Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Human-Guided Causal Knowledge Injection for Virtual Cells

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A human-in-the-loop visual workflow lets biologists correct the causal graphs inside virtual cells and retrain models that respond as biology expects.

desk verdict Novel visualization method for refining causal graphs in virtual cells; evaluation shows feasibility, not causal correctness, yet merits peer review with major revisions. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08430 v1 pith:OIVD3KVR submitted 2026-08-09 cs.HC cs.AI

Pengcheng Wang , Changjian Chen , Zhuo Tang , You Wu , Long Wang , Feng Yu , Kenli Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AI
keywords virtualcellcausalgraphvisualanalyticshuman-in-the-loopcounterfactualanalysisgeneexpressionsingle-celldataknowledgeinjection
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

Virtual cells—machine-learning models that predict gene expression changes under new cell conditions—become more interpretable when guided by a causal graph, but such graphs are rarely available. Auto-mined graphs group genes into concepts and infer causal links, yet the unsupervised process produces mixed concepts, wrong links, and missing links. This paper claims that a visual analysis tool, CELLens, lets domain experts explore, validate, and refine those graphs by showing gene similarities alongside causal edges, generating counterfactual responses to concept interventions, and supporting direct drag-and-drop edits. In the rice single-cell case study, the expert disentangled mixed concepts, added two missing causal links, and retrained the virtual cell so that a photosynthesis intervention produced the expected positive effect on a downstream concept; the refined model also pointed to candidate regulatory genes, one backed by published evidence. If this is right, expert biological judgment is a practical complement to automatic causal discovery for virtual cells, not a replacement for it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the gene-similarity-aware causal graph layout, computed by a two-stage hybrid optimization. In the global stage, a t-SNE-style KL-divergence term preserves gene-gene similarities and gene-concept membership while geometric penalties enforce causal direction left-to-right, keep linked concepts close, and separate concepts sharing a target. In the local stage, a center-attractive force pulls boundary genes back into their own concept when convex hulls overlap. The resulting positions are turned into polygonal regions with a GMap Voronoi construction modified by a margin-injection trick: invisible virtual points along shared borders of non-causally-linked regions create spatial gaps, and adding or removing those points gives real-time causal link/separate editing. On the validation side, the second main mechanism is the counterfactual analysis strategy: the virtual cell, implemented as a diffusion-based structural causal model, generates predicted expression changes under intervention, the causal path view extracts and ranks shortest paths by saliency (response magnitude divided by path length), and the counterfactual clustering view groups genes by combining semantic GO features with predicted response so the expert can see whether response and semantics agree.

What would settle it

Apply the CELLens workflow to an organism or cell type whose regulatory network is already established independently, compare the auto-mined and expert-refined graphs against that network, and measure agreement in edge direction and gene membership. If the refined graph is not closer to the known network than the auto-mined graph—or if the newly added links fail targeted perturbation tests—the central claim that human-guided injection improves biological plausibility is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the errors in auto-mined causal graphs for virtual cells are correctable by an expert-in-the-loop process, and that the right visual interface makes that process efficient. The system it builds, CELLens, treats a causal graph as a multi-level object: concept nodes carry causal links, each concept contains member genes, and those genes carry pairwise similarities. Its gene-similarity-aware layout solves a joint optimization that preserves gene-gene similarities, keeps genes inside their concept regions, and arranges causally linked concepts left-to-right with non-adjacent concepts separated by Voronoi margins. Validation is driven by counterfactual generation: intervening on a concept produces predicted expression changes, which are summarized along candidate causal paths ranked by a saliency score, and inside concepts genes are clustered by both semantic annotation and predicted response so that an expert can see which clusters respond anomalously. Refinement is direct: split a cluster into a new concept, merge it into another, add a link, remove a link, rename a concept, then retrain the virtual cell. The paper demonstrates the cycle on rice data, where the expert's edits produced a retrained model whose intervention response matched the hypothesized regulation with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001), and where the same views surfaced a candidate upstream regulator with literature support.

