1:
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%July 20, 2000 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: \documentstyle[aps,prl,multicol,epsf]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[aps,manuscript,epsf]{revtex}
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{\bf Self-Organized Criticality and Universality in a Nonconservative
7: Earthquake Model}
8:
9: \author{Stefano Lise and Maya Paczuski}
10: \address{Department of Mathematics, Huxley Building, Imperial College
11: of Science, Technology, and Medicine, London UK SW7 2BZ \\}
12: \date{\today}
13:
14: \maketitle %\parskip 2ex
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17:
18: We make an extensive numerical study of a two dimensional
19: nonconservative model proposed by Olami-Feder-Christensen to describe
20: earthquake behavior. By analyzing the distribution of earthquake
21: sizes using a multiscaling method, we find evidence that the model is
22: critical, with no characteristic length scale other than the system
23: size, in agreement with previous results. However, in contrast to previous
24: claims, we find convergence to universal behaviour
25: as the system size increases, over a range of values of the dissipation
26: parameter, $\alpha$. We also find that both ``free'' and ``open''
27: boundary conditions tend to the same result.
28: Our analysis indicates that, as $L$ increases, the behaviour
29: slowly converges toward a power law distribution of earthquake sizes
30: $P(s) \sim s^{-\tau}$ with exponent $\tau \simeq 1.8$. The universal
31: value of $\tau$ we find numerically agrees quantitatively with the empirical
32: value ($\tau=B+1$) associated with the Gutenberg-Richter law.
33:
34:
35:
36: \end{abstract}
37:
38:
39: {PACS numbers: 05.40.+j, 91.30.Px}
40:
41:
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43: \begin{multicols}{2}
44:
45: \section{Introduction}
46:
47: Earthquakes may be the most dramatic example of self-organized
48: criticality (SOC) \cite{soc,review} that can be observed by humans on
49: earth. Most of the time the crust of the earth is at rest, or
50: quiescent. These periods of stasis are punctuated by sudden, thus far
51: unpredictable bursts, or earthquakes. According to the empirical
52: Gutenberg-Richter (GR) law \cite{gutenberg}, the distribution of
53: earthquake events is scale-free over many orders of magnitude in
54: energy. The GR scaling extends from the smallest measurable
55: earthquakes, which are equivalent to a truck passing by, to the most
56: disastrous that have been recorded where hundreds of thousands of
57: people have perished.
58:
59: The relevance of SOC to earthquakes was first pointed out by Bak and
60: Tang \cite{bak-tang}, Sornette and Sornette \cite{sornette}, as well
61: as Ito and Matsusaki \cite{ito}. According to this theory, plate tectonics
62: provides energy input at a slow time scale into a spatially extended,
63: dissipative system that can exhibit breakdown events via a chain
64: reaction process of propagating instabilities in space and time. The
65: GR law arises from the system of driven plates building up to
66: a critical state with avalanches of all sizes. These above-mentioned
67: authors used a spatially
68: extended (but conservative) cellular automata model as a prototype
69: resembling earthquake dynamics which gave a power law distribution of
70: avalanches, or earthquakes. This was followed by a study using
71: block-spring models \cite{burridge} by Carlson and Langer
72: \cite{carlson-langer}, who found characteristic earthquake sizes,
73: rather than asymptotic critical behavior. Later studies of a continuous
74: ``train'' block-spring model by de Sousa Vieira \cite{vieira}
75: recovered criticality. The train model describes a driven elastic
76: chain sliding over a surface with friction. It has been conjectured
77: to be in the same universality class as interface depinning and a
78: model of avalanches in granular piles, which agrees with numerical
79: simulation results \cite{universal}.
80:
81:
82: Several groups made lattice representations of the block-spring
83: model. These models were nonconservative \cite{takayasu,nakanishi}
84: and were driven uniformly, but did not display SOC. Then Olami,
85: Feder, and Christensen (OFC) introduced a nonconservative model on a
86: lattice that displayed SOC \cite{ofc}. In this simplified earthquake
87: model, sites on a lattice are continuously loaded with a force. After
88: a threshold force is reached, the sites transfer part of their force
89: to their local neighborhood when discharging. Each discharge event is
90: accompanied by a local loss in accumulated force from the system, when
91: the force on each element is reset to zero. A uniform driving force
92: is slowly applied to all the elements and the model is completely
93: deterministic. This conceptually simple and seemingly numerically
94: tractable model reproduces some of the qualitative phenomenology of
95: the statistics of earthquake events such as power law behavior over a
96: range of sizes, intermittency or clustering of large events
97: \cite{ofc}, and lack of predictability \cite{pepke}.
