Our local copy of the Virtual Cell Challenge scorer called one change a clear win (+0.066). The official leaderboard scored the same change as a small loss (-0.009). Everything we tried, including what didn't work: https://t.co/dnkGILNi6T
four more of our ai-assisted bounds were merged into terence tao's optimization constants table, so six now. the new ones: c42 ≤ 0.6888863712, c44 ≤ 4.3576549226, c70 ≥ 1.20194336847, korenblum ≥ 0.432. unrefereed, each with a checkable certificate https://t.co/94t6rdreKG
open-sourced the setup behind my personal ai assistant: a git repo the agents read and write, a nightly job that turns my bookmarks into a morning digest, and a lot of checks so it doesn't break quietly https://t.co/7Wwhp333zS
vcc update: adding string network features cut raw expression error from 1.41 to 0.95 on 79 held-out targets, and still lost on the challenge's composite score. lower mse, worse at telling perturbations apart. notes and code https://t.co/9TTXJUAVts
our virtual cell challenge pipeline is open source. best validation score 0.164, around rank 460 of 1,580, so not competitive yet. most of what we lose is MSE. if you've figured out how to get perturbation magnitudes right i'd love to compare notes https://t.co/9TTXJUAVts
@zymobyte012 partly. the challenge added effect-size and DE-overlap terms for exactly that, but on unseen cell lines the mean is still hard to beat on MSE. open question whether that's the metric or the data