Scott M. Summers

dblp:76/2971 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
43ranked-venue papers
1as first author
7since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Theory of computation · 26 · 1 first-author · 3 since 2021Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 9 · 3 since 2021Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging computing · 8 · 1 since 2021
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Self-assembly of patterns in the abstract tile assembly model
Phillip Drake, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Tyler Tracy
Nat. Comput.3
2025 Proving new directed tile complexity lower bounds at temperature 1 by folding between 2D and just-barely 3D self-assembly
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers, Hailey Vadnais
Nat. Comput.2
2025 Fractal dimension of assemblies in the abstract tile assembly model
Daniel Hader, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Nat. Comput.3
2023 Improved Lower and Upper Bounds on the Tile Complexity of Uniquely Self-Assembling a Thin Rectangle Non-Cooperatively in 3D
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers, Logan Withers
Theory Comput. Syst.2
2021 Improved Lower and Upper Bounds on the Tile Complexity of Uniquely Self-Assembling a Thin Rectangle Non-Cooperatively in 3D
abstract
We investigate a fundamental question regarding a benchmark class of shapes in one of the simplest, yet most widely utilized abstract models of algorithmic tile self-assembly. Specifically, we study the directed tile complexity of a $k \times N$ thin rectangle in Winfree's abstract Tile Assembly Model, assuming that cooperative binding cannot be enforced (temperature-1 self-assembly) and that tiles are allowed to be placed at most one step into the third dimension (just-barely 3D). While the directed tile complexities of a square and a scaled-up version of any algorithmically specified shape at temperature 1 in just-barely 3D are both asymptotically the same as they are (respectively) at temperature 2 in 2D, the bounds on the directed tile complexity of a thin rectangle at temperature 2 in 2D are not known to hold at temperature 1 in just-barely 3D. Motivated by this discrepancy, we establish new lower and upper bounds on the directed tile complexity of a thin rectangle at temperature 1 in just-barely 3D. We develop a new, more powerful type of Window Movie Lemma that lets us upper bound the number of "sufficiently similar" ways to assign glues to a set of fixed locations. Consequently, our lower bound, $Ω\left(N^{\frac{1}{k}}\right)$, is an asymptotic improvement over the previous best lower bound and is more aesthetically pleasing since it eliminates the $k$ that used to divide $N^{\frac{1}{k}}$. The proof of our upper bound is based on a just-barely 3D, temperature-1 counter, organized according to "digit regions", which affords it roughly fifty percent more digits for the same target rectangle compared to the previous best counter. This increase in digit density results in an upper bound of $O\left(N^{\frac{1}{\left\lfloor\frac{k}{2}\right\rfloor}}+\log N\right)$, that is an asymptotic improvement over the previous best upper bound and roughly the square of our lower bound.
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers, Logan Withers
DNA2
2021 On the effects of hierarchical self-assembly for reducing program-size complexity
Sarah Cannon, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Sarah Eisenstat, David Furcy, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, Andrew Winslow
Theor. Comput. Sci.8
2021 Self-assembly of and optimal encoding within thin rectangles at temperature-1 in 3D
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers, Christian Wendlandt
Theor. Comput. Sci.2
2020 Hierarchical growth is necessary and (sometimes) sufficient to self-assemble discrete self-similar fractals
Jacob Hendricks, Joseph Opseth, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Nat. Comput.4
2019 New Bounds on the Tile Complexity of Thin Rectangles at Temperature-1
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers, Christian Wendlandt
DNA2
2018 Hierarchical Growth Is Necessary and (Sometimes) Sufficient to Self-assemble Discrete Self-similar Fractals
Jacob Hendricks, Joseph Opseth, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
DNA4
2018 Optimal Self-Assembly of Finite Shapes at Temperature 1 in 3D
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers
Algorithmica2
2018 Resiliency to multiple nucleation in temperature-1 self-assembly
Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Trent A. Rogers, Scott M. Summers, Andrew Winslow
Nat. Comput.4
2018 The power of duples (in self-assembly): It's not so hip to be square
Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, Scott M. Summers
Theor. Comput. Sci.4
2017 Optimal Program-Size Complexity for Self-Assembled Squares at Temperature 1 in 3D
David Furcy, Samuel Micka, Scott M. Summers
Algorithmica3
2017 Scaled pier fractals do not strictly self-assemble
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers
Nat. Comput.2
2016 Resiliency to Multiple Nucleation in Temperature-1 Self-Assembly
Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, Andrew Winslow
DNA4
2016 The Two-Handed Tile Assembly Model is not Intrinsically Universal
Erik D. Demaine, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, Damien Woods
Algorithmica5
2015 Optimal Self-assembly of Finite Shapes at Temperature 1 in 3D
David Furcy, Scott M. Summers
COCOA2
2015 Optimal Program-Size Complexity for Self-Assembly at Temperature 1 in 3D
David Furcy, Samuel Micka, Scott M. Summers
DNA3
2014 The Power of Duples (in Self-Assembly): It's Not So Hip to Be Square
Jacob Hendricks, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, Scott M. Summers
