aiqbench analysis
This study compares continuous machine learning models like Random Forests and MLPs against discrete threshold Boolean networks for modeling gene regulatory dynamics in *Arabidopsis*. The findings demonstrate that while ML excels at numerical prediction, the mechanistic Boolean approach offers superior qualitative fidelity to biological trajectories over time. This work provides a critical framework for researchers balancing predictive accuracy with interpretability in systems biology applications of AI.
Continuous surrogates versus threshold Boolean networks for modeling Arabidopsis ISR gene regulation
arXiv:2607.23289v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Gene regulatory network modeling often requires balancing predictive accuracy and mechanistic interpretability. In this work, we compare continuous surrogate models and a discrete mechanistic model on the same \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} induced systemic resistance (ISR) dataset, using both the raw continuous gene-expression measurements and their sign-binarized representation. The study considers eight defense-related genes measured over nine time points and evaluates two continuous predictors, Random Forest (RF) regression and a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), against a threshold Boolean network (TBN). The models are assessed using rolling-origin one-step prediction, recursive multi-step rollout, and interpretability analysis. RF achieved the best average one-step numerical performance in the continuous domain, with an MAE of 1.910 and an RMSE of 2.836, compared with 2.089 and 3.106 for the MLP. In the binary domain, the TBN obtained the best average one-step qualitative performance, with a binary accuracy of 0.550 and a Hamming distance of 3.600, compared with 0.500 and 4.000 for RF, and 0.495 and 4.040 for the MLP. In recursive rollout, the TBN exactly reproduced the observed binarized trajectory, while the MLP also showed near-perfect fidelity, with a trajectory binary accuracy of 0.986, and RF accumulated substantially larger deviation, with a trajectory binary accuracy of 0.708. These results highlight that local numerical accuracy and global qualitative dynamical fidelity are not necessarily aligned, and suggest that continuous surrogates and threshold Boolean networks should be viewed as complementary tools for modeling biological regulation.
Abstract:Gene regulatory network modeling often requires balancing predictive accuracy and mechanistic interpretability. In this work, we compare continuous surrogate models and a discrete mechanistic model on the same \textit{Arabidopsis thaliana} induced systemic resistance (ISR) dataset, using both the raw continuous gene-expression measurements and their sign-binarized representation. The study considers eight defense-related genes measured over nine time points and evaluates two continuous predictors, Random Forest (RF) regression and a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), against a threshold Boolean network (TBN). The models are assessed using rolling-origin one-step prediction, recursive multi-step rollout, and interpretability analysis. RF achieved the best average one-step numerical performance in the continuous domain, with an MAE of 1.910 and an RMSE of 2.836, compared with 2.089 and 3.106 for the MLP. In the binary domain, the TBN obtained the best average one-step qualitative performance, with a binary accuracy of 0.550 and a Hamming distance of 3.600, compared with 0.500 and 4.000 for RF, and 0.495 and 4.040 for the MLP. In recursive rollout, the TBN exactly reproduced the observed binarized trajectory, while the MLP also showed near-perfect fidelity, with a trajectory binary accuracy of 0.986, and RF accumulated substantially larger deviation, with a trajectory binary accuracy of 0.708. These results highlight that local numerical accuracy and global qualitative dynamical fidelity are not necessarily aligned, and suggest that continuous surrogates and threshold Boolean networks should be viewed as complementary tools for modeling biological regulation.
Molecular Networks (q-bio.MN); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Neural and Evolutionary Computing (cs.NE)
arXiv:2607.23289 [q-bio.MN]
(or arXiv:2607.23289v1 [q-bio.MN] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.23289 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 · 335 words
Related coverage
Exactness at Inference: A Representational Criterion for Out-of-Distribution Generalization
arXiv · Sep 22, 2026
[AINews] High Taste Testers Ep. 1
Latent Space · Oct 17, 2026
Probabilistic Linear Explanations
arXiv · Sep 17, 2026

How to Self-Host a Validated AI Coding Assistant with NVIDIA NeMo Guardrails
NVIDIA · Jul 29, 2026