BEND 2.0: Benchmarking the Capabilities Needed to Design DNA
Abstract
BEND 2.0 evaluates DNA language models on predicting mutation effects and guiding sequence design, revealing that linear readouts and post-training improve performance but context-specific and multi-objective design remain challenging.
Genomic foundation models are increasingly used to propose DNA sequences and edits. But successful design requires capabilities that current benchmarks do not measure. Here we introduce BEND 2.0 (BENchmark for DNA language models), which tests how well models predict the effects of DNA changes and whether these predictions can guide sequence design. Across eight tasks built on five experimental datasets, we find that model choice and how representations are accessed both affect performance. Linear readouts fitted to frozen representations can match or exceed models' native outputs, and functional post-training substantially improves the models' capabilities. Linear readouts transfer well across experimental assays and genes, suggesting that models capture functional patterns beyond the data used to fit individual predictors. At the same time, strong prediction of average effects can conceal weaker prediction of context-specific effects, and accurate prediction of combined mutation effects does not imply accurate prediction of their interactions. In design tasks, model predictions can reduce the number of candidates needed to find a desired response, but still leave substantial room for better design choices, particularly for context-specific and multi-cell objectives. Our benchmark reveals that genomic models now display signs of general utility but have yet to saturate on performance in even simple tasks.
Community
We introduce BEND 2.0: eight tasks across five experimental datasets that test the capabilities genomic foundation models need to guide DNA design.
Key findings:
• Linear readouts fitted to frozen representations can match or exceed native model outputs, and functional post-training substantially improves performance.
• Strong average-effect prediction can hide weaker context-specific prediction; predicting combined mutation effects does not establish that a model captures their interactions.
• Model-guided selection can reduce the number of candidates needed to find a desired response, with substantial room to improve context-specific and multi-cell design.
Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.03806
Code and model submission guide: https://github.com/MachineLearningLifeScience/BEND2
Live leaderboard: https://machinelearninglifescience.github.io/BEND2/
Benchmark data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/yhsure/BEND2
We welcome new model evaluations and feedback from the genomic ML community.
This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.
The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API
- AmbiModBench: Benchmarking Gene Perturbation Prediction Beyond Shared Responses (2026)
- Beyond the Transcriptome: Chromatin-Informed Prediction of Cell-State-Dependent Perturbation Responses (2026)
- Bison: Cross-Dataset Learning for Unseen-Compound Perturbation Prediction (2026)
- What DNA Foundation Models Learn Beyond Sequence Composition (2026)
- VANDAM: Viewing a nucleotide sequence with DNA molecular priors (2026)
- When Do Biological Reasoning Models Use Their Biological Inputs? (2026)
Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!
If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space
You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2611.03806 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 1
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper