MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099378738 · doi:10.1142/s0129054105003467

BOND-FREE LANGUAGES: FORMALIZATIONS, MAXIMALITY AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS

2005· article· en· W2099378738 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Foundations of Computer Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA and Biological Computing
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's UniversityWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecidabilityDiscrete mathematicsCharacterization (materials science)Property (philosophy)MathematicsContext (archaeology)Hamming codeHamming distanceComputer scienceCombinatoricsAlgorithmBlock code

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem of negative design of DNA languages is addressed, that is, properties and construction methods of large sets of words that prevent undesired bonds when used in DNA computations. We recall a few existing formalizations of the problem and then define the property of sim-bond-freedom, where sim is a similarity relation between words. We show that this property is decidable for context-free languages and polynomial-time decidable for regular languages. The maximality of this property also turns out to be decidable for regular languages and polynomial-time decidable for an important case of the Hamming similarity. Then we consider various construction methods for Hamming bond-free languages, including the recently introduced method of templates, and obtain a complete structural characterization of all maximal Hamming bond-free languages. This result is applicable to the θ-k-code property introduced by Jonoska and Mahalingam.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it