Load-bearing premise

The refinement loop assumes that the virtual cell's simulated responses to concept interventions are reliable enough to tell a correct causal link from a wrong one; if those simulations are biased, expert edits could move the causal graph further from biological truth.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A refined causal graph can be retrained into a virtual cell whose intervention behavior matches the expert's hypothesized mechanism, as the rice experiment showed for photosynthesis positively regulating a downstream concept.
  • The same concept-level and gene-level views let experts nominate candidate regulatory genes, including one with independent literature support and one the expert flagged as potentially novel.
  • The low-level similarity view is claimed to make semantic purity of concepts visible, so experts can spot mixed concepts before running expensive counterfactual simulations.
  • The paper expects the workflow to transfer to other multi-level causal analysis tasks where high-level causal relationships, low-level similarities, and their correspondences all matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • [Editorial inference] The most decisive evaluation would apply the same workflow to a system whose true regulatory network is known, then measure whether expert edits increase agreement with that gold standard; the current case study relies on literature support and plausibility rather than exhaustive ground truth.
  • [Editorial inference] Because the counterfactual predictions used to guide edits come from the very model being refined, any systematic bias in those predictions could steer expert corrections in the wrong direction; a model-agnostic validation against held-out perturbation experiments would test this.
  • [Editorial inference] The saliency score's inverse-length penalty assumes causal influence decays with each step; if that assumption is wrong, path rankings could mislead, and one testable extension is to learn attenuation weights from data.
  • [Editorial inference] Annotation gaps are a hidden variable in the workflow: genes labeled N/A under GO cannot contribute semantic signal, so clusters may be split or merged based on missing annotations rather than true function; incorporating independent interaction databases could sharpen the clustering.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents CELLens, a visual analytics system for human-guided refinement of causal graphs used in causal-driven virtual cells. The system combines a gene-similarity-aware causal graph layout, which encodes concept-level causal links as regions and gene-level similarity as points inside those regions, with a causal path view and a counterfactual clustering view. A domain expert can intervene on a concept, inspect counterfactual expression changes, and then edit concept-concept links or gene-concept assignments before retraining the virtual cell. The evaluation is a rice single-cell case study conducted with one co-developing expert, plus qualitative feedback from five experts, and the paper claims that the tool supports exploration, validation, and refinement of causal graphs and yields scientifically meaningful insights.

Significance. If the effectiveness claims held, CELLens would address a genuine gap: existing causal graph visualization tools focus on concept-level structure, while causal-driven virtual cells also require inspection and correction of gene-concept correspondences and gene-gene similarities. The paper has real strengths: the layout optimization is described in enough detail to be reimplemented, the visual encodings are well motivated, the design was grounded in a 12-month collaboration with domain experts, and the source code is released. The proposed visualizations are also novel in integrating counterfactual analysis with interactive graph editing. However, the current evidence supports only workflow-level feasibility: the evaluation rests on a single case study with an expert who co-designed the tool, the statistical check is a model-consistency test rather than a biological validation, and there is no independent ground-truth comparison. The significance is therefore moderate and depends on the authors either adding external validation or explicitly tempering the effectiveness claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.2 and Sec. 6.1.1] The refinement loop validates the causal graph using counterfactual responses generated by the same CausCell virtual cell that is being refined. In the rice case study, B1 decides that a link is missing or a concept is mislabeled after inspecting expression changes