Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Tile-Based Self-Assembly

In this paper we study the relationship between mathematical models of tile-based self-assembly which differ in terms of the synchronicity of tile additions. In the standard abstract Tile Assembly Model (aTAM), each step of assembly consists of a single tile being added to an assembly. At any given time, each location on the perimeter of an assembly to which a tile can legally bind is called a frontier location, and for each step of assembly one frontier location is randomly selected and a tile is added. In the Synchronous Tile Assembly Model (syncTAM), at each step of assembly every frontier location simultaneously receives a tile. Our results show that while directed, non-cooperative syncTAM systems are capable of universal computation (while directed, non-cooperative aTAM systems are known not to be), and they are capable of building shapes that can't be built within the aTAM, the non-cooperative aTAM is also capable of building shapes that can't be built within the syncTAM even cooperatively. We show a variety of results that demonstrate the similarities and differences between these two models.