Skip to main content
. 2024 Apr 9;21(6):1114–1121. doi: 10.1038/s41592-024-02241-6

Fig. 4. Benchmark results for progressively more difficult retrieval tasks.

Fig. 4

a, Perturbation detection: retrieving replicates of the same sample. Mean average precision (mAP) for perturbation detection is shown across experimental conditions: cell type (columns) and time points (rows; short and long time points are defined in Supplementary Table 1). The numerical values shown above each box plot are the fraction of perturbations that can be successfully retrieved for each retrieval task. Box plot boundaries are 75th (Q3) and 25th (Q1) percentiles, with whiskers at ±1.5-fold the interquartile range (Q3–Q1) or the highest or lowest data point. The color of the bars denotes whether the query perturbation and the retrieved perturbation are in mostly the same well position (blue) or mostly different well positions (red); the latter is a more challenging task due to technical well-position artifacts. b, Perturbation matching, within a perturbation type: the plot shows mAP for sister perturbation retrieval (that is, pairs of compounds or pairs of CRISPR guides annotated with the same gene target). ORFs are not shown because there is only a single ORF reagent per gene. Absolute cosine similarity is used for calculating mAP values for compounds because pairs of compounds annotated to target the same protein can be positively or negatively correlated. c, Perturbation matching, across perturbation types: the plot shows mAP values for retrieving compound–gene pairs (that is, the same target and different perturbation type). Absolute cosine similarity is used for calculating mAP values for both compound–CRISPR and compound–ORF matching. The number of independent biological samples is available in Supplementary Table 2.

Source data