produced by the initial model, and the only statistical check then compares control, initial, and refined models on the same counterfactual pathway. The Friedman test (p<0.001) shows that the refined model gives a higher mean expression for "biosynthesis and stimulus" after intervention; this is a consistency check showing that the model has learned the injected positive link. It does not establish that the added link or the reassigned gene-concept memberships are biologically correct. The manuscript does not compare the refined graph with a curated regulatory network, held-out perturbation data, or independent expert ground truth, and Sec. 7.2 does not list this self-referential validation as a limitation. I recommend adding an external validation of the refined graph or, at minimum, explicitly reframing the effectiveness claim as demonstrating workflow-level feasibility rather than biological correctness.
  2. [Sec. 6.1 and Sec. 7] The evaluation is based on a single case study conducted with B1, who participated in the 12-month requirement-analysis and prototype-development process described in Sec. 4, using a pair-analytics protocol in which the authors operated the tool. The abstract's claim of "two real-world case studies" is inaccurate: the two subsections of Sec. 6.1 are two analytical objectives from the same rice session. The follow-up interviews in Sec. 7.1 include two independent experts (B4-B5), but they received only a 30-minute introduction and their feedback is qualitative. This evidence supports a design-study demonstration, not the stronger effectiveness claim made in the abstract. I ask the authors to add an independent case study or a controlled user study with experts not involved in the development, and to correct the "two case studies" wording.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Eq. (6)] The counterfactual-aware clustering concatenates a multi-hot GO-term vector with a single scalar expression change and then L2-normalizes the combined vector. Because the semantic part is a high-dimensional binary vector while the response part is a single continuous coordinate, the relative influence of the counterfactual response on the K-means objective depends on the number of GO terms per gene and is not controlled by any weighting. As written, the method does not guarantee that the resulting clusters are actually "counterfactual-aware." The paper should either justify the weighting, add an ablation showing that the response channel changes the clustering outcome, or revise the claim about this visualization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.2] The sentence "experts can they can filter out implausible causal paths" contains a duplicated phrase; please revise to "experts can filter out implausible causal paths."
  2. [Sec. 5.1.1] The parameters λ1, λ2, λ3, δx, and ε are said to be determined by grid search, but the main text does not report the chosen values or the search ranges; please provide these values and a sensitivity analysis in the appendix.
  3. [Sec. 6.1.1] The Friedman test indicates a significant difference across the three conditions, but no post-hoc pairwise tests are reported; please identify which pairwise differences are significant and report effect sizes, especially because the paper singles out the refined model as the best.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] The aggregation of concept-level expression change using the top 5% of member genes ranked by absolute change is an arbitrary threshold; please justify it empirically or report sensitivity to this parameter.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] The related work claims that existing tools such as CausalVis and CausalMap do not preserve gene-level information, but the evaluation does not compare CELLens against these tools; adding even a qualitative comparison would strengthen the novelty argument.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Causal refinement is validated against counterfactuals from the same CausCell model being refined, so the effectiveness evidence for validation is partly self-referential.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6.1.1, 'Verifying the refined model']
    "To examine whether the updated causal relationships helped the model learn this expected positive influence, he conducted a counterfactual experiment on the test set ... Generally, the refined model achieved the highest mean expression of 0.162 ... This result matched B1's expectation, indicating that the refined model better reflected the hypothesized positive regulatory relationship between photosynthesis and biosynthesis and stimulus."

