Continuous surrogates versus threshold Boolean networks for modeling Arabidopsis ISR gene regulation
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 predictor
Record details
Published: 25 July 2026
Source: arXiv cs.LG
Category: Research
Topics: Regulation · Safety & alignment · Military & security
Retrieved: 29 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
SafeCA: Safe Cross-Attention Localization and Regulation for Text-to-Video Jailbreak Defense
arXiv red teaming query · 11 August 2026
AI Integrity: A New Paradigm for Verifiable AI Governance
arXiv · 13 April 2026
Project Libra AI security support
UK Contracts Finder — AI procurement · 13 August 2026
Optimal Reward Shaping: Autonomous Car Parking Case Study
arXiv cs.LG · 26 July 2026
Towards Robust Reinforcement Learning for Small-Scale Language Model Agents
HuggingFace Daily Papers · 26 July 2026
TRuE-XAI: causal and explainable ai framework for trustworthy corporate earnings growth forecasting
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 27 July 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (25 July 2026), “Continuous surrogates versus threshold Boolean networks for modeling Arabidopsis ISR gene regulation,” evidence record 14497, https://ethics.ai/record/14497 (originally published by arXiv cs.LG).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.