MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411597815 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.17.659642

Biological Reasoning with Reinforcement Learning through Natural Language Enables Generalizable Zero-Shot Cell Type Annotations

2025· preprint· en· W4411597815 on OpenAlexaff
Xi Wang, Runzi Tan, Bo Wang, Simona Cristea

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicReinforcement Learning in Robotics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReinforcement learningZero (linguistics)Computer scienceReinforcementShot (pellet)One shotArtificial intelligenceNatural (archaeology)Natural languagePsychologyLinguisticsBiologyEngineeringChemistrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNAseq) has reshaped biomedical research, enabling the high-resolution characterization of cellular populations. Yet cell type annotation, a process typically performed by domain experts interpreting gene expression patterns by manual curation or with specialized algorithms, remains labor-intensive and limited by prior knowledge. In addition, while reasoning large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance on mathematics, coding and general-reasoning benchmarks, their potential in scRNAseq analyses remains underexplored. Here, we investigate the advantages and limitations of employing DeepSeek-R1-0528, a recently developed open-source 671B-parameter reasoning LLM, for zero-shot scRNAseq cell type annotation. We find that DeepSeek-R1 prompted with a ranked list of 10 differentially expressed marker genes per cluster of single cells outperforms both its reasoning-enhanced, non-reasoning equivalent (DeepSeek-V3-0324) and GPT-4o in cluster-level annotations. At the level of single cells, DeepSeek-R1 prompted with the top 500 expressed genes in a cell outperforms its non-reasoning counterpart DeepSeek-V3, illustrating test-time scaling for bioinformatics tasks through natural language. Running DeepSeek-R1 in zero-shot classifier mode, with a prompt that presents a broad catalogue of cell type labels to choose from, improves its performance and generalizability across different datasets. On data curated by the expert model scTab (termed in-domain data), the DeepSeek-R1 classifiers perform better than the expert model scGPT and on par with the specialized cell genomics LLM C2S-Scale-1B, but lag behind scTab. On out-of-distribution data unseen by the two expert models, DeepSeek-R1 and its classifier versions generalize better and outperform the other models in the majority of the evaluated datasets. Notably, DeepSeek-R1 supports its cell type calls with interpretable textual biological rationales underlying its reasoning, providing a learning opportunity for researchers. Nevertheless, peak annotation performance remains modest, highlighting the intrinsic complexity of scRNAseq cell type annotation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicReinforcement Learning in RoboticsFrench-language works237,207