ACM Digital Library home
ACM home
Advanced Search
10.1145/3357713.3384263acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesstocConference Proceedings
research-article

The program-size complexity of self-assembled paths

Publication: STOC 2020: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of ComputingJune 2020 Pages 727–737https://doi.org/10.1145/3357713.3384263
  • 0citation
  • 95
    • Downloads
Metrics
Total Citations0
Total Downloads95
Last 12 Months95
Last 6 weeks5

ABSTRACT

We prove a Pumping Lemma for the noncooperative abstract Tile Assembly Model, a model central to the theory of algorithmic self-assembly since the beginning of the field. This theory suggests, and our result proves, that small differences in the nature of adhesive bindings between abstract square molecules gives rise to vastly different expressive capabilities. In the cooperative abstract Tile Assembly Model, square tiles attach to each other using multi-sided cooperation of one, two or more sides. This precise control of tile binding is directly exploited for algorithmic tasks including growth of specified shapes using very few tile types, as well as simulation of Turing machines and even self-simulation of self-assembly systems. But are cooperative bindings required for these computational tasks? The definitionally simpler noncooperative (or Temperature 1) model has poor control over local binding events: tiles stick if they bind on at least one side. This has led to the conjecture that it is impossible for it to exhibit precisely controlled growth of computationally-defined shapes. Here, we prove such an impossibility result. We show that any planar noncooperative system that attempts to grow large algorithmically-controlled tile-efficient assemblies must also grow infinite non-algorithmic (pumped) structures with a simple closed-form description, or else suffer blocking of intended algorithmic structures. Our result holds for both directed and nondirected systems, and gives an explicit upper bound of (8|T|)4|T|+1(5|σ| + 6), where |T| is the size of the tileset and |σ| is the size of the seed assembly, beyond which any path of tiles is pumpable or blockable.

