mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Continuous surrogates versus threshold Boolean networks for modeling Arabidopsis ISR gene regulation

arXiv 2607.23289 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2026q-bio.MN cs.LG cs.NEcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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 textitArabidopsis 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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2026.

Builds on

1 of 15 references.

References · 1

  1. 2025Machine Learning Methods for Gene Regulatory Network Inferencecited by 2

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026CoDiffGRN: Rethinking Gene Regulatory Network Inference via the BEELINE-KGC Benchmark and Co-evolutionary Discrete Diffusion
  2. 2024LLM4GRN: Discovering Causal Gene Regulatory Networks with LLMs -- Evaluation through Synthetic Data Generation
  3. 2025Transcoder-based Circuit Analysis for Interpretable Single-Cell Foundation Models
  4. 2026Sparse autoencoders reveal organized biological knowledge but minimal regulatory logic in single-cell foundation models: a comparative atlas of Geneformer and scGPT
  5. 2025Graph Neural Network-Based Reinforcement Learning for Controlling Biological Networks - the GATTACA Framework
  6. 2025Contextualizing biological perturbation experiments through language
  7. 2026VCLMU: Mechanism-Centric Virtual Cell World Modeling for Perturbation Response
  8. 2026D2R2: Discrete Diffusion with Regulation Reinforcement for Single-Cell Perturbation Prediction