mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Do Perturbation Predictors Learn Gene Interactions? Diagnosing Extrapolation in Agentic Screening

arXiv 2610.18880 ↗First posted 1 Oct 2026cs.LG cs.AI q-bio.GNcited by 0

New in LLM agents and tool use; no direction yet. LLM agents and tool use

Abstract (arXiv)

High-throughput perturbation screens increasingly use machine-learning models to predict the effects of gene combinations that were never measured. A difficult case arises when both genes in a test pair were seen individually during training, but their combination was not. In this setting, standard OOD methods often fail because neither gene appears unfamiliar on its own. We therefore compare each model prediction with a simple additive prediction obtained by summing the two observed single-gene effects. The difference between them, which we call additive disagreement (AD), measures how much extra interaction effect the model introduces for an unseen combination. Across eight prediction methods and three Perturb-seq datasets, specialised neural predictors do not consistently outperform this simple additive baseline. More importantly, predictions with larger deviations from the additive baseline tend to have larger errors. Conventional output-based and embedding-based confidence signals are inconsistent across datasets and models, whereas AD remains informative across all evaluated compositional settings. We further study how this signal can guide decisions in an agentic perturbation-screening workflow. The code is available at https://github.com/zygao930/OOD.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Oct 2026.

Builds on

13 of 37 references.

References · 13

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
  3. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
  4. 2016A Baseline for Detecting Misclassified and Out-of-Distribution Examples in Neural Networkscited by 2,385
  5. 2018A Simple Unified Framework for Detecting Out-of-Distribution Samples and Adversarial Attackscited by 1,485
  6. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  7. 2023ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry toolscited by 631
  8. 2022Out-of-Distribution Detection with Deep Nearest Neighborscited by 600
  9. 2019Measuring Compositional Generalization: A Comprehensive Method on Realistic Datacited by 284
  10. 2024CRISPR-GPT for Agentic Automation of Gene-editing Experimentscited by 58
  11. 2024How to Build the Virtual Cell with Artificial Intelligence: Priorities and Opportunitiescited by 57
  12. 2024BioDiscoveryAgent: An AI Agent for Designing Genetic Perturbation Experimentscited by 53
1 more
  1. 2024Benchmarking Transcriptomics Foundation Models for Perturbation Analysis : one PCA still rules them allcited by 19

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Plausibility Is Not Prediction: Contrastive Evidence for LLM-Based Cellular Perturbation Reasoning
  2. 2026Progressive Multi-Agent Reasoning for Biological Perturbation Prediction
  3. 2025Contextualizing biological perturbation experiments through language
  4. 2026Bison: Cross-Dataset Learning for Unseen-Compound Perturbation Prediction
  5. 2026MechPert: Mechanistic Consensus as an Inductive Bias for Unseen Perturbation Prediction
  6. 2026Beyond Independent Genes: Learning Module-Inductive Representations for Single-Cell Gene Perturbation Prediction
  7. 2026Knowledge Graphs and Reasoning LLMs for Finding Simple Yet Effective Transcriptomic Perturbation Predictors
  8. 2026PertMind: Eliciting Emergent Biological Reasoning in LLM via Reinforcement Learning on Cellular Perturbation Data