    The 'expected positive influence' is exactly the causal link B1 injected (photosynthesis to biosynthesis and stimulus). The paper states that CausCell's SCM 'explicitly embeds the causal graph into the condition vectors, ensuring that the downstream generative process adheres to the concept-level causal relationships' (Sec. 3). The retrained model is therefore conditioned to propagate interventions along that edge, so the increased downstream mean expression after the intervention is a conformance check showing the model absorbed the injected edge, not independent evidence that the edge is biologically correct.

  2. other [Section 5.2 and Section 6.1.1, 'Investigating the first missing link']
    "The virtual cell then generated concept-level changes across the graph, revealing the responses of other concepts. ... he noted that most regions were shown in darker red, indicating relatively large positive changes, which suggested that the concepts along this path were strongly associated with the intervention response. However, this path was misaligned with the causal graph via two missing links."

    Expert decisions about missing or incorrect causal links are based on counterfactual expression changes produced by the same CausCell model trained on the auto-mined causal graph that is under evaluation. If the model's counterfactual outputs are biased, the edits move the graph away from biological truth while remaining internally consistent. The only external check offered later is a single gene-pair literature precedent, which does not validate the added concept-level links or reassigned gene-concept memberships; hence the validation step reduces to checking the model against its own learned behavior.

full rationale

The technical core—gene-similarity-aware causal layout, hybrid optimization, causal path and counterfactual clustering views—is self-contained and not circular; there is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors. The circularity is in the evaluation of the refinement loop: the tool's counterfactual evidence for deciding that a link is missing or wrong comes from the same CausCell model that is trained on the graph being refined, and the final verification checks whether that same model now responds in the direction the expert injected. This demonstrates workflow feasibility and model-graph consistency, but not independent biological correctness of the refined causal graph. Because the visualization contribution is substantial and external expert feedback and one literature-verified gene pair provide some independent content, the paper is only partially circular rather than fully reducible to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of an auto-mined causal graph and a pre-trained counterfactual virtual cell, both taken from prior methods (WGCNA, PC, CausCell). The new contribution is the visualization and interaction layer, which adds hand-tuned layout parameters but no new domain entities.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 (layout weights) = not reported (grid search)
    Section 5.1.1, Eq. (1): weights balancing similarity, causal spacing, compactness, and vertical separation are 'determined by a grid search'. Values are not reported, so the layout is not fully reproducible.
  • delta_x (horizontal margin) = not reported
    Eq. (1) uses a target horizontal margin for left-to-right causal ordering; hand-chosen with no sensitivity analysis.
  • epsilon (boundary separation margin) = not reported
    Eq. (4) uses epsilon to pull back overlapping boundary genes; hand-chosen.
  • top 5% aggregation threshold = 5%
    Section 5.1.2 aggregates concept expression change from the top 5% most-changed member genes; arbitrary and affects all counterfactual visual encodings.
  • K (K-means cluster count) = elbow-selected per concept
    Section 5.3 selects K by the elbow of the within-cluster sum of squares curve; standard but data-dependent, so counterfactual clustering results are not fixed by the publication.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption PC algorithm's assumptions (faithfulness, causal sufficiency, acyclicity) hold for the concept-level data.
    Section 3 uses PC to infer the initial causal graph; failures would make the auto-mined graph untrustworthy from the start.
  • domain assumption CausCell produces valid counterfactual gene-expression predictions.
    Section 3 and the case study rely on counterfactual generation to validate the graph; the model is cited as prior work [19], not independently validated here.
  • domain assumption Causal signals weaken with path length.
    Eq. (5) divides saliency by path length h, citing network propagation; if long-range effects are strong, path ranking misleads.
  • domain assumption GO enrichment and LLM summarization yield accurate concept names.
    Section 5.1.2 and 5.3 name concepts and clusters using GO plus an LLM (prompt in Appendix C); bad names can misdirect expert judgments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Human-Guided Causal Knowledge Injection for Virtual Cells." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OIVD3KVR

@misc{pith2026260808430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Human-Guided Causal Knowledge Injection for Virtual Cells},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OIVD3KVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08430}
}
read the original abstract

Virtual cells employ machine learning models to simulate and predict cellular behaviors, serving as a critical computational framework for investigating health and disease. Injecting causal graphs into virtual cells can improve the interpretability, but such graphs are usually not available in real-world applications. Recently, many methods have been proposed to construct causal graphs from data, which group genes based on their similarities to form concepts and extract their causal relationships. However, since this automatic process is unsupervised, the causal graphs usually contain errors. In this paper, we propose a human-guided causal knowledge injection method for virtual cells. We developed a gene-similarity-aware causal graph visualization supported by a hybrid optimization algorithm to help explore both the causal relationships between concepts and the similarities between genes. Based on the exploration, we further developed a counterfactual analysis strategy supported by a counterfactual visualization and a causal path visualization to help validate and refine causal graphs. The effectiveness of our method is demonstrated through two real-world case studies, the extraction of scientifically meaningful causal insights, and positive feedback from domain experts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of virtual cells and the comparison between the automatic and the human-guided causal injection. (a) A virtual cell simulates cellular behaviors under cell condition changes, such as changes in cell type and environment, and predicts the corresponding gene expression changes. (b) In automatic causal injection, auto-mined concepts and causal relationships can be unclear or inaccurate, leading to labor-intens… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Causal-driven virtual cells training and analysis consists of three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Method overview: (a-b) given a gene expression data, a group of concepts and their causal graph is constructed; (c)-(e) three visualizations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CELLens: (a) a causal graph visualization facilitates the exploration of the concept-concept causal relationships, the gene-concept [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The initial causal graph visualization. the top 2,000 highly expressed genes. Based on the progress detailed in Sec. 3, these genes were grouped into 15 high-level concepts, serving as the foundational nodes for the initial concept-level causal graph. Overview. B1 bega…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Refining the causal relationships and updating the counterfactual generation result. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aibar, C

    S. Aibar, C. B. González-Blas, T. Moerman, V . A. Huynh-Thu, H. Imri- chova, G. Hulselmans, F. Rambow, J.-C. Marine, P. Geurts, J. Aerts, et al. Scenic: single-cell regulatory network inference and clustering.Nature methods, 14(11):1083–1086, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.4463 2

    doi:10.1038/nmeth.4463 2017

  2. [2]

    Arias-Hernandez, L

    R. Arias-Hernandez, L. T. Kaastra, T. M. Green, and B. Fisher. Pair analytics: Capturing reasoning processes in collaborative visual analytics. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 1–10, 2011. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2011.339 7

    doi:10.1109/hicss.2011.339 2011

  3. [3]