References

  1. Leonard Adleman, Qi Cheng, Ashish Goel, and Ming-Deh Huang. 2001. Running time and program size for self-assembled squares. In STOC: Proceedings of the The Program-Size Complexity of Self-Assembled Paths STOC ’20, June 22–26, 2020, Chicago, IL, USA 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. Hersonissos, Greece, 740– 748. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Robert D Barish, Paul WK Rothemund, and Erik Winfree. 2005. Two computational primitives for algorithmic self-assembly: Copying and counting. Nano letters 5, 12 (2005), 2586–2592.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Robert D Barish, Rebecca Schulman, Paul WK Rothemund, and Erik Winfree. 2009. An information-bearing seed for nucleating algorithmic self-assembly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, 15 (2009), 6054–6059.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. B. Behsaz, J. Maňuch, and L. Stacho. 2012. Turing universality of step-wise and stage assembly at Temperature 1. In DNA18: Proc. of International Meeting on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming (LNCS), Vol. 7433. Springer, 1–11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Hugues Bersini and Vincent Detours. 1994. Asynchrony induces stability in cellular automata based models. In Artificial life IV. MIT Press, MA, 382–387.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Sarah Cannon, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Sarah Eisenstat, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, and Andrew Winslow. 2013. Two Hands Are Better Than One (up to constant factors). In STACS: Proceedings of the Thirtieth International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. LIPIcs, 172–184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Arxiv preprint: 1201.1650.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron T Chalk, Bin Fu, Alejandro Huerta, Mario A Maldonado, Eric Martinez, Robert T Schweller, and Tim Wylie. 2015. Flipping Tiles: Concentration Independent Coin Flips in Tile Self-Assembly. In DNA21: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming (LNCS), Andrew Phillips and Peng Yin (Eds.), Vol. 9211. Springer, 87–103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Qi Cheng, Gagan Aggarwal, Michael H. Goldwasser, Ming-Yang Kao, Robert T. Schweller, and Pablo Moisset de Espanés. 2005. Complexities for Generalized Models of Self-Assembly. SIAM J. Comput. 34 (2005), 1493–1515.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Matthew Cook. 2004. Universality in elementary cellular automata. Complex systems 15, 1 (2004), 1–40.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Matthew Cook, Yunhui Fu, and Robert T. Schweller. 2011. Temperature 1 selfassembly: deterministic assembly in 3D and probabilistic assembly in 2D. In SODA: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 570–589. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:0912.0027.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Sándor P. Fekete, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, Andrew Winslow, and Damien Woods. 2014. One Tile to Rule Them All: Simulating Any Tile Assembly System with a Single Universal Tile. In ICALP: Proceedings of the 41st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (LNCS), Vol. 8572. Springer, 368–379. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1212.4756.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Erik D. Demaine, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, Robert T. Schweller, Scott M. Summers, and Damien Woods. 2013. The two-handed tile assembly model is not intrinsically universal. In ICALP: Proceedings of the 40th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (LNCS), Vol. 7965. Springer, 400–412.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1306.6710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. David Doty. 2012. Theory of algorithmic self-assembly. Commun. ACM 55, 12 (Dec. 2012), 78–88.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, Scott M. Summers, and Damien Woods. 2012. The tile assembly model is intrinsically universal. In FOCS: Proceedings of the 53rd Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (New Brunswick, New Jersey). IEEE, 439–446. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1111.3097.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. David Doty, Matthew J. Patitz, Dustin Reishus, Robert T. Schweller, and Scott M. Summers. 2010. Strong Fault-Tolerance for Self-Assembly with Fuzzy Temperature. In FOCS: Proceedings of the 51st Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. 417–426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. David Doty, Matthew J. Patitz, and Scott M. Summers. 2011. Limitations of selfassembly at temperature 1. Theoretical Computer Science 412, 1–2 (2011), 145–158.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:0903.1857v1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Constantine Glen Evans. 2014. Crystals that count! Physical principles and experimental investigations of DNA tile self-assembly. Ph.D. Dissertation. California Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Sándor P. Fekete, Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, and Robert T. Schweller. 2015. Universal Computation with Arbitrary Polyomino Tiles in Non-Cooperative Self-Assembly. In SODA: ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 148–167. http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3351Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Bin Fu, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, and Robert Sheline. 2012. Selfassembly with Geometric Tiles. In ICALP: Proceedings of the 39th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (LNCS), Vol. 7391. Springer, 714–725.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenichi Fujibayashi, Rizal Hariadi, Sung Ha Park, Erik Winfree, and Satoshi Murata. 2007. Toward Reliable Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA Tiles: A Fixed-Width Cellular Automaton Pattern. Nano Letters 8, 7 (2007), 1791–1797.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. David Furcy and Scott M Summers. 2018. Optimal Self-Assembly of Finite Shapes at Temperature 1 in 3D. Algorithmica 80, 6 (2018), 1909–1963.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. David Furcy, Scott M Summers, and Christian Wendlandt. 2019. New Bounds on the Tile Complexity of Thin Rectangles at Temperature-1. In DNA25: International Conference on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming. Springer, 100–119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Oscar Gilbert, Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J Patitz, and Trent A Rogers. 