98:
99:
100: Although SOC and this type of modelling approach has been more or less
101: accepted as a reasonable description of the phenomena of earthquakes
102: (see for example Ref. ~\cite{turcotte} and references therein), the
103: OFC model itself has had a controversial existence, both on the
104: theoretical \cite{klein,lise,french,grass1} and numerical side
105: \cite{ofc,kertez,socolar,grass2,middleton,corral}. The initial
106: numerical studies found that the distribution of earthquake sizes
107: obeyed finite size scaling (FSS) over the range of system sizes that
108: could be studied at the time \cite{ofc}. This placed the
109: nonconservative model into the framework of standard critical
110: behavior. However, these simulations also indicated that there was no
111: universality. In particular the exponents characterizing the power
112: law distributions appeared to vary with both the dissipation
113: parameter, $\alpha$, and the form of boundary condition. If this were
114: the case then the OFC model would be very different from familiar
115: critical systems where most microscopic details are irrelevant and
116: have no effect on critical coefficients. In fact an argument was made
117: \cite{ofc} that one should not expect universal behavior in far from
118: equilibrium critical phenomena. If this were correct, it would
119: drastically limit the application of any known theoretical tools to
120: these problems.
121:
122: Another strange aspect was that the dimension $D$ characterizing the
123: scaling of the cutoff in the earthquake size distribution was found
124: numerically to be larger than two. This is inconsistent with the fact
125: that each site can only discharge a finite number of times in an
126: earthquake event, requiring $D \leq 2$ for the two dimensional model
127: \cite{klein}. This last result together with the strange lack of
128: universality cast some doubt on whether the OFC model was actually
129: critical or just close to being critical, with some large as yet
130: undetermined length scale beyond which the earthquake distribution
131: would always be cut off. Hwa and Kardar as well as
132: Grinstein and collaborators postulated that conservation of the
133: quantity being transported was required for criticality
134: \cite{hwa-kardar}, but the theoretical arguments made do not take into
135: account SOC phenomena such as avalanches and long-term memory
136: associated with the self-organization process (for more details see
137: \cite{paczuski}). The fact that the random neighbor version of the
138: nonconservative OFC model is never critical but has an essential
139: singularity as the conservative limit is approached
140: \cite{french,grass1} has added to the mystery surrounding the behavior
141: of the lattice model.
142:
143:
144: In a previous large scale numerical simulation study of the model
145: discussed here, Grassberger \cite{grass2} also claimed that the model
146: was critical but found that some of the conclusions of OFC ``have to
147: be modified considerably.'' He argued that the probability
148: distribution of earthquake sizes does not show ordinary FSS over the
149: larger range of systems he was able to study, and ``conjecture(d) that
150: the cutoff of $P(s)$ becomes a step function for $L\rightarrow
151: \infty$,'' although he did not present direct numerical evidence of this.
152:
153: There are a number of important, unresolved questions about the
154: behavior of the model, which have enormous implication for any type of
155: eventual theoretical understanding. Is the nonconservative model on a
156: lattice (or for fixed connectivity matrix)
157: critical? If so, is the critical behavior of the model
158: universal over a range of values of $\alpha$, or for different
159: boundary conditions? Is it described by a
160: power-law distribution at all? Are there any other universal quantities?
161: What type of data analysis
162: technique besides FSS would be useful to extract the large scale
163: behavior of the nonconservative model? Our numerical study and
164: analysis will address those issues and answer those questions.
165:
166: \subsection{Summary}
167: In the first section we review the definition of the OFC model and
168: present some numerical data for the distribution of earthquake sizes
169: using standard FSS. For the range of lattice sizes we have simulated
170: (up to linear size $L=512$), our data confirm the lack of apparent FSS
171: in the model, particularly in the cutoff region. In Section III, we
172: present an extensive set of results using a multiscaling method.
173: We analyze
174: the rescaled probability distribution, $\frac{\log P(s)}{\log L}$
175: \cite{note}, in
176: terms of the quantity $D_{av}\equiv \log s/\log L$, with $s$ being the
177: size of an earthquake. We observe that there are no avalanches with
178: $D_{av}$ larger than two, consistent with the bound imposed on the
179: cutoff $s_{co}$ (see previous discussion). By analyzing how this
180: distribution behaves for different values of the nonconservation
181: parameter, $\alpha$, and system size, $L$, we show how the multiscaled
182: probability distribution tends to converge to a universal curve as $L$
183: increases. The direction of convergence on increasing $L$ changes as
184: $\alpha$ varies enabling us to put fairly firm limits on the
185: asymptotic curve. The model appears not be to described at
186: all by FSS. However, for $s<s_{co}$ the distribution converges
187: toward a power law with a universal exponent $\tau \simeq 1.8$ over a
188: range of $\alpha$ values. Moreover the cutoff in this distribution
189: becomes very sharp as $L$ increases and its behavior indicates that
190: $s_{co} \rightarrow {\rm const}(\alpha) L^2$ as $L\rightarrow \infty$.