    Ashburner, C

    M. Ashburner, C. A. Ball, J. A. Blake, D. Botstein, H. Butler, J. M. Cherry, A. P. Davis, K. Dolinski, S. S. Dwight, J. T. Eppig, et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology.Nature genetics, 25(1):25–29, 2000. doi: 10.1038/75556 6

    doi:10.1038/75556

  4. [4]

    Aurenhammer

    F. Aurenhammer. V oronoi diagrams—a survey of a fundamental geometric data structure.ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 23(3):345–405, 1991. doi: 10.1145/116873.116880 6

    arXiv 1991

  5. [5]

    J. Bae, T. Helldin, and M. Riveiro. Understanding indirect causal rela- tionships in node-link graphs. InComputer graphics forum, vol. 36, pp. 411–421. Wiley Online Library, 2017. doi: 10.1111/cgf.13198 2

    doi:10.1111/cgf.13198 2017

  6. [6]

    Bereket and T

    M. Bereket and T. Karaletsos. Modelling cellular perturbations with the sparse additive mechanism shift variational autoencoder.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:1–12, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Borland, A

    D. Borland, A. Z. Wang, and D. Gotz. Using counterfactuals to improve causal inferences from visualizations.IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 44(1):95–104, 2024. doi: 10.1109/MCG.2023.3338788 2

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Bunne, Y

    C. Bunne, Y . Roohani, Y . Rosen, A. Gupta, X. Zhang, M. Roed, T. Alexan- drov, M. AlQuraishi, P. Brennan, D. B. Burkhardt, et al. How to build the virtual cell with artificial intelligence: Priorities and opportunities.Cell, 187(25):7045–7063, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2024.11.015 1

    doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.11.015 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    S. J. Burgess, I. Reyna-Llorens, S. R. Stevenson, P. N. Bowman, A. J. Townsend, and S. Kelly. Transcriptional control of photosynthetic capacity: conservation and divergence from arabidopsis to rice.New Phytologist, 216(2):510–528, 2017. doi: 10.1111/nph.14682 8

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    C. Chen, F. Lv, Y . Guan, P. Wang, S. Yu, Y . Zhang, and Z. Tang. Human- guided image generation for expanding small-scale training image datasets. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 31(6):3809– 3821, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3567053 4, 7

    2025

  3. [11]

    C. Chen, P. Wang, F. Lyu, Z. Tang, L. Yang, L. Wang, Y . Cai, F. Yu, and K. Li. Interactive hybrid rice breeding with parametric dual projection. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3634640 4

    2025

  4. [12]

    Cowen, T

    L. Cowen, T. Ideker, B. J. Raphael, and R. Sharan. Network propagation: a universal amplifier of genetic associations.Nature Reviews Genetics, 18(9):551–562, 2017. 6

    2017

  5. [13]

    H. Cui, C. Wang, H. Maan, K. Pang, F. Luo, N. Duan, and B. Wang. scgpt: toward building a foundation model for single-cell multi-omics using generative ai.Nature methods, 21(8):1470–1480, 2024. doi: 10. 1038/s41592-024-02201-0 2

    2024

  6. [14]

    F. L. Dennig, M. Miller, D. A. Keim, and M. El-Assady. FS/DS: A theoretical framework for the dual analysis of feature space and data space. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 2023. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3288356 4

    2023

  7. [15]

    M. Fan, J. Yu, D. Weiskopf, N. Cao, H.-Y . Wang, and L. Zhou. Visual analysis of multi-outcome causal graphs.IEEE Transactions on Visualiza- tion and Computer Graphics, 31(1):656–666, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2024.3456346 2

    2024

  8. [16]

    A. G. Forbes, A. Burks, K. Lee, X. Li, P. Boutillier, J. Krivine, and W. Fontana. Dynamic influence networks for rule-based models.IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics, 24(1):184–194, 2017. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2017.2745280 2

    2017

  9. [17]

    Friedman

    M. Friedman. The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance.Journal of the american statistical association, 32(200):675–701, 1937. doi: 10.2307/2279372 8

    1937 doi

  10. [18]

    E. R. Gansner, Y . Hu, and S. Kobourov. Gmap: Visualizing graphs and clusters as maps. In2010 IEEE Pacific visualization symposium (PacificVis), pp. 201–208. IEEE, 2010. doi: 10.1109/PACIFICVIS.2010. 5429590 6

