Timing in chemical reaction networks

Chemical reaction networks (CRNs) formally model chemistry in a well-mixed solution. CRNs are widely used to describe information processing occurring in natural cellular regulatory networks, and with upcoming advances in synthetic biology, CRNs are a promising programming language for the design of artificial molecular control circuitry. Due to a formal equivalence between CRNs and a model of distributed computing known as population protocols, results transfer readily between the two models. We show that if a CRN respects finite density (at most O(n) additional molecules can be produced from n initial molecules), then starting from any dense initial configuration (all molecular species initially present have initial count Omega(n), where n is the initial molecular count and volume), then every producible species is produced in constant time with high probability. This implies that no CRN obeying the stated constraints can function as a timer, able to produce a molecule, but doing so only after a time that is an unbounded function of the input size. This has consequences regarding an open question of Angluin, Aspnes, and Eisenstat concerning the ability of population protocols to perform fast, reliable leader election and to simulate arbitrary algorithms from a uniform initial state

Computational Complexity of Atomic Chemical Reaction Networks

Informally, a chemical reaction network is "atomic" if each reaction may be interpreted as the rearrangement of indivisible units of matter. There are several reasonable definitions formalizing this idea. We investigate the computational complexity of deciding whether a given network is atomic according to each of these definitions. Our first definition, primitive atomic, which requires each reaction to preserve the total number of atoms, is to shown to be equivalent to mass conservation. Since it is known that it can be decided in polynomial time whether a given chemical reaction network is mass-conserving, the equivalence gives an efficient algorithm to decide primitive atomicity. Another definition, subset atomic, further requires that all atoms are species. We show that deciding whether a given network is subset atomic is in $\textsf{NP}$, and the problem "is a network subset atomic with respect to a given atom set" is strongly $\textsf{NP}$-$\textsf{Complete}$. A third definition, reachably atomic, studied by Adleman, Gopalkrishnan et al., further requires that each species has a sequence of reactions splitting it into its constituent atoms. We show that there is a $\textbf{polynomial-time algorithm}$ to decide whether a given network is reachably atomic, improving upon the result of Adleman et al. that the problem is $\textbf{decidable}$. We show that the reachability problem for reachably atomic networks is $\textsf{Pspace}$-$\textsf{Complete}$. Finally, we demonstrate equivalence relationships between our definitions and some special cases of another existing definition of atomicity due to Gnacadja

Uniformity is weaker than semi-uniformity for some membrane systems

We investigate computing models that are presented as families of finite computing devices with a uniformity condition on the entire family. Examples of such models include Boolean circuits, membrane systems, DNA computers, chemical reaction networks and tile assembly systems, and there are many others. However, in such models there are actually two distinct kinds of uniformity condition. The first is the most common and well-understood, where each input length is mapped to a single computing device (e.g. a Boolean circuit) that computes on the finite set of inputs of that length. The second, called semi-uniformity, is where each input is mapped to a computing device for that input (e.g. a circuit with the input encoded as constants). The former notion is well-known and used in Boolean circuit complexity, while the latter notion is frequently found in literature on nature-inspired computation from the past 20 years or so. Are these two notions distinct? For many models it has been found that these notions are in fact the same, in the sense that the choice of uniformity or semi-uniformity leads to characterisations of the same complexity classes. In other related work, we showed that these notions are actually distinct for certain classes of Boolean circuits. Here, we give analogous results for membrane systems by showing that certain classes of uniform membrane systems are strictly weaker than the analogous semi-uniform classes. This solves a known open problem in the theory of membrane systems. We then go on to present results towards characterising the power of these semi-uniform and uniform membrane models in terms of NL and languages reducible to the unary languages in NL, respectively.Comment: 28 pages, 1 figur

Probability 1 computation with chemical reaction networks

The computational power of stochastic chemical reaction networks (CRNs) varies significantly with the output convention and whether or not error is permitted. Focusing on probability 1 computation, we demonstrate a striking difference between stable computation that converges to a state where the output cannot change, and the notion of limit-stable computation where the output eventually stops changing with probability 1. While stable computation is known to be restricted to semilinear predicates (essentially piecewise linear), we show that limit-stable computation encompasses the set of predicates ϕ:N→{0,1} in Δ^0_2 in the arithmetical hierarchy (a superset of Turing-computable). In finite time, our construction achieves an error-correction scheme for Turing universal computation. We show an analogous characterization of the functions f:N→N computable by CRNs with probability 1, which encode their output into the count of a certain species. This work refines our understanding of the tradeoffs between error and computational power in CRNs

Probability 1 computation with chemical reaction networks

The computational power of stochastic chemical reaction networks (CRNs) varies significantly with the output convention and whether or not error is permitted. Focusing on probability 1 computation, we demonstrate a striking difference between stable computation that converges to a state where the output cannot change, and the notion of limit-stable computation where the output eventually stops changing with probability 1. While stable computation is known to be restricted to semilinear predicates (essentially piecewise linear), we show that limit-stable computation encompasses the set of predicates ϕ:N→{0,1} in Δ^0_2 in the arithmetical hierarchy (a superset of Turing-computable). In finite time, our construction achieves an error-correction scheme for Turing universal computation. We show an analogous characterization of the functions f:N→N computable by CRNs with probability 1, which encode their output into the count of a certain species. This work refines our understanding of the tradeoffs between error and computational power in CRNs