COCOON4
2014 Intrinsic universality in tile self-assembly requires cooperation
abstract
We prove a negative result on the power of a model of algorithmic self-assembly for which finding general techniques and results has been notoriously difficult. Specifically, we prove that Winfree's abstract Tile Assembly Model is not intrinsically universal when restricted to use noncooperative tile binding. This stands in stark contrast to the recent result that the abstract Tile Assembly Model is indeed intrinsically universal when cooperative binding is used (FOCS 2012). Noncooperative self-assembly, also known as “temperature 1”, is where all tiles bind to each other if they match on at least one side. On the other hand, cooperative self-assembly requires that some tiles bind on at least two sides. Our result shows that the change from non-cooperative to cooperative binding qualitatively improves the range of dynamics and behaviors found in these models of nanoscale self-assembly. The result holds in both two and three dimensions; the latter being quite surprising given that three-dimensional noncooperative tile assembly systems simulate Turing machines. This shows that Turing universal behavior in self-assembly does not imply the ability to simulate all algorithmic self-assembly processes. In addition to the negative result, we exhibit a three-dimensional noncooperative self-assembly tile set capable of simulating any two-dimensional noncooperative self-assembly system. This tile set implies that, in a restricted sense, non-cooperative self-assembly is intrinsically universal for itself.
Pierre-Etienne Meunier, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Guillaume Theyssier, Andrew Winslow, Damien Woods
SODA3
2013 The Two-Handed Tile Assembly Model Is Not Intrinsically Universal
Erik D. Demaine, Matthew J. Patitz, Trent A. Rogers, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, Damien Woods
ICALP (1)5
2013 Two Hands Are Better Than One (up to constant factors): Self-Assembly In The 2HAM vs. aTAM
abstract
We study the difference between the standard seeded model (aTAM) of tile self-assembly, and the "seedless" two-handed model of tile self-assembly (2HAM). Most of our results suggest that the two-handed model is more powerful. In particular, we show how to simulate any seeded system with a two-handed system that is essentially just a constant factor larger. We exhibit finite shapes with a busy-beaver separation in the number of distinct tiles required by seeded versus two-handed, and exhibit an infinite shape that can be constructed two-handed but not seeded. Finally, we show that verifying whether a given system uniquely assembles a desired supertile is co-NP-complete in the two-handed model, while it was known to be polynomially solvable in the seeded model.
Sarah Cannon, Erik D. Demaine, Martin L. Demaine, Sarah Eisenstat, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, Andrew Winslow
STACS7
2012 The Tile Assembly Model is Intrinsically Universal
abstract
We prove that the abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM) of nanoscale self-assembly is intrinsically universal. This means that there is a single tile assembly system U that, with proper initialization, simulates any tile assembly system T. The simulation is "intrinsic" in the sense that the self-assembly process carried out by U is exactly that carried out by T, with each tile of T represented by an m × m "super tile" of U. Our construction works for the full aTAM at any temperature, and it faithfully simulates the deterministic or nondeterministic behavior of each T. Our construction succeeds by solving an analog of the cell differentiation problem in developmental biology: Each super tile of U, starting with those in the seed assembly, carries the "genome" of the simulated system T. At each location of a potential super tile in the self-assembly of U, a decision is made whether and how to express this genome, i.e., whether to generate a super tile and, if so, which tile of T it will represent. This decision must be achieved using asynchronous communication under incomplete information, but it achieves the correct global outcome(s).
David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers, Damien Woods
FOCS5
2012 Identifying Shapes Using Self-assembly
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Algorithmica2
2012 Reducing Tile Complexity for the Self-assembly of Scaled Shapes Through Temperature Programming
Scott M. Summers
Algorithmica1
2011 Exact Shapes and Turing Universality at Temperature 1 with a Single Negative Glue
Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers
DNA3
2011 Self-Assembly of Arbitrary Shapes Using RNAse Enzymes: Meeting the Kolmogorov Bound with Small Scale Factor (extended abstract)
abstract
We consider a model of algorithmic self-assembly of geometric shapes out of square Wang tiles studied in SODA 2010, in which there are two types of tiles (e.g., constructed out of DNA and RNA material) and one operation that destroys all tiles of a particular type (e.g., an RNAse enzyme destroys all RNA tiles). We show that a single use of this destruction operation enables much more efficient construction of arbitrary shapes. In particular, an arbitrary shape can be constructed using an asymptotically optimal number of distinct tile type (related to the shape's Kolmogorov complexity), after scaling the shape by only a logarithmic factor. By contrast, without the destruction operation, the best such result has a scale factor at least linear in the size of the shape and is connected only by a spanning tree of the scaled tiles. We also characterize a large collection of shapes that can be constructed efficiently without any scaling.