2016. Computing in continuous space with self-assembling polygonal tiles. In SODA: ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. SIAM, 937–956. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1503.00327.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, and Scott M. Summers. 2014. The Power of Duples (in Self-Assembly): It’s Not So Hip To Be Square. In COCOON: Proceedings of 20th International Computing and Combinatorics Conference. 215–226. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1402.4515.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Natasa Jonoska and Daria Karpenko. 2014. Active Tile Self-assembly, Part 1: Universality at temperature 1. Int. J. Found. Comput. Sci. 25, 2 (2014), 141–164.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Ján Maňuch, Ladislav Stacho, and Christine Stoll. 2010. Two lower bounds for self-assemblies at Temperature 1. Journal of Computational Biology 17, 6 (2010), 841–852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Pierre-Étienne Meunier. 2015. Non-cooperative Algorithms in Self-assembly. In UCNC: Unconventional Computation and Natural Computation (LNCS), Vol. 9252. Springer, 263–276.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierre-Étienne Meunier, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Guillaume Theyssier, Andrew Winslow, and Damien Woods. 2014. Intrinsic universality in tile self-assembly requires cooperation. In SODA: Proceedings of the ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms. 752–771.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1304.1679.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Pierre-Étienne Meunier and Damien Regnault. 2015. A pumping lemma for noncooperative self-assembly. (2015). Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1312.6668v4 [cs.CC].Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Pierre-Étienne Meunier and Damien Regnault. 2019. Non-cooperatively assembling large structures. In DNA Computing and Molecular Programming - 25th International Conference, DNA 25, Seattle, WA, USA, August 5-9, 2019, Proceedings.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Pierre-Étienne Meunier and Damien Woods. 2017. The non-cooperative tile assembly model is not intrinsically universal or capable of bounded Turing machine simulation. In STOC: Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, Montreal, Canada, 328–341. Arxiv preprint with full proofs: arXiv:1702.00353v2 [cs.CC].Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Turlough Neary and Damien Woods. 2006. P-completeness of cellular automaton Rule 110. In ICALP: The 33rd International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (LNCS), Vol. 4051. Springer, 132–143.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Jennifer E. Padilla, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, Nadrian C. Seeman, Scott M. Summers, and Xingsi Zhong. 2014. Asynchronous Signal Passing for Tile Self-Assembly: Fuel Efficient Computation and Efficient Assembly of Shapes. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 25, 4 (2014), 459–488.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Arxiv preprint: arxiv:1202.5012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthew J. Patitz. 2014. An introduction to tile-based self-assembly and a survey of recent results. Natural Computing 13(2) (2014), 195–224.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. 1007/s11047-013-9379-4 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Matthew J. Patitz, Robert T. Schweller, and Scott M. Summers. 2011. Exact Shapes and Turing Universality at Temperature 1 with a Single Negative Glue. In DNA 17: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on DNA Computing and Molecular Programming (LNCS). Springer, 175–189. Arxiv preprint: arXiv:1105.1215.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Paul W.K. Rothemund, Nick Papadakis, and Erik Winfree. 2004. Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA Sierpinski Triangles. PLoS Biology 2, 12 (2004), 2041–2053.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Paul W. K. Rothemund. 2001. Theory and Experiments in Algorithmic Self-Assembly. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Southern California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Paul W. K. Rothemund and Erik Winfree. 2000. The Program-size Complexity of Self-Assembled Squares (extended abstract). In STOC: Proceedings of the thirtysecond annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing. ACM, Portland, Oregon, 459–468.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Rebecca Schulman, Bernard Yurke, and Erik Winfree. 2012. Robust selfreplication of combinatorial information via crystal growth and scission. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 17 (2012), 6405–6410.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. David Soloveichik and Erik Winfree. 2007. Complexity of Self-Assembled Shapes. SIAM J. Comput. 36, 6 (2007), 1544–1569.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Hao Wang. 1961. Proving Theorems by Pattern Recognition – II. The Bell System Technical Journal XL, 1 (1961), 1–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Erik Winfree. 1998. Algorithmic Self-Assembly of DNA. Ph.D. Dissertation. California Institute of Technology.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Damien Woods. 2015. Intrinsic universality and the computational power of self-assembly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 373, 2046 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  50. dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0214. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Damien Woods, David Doty, Cameron Myhrvold, Joy Hui, Felix Zhou, Peng Yin, and Erik Winfree. 2019. Diverse and robust molecular algorithms using reprogrammable DNA self-assembly. Nature 567, 7748 (2019), 366–372.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The program-size complexity of self-assembled paths

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        Get this Publication

        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)95
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5

          Other Metrics

          View Author Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        View Table of Contents
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!