Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider the problem of designing DNA codes, namely sets of equi-length words over the alphabet [A, C, G, T] that satisfy certain combinatorial constraints. This problem is motivated by the task of reliably storing and retrieving information in synthetic DNA strands for use in DNA computing or as molecular bar codes in chemical libraries. The primary constraints that we consider, defined with respect to a parameter d, are as follows: for every pair of words w, x in a code, there are at least d mismatches between w and x if w not equal x and also between the reverse of w and the Watson-Crick complement of x. Extending classical results from coding theory, we present several upper and lower bounds on the maximum size of such DNA codes and give methods for constructing such codes. An additional constraint that is relevant to the design of DNA codes is that the free energies and enthalpies of the code words, and thus the melting temperatures, be similar. We describe dynamic programming algorithms that can (a) calculate the total number of words of length n whose free energy value, as approximated by a formula of Breslauer et al. (1986) falls in a given range, and (b) output a random such word. These algorithms are intended for use in heuristic algorithms for constructing DNA codes.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".