MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415435822 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2500245122

Hierarchical self-assembly for high-yield addressable complexity at fixed conditions

2025· article· en· W4415435822 on OpenAlexafffund
Miranda Holmes‐Cerfon, Matthieu Wyart

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSupramolecular Self-Assembly in Materials
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimons Foundation
KeywordsHierarchySimple (philosophy)Process (computing)Scale (ratio)Yield (engineering)Work (physics)Fraction (chemistry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is evidence that the self-assembly of complex molecular systems often proceeds hierarchically, by first building subunits that later assemble in larger entities, in a process that can repeat multiple times. Yet, our understanding of this phenomenon and its performance is limited. Here, we introduce a simple model for hierarchical addressable self-assembly, where interactions between particles can be optimized to maximize the fraction of a well-formed target structure, or yield. We find that a hierarchical strategy leads to an impressive yield up to at least five generations of the hierarchy and does not require a cycle of temperatures as used in previous methods. High yield is obtained when the microscopic interaction decreases with the scale of units considered, such that the total interaction between intermediate structures remains identical at all scales. We provide thermodynamic and dynamical arguments constraining the interaction strengths where this strategy is effective. Overall, our work characterizes an alternative strategy for addressable self-assembly at a fixed temperature, and provides insight into the mechanisms sustaining hierarchical assembly in biological systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicSupramolecular Self-Assembly in MaterialsFrench-language works237,207