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Y . Gao, K. Dong, C. Shan, D. Li, and Q. Liu. Causal disentanglement for single-cell representations and controllable counterfactual generation. Nature communications, 16(1):6775, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41467-025 -62008-1 1, 2, 3, 7

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Ghai and K

    B. Ghai and K. Mueller. D-bias: A causality-based human-in-the-loop system for tackling algorithmic bias.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 29(1):473–482, 2022. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2022. 3209484 2

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    G. Guo, E. Karavani, A. Endert, and B. C. Kwon. Causalvis: Visualizations for causal inference. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–20, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3544548. 3581236 2

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    E. P. Hoel, L. Albantakis, and G. Tononi. Quantifying causal emergence shows that macro can beat micro.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(49):19790–19795, 2013. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314922110 2

    2013 doi

  15. [23]

    M. N. Hoque and K. Mueller. Outcome-explorer: A causality guided interactive visual interface for interpretable algorithmic decision making. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(12):4728– 4740, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2021.3102051 2

    2021

  16. [24]

    M. Jan, Z. Liu, J.-D. Rochaix, and X. Sun. Retrograde and anterograde signaling in the crosstalk between chloroplast and nucleus.Frontiers in Plant Science, 13:980237, 2022. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.980237 8

    2022

  17. [25]

    S. Kaul, D. Borland, N. Cao, and D. Gotz. Improving visualization interpretation using counterfactuals.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(1):998–1008, 2021. doi: 10.1109/TVCG. 2021.3114779 2

    2021

  18. [26]

    Kawahara, M

    Y . Kawahara, M. de la Bastide, J. P. Hamilton, H. Kanamori, W. R. Mc- Combie, S. Ouyang, et al. Improvement of the oryza sativa nipponbare reference genome sequence and annotation: a report from the rice annota- tion project.Rice, 6:1–10, 2013. doi: 10.1186/1939-8433-6-4 6

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Langfelder and S

    P. Langfelder and S. Horvath. Wgcna: an r package for weighted corre- lation network analysis.BMC bioinformatics, 9(1):559, 2008. doi: 10. 1186/1471-2105-9-559 3

    2008

  20. [28]

    R. Li, S. Ye, Y . Lin, B. Zhou, Z. Kang, T.-Q. Peng, W. Fu, T. Tang, and Y . Wu. Causality-based visual analytics of sentiment contagion in social media topics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,

  21. [29]

    Y . Liu. CWGCNA: an r package to perform causal inference from the WGCNA framework.NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics, 6(2):lqae042,

  22. [30]

    Lopez, J

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

    2018 doi

  23. [31]

    Lopez, N

    R. Lopez, N. Tagasovska, S. Ra, K. Cho, J. Pritchard, and A. Regev. Learning causal representations of single cells via sparse mechanism shift modeling. InConference on Causal Learning and Reasoning, pp. 662–691. PMLR, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2211.03553 2

    2023 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lotfollahi, A

    M. Lotfollahi, A. Klimovskaia Susmelj, C. De Donno, L. Hetzel, Y . Ji, I. L. Ibarra, S. R. Srivatsan, M. Naghipourfar, R. M. Daza, B. Martin, et al. Predicting cellular responses to complex perturbations in high-throughput screens.Molecular systems biology, 19(6):MSB202211517,...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Lotfollahi, F

    M. Lotfollahi, F. A. Wolf, and F. J. Theis. scgen predicts single-cell perturbation responses.Nature methods, 16(8):715–721, 2019. doi: 10. 1038/s41592-019-0494-8 2

    2019

  26. [34]

    MacQueen et al

    J. MacQueen et al. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. InProceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, vol. 1, pp. 281–297. Oakland, CA, USA, 1967. 6

    1967

  27. [35]

    Maglott, J

    D. Maglott, J. Ostell, K. D. Pruitt, and T. Tatusova. Entrez gene: gene- centered information at ncbi.Nucleic acids research, 33(suppl_1):D54– D58, 2005. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkl993 7

    2005 doi

  28. [36]

    Mazzarello

    P. Mazzarello. A unifying concept: the history of cell theory.Nature cell biology, 1(1):E13–E15, 1999. doi: 10.1038/8964 1

    1999 doi

  29. [37]

    L. Meng, S. van den Elzen, N. Pezzotti, and A. Vilanova. Class-constrained t-sne: combining data features and class probabilities.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):164–174, 2023. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2023.3326600 5

