Table 2.
Composite Score Values in ENFRN Structures | Number of Rules and Output Nodes in ENFRN Structures | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
a/a | Regulator | Target | Initial | Simplified | |||||
Initial | Simplified | Trained | Rules | Output | Rules | Output | |||
1 | HTB1 | HTA1 | 0.899 | 0.935 | 0.533 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 9 |
2 | HTA1 | HHF1 | 1.056 | 0.988 | 0.435 | 11 | 8 | 9 | 8 |
3 | HHF1 | HTA2 | 0.644 | 0.698 | 0.595 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 10 |
4 | HTB1 | HHF1 | 0.842 | 0.815 | 0.536 | 12 | 8 | 10 | 8 |
5 | HHF1 | HTB2 | 0.654 | 0.642 | 0.560 | 12 | 8 | 10 | 8 |
6 | HHF2 | HTA1 | 0.741 | 0.773 | 0.618 | 14 | 10 | 12 | 10 |
7 | HHF2 | HTA2 | 0.657 | 0.669 | 0.543 | 14 | 10 | 12 | 10 |
8 | HHF2 | HHF1 | 0.748 | 0.785 | 0.503 | 14 | 9 | 12 | 8 |
9 | HHT1 | HTA1 | 0.898 | 0.916 | 0.664 | 12 | 9 | 10 | 9 |
10 | HHT1 | HTB1 | 1.095 | 1.097 | 0.811 | 12 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
11 | HHT1 | HTB2 | 0.632 | 0.660 | 0.567 | 12 | 8 | 10 | 8 |
12 | HHT1 | HHF2 | 0.841 | 0.791 | 0.755 | 12 | 9 | 10 | 9 |
13 | HTA1 | HHT2 | 1.233 | 1.188 | 0.606 | 11 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
14 | HHT2 | HHF1 | 0.658 | 0.625 | 0.567 | 14 | 9 | 14 | 9 |
15 | HHF2 | HHT2 | 0.890 | 0.881 | 0.589 | 14 | 10 | 13 | 10 |
16 | HHT2 | HHT1 | 0.962 | 0.975 | 0.749 | 14 | 10 | 10 | 9 |
We can depict a decrease at the complexity levels (i.e. 87% of the 16 extracted interactions described in table) between the initial and the simplified structures followed by a corresponding decrease in the score levels between the phases of the initial and the trained ENFRN.