arXiv:2606. 03435v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Cell Painting combines multiplexed fluorescent staining, high-content imaging, and quantitative analysis to generate high-dimensional phenotypic readouts to support diverse downstream tasks such as mechanism-of-action (MoA) inference, toxicity prediction, and construction of drug-disease atlases.
By Yuxin Zhang, Yiyao Li, Ping Shu Ho, Simon See, Zhenqin Wu, Kevin Tsia
arXiv:2606. 01042v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Perturbation experiments are central to understanding cellular mechanisms, but remain costly and sparse, motivating prediction of gene expression responses for unobserved conditions.
By Xinyu Yuan, Xixian Liu, Jianan Zhao, Yashi Zhang, Hongyu Guo, Jian Tang
arXiv:2607. 19415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: High-content morphological profiling (Cell Painting) yields sensitive, high-dimensional signatures of cellular state, but translating longitudinal morphology trajectories into interpretable biology remains difficult, especially for weak, chronic perturbations such as low-dose-rate ionizing radiation.
By Gilchan Park, Guang Zhao, Byung-Jun Yoon, Shinjae Yoo
The paper introduces CELLAUDIT, a method for auditing whether inputs claimed to influence predictive models actually do so. By testing if an input can enter the computation, whether predictions depend on it, and if that dependence improves observed responses, the authors evaluate agent-generated predictors on a morphology‑transcriptomics benchmark (BBBC047). Their findings show that many models claim compound contributions that are not supported by the data, and that falsification‑guided revisions can recover genuine input effects while improving performance.
By Mengran Li, Bo Li, Chengyang Zhang, Yang Yan, Jinfeng Xu, Zhenchao Tang
OmniVCBench is a figure‑centric, source‑traceable benchmark designed to evaluate the interpretation component of Artificial Intelligence Virtual Cells (AIVCs). It comprises 6,077 curated question–answer pairs drawn from scientific figures and experimental contexts, organized into three scientific reasoning tasks that mirror the AIVC Predict–Explain–Discover agenda. The benchmark also introduces AIVC‑Judge, a task‑conditioned MLLM‑as‑a‑judge framework with reference‑aware rubrics, and a Model‑Derived Hard‑Negative Mining strategy to generate multiple‑choice distractors for efficient evaluation.
By Manyu Li, Xunkai Li, Yongfu Xiong, Yi Liu, Rong-Hua Li, Guoren Wang
arXiv:2607. 18777v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating machine learning in scientific domains requires separating correct predictions from correct reasons under realistic distribution shifts.
By Dongkwan Kim, Yiming Gao, Yining Yang, Yang Shen