and Process , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  25. [25]

    Paper2code: Automating code generation from scientific papers in machine learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17192, 2025

    Paper2code: Automating code generation from scientific papers in machine learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17192 , year=

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    Codeagent: Enhancing code generation with tool-integrated agent systems for real-world repo-level coding challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07339, 2024

    Codeagent: Enhancing code generation with tool-integrated agent systems for real-world repo-level coding challenges , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.07339 , year=

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation , year=

    Zhang, Fengji and Chen, Bei and Zhang, Yue and Keung, Jacky and Liu, Jin and Zan, Daoguang and Mao, Yi and Lou, Jian-Guang and Chen, Weizhu , booktitle=. RepoCoder: Repository-Level Code Completion Through Iterative Retrieval and Generation , year=

  28. [28]

    Transactions on Machine Learning Research , volume=

    CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark , author=. Transactions on Machine Learning Research , volume=

  29. [29]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    REPRO-BENCH: Can Agentic AI Systems Assess the Reproducibility of Social Science Research? , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 , pages=

    2025

  30. [30]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    ABGEN: Evaluating Large Language Models in Ablation Study Design and Evaluation for Scientific Research , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08038 , year=

    AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08038 , year=

    work page arXiv

  32. [32]

    RExBench: Can coding agents autonomously implement AI research extensions?

    RExBench: Can coding agents autonomously implement AI research extensions? , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.22598 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  34. [34]

    Xu and Xiangru Tang and Mingchen Zhuge and Jiayi Pan and Yueqi Song and Bowen Li and Jaskirat Singh and Hoang H

    Xingyao Wang and Boxuan Li and Yufan Song and Frank F. Xu and Xiangru Tang and Mingchen Zhuge and Jiayi Pan and Yueqi Song and Bowen Li and Jaskirat Singh and Hoang H. Tran and Fuqiang Li and Ren Ma and Mingzhang Zheng and Bill Qian and Yanjun Shao and Niklas Muennighoff and Yizhe Zhang and Binyuan Hui and Junyang Lin and et al. , title =. The Thirteenth ...

    2025

  35. [35]

    From automation to autonomy: A survey on large language models in scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13259, 2025

    From automation to autonomy: A survey on large language models in scientific discovery , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13259 , year=

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Agentic ai for scientific discovery: A survey of progress, challenges, and future directions

    Agentic ai for scientific discovery: A survey of progress, challenges, and future directions , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08979 , year=

    work page arXiv

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02276 , year=

    CellForge: agentic design of virtual cell models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02276 , year=

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Machine Learning and Systems , pages=

    Utilizing large language models for ablation studies in machine learning and deep learning , author=. Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Machine Learning and Systems , pages=

  39. [39]

    Researchagent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    2025

  40. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21577 , year=

    Repomaster: Autonomous exploration and understanding of github repositories for complex task solving , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21577 , year=

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    2024 , url=

    John Yang and Carlos E Jimenez and Alexander Wettig and Kilian Lieret and Shunyu Yao and Karthik R Narasimhan and Ofir Press , booktitle=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  42. [42]

    Truong, Weixin Liang, Fan-Yun Sun, and Nick Haber

    ResearchCodeBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Implementing Novel Machine Learning Research Code , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.02314 , year=

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    International Conference on Automated Machine Learning , pages=

    Ablator: Robust horizontal-scaling of machine learning ablation experiments , author=. International Conference on Automated Machine Learning , pages=. 2023 , organization=

    2023

  44. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15462 , year=

    Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15462 , year=

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    Molecular Systems Biology , pages=

    Predicting cellular responses to complex perturbations in high-throughput screens , author=. Molecular Systems Biology , pages=

  46. [46]

    Nature Biotechnology , year=

    Predicting transcriptional outcomes of novel multigene perturbations with gears , author=. Nature Biotechnology , year=

  47. [47]

