Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA computing allows us to design linear time algorithms for problems that are intractable for conventional computing methods. The high degree of parallelism provided by DNA computing allows us to create simpler algorithms for solving computational problems. In this study, a DNA computing algorithm is proposed to solve the maze routing problem – finding the optimal path through a maze. Performing the algorithm in a biology laboratory would be impractical and would exceed the scope of this project since the experimentation itself would take days. To demonstrate the steps involved in the algorithm, a simulation was developed on a conventional computer to display the in vitro techniques that would need to be performed in order to solve a maze using DNA computing in a biology lab environment. However the simulation in silico is limited in the size of problem since the processes that would occur in parallel in vitro with DNA computing, occurs sequentially with conventional computers (in silico), causing larger problems to take exponentially longer to compute. Thus, the in silico simulation is confined to smaller, more manageable problems. This serves an example of the power of DNA computing over conventional methods. Our algorithm is the first to solve a maze routing problem using DNA computing
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".