    2023

  30. [38]

    L. Peng, Z. Lin, N. Andrienko, G. Andrienko, and S. Chen. Contextualized visual analytics for multivariate events.Visual Informatics, 9(2):100234,

  31. [39]

    Piran, N

    Z. Piran, N. Cohen, Y . Hoshen, and M. Nitzan. Disentanglement of single- cell data with biolord.Nature Biotechnology, 42(11):1678–1683, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-02079-x 2

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    Regev, S

    A. Regev, S. A. Teichmann, E. S. Lander, I. Amit, C. Benoist, E. Birney, B. Bodenmiller, P. Campbell, P. Carninci, M. Clatworthy, et al. The human cell atlas.elife, 6:e27041, 2017. doi: 10.7554/eLife.27041 1

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    doi: 10.1016/j.visinf.2025.100234 4

    2025

  34. [42]

    Roohani, K

    Y . Roohani, K. Huang, and J. Leskovec. Predicting transcriptional out- comes of novel multigene perturbations with gears.Nature Biotechnology, 42(6):927–935, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41587-023-01905-6 1, 2

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Ruscone, E

    M. Ruscone, E. Tsirvouli, A. Checcoli, D. Turei, E. Barillot, J. Saez- Rodriguez, L. Martignetti, Å. Flobak, and L. Calzone. Neko: a tool for automatic network construction from prior knowledge.PLOS Computa- tional Biology, 21(9):e1013300, 2025. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013300 1

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    J. E. Rood, S. Wynne, L. Robson, A. Hupalowska, J. Randell, S. A. Teichmann, and A. Regev. The human cell atlas from a cell census to a unified foundation model.Nature, 637(8048):1065–1071, 2025. doi: 10. 1038/s41586-024-08338-4 1

    2025

  37. [45]

    kneedle

    V . Satopaa, J. Albrecht, D. Irwin, and B. Raghavan. Finding a" kneedle" in a haystack: Detecting knee points in system behavior. In2011 31st international conference on distributed computing systems workshops, pp. 166–171. IEEE, 2011. doi: 10.1109/ICDCSW.2011.20 6

    2011 doi

  38. [46]

    Schölkopf, F

    B. Schölkopf, F. Locatello, S. Bauer, N. R. Ke, N. Kalchbrenner, A. Goyal, and Y . Bengio. Toward causal representation learning.Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(5):612–634, 2021. doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2021.3058954 7

    2021

  39. [47]

    Sakai, S

    H. Sakai, S. S. Lee, T. Tanaka, H. Numa, T. Itoh, et al. The rice annotation project database (rap-db): an integrative hub for rice genomics.Nucleic Acids Research, 41(D1):D1196–D1205, 2013. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkj094 6

    2013 doi

  40. [48]

    Subramanian, P

    A. Subramanian, P. Tamayo, V . K. Mootha, S. Mukherjee, B. L. Ebert, M. A. Gillette, A. Paulovich, S. L. Pomeroy, T. R. Golub, E. S. Lander, et al. Gene set enrichment analysis: a knowledge-based approach for interpreting genome-wide expression profiles.Proceedings of the nati...

    2005 doi

  41. [49]

    T. Tang, Y . Wu, J. Gao, K. Ruan, Y . Zhang, S. Ye, Y . Wu, and X. Chen. Arteyer: Enriching gpt-based agents with contextual data visualizations for fine art authentication.Visual Informatics, 8(4):48–59, 2024. doi: 10. 1016/j.visinf.2024.11.001 4

    2024

  42. [50]

    Spirtes, C

    P. Spirtes, C. N. Glymour, and R. Scheines.Causation, prediction, and search. MIT press, 2000. 3

    2000

  43. [51]

    C. V . Theodoris, L. Xiao, A. Chopra, M. D. Chaffin, Z. R. Al Sayed, M. C. Hill, H. Mantineo, E. M. Brydon, Z. Zeng, X. S. Liu, et al. Transfer learning enables predictions in network biology.Nature, 618(7965):616– 624, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06139-9 1

    2023 doi

  44. [52]

    Van der Maaten and G

    L. Van der Maaten and G. Hinton. Visualizing data using t-sne.Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9(11):2579–2605, 2008. 4, 5

    2008

  45. [53]

