Complexity of Self-Assembled Shapes
David Soloveichik, Erik Winfree

TL;DR
This paper establishes a relationship between the minimal number of tile types needed for self-assembling a shape and the shape's Kolmogorov complexity, revealing that scaled-up shapes often require fewer tiles and connecting self-assembly complexity with Turing machine complexity.
Contribution
It proves bounds relating tile complexity to Kolmogorov complexity and introduces a method to convert shape programs into tile sets, highlighting the role of scale independence in self-assembly.
Findings
Minimal tile types are bounded by shape complexity.
Scaled-up shapes often need fewer tile types.
Self-assembly complexity is polynomially related to Turing machine complexity.
Abstract
The connection between self-assembly and computation suggests that a shape can be considered the output of a self-assembly ``program,'' a set of tiles that fit together to create a shape. It seems plausible that the size of the smallest self-assembly program that builds a shape and the shape's descriptional (Kolmogorov) complexity should be related. We show that when using a notion of a shape that is independent of scale, this is indeed so: in the Tile Assembly Model, the minimal number of distinct tile types necessary to self-assemble a shape, at some scale, can be bounded both above and below in terms of the shape's Kolmogorov complexity. As part of the proof of the main result, we sketch a general method for converting a program outputting a shape as a list of locations into a set of tile types that self-assembles into a scaled up version of that shape. Our result implies, somewhat…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
