families of MRBNs and another to measure the sensitivity to initial conditions of different families of MRBNs. In each set of experiments, five cases were studied in two groups. In the first group, κ (percentage of internal inputs) is explored, while leaving µ (node-to-module ratio) fixed. In the second group, µ is varied while 〈 K 〉 = 〈 L 〉 . For both sets of experiments, the following five cases were considered, varying 〈 K$_{T}$ 〉 = { 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 } : For cases 1, 2 and 3, µ remains fixed ( µ = N M → 1) while κ is explored. Case 2 favors intermod- ular (external) links, while keeping intramodular links fixed at 〈 K 〉 = 1. Case 3 favors intramodular (internal) links, while keeping intermodular links fixed at 〈 L 〉 = 1. Case 1 is intermediate, balancing intermodular and intramodular links, restricting 〈 K 〉 = 〈 L 〉 . Cases 1, 4 and 5 are compared to explore the effect of µ on MRBN properties. Case 4 is equivalent to the classical RBN model, since there is only one module ( M = 1) and no intermodular links ( 〈 L 〉 = 0). Case 5 is the opposite extreme, where there are N$_{T}$ modules of a single node. In this case, intramodular links are self-links, and when 〈 K 〉 > 1 there are in practice fictitious inputs, since the dynamic behavior is equivalent to that of 〈 K 〉 = 1. This is because having more than one input from the same node is equivalent to having only one input (zero or one), as the same node cannot have different states at the same time. Case 5 is different from classical RBNs with only self-links since 〈 L 〉 > 0. In the following, the variables representing averages such as 〈 K 〉 and 〈 L 〉 will be used without the average symbols for simplicity. 10 1. 〈 K 〉 = 〈 L 〉 , µ → 1 2. 〈 K 〉 = 1, µ → 1 3. 〈 L 〉 = 1, µ → 1 4. N = 20, M = 1, 〈 L 〉 = 0 , 〈 K 〉 = 〈 K$_{T}$ 〉 5. N = 1, M = 20, 〈 L 〉 = 〈 K 〉