Niloofar Yousefi | Search arXiv

arXiv2026

Can We Trust In-Distribution Success? Locked Evaluation Reveals Transfer Failure and Sampling-Depth Entanglement in CRISPRi Perturbation Prediction

AI evaluation can support the wrong inference when an in-domain benchmark success does not survive distribution shift, or when the benchmark endpoint is entangled with a design factor. We study this problem in CRISPRi perturbation-effect prediction, evaluating a frozen Geneformer representation under a locked, pre-registered protocol: heads and model selection were frozen before test evaluation; the protocol required external outcome labels to remain withheld until final unblinding; and analysis-governing decisions were fixed before the evaluations they govern. In-distribution on the Virtual Cell Challenge (VCC), the frozen representation carries measurable predictive information beyond a dimension-matched random-feature control (Delta R^2 = +0.1645, 95% CI [+0.1375, +0.1920]), satisfying the pre-registered informativeness gate required before interpreting transfer. It then fails zero-shot transfer on both external screens (Spearman rho = -0.139 and -0.267), lying below that control on each. Adding a predefined magnitude block improves the representation externally (Delta rho = +0.032 and +0.143) but, under the frozen primary head, does not rescue transfer: both remain negative. A pre-registered, count-adjusted max-response secondary is positively associated with the outcome on both screens; we report it as correlational and secondary, not as a recovered magnitude signal. Finally, the VCC endpoint is strongly sample-size associated: a count-only linear model reaches R^2 = +0.4325, versus +0.2589 for the four magnitude scalars; adding those scalars to cell count improves R^2 by only +0.0017, so much of the aggregate-magnitude signal overlaps with cell count. This case study shows how locking the evaluation, harmonizing the measured endpoint, and separating primary from secondary evidence can change the inference supported by an AI benchmark.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

BioDivergence: A Benchmark and Evaluation Framework for Hidden Contextual Contradictions in Biomedical Abstracts

Biomedical findings often seem to conflict across studies, but many of these differences are context-dependent rather than true contradictions. Variations in cohort, geography, assay protocol, disease subtype, and clinical setting can make both claims locally valid. Existing NLI and scientific claim-verification benchmarks reduce such cases to entailment, contradiction, or neutral, failing to capture the contextual structure behind divergence. To address this, we introduce BioDivergence, an evaluation framework with a six-class conflict taxonomy, a 13-axis divergence ontology, and four structured outputs per claim pair: conflict type, divergence axes, dominant confounder, and reconciliation explanation. We release BioDivergence-Silver-v1.0, an article-disjoint silver benchmark of 11,865 claim pairs across five biomedical domains, alongside a legacy deduplicated variant for comparison. Results show notable ranking differences between the two variants, with the fine-tuned reference model dropping about 12 points under the article-disjoint setting, while Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 achieves 0.5523 accuracy and 0.3894 contextual-F1 on the 842-example primary test set. BioDivergence offers a more faithful way to distinguish contextual divergence from direct contradiction and to separate article-level memorization from genuine task learning.

cs.CL↗