# Same Encoder, Different Winner: A Paired-View Framework for Cell Painting Encoder Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.12761 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.12761/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 9 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.00020/) (2021)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Masked Autoencoders Are Scalable Vision Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.06377/) (2021)
- [Sigmoid Loss for Language Image Pre-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15343/) (2023)
- [Supervised Contrastive Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.11362/) (2020)
- [Masked Autoencoders for Microscopy are Scalable Learners of Cellular Biology](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10242/) (2024)
- [RxRx1: A Dataset for Evaluating Experimental Batch Correction Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.05768/) (2023)
- [RxRx3-core: Benchmarking drug-target interactions in High-Content Microscopy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20158/) (2025)
- [cp_measure: API-first feature extraction for image-based profiling workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01163/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision encoders for Cell Painting are typically ranked by a single evaluation, commonly replicate mean average precision (mAP). We introduce CP-BG-Bench, a paired-view evaluation framework that holds the central cell fixed across four matched views (raw crop C, segmented S, and density-augmented variants CD and SD), ablating or augmenting surrounding pixels as a controlled intervention. Instantiating the framework on three datasets (JUMP-CP, RxRx1, RxRx3-core) and three encoders (DINOv3 ViT-B/16, OpenPhenom, SubCell) under four community-standard protocols (replicate mAP, scIB batch integration, CellProfiler feature prediction, cross-batch perturbation recall), we find that the four protocols rank the same encoders systematically differently, with disagreements decomposing along three axes: cell versus background, morphology versus context, and within-study versus across-batch. The largest effect: on RxRx3-core, SubCell with segmented inputs retains 94% of crop replicate mAP but only 32% of crop R@10, so the within-study signal preserved under segmentation is largely non-transferable; density augmentation recovers 84% of the within-study C-to-S gap but only 8% of the cross-batch gap. Segmented views predict CellProfiler features as well as or better than crops on two of three datasets, inverting the replicate-mAP ranking, and the C-to-S gap varies by an order of magnitude across datasets while remaining similar across encoders, indicating that background-driven gain is set by experimental design rather than by the encoder. Single-metric ranking of Cell Painting encoders is therefore sensitive to the protocol used, and protocol disagreements are interpretable as projections onto the three axes the paired-view design exposes. We will release the paired-view datasets, reconstruction pipelines, 36 trained checkpoints, aggregated embeddings, and the full evaluation suite.