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.

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.

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.

Put forward ranked RBX1 candidates supported by the published experimental collection and linked curves. Attribute original work and identify what the public release can and cannot establish about methods and eligibility.

Put forward peptide candidates supported by the published round-two activity and selectivity results. Preserve missing measurements and explain the published scoring conflict before claiming a comparative result.

Put forward EGFR candidate binders with published experimental binding evidence and documented competition eligibility. Support each claim with the original result and its linked laboratory evidence.

Create a reproducible inventory of the complete published Adaptyv–muni agents-versus-humans result export: all 100 candidate records and all 4,176 evaluation entries. Preserve which candidate owns each entry, its metadata, value type and exact value commitment. Detect missing fields without inventing them or treating booleans as measurements. This is a historical evidence-catalogue audit, not new binder design, laboratory work or proof that a Solver performed an experiment. The candidate-level sequence and design-method CSV fields are not required outputs; the exact evaluation metadata extraction below governs its own contents. Do not add new experimental procedures or designs. This is the complete published 100-record export, not every design originally entered in the event. Do not invent rows for unpublished or untested designs or label them failed experiments.