Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2205.05488

DNA data storage, sequencing data-carrying DNA

Jasmine Quah·Omer Sella·Thomas Heinis
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

DNA is a leading candidate as the next archival storage media due to its density, durability and sustainability. To read (and write) data DNA storage exploits technology that has been developed over decades to sequence naturally occurring DNA in the life sciences. To achieve higher accuracy for previously unseen, biological DNA, sequencing relies on extending and training deep machine learning models known as basecallers. This growth in model complexity requires substantial resources, both computational and data sets. It also eliminates the possibility of a compact read head for DNA as a storage medium. We argue that we need to depart from blindly using sequencing models from the life sciences for DNA data storage. The difference is striking: for life science applications we have no control over the DNA, however, in the case of DNA data storage, we control how it is written, as well as the particular write head. More specifically, data-carrying DNA can be modulated and embedded with alignment markers and error correcting codes to guarantee higher fidelity and to carry out some of the work that the machine learning models perform. In this paper, we study accuracy trade-offs between deep model size and error correcting codes. We show that, starting with a model size of 107MB, the reduced accuracy from model compression can be compensated by using simple error correcting codes in the DNA sequences. In our experiments, we show that a substantial reduction in the size of the model does not incur an undue penalty for the error correcting codes used, therefore paving the way for portable data-carrying DNA read head. Crucially, we show that through the joint use of model compression and error correcting codes, we achieve a higher read accuracy than without compression and error correction codes.

Explore related subjects

cs.ETcs.ITcs.LGmath.IT

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jasmine Quah, Omer Sella, Thomas Heinis. 2022-05-11. DNA data storage, sequencing data-carrying DNA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.05488

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Beyond HBM-on-GPU: Thermal Design Envelope for 3D Volumetric DRAM-on-GPU Integration

The scaling of GPUs for AI and HPC workloads is increasingly constrained by the capacity, bandwidth, and thermal limits of both 2.5D HBM-GPU and direct-stacked 3D HBM-on-GPU integration. This work establishes the thermal design envelope for 3D volumetric DRAM-on-GPU integration, in which vertically oriented DRAM dies and interleaved cooling cavities reshape heat flow and memory interfacing above the GPU. Using a package-level thermal model anchored to a consistent HBM-on-GPU baseline and driven by a realistic reticle-scale non-uniform GPU power map, we quantify the key parameters governing thermal feasibility. Stack height is the dominant limiter of peak temperature, while cooling-cavity conductivity shifts the feasible region, and mold insertion and stack orientation further modulate thermal behavior. A distributed memory-controller and network-on-chip tier introduces only a moderate thermal penalty. Although die-level parallelism increases bandwidth, the reduction in simulated training time saturates once execution becomes compute-bound. These results define a bounded co-design space across bandwidth, capacity, and thermal constraints for 3D volumetric DRAM-on-GPU integration.

cs.ET↗
arXiv2026

Droop-Aware Foundation Model Power Flow

This paper develops a droop-aware extension of the GridFM power systems foundation model, embedding droop gains and frequency/voltage deadband parameters as per-bus node features to enable control-aware AC power-flow analysis. Existing power-flow datasets encode only static electrical features, conflating operating points from qualitatively different control regimes; this work resolves that gap by exposing droop and deadband parameters as structured node features, with deadband discontinuities handled through a smooth tanh approximation that preserves solver differentiability. A transformer-based graph neural network is pre-trained on masked reconstruction and fine-tuned on the resulting control-aware datasets. The framework is validated against PSCAD electromagnetic-transient simulations on a two-bus system (0.11% maximum steady-state error) and cross-validated against an independent PyPower droop solver on the IEEE 24-bus RTS. On the 24-bus system the surrogate attains R2 = 0.9996 for active generation and 0.0015 p.u. voltage-magnitude RMSE; scalability is confirmed on the IEEE 300-bus system (0.0036 p.u. RMSE, R2 = 0.9841 for voltage magnitude across 299,700 predictions). A three-mode control study further shows that the deadband widens the control-error distribution while leaving total droop compensation unchanged, establishing deadband width as an actionable node-level design feature.

cs.ET↗
arXiv2026

GNN-based Path-aware multi-view Circuit Learning for Technology Mapping

Traditional technology mapping suffers from systemic inaccuracies in delay estimation due to its reliance on abstract, technology-agnostic delay models that fail to capture the nuanced timing behavior behavior of real post-mapping circuits. To address this fundamental limitation, we introduce GPA(graph neural network (GNN)-based Path-Aware multi-view circuit learning), a novel GNN framework that learns precise, data-driven delay predictions by synergistically fusing three complementary views of circuit structure: And-Inverter Graphs (AIGs)-based functional encoding, post-mapping technology emphasizes critical timing paths. Trained exclusively on real cell delays extracted from critical paths of industrial-grade post-mapping netlists, GPA learns to classify cut delays with unprecedented accuracy, directly informing smarter mapping decisions. Evaluated on the 19 EPFL combinational benchmarks, GPA achieves 19.9%, 2.1% and 4.1% average delay reduction over the conventional heuristics methods (techmap, MCH) and the prior state-of-the-art ML-based approach SLAP, respectively-without compromising area efficiency.

cs.ET↗