Erik D. Demaine, Matthew J. Patitz, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers
STACS4
2011 Computability and Complexity in Self-assembly
James I. Lathrop, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Theory Comput. Syst.4
2011 Self-assembly of decidable sets
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Nat. Comput.2
2011 Limitations of self-assembly at temperature 1
David Doty, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Theor. Comput. Sci.3
2011 Self-assembly of infinite structures: A survey
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Theor. Comput. Sci.2
2010 Strong Fault-Tolerance for Self-Assembly with Fuzzy Temperature
abstract
We consider the problem of fault-tolerance in nanoscale algorithmic self-assembly. We employ a standard variant of Winfree's abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM), the two-handed aTAM, in which square “tiles” - a model of molecules constructed from DNA for the purpose of engineering self-assembled nanostructures - aggregate according to specific binding sites of varying strengths, and in which large aggregations of tiles may attach to each other, in contrast to the seeded aTAM, in which tiles aggregate one at a time to a single specially designated “seed” assembly. We focus on a major cause of errors in tile-based self-assembly: that of unintended growth due to “weak” strength-1 bonds, which if allowed to persist, may be stabilized by subsequent attachment of neighboring tiles in the sense that at least energy 2 is now required to break apart the resulting assembly, i.e., the errant assembly is stable at temperature 2. We study a common self-assembly benchmark problem, that of assembling an n×n square using O(log n) unique tile types, under the two-handed model of self-assembly. Our main result achieves a much stronger notion of fault-tolerance than those achieved previously. Arbitrary strength-1 growth is allowed, however, any assembly that grows sufficiently to become stable at temperature 2 is guaranteed to assemble into the correct final assembly of an n×n square. In other words, errors due to insufficient attachment, which is the cause of errors studied in earlier papers on fault-tolerance, are prevented absolutely in our main construction, rather than only with high probability and for sufficiently small structures, as in previous fault tolerance studies.
David Doty, Matthew J. Patitz, Dustin Reishus, Robert Schweller, Scott M. Summers
FOCS5
2010 Identifying Shapes Using Self-assembly - (Extended Abstract)
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
ISAAC (2)2
2010 Intrinsic Universality in Self-Assembly
abstract
We show that the Tile Assembly Model exhibits a strong notion of universality where the goal is to give a single tile assembly system that simulates the behavior of any other tile assembly system. We give a tile assembly system that is capable of simulating a very wide class of tile systems, including itself. Specifically, we give a tile set that simulates the assembly of any tile assembly system in a class of systems that we call \emph{locally consistent}: each tile binds with exactly the strength needed to stay attached, and that there are no glue mismatches between tiles in any produced assembly. Our construction is reminiscent of the studies of \emph{intrinsic universality} of cellular automata by Ollinger and others, in the sense that our simulation of a tile system $T$ by a tile system $U$ represents each tile in an assembly produced by $T$ by a $c \times c$ block of tiles in $U$, where $c$ is a constant depending on $T$ but not on the size of the assembly $T$ produces (which may in fact be infinite). Also, our construction improves on earlier simulations of tile assembly systems by other tile assembly systems (in particular, those of Soloveichik and Winfree, and of Demaine et al.) in that we simulate the actual process of self-assembly, not just the end result, as in Soloveichik and Winfree's construction, and we do not discriminate against infinite structures. Both previous results simulate only temperature 1 systems, whereas our construction simulates tile assembly systems operating at temperature 2.
David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Damien Woods
STACS4
2010 Self-assembly of discrete self-similar fractals
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
Nat. Comput.2
2009 Limitations of Self-assembly at Temperature One
David Doty, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
DNA3
2009 Random Number Selection in Self-assembly
David Doty, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers, Damien Woods
UC4
2009 Strict self-assembly of discrete Sierpinski triangles
James I. Lathrop, Jack H. Lutz, Scott M. Summers
Theor. Comput. Sci.3
2008 Computability and Complexity in Self-assembly
James I. Lathrop, Jack H. Lutz, Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
CiE4
2008 Self-assembly of Discrete Self-similar Fractals
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
DNA2
2008 Self-assembly of Decidable Sets
Matthew J. Patitz, Scott M. Summers
UC2
2007 Strict Self-assembly of Discrete Sierpinski Triangles
James I. Lathrop, Jack H. Lutz, Scott M. Summers
CiE3