Discover, Falsify, Revise: Auditing Input-Use Claims from Source Code to Predictive Contribution in Agent-Discovered Cell Models
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Medical and scientific domain agents
Abstract (arXiv)
AI virtual cells aim to predict cellular responses to specified interventions, yet held-out predictive performance alone does not establish use of the supplied perturbation information. This prediction-claim gap matters in agentic model discovery, where language-model agents generate and revise predictors using score-based feedback. We introduce CELLAUDIT, which audits input-use claims by asking whether an input can enter the cited computation, whether fitted predictions depend on it, and whether that dependence improves prediction of observed response. On a paired morphology-transcriptomics perturbation benchmark (BBBC047), an agent-selected predictor attains a mean held-out Global Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 0.3153 but remains invariant to compound replacement; a control-profile-only predictor reaches 0.3142. Source inspection identifies a compound-query pathway blocked by singleton key-value attention, and the invariance persists after refitting with disjoint control wells. In a stratified audit of 48 candidates across two linked tasks, 47 change predictions under compound replacement on both held-out folds, but only 20 show target-loss gains with intervals above zero on both folds. On BBBC047, falsification-guided revisions recover positive mean compound contributions while retaining gains over the control-profile-only baseline. In matched sci-Plex searches, audit-enriched feedback yields higher held-out performance and larger mean compound and dose contributions across five trajectories, although paired intervals span zero. Refitting fixed designs on an independently acquired cohort shows predictive generalization need not imply generalization of input-use claims: dose contribution persists, whereas support for compound identity does not. CELLAUDIT adds a falsification layer to agentic model discovery, moving from generate-score-revise toward discover-falsify-revise.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Medical and scientific domain agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2026.
Builds on
5 of 57 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 4
- 2025AIDE: AI-Driven Exploration in the Space of Codecited by 226
- 2026HarmonyCell: Automating Single-Cell Perturbation Modeling under Semantic and Distribution Shiftscited by 4
- 2026CellScientist: From Execution Feedback to Auditable Model-Revision Trajectories for Cellular Perturbation Predictioncited by 1
- 2026ConceptSMILE: Auditing the Trustworthiness of Concept-Based Explainable AIcited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026PertMind: Eliciting Emergent Biological Reasoning in LLM via Reinforcement Learning on Cellular Perturbation Data
- 2026ReproBAIT: Can coding agents build their own biological AI tools?
- 2026AblateCell: A Reproduce-then-Ablate Agent for Virtual Cell Repositories
- 2026Progressive Multi-Agent Reasoning for Biological Perturbation Prediction
- 2025SynthPert: Enhancing LLM Biological Reasoning via Synthetic Reasoning Traces for Cellular Perturbation Prediction
- 2026Beyond Execution: Auditing Experimental Fidelity in LLM-Driven Scientific Research
- 2026From Retrieval to Reasoning: Agentic Mechanism Prediction from Cell Painting Profiles
- 2026From Residuals to Reasons: LLM-Guided Mechanism Inference from Tabular Data