On the Runtime of Universal Coating for Programmable Matter

  • Zahra DerakhshandehEmail author
  • Robert Gmyr
  • Alexandra Porter
  • Andréa W. Richa
  • Christian Scheideler
  • Thim Strothmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9818)


Imagine coating buildings and bridges with smart particles (also coined smart paint) that monitor structural integrity and sense and report on traffic and wind loads, leading to technology that could do such inspection jobs faster and cheaper and increase safety at the same time. In this paper, we study the problem of uniformly coating objects of arbitrary shape in the context of self-organizing programmable matter, i.e., the programmable matter consists of simple computational elements called particles that can establish and release bonds and can actively move in a self-organized way. Particles are anonymous, have constant-size memory and utilize only local interactions in order to coat an object. We continue the study of our Universal Coating algorithm by focusing on its runtime analysis, showing that our algorithm terminates within a linear number of rounds with high probability. We also present a matching linear lower bound that holds with high probability. We use this lower bound to show a linear lower bound on the competitive gap between fully local coating algorithms and coating algorithms that rely on global information, which implies that our algorithm is also optimal in a competitive sense. Simulation results show that the competitive ratio of our algorithm may be better than linear in practice.


Competitive Ratio Leader Election Span Forest Swarm Robotic Marker Particle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Strothmann, T., Bazzi, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C.: Leader election and shape formation with self-organizing programmable matter. In: Phillips, A., Yin, P. (eds.) DNA 2015. LNCS, vol. 9211, pp. 117–132. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Dolev, S., Gmyr, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: Brief announcement: amoebot - a new model for programmable matter. In: ACM SPAA, pp. 220–222 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: Universal coating for programmable matter. Theoretical Computer Science, (2016). Also appears as arXiv:1601.01008
  4. 4.
    Lynch, N.A.: Distributed Algorithms. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doty, D.: Theory of algorithmic self-assembly. Commun. ACM 55(12), 78–88 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patitz, M.J.: An introduction to tile-based self-assembly and a survey of recent results. Nat. Comput. 13(2), 195–224 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Woods, D.: Intrinsic universality and the computational power of self-assembly. In: Machines, Computations and Universality, pp. 16–22 (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Angluin, D., Aspnes, J., Diamadi, Z., Fischer, M.J., Peralta, R.: Computation in networks of passively mobile finite-state sensors. Distrib. Comput. 18(4), 235–253 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonifaci, V., Mehlhorn, K., Varma, G.: Physarum can compute shortest paths. In: ACM SODA, pp. 233–240 (2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, K., Thomas, K., Torres, C., Rossi, L., Shen, C.-C.: Slime mold inspired path formation protocol for wireless sensor networks. In: Dorigo, M., et al. (eds.) ANTS 2010. LNCS, vol. 6234, pp. 299–311. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson, S., Pavlic, T., Kumar, G., Buffin, A., Pratt, S.C., Berman, S.: Design of ant-inspired stochastic control policies for collective transport by robotic swarms. Swarm Intell. 8(4), 303–327 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brambilla, M., Ferrante, E., Birattari, M., Dorigo, M.: Swarm robotics: a review from the swarm engineering perspective. Swarm Intell. 7(1), 1–41 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar, G.P., Berman, S.: Statistical analysis of stochastic multi-robot boundary coverage. In: ICRA, pp. 74–81 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pavlic, T., Wilson, S., Kumar, G., Berman, S.: An enzyme-inspired approach to stochastic allocation of robotic swarms around boundaries. In: ISRR, pp. 16–19 (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blázovics, L., Csorba, K., Forstner, B., Charaf, H.: Target tracking and surrounding with swarm robots. In: ECBS, pp. 135–141 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Blázovics, L., Lukovszki, T., Forstner, B.: Target surrounding solution for swarm robots. In: Szabó, R., Vidács, A. (eds.) EUNICE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7479, pp. 251–262. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michail, O., Spirakis, P.G.: Simple and efficient local codes for distributed stable network construction. In: ACM PODC, pp. 76–85 (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Porter, A., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: On the runtime of universal coating for programmable matter (2016). arXiv:1606.03642
  19. 19.
    Derakhshandeh, Z., Gmyr, R., Richa, A.W., Scheideler, C., Strothmann, T.: An algorithmic framework for shape formation problems in self-organizing particle systems. In: NANOCOM, pp. 21:1–21:2 (2015)Google Scholar
  20. 20.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zahra Derakhshandeh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Gmyr
    • 2
  • Alexandra Porter
    • 1
  • Andréa W. Richa
    • 1
  • Christian Scheideler
    • 2
  • Thim Strothmann
    • 2
  1. 1.Computer Science, CIDSEArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Computer SciencePaderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany

Personalised recommendations