![]() |
Moderated by Stephen Muggleton. |
Jacques CohenClassification of approaches used to study cell regulation: Search for a unified view using constraints and machine learning |
The
article
mentioned above has been submitted to the Electronic
Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, and the present page
contains the review discussion. Click here for
more
explanations and for the webpage of theauthor, Jacques Cohen.
Overview of interactions
Q1. Anonymous Referee 1 (15.10):
Overview of the paper:Modeling by differential equations had been popular for the simulation of cell regulation. After the popular use of micro array, graphical modeling became popular. Prediction of the cell regulation by simulation is a direct problem and the modeling is a inverse problem. The approaches for those problems are classified by the following three viewpoints:
Probabilistic versus Non probabilistic In this paper, methods of simulation and modeling of expression patterns of genes are classified from the viewpoint of machine learning.
Review:Recommendation: The paper can be accepted for ETAI after minor revisions. No further refereeing round is needed.In order to simulate the cell regulation, it looks sufficient to select appropriate model for each case. The necessity for united interpretation using several assumptions is not clear. In the modeling problem, it is shown that the space of variable vectors can be divided into subspaces. The problem is simplified by considering mutual transitions between those spaces. That can be a good approach for the modeling problem.
Detailed comments are follows:
2 The Direct Continuos Approach
3.1 The Inverse Problem
5. The Qualitative Approach It is recommended to show the case which has three or more state variables.
8 Final Remarks Q2. Anonymous Referee 2 (15.10):
Overall advice: The paper can possibly be accepted after major revisions and another round of reviewing. This advice comes from an AI scientist with little background in the specific problem addressed here. So, it is a low confidence review. Motivation: the work is quite interesting, but still preliminary It describes a problem (the inverse problem) but does not really present solutions as yet. It is more like a challenge Also, there is neither real data nor any experiments taht backup the sketched approach. Additionally, not all techniques that seem potentially applicable to this problem are discussed (e.g. neural nets). Finally, the part on cell regulation (and some background on cell regulation) should be expanded for an AI audience. Not everybody is familiar with that. In my printed version of the paper, there were some minor problems with the figures (arrows not always present), but it is unclear whether this is due to my printer or to some other cause Minor comments: P1. several papers are now available : please name them P2. and elsewhere : the author refers a lot to ILP. This is not the only form of mahcine learning, and other forms of machine learning, such as neural nets, should also be discussed. P3. I assume xi denotes the expression level of hte gene ? P4. section 2.1. please expand. One might also use equation generation systems such as those by Washio and Motoda P6. the inverse problem. It would be good to specify the problem more formally, and to illustrate it with a detailed example. The inverse boolean approach is quite clear. It would be good to give as detailed an example for the other approaches too. Given the inverse boolean problem, I am wondering whether it is not possible to use (recurrent ?) neural networks for addressing this inverse problem as well as the other ones ? P15. I do not really agree with the (2) point and its clarification. In fibonaci, you can indeed use the program in two directions. It seems however that for the clps given in hte earlier sections, the goal of the inverse problem is to construct parts of the program (like the slopes etc). I do not really see the analogy there. It would be good to clarify this further on a detailed example in the earlier sections.
|