aiqbench analysis
This study exposes a critical limitation in single-cell foundation models where high aggregate accuracy often masks systematic failures on rare, disease-relevant cell populations. By benchmarking six long-tail loss functions across multiple architectures, the research identifies that dataset structure—not pretraining—drives these gaps and reveals distinct embedding-geometry signatures that predict whether reweighting can recover lost classes. The findings provide actionable guidelines for selecting specific loss functions like Class-Balanced Loss or LDAM to improve recall on imbalanced biological data without relying on hype about general model performance.
Rethinking Class Imbalance for Single-Cell Foundation Models: A Systematic Benchmark Across Architectures and Long-Tail Loss Functions
arXiv:2609.23325v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Single-cell foundation models (scGPT, scBERT, Geneformer) achieve cell-type classification accuracy up to 97.5% in our experiments, yet this aggregate accuracy can mask systematic failure on rare, often disease-relevant cell populations that long-tail loss functions are widely assumed to address. We present a systematic benchmark of six long-tail loss functions (cross-entropy, weighted CE, class-balanced loss, focal loss, LDAM, logit-adjusted softmax) across three architectures and three datasets (Multiple Sclerosis, Zheng68K, human Pancreas), totaling 162 controlled training runs (3 backbones x 3 datasets x 6 losses x 3 seeds). The gap between overall accuracy, Macro-F1, and rare-class recall under plain cross-entropy is consistent across all nine (architecture, dataset) settings, driven by dataset structure rather than pretraining. Rare-class failure itself splits into two regimes with distinct embedding-geometry signatures, visible before any loss is chosen: some classes are recoverable by the right loss, while others retain linear separability yet are absorbed into unrelated classes' neighborhoods under every evaluated loss and architecture. Among the recoverable classes, the efficacy of reweighting is predicted by a class's absolute training-set size, rather than its share of the dataset or the dataset's overall imbalance ratio. Class-balanced loss and LDAM are the most consistent choices across all nine settings, while logit adjustment trades rare-class precision for recall rather than improving both. Our results give both a reusable benchmark and mechanism-grounded practical guidelines for combining foundation models with imbalanced biological data.
Abstract:Single-cell foundation models (scGPT, scBERT, Geneformer) achieve cell-type classification accuracy up to 97.5% in our experiments, yet this aggregate accuracy can mask systematic failure on rare, often disease-relevant cell populations that long-tail loss functions are widely assumed to address. We present a systematic benchmark of six long-tail loss functions (cross-entropy, weighted CE, class-balanced loss, focal loss, LDAM, logit-adjusted softmax) across three architectures and three datasets (Multiple Sclerosis, Zheng68K, human Pancreas), totaling 162 controlled training runs (3 backbones x 3 datasets x 6 losses x 3 seeds). The gap between overall accuracy, Macro-F1, and rare-class recall under plain cross-entropy is consistent across all nine (architecture, dataset) settings, driven by dataset structure rather than pretraining. Rare-class failure itself splits into two regimes with distinct embedding-geometry signatures, visible before any loss is chosen: some classes are recoverable by the right loss, while others retain linear separability yet are absorbed into unrelated classes' neighborhoods under every evaluated loss and architecture. Among the recoverable classes, the efficacy of reweighting is predicted by a class's absolute training-set size, rather than its share of the dataset or the dataset's overall imbalance ratio. Class-balanced loss and LDAM are the most consistent choices across all nine settings, while logit adjustment trades rare-class precision for recall rather than improving both. Our results give both a reusable benchmark and mechanism-grounded practical guidelines for combining foundation models with imbalanced biological data.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.23325 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.23325v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.23325 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 323 words
Related coverage
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · Sep 18, 2026

Handling Imbalanced Classification: What Works Better Than SMOTE
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 12, 2026
Performance Profiling on AMD GPUs - Part 4: Fortran OpenMP Offload Edition
AMD · Jun 1, 2026
Data Balancing Strategies: A Systematic Survey of Resampling and Augmentation Methods
arXiv · Jul 21, 2026