Robert Davies

No scaling laws for single-cell foundation models: when bigger atlases stop teaching the model anything In language and vision, the recipe has been simple: more data, bigger models, better performance. Single-cell biology borrowed that playbook. Foundation models for transcriptomics jumped from 1 million cells to atlases of over 100 million, on the assumption that scale would unlock the same gains. Alan DenAdel and coauthors put that assumption to the test, and the result is sobering. Working from a 22.2-million-cell corpus, they pretrained 400 models across five architectures (from PCA and a variational autoencoder up to the Geneformer transformer) and ran 6,400 evaluation experiments. They varied not just dataset size (1% to 75%) but also diversity, using cell-type re-weighting and geometric sketching to deliberately enrich rare cell types and transcriptional states. The finding: performance saturates almost immediately. On cell-type classification, batch integration, and perturbation prediction, most models hit their ceiling at roughly 1% of the corpus, about 200,000 cells. Beyond that, adding millions more cells changed essentially nothing. More diversity didn't help. Even spiking in genome-scale Perturb-seq data, to give the models perturbed phenotypes rather than just healthy ones, failed to move the needle. Larger models did score better overall, but they too plateaued early on data. Two points stood out. Simple baselines (PCA, logistic regression) often matched or beat the transformers. And the strongest model, SCimilarity, won not because of size but because its contrastive training objective is aligned with the downstream task. For single-cell data, what you train on and how you frame the objective matters far more than how much you collect. This reframes a quiet but expensive habit. In drug discovery, biotech, and any pipeline leaning on cell atlases, the instinct to keep scaling pretraining corpora may be burning compute for no return. The real leverage sits elsewhere: curating high-quality, task-relevant data and matching the training objective to the actual question you're trying to answer. Paper: DenAdel et al., journal license | doi.org/10.1038/s41592-026-0…