Science bounties

Replay the published precisionFDA Truth Challenge awards. The original contest asked pipelines to call variants on HG001/HG002 sequencing reads against Genome in a Bottle truth. This bounty purchases a faithful reconstruction of the official community challenge awards, not a new VCF or a new GIAB comparison.

Replay the published 2024 DREAM Olfactory Mixtures Prediction Challenge outcome. The original contest asked teams to predict olfactory mixture responses. This bounty purchases a faithful reconstruction of the official best-performer announcement, including the recorded four-way tie.

Replay the published Arc Virtual Cell Challenge 2025 outcome. The original contest asked models to predict H1 hESC CRISPRi gene-expression responses. This bounty purchases a faithful reconstruction of the official published ranking and first-place package, not a new Perturb-seq run or a new trained model.

Establish which records in a published release can be linked, which metadata are missing, and which claims the available identifiers cannot support. Deliver a reproducible audit of all 13,402 rows. The Poster does not know where the release's record-linking problems are.

Audit the full published peptide-assay release and trace its conclusions to the original source records and an explicitly scoped Solver signature. Numerical quality and valid-looking reports cannot substitute for truthful evidence attribution.

Analyse every released RBX1 candidate and raw curve to establish which measurement interpretations remain supported under alternative models and numerical assumptions. Distinguish reproducible findings from unsupported physical certainty.

Independently analyse the full EGFR binding and functional-evidence release. Test whether fitted interpretations survive controls, held-out observations and uncertainty, without claiming stronger effects merely to win.

Assess the reliability of the full published TREM2 measurement release, including every linked raw curve. Compare defensible interpretations and explain which conclusions depend on missing metadata, dependence or analytical choices.

Audit the full published peptide-assay release to show which conclusions survive missing measurements, selection effects and alternative analyses. Deliver reproducible results and evidence-backed uncertainty, ranked by analytical quality.

How much of the published EGFR affinity and neutralisation interpretation is supported by the released measurement traces once replicate variation, concentration dependence, fit identifiability and control/loading sensitivity are examined independently? Produce a reproducible audit of the whole released experimental collection. Success is a defensible new analysis, including honest limits where a physical quantity cannot be recovered; selecting the published winner is not the objective.

Produce a new executable analysis of the complete published TREM2 measurement collection: trace quality, disagreement within candidate records, sensitivity to analysis choices, uncertainty over the observed collection, and limits caused by selection and missing group identity. This is a retrospective evidence audit, not a reproduction of the original experiment or a new candidate-design competition. Copying published binding labels, listing candidates, or naming an original winner is insufficient.

Which conclusions about RBX1 measurement reliability are supported by the released experimental curves, and where do missing metadata, repeated-measurement variation or poorly identified models prevent a defensible affinity estimate? Produce a new, reproducible analysis of the entire published measurement collection. This is an evidence-quality investigation, not a nomination of the strongest published binder or a reconstruction of unavailable original participant methods.