Switching Between Discrete and Continuous Models To Predict Genetic Activity

Molecular biologists use a variety of models when they predict the behavior of genetic systems. A discrete model of the behavior of individual macromolecular elements forms the foundation for their theory of each system. Yet a continuous model of the aggregate properties of the system is necessary for many predictive-tasks. I propose to build a computer program, called PEPTIDE, which can predict the behavior of moderately complex genetics systems by performing qualitative simulation on the discrete model, generating a continuous model from the discrete model through aggregation, and applying limit analysis to the continuous model. PEPTIDE's initial knowledge of a specific system will be represented with a discrete model which distinguishes between macromolecule structure and function and which uses five atomic processes as its functional primitives. Qualitative Process (QP) theory [Forbus 83] provides the representation for the continuous model. Whenever a system has multiple models of a domain, the decision of which model to use in a given time becomes a critically important issue. Knowledge of the relative significance of differing element concentrations and the behavior of process structure cycles will allow PEPTIDE to determine when to switch reasoning modes. A.I. Laboratory Working Papers are produced for internal circulation, and may contain information that is, for example, too preliminary or too detailed for formal publication. It is not intended that they should be considered papers to which reference can be made in the literature.

[1]  Drew McDermott,et al.  A Temporal Logic for Reasoning About Processes and Plans , 1982, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  Mark Stefik,et al.  Planning and Meta-Planning (MOLGEN: Part 2) , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Chuck Rieger,et al.  The Declarative Representation and Procedural Simulation of Causality in Physical Mechanisms , 1977, IJCAI.

[4]  Charles Rich Knowledge Representation Languages and Predicate Calculus: How to Have Your Cake and Eat It Too , 1982, AAAI.

[5]  Randall Davis,et al.  Diagnosis Based on Description of Structure and Function , 1982, AAAI.

[6]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  Foundations of Envisioning , 1982, AAAI.

[7]  Benjamin Kuipers,et al.  Getting the Envisionment Right , 1982, AAAI.

[8]  Peter Szolovits,et al.  Causal Understanding of Patient Illness in Medical Diagnosis , 1981, IJCAI.

[9]  R. Johnstone,et al.  The Journal of , 2014 .

[10]  Chuck Rieger,et al.  One System for Two Tasks: A Commonsense Algorithm Memory that Solves Problems and Comprehends Language , 1975 .

[11]  Charles Rich Inspection methods in programming , 1980 .

[12]  Richard J. Doyle Representing Change for Common-Sense Physical Reasoning , 1983 .

[13]  Johan de Kleer,et al.  The Origin and Resolution of Ambiguities in Causal Arguments , 1979, IJCAI.

[14]  Ramesh S. Patil,et al.  Causal representation of patient illness for electrolyte and acid-base diagnosis , 1981 .

[15]  Mark Stefik,et al.  Planning with Constraints (MOLGEN: Part 1) , 1981, Artif. Intell..

[16]  Joel Moses,et al.  Algebraic simplification: a guide for the perplexed , 1971, CACM.

[17]  J. Kleer Qualitative and Quantitative Knowledge in Classical Mechanics , 1975 .