191: In Section IV we summarize our main conclusions.
192:
193: \section{Definition of the Model}
194: We consider a two-dimensional square lattice of $L \times L $ sites.
195: At each site $i$, a force $F_i$ is assigned to be a real variable.
196: Initially, the force at each site is chosen randomly from the uniform
197: distribution between 0 and 1. The dynamics proceeds by two steps in
198: the limit of infinite time scale separation between the slow drive,
199: representing motion of the tectonic plates, and the earthquake process
200: \cite{ofc}.
201:
202: \begin{enumerate}
203: \item{Increase the force at all sites: Find the largest force $F_{max}$
204: in the system and increase the force at all sites by the same
205: amount $1- F_{max}$.}
206:
207: \item{Relax all unstable sites, i.e. sites with $F_i \geq 1$: The force
208: of an unstable site is reset to zero, $F_i \rightarrow 0$, and a
209: fraction of it, $\alpha F_i$, is distributed to each of its four
210: nearest neighbours, $F_{nn} \rightarrow F_{nn} + \alpha F_i$.
211: This step is repeated in a parallel update until there are no
212: unstable sites left.}
213:
214: \end{enumerate}
215: This two step rule is iterated indefinitely. The sequence of
216: toppling events (step 2) between application of the uniform drive (step 1)
217: defines an avalanche or earthquake. Since only a fraction,
218: $4\alpha$, of the force is redistributed in each toppling, the model
219: is nonconservative for $\alpha < 1/4$.
220:
221: To completely define the model we need to specify the boundary
222: conditions, by defining the dissipation parameter,
223: $\alpha$, at the sites on the boundaries ($\alpha _{bc}$).
224: As in OFC, we consider both ``free'' and ``open'' boundary conditions.
225: The sites on the boundaries of the system can be considered to be bounded by
226: fictitious sites with $F_i= - \infty$, which can never discharge and only
227: absorb force from the boundary sites. In the case of open boundary
228: conditions, the sites at the boundary have the same $\alpha$ parameter
229: as all other sites in the bulk ($\alpha _{bc}=\alpha$). In the case of
230: free boundary conditions, the sites at the boundary have their $\alpha$
231: parameters modified in order to have the same level of dissipation per
232: reset event as
233: for sites in the bulk. This latter condition implies
234: $\alpha _{bc}=\alpha / (1-\alpha)$, except at corner sites where
235: $\alpha _{bc,c}=\alpha / (1-2\alpha)$.
236: The model with periodic boundary conditions is not critical
237: \cite{socolar,grass2,middleton}, and will not
238: be discussed.
239: It is probably worthwhile to underline at this point that the model is
240: completely deterministic, the only possible source of randomness coming
241: from the initial conditions.
242:
243:
244: After a transient period of many earthquakes, the model settles into a
245: statistically stationary state. One way to characterize this state is
246: to measure statistical properties of the earthquakes. The size of an
247: earthquake, $s$, is defined as the number of resets of the local force
248: $F_i \rightarrow 0$ in the system in between applications of
249: the uniform force. One can also measure the temporal
250: duration, $t$, in terms of the parallel update, or the radius of
251: gyration $r$ of the sites which participated in the earthquake event.
252:
253: \subsection{Finite Size Scaling}
254: We focus on the probability distribution of earthquake sizes, $s$, in
255: a system of size $L$, $P_L(s)$. If the model is critical then this
256: distribution will have no scale other than the physical extent $L$ and
257: the lattice constant, which is set to unity. One ansatz that can
258: describe critical behavior is the FSS ansatz that was previously used
259: by OFC:
260: \begin{equation}
261: P_L(s) \sim L^{-\beta} G(\frac{s}{L^{D}})
262: \end{equation}
263: where $G$ is a suitable scaling function, and $\beta$ and $D$ are
264: critical exponents describing the scaling of the distribution
265: function. As shown in Fig.~1, the model does not exhibit FSS. In
266: this figure we chose $D=2$ as the largest possible allowed value.
