On the Runtime of Chemical Reaction Networks Beyond Idealized Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies the (discrete) \emph{chemical reaction network (CRN)} computational model that emerged in the last two decades as an abstraction for molecular programming. The correctness of CRN protocols is typically established under one of two possible schedulers that determine how the execution advances: (1) a \emph{stochastic scheduler} that obeys the (continuous time) Markov process dictated by the standard model of stochastic chemical kinetics; or (2) an \emph{adversarial scheduler} whose only commitment is to maintain a certain fairness condition. The latter scheduler is justified by the fact that the former one crucially assumes ``idealized conditions'' that more often than not, do not hold in real wet-lab experiments. However, when it comes to analyzing the \emph{runtime} of CRN protocols, the existing literature focuses strictly on the stochastic scheduler, thus raising the research question that drives this work: Is there a meaningful way to quantify the runtime of CRNs without the idealized conditions assumption? The main conceptual contribution of the current paper is to answer this question in the affirmative, formulating a new runtime measure for CRN protocols that does not rely on idealized conditions. This runtime measure is based on an adapted (weaker) fairness condition as well as a novel scheme that enables partitioning the execution into short \emph{rounds} and charging the runtime for each round individually (inspired by definitions for the runtime of asynchronous distributed algorithms). Following that, we turn to investigate various fundamental computational tasks and establish (often tight) bounds on the runtime of the corresponding CRN protocols operating under the adversarial scheduler. This includes an almost complete chart of the runtime complexity landscape of predicate decidability tasks.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".