WATSON-CRICK BORDERED WORDS AND THEIR SYNTACTIC MONOID
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA strands that, mathematically speaking, are finite strings over the alphabet {A, G, C, T} are used in DNA computing to encode information. Due to the fact that A is Watson-Crick complementary to T and G to C, DNA single strands that are Watson-Crick complementary can bind to each other or to themselves in either intended or unintended ways. One of the structures that is usually undesirable for biocomputation, since it makes the affected DNA string unavailable for future interactions, is the hairpin: If some subsequences of a DNA single string are complementary to each other, the string will bind to itself forming a hairpin-like structure. This paper studies a mathematical formalization of a particular case of hairpins, the Watson-Crick bordered words. A Watson-Crick bordered word is a word with the property that it has a prefix that is Watson-Crick complementary to its suffix. We namely study algebraic properties of Watson-Crick bordered and unbordered words. We also give a complete characterization of the syntactic monoid of the language consisting of all Watson-Crick bordered words over a given alphabet. Our results hold for the more general case where the Watson-Crick complement function is replaced by an arbitrary antimorphic involution.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it