267: Still the cutoff in the ``collapsed'' probability distribution moves
268: to the right as $L$ increases. Nevertheless, for earthquake sizes
269: smaller than the cutoff, this figure shows
270: what appears to be a convergence to a
271: well-defined power law, $P_L(s) \sim s^{-\tau}$, as $L$ increases with
272: the power law exponent $\tau =\beta/D \simeq 1.8$ for both
273: $\alpha=0.18$ and $\alpha=0.21$, and possibly also for $\alpha=0.15$.
274: \begin{center}
275: \begin{figure}[hb]
276: %\protect\vspace{0.3cm}
277: \narrowtext
278: \epsfxsize=3.65truein
279: \epsffile{fig_1a.eps}
280: %\protect\vspace{0.3cm}
281: \caption[1]{\label{fs_scal}Finite-size scaling plots of $P_L(s)$ in
282: systems with open boundary conditions for (a) $\alpha=0.15$, (b)
283: $\alpha =0.18$, and (c) $\alpha=0.21$. The critical exponents are
284: $D=2$ and $\beta=3.6$, the slope of the straight line is $\tau =
285: 1.8$. Statistics are derived from at least $10^9 $ avalanches per
286: data set. For visual clarity, curves (b) and (c) have been shifted
287: along the horizontal axis, $x \rightarrow x+1$ and $x \rightarrow
288: x+2$ respectively. }
289: \end{figure}
290: \end{center}
291:
292: \section{Multiscaling Analysis}
293: The FSS ansatz is only one possible description of critical behavior.
294: As pointed out some time ago by Kadanoff and co-workers, some SOC
295: phenomena are better described by a multifractal ansatz, rather than
296: FSS \cite{kadanoff}. This form has recently been used to clarify the
297: behavior of the Bak-Tang-Weisenfeld \cite{soc} model by Stella and
298: co-workers, who have measured different moments associated with the
299: distribution \cite{stella}. For the OFC model, it appears to us that
300: a clearer picture can be obtained by simply examining the probability
301: distribution directly.
302:
303:
304:
305:
306: The multiscaling ansatz postulates for the probability distribution
307: function $P_L(s)$ a form
308: \begin{equation}
309: {\log P_L(s/s_o) \over \log (L/l_o)} = F\Bigl( {\log s/s_o \over \log
310: L/l_o}\Bigr) \quad ,
311: \end{equation}
312: where $s_o$ and $l_o$ are parameters which typically (but not always)
313: reflect phenomena at small scales associated with the lattice \cite{note}.
314: Usually, a multiscaling analysis consists of choosing these two
315: parameters in order to get the best collapse for different system
316: sizes. This is quite different than FSS where the critical exponents
317: themselves, reflecting behavior at large scales, must be chosen in an
318: {\it ad hoc} manner in order to obtain the ``best'' collapse. We do not
319: attempt to collapse the data using the multiscaling form of Eq.~2.
320: Instead, we define $l_o=s_o=1$ to represent the smallest earthquake
321: which occurs at only one site and involves only one
322: discharge. Moreover, we define the dimension of an earthquake of size
323: $s$ in a systems of size $L$ as
324: $$D_{av}= \log s/\log L \quad ,$$ and we denote with $D_{max}$ the
325: largest value of $D_{av}$.
326:
327:
328: In Fig.~2 we show the multiscaled probability distribution according
329: to Eq.~2, for different system sizes for $\alpha=0.21$. One observes
330: immediately that all avalanches have dimension $D_{av}<2$, as required,
331: with the
332: largest dimension $D_{max}$ approaching two as the system size increases.
333: Also it is clear that the shape of the cutoff function is sharpening as the
334: system size increases. Since the largest dimension $D_{max}$ cannot be
335: larger than two, we can infer from this that the cutoff region narrows
336: to the region $D_{av} \rightarrow 2$ and becomes increasingly sharp.
337: \begin{figure}[hb]
338: \narrowtext
339: \protect\vspace{0.3cm}
340: \epsfxsize=3.75in
341: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_2.eps}}
342: \protect\vspace{0.3cm}
343: \caption[2]{\label{ms_021} Multiscaling plot of $P_L(s)$ for $\alpha=0.21$
344: and open boundary conditions. The slope of the straight line is
345: $\tau = 1.8$.}
346: \end{figure}
347: Note that the increase of $D_{max}$ as $L$ increases is totally
348: inconsistent with the notion that the OFC model is slightly off
349: criticality, because in that case one would expect that the relative
350: size of the largest dissipating
351: events with respect to the maximum total force allowed in the system
352: would decrease in larger
353: systems. In fact what
354: happens is exactly the
355: opposite. In larger systems a larger fraction of the
356: total energy can be dissipated in the largest event that occurs,
357: and $D_{max}$ increases with $L$. This result
358: is completely consistent with the nonconservative model being
359: critical, rather than slightly off criticality.