    Nature Biotechnology , pages=

    Disentanglement of single-cell data with biolord , author=. Nature Biotechnology , pages=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  48. [48]

    and Horlbeck, Max A

    Norman, Thomas M. and Horlbeck, Max A. and Replogle, Joseph M. and Geiger-Schuller, Katherine and Xu, Annie and Jost, Marco and Weissman, Jonathan S. , journal =. Exploring genetic interaction through single-cell. 2019 , volume =

    2019

  49. [49]

    Nature methods , volume=

    scGen predicts single-cell perturbation responses , author=. Nature methods , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

    2019

  50. [50]

    Nature Methods , pages=

    Squidiff: predicting cellular development and responses to perturbations using a diffusion model , author=. Nature Methods , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  51. [51]

    bioRxiv , year=

    Modeling and predicting single-cell multi-gene perturbation responses with scLAMBDA , author=. bioRxiv , year=

  52. [52]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Modelling cellular perturbations with the sparse additive mechanism shift variational autoencoder , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  53. [53]

    Bioinformatics , volume=

    scDiffusion: conditional generation of high-quality single-cell data using diffusion model , author=. Bioinformatics , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  54. [54]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11726 , year=

    scPPDM: A Diffusion Model for Single-Cell Drug-Response Prediction , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11726 , year=

    work page arXiv

  55. [55]

    BioRxiv , pages=

    Predicting cellular responses to perturbation across diverse contexts with State , author=. BioRxiv , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  56. [56]

    nature , volume=

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold , author=. nature , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

    2021

  57. [57]

    Perturbench: Benchmarking machine learning models for cellular perturbation analysis.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10609,

    Perturbench: Benchmarking machine learning models for cellular perturbation analysis , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10609 , year=

    work page arXiv

  58. [58]

    Nature Methods , pages=

    Benchmarking algorithms for generalizable single-cell perturbation response prediction , author=. Nature Methods , pages=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  59. [59]

    npj Digital Medicine , year=

    AI-driven virtual cell models in preclinical research: technical pathways, validation mechanisms, and clinical translation potential , author=. npj Digital Medicine , year=

  60. [60]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25694 , year=

    Process-Level Trajectory Evaluation for Environment Configuration in Software Engineering Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.25694 , year=

    work page arXiv

  61. [61]

    Nature Communications , volume=

    ENCORE: a practical implementation to improve reproducibility and transparency of computational research , author=. Nature Communications , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  62. [62]

    Jiacheng Miao, Joe R Davis, Yaohui Zhang, Jonathan K Pritchard, and James Zou

    Paper2agent: Reimagining research papers as interactive and reliable ai agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06917 , year=

    work page arXiv

  63. [63]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13896 , year=

    GenCellAgent: Generalizable, Training-Free Cellular Image Segmentation via Large Language Model Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13896 , year=

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  64. [64]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04698 , year=

    scagent: Universal single-cell annotation via a llm agent , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04698 , year=

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    Under review

    From ai for science to agentic science: A survey on autonomous scientific discovery , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.14111 , year=

    work page arXiv

  66. [66]

    Probing scientific general intelligence of llms with scientist- aligned workflows.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16969, 2025

    Probing Scientific General Intelligence of LLMs with Scientist-Aligned Workflows , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16969 , year=

    work page arXiv

  67. [67]

    Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG through Test-Time Critique and Optimization , author=

  68. [68]

    Scientists’ first exam: Probing cog- nitive abilities of mllm via perception, understanding, and reasoning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10521, 2025

    Scientists' First Exam: Probing Cognitive Abilities of MLLM via Perception, Understanding, and Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10521 , year=

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

    A survey of scientific large language models: From data foundations to agent frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.21148, 2025

    A survey of scientific large language models: From data foundations to agent frontiers , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.21148 , year=

    work page arXiv

  70. [70]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09988 , year=

    Unifying tree search algorithm and reward design for llm reasoning: A survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.09988 , year=

    work page arXiv