    X. Teng, Y . Ahn, and Y .-R. Lin. Vispur: Visual aids for identifying and interpreting spurious associations in data-driven decisions.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 30(1):219–229,

  46. [54]

    Wang and K

    J. Wang and K. Mueller. The visual causality analyst: An interactive inter- face for causal reasoning.IEEE transactions on visualization and com- puter graphics, 22(1):230–239, 2015. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467931 4

    2015

  47. [55]

    X. Wang, H. Huang, S. Jiang, J. Kang, D. Li, K. Wang, S. Xie, C. Tong, C. Liu, G. Hu, et al. A single-cell multi-omics atlas of rice.Nature, 644(8077):722–730, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41586-025-09251-0 7

    2025 doi

  48. [56]

    X. Wang, W. Liu, J. Xing, S. Xue, D. Zhou, G. Zhou, W. Xu, Z. Li, Y . Liu, D.-J. Yun, and Z.-Y . Xu. The osmads18-osbzip60 module plays a critical role in influencing grain chalkiness in rice.Science China Life Sciences, 69:651–661, 2026. doi: 10.1007/s11427-025-3129-3 8

    2026 doi

  49. [57]

    D.-B. V o, K. Lazarova, H. C. Purchase, and M. McCann. Visual causality: Investigating graph layouts for understanding causal processes. InInterna- tional Conference on Theory and Application of Diagrams, pp. 332–347. Springer, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-54249-8_26 2

    2020 doi

  50. [58]

    S. Wold, K. Esbensen, and P. Geladi. Principal component analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 2(1-3):37–52, 1987. doi: 10.1007/springerreference_84147 4

    1987 doi

  51. [59]

    X. Xie, F. Du, and Y . Wu. A visual analytics approach for exploratory causal analysis: Exploration, validation, and applications.IEEE Transac- tions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 27(2):1448–1458, 2020. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2020.3028957 2, 4

    2020

  52. [60]

    Yamakawa, T

    H. Yamakawa, T. Hirose, M. Kuroda, and T. Yamaguchi. Comprehensive expression profiling of rice grain filling-related genes under high tempera- ture using dna microarray.Plant physiology, 144(1):258–277, 2007. doi: 10.1104/pp.107.098665 9

    2007 doi

  53. [61]

    A. I. Weinberg, C. Premebida, and D. R. Faria. Causality from bottom to top: A survey.Machine Learning, 114(11):234, 2025. doi: 10.1007/ s10994-025-06855-5 4

    2025

  54. [62]

    X. Yang, G. Liu, G. Feng, D. Bu, P. Wang, J. Jiang, S. Chen, Q. Yang, H. Miao, Y . Zhang, et al. Genecompass: deciphering universal gene regu- latory mechanisms with a knowledge-informed cross-species foundation model.Cell Research, 34(12):830–845, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41422-02...

    2024 doi

  55. [63]

    S. C. Zeeman, J. Kossmann, and A. M. Smith. Starch: its metabolism, evolution, and biotechnological modification in plants.Annual review of plant biology, 61:209–234, 2010. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042809 -112301 9

    2010 doi

  56. [64]

    Zhang, A

    Y . Zhang, A. Kota, E. Papenhausen, and K. Mueller. Causalchat: Inter- active causal model development and refinement using large language models.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics,

  57. [65]

    J. N. Yan, Z. Gu, H. Lin, and J. M. Rzeszotarski. Silva: Interactively assessing machine learning fairness using causality. InProceedings of the 2020 chi conference on human factors in computing systems, pp. 1–13,

    2020

  58. [66]

    S. Zhao, J. Zhang, and Z. Nie. Large-scale cell representation learning via divide-and-conquer contrastive learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.04371,

    arXiv

  59. [70]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3602448 2

    2025

  60. [71]

    Zhang, X

    Z. Zhang, X. Zhao, M. Bindra, P. Qiu, and X. Zhang. scdisinfact: disentan- gled learning for integration and prediction of multi-batch multi-condition single-cell rna-sequencing data.Nature Communications, 15(1):912, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-45227-w 2

    2024 doi

  61. [73]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.04371 2

    doi arXiv

  62. [2020]

    doi: 10.1145/3313831.3376447 2

  63. [2023]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2023.3326587 2

    2023

  64. [2024]

    doi: 10.1093/nargab/lqae042 2

    doi

  65. [2025]

    doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2025.3633839 2, 4

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.