360:
361:
362: In order to get more explicit visual information on the probability
363: distribution we try to subtract out the leading asymptotic term, which we
364: propose is a power law as suggested by Fig.~2. This is
365: \begin{equation}
366: {\log P_L(s) \over \log (L)}= F(D_{av})= -(\tau D_{av})
367: + F_{cutoff}(D_{av}) \quad ,
368: \end{equation}
369: where $F_{cutoff}$ in the limit $L \rightarrow \infty$ should be
370: constant up to a cutoff near $D_{max}$.
371: \begin{center}
372: \begin{figure}[hb]
373: \narrowtext
374: \protect\vspace{0.3cm}
375: \epsfxsize=4.75in
376: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_3.eps}}
377: \protect\vspace{0.3cm}
378: \caption[3]{\label{mf_scal} Plots of $F_{cutoff}$ for
379: (a) $\alpha=0.15$, (b) $\alpha =0.18$, (c) $\alpha=0.21$, and
380: (d) $\alpha=0.23$; we set $\tau =1.8$. Boundary conditions are open.
381: Different curves correspond, from left to right, to $L=32,64,128,256,512$.}
382: \end{figure}
383: \end{center}
384: We get a consistent picture for a range of $\alpha$ values by choosing
385: $\tau=1.8$, as shown in Fig.~3. Although it appears for small system
386: sizes that smaller values of $\alpha$ give a steeper distribution with
387: a larger value of $\tau$ (so the lines tend to decrease from left to
388: right rather than remaining horizontal), it is clear from this figure
389: that as the system size increases all the different values of $\alpha$
390: appear to reach the same value of $\tau=1.8$, corresponding to a
391: completely horizontal line in this figure. The deviation for small
392: systems is more pronounced for $\alpha=0.15$, and less again for
393: $\alpha=0.18$, becoming the smallest for $\alpha=0.21$. For $\alpha$
394: closer to the conservative limit, as shown for $\alpha =0.23$, the
395: approach to the asymptotic horizontal behavior changes direction.
396: Namely smaller systems appear to have a smaller exponent $\tau$ than
397: larger systems, at least for small avalanches. Thus rather than
398: having the slope increase as $L$ increases, for $\alpha > \sim .21$,
399: the apparent slope decreases as $L$ increases, as clearly demonstrated
400: in this figure.
401:
402: We ascribe the change of direction to a crossover effect of the conservative
403: fixed point. For $\alpha$ close to 1/4, smaller avalanches behave as
404: avalanches would in the conservative system. It is only the larger
405: avalanches that are affected by nonconservative dissipation. This is
406: associated with the fact that as $\alpha$ approaches 1/4, each site
407: can topple more and more times in a single earthquake. For any
408: finite value of dissipation ($1-4\alpha$), the maximum number of
409: times that a site can reset in an earthquake
410: is determined by this dissipation and is
411: finite in the limit of large $L$. However for small systems, the largest
412: avalanches are not large enough to be effected by dissipation, and
413: the cutoff in the number of times that a site can topple is not
414: determined by ($1-4\alpha$) but by $L$. Then the cutoff in the
415: number of topplings at a given site is the same as in a conservative
416: system of the same size.
417:
418: The results we have described thus far are for the model with open boundary
419: conditions. Fig.~4 shows that the same
420: behavior occurs for the OFC model with free boundary conditions, with
421: the same value $\tau=1.8$. In this case, the asymptotic behavior as $L$
422: increases is approached for decreasing apparent slope for both
423: $\alpha=0.17$ and $\alpha=0.20$, as is plainly evident in the figure.
424: Again the cutoff appears to sharpen as $L$ increases and approach $D_{max}=2$.
425:
426: \begin{figure}[hb]
427: \narrowtext
428: \protect\vspace{0.3cm}
429: \epsfxsize=4.5in
430: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_4.eps}}
431: \protect\vspace{0.3cm}
432: \caption[4]{\label{mfs_fbc} Plots of $F_{cutoff}$ in systems with free
433: boundary conditions for (a) $\alpha=0.17$ and (b) $\alpha=0.20$.
434: The exponent has been set to $\tau =1.8$ as before. System sizes are
435: $L=32,64,128,256,512$.}
436:
437: \end{figure}
438:
439:
440: Our analysis indicates that the OFC model exhibits SOC with a
441: universal power law distribution of events $P(s) \sim s^{-1.8}$ for
442: $\log s < (D_{max} \log L)$. As shown in Fig.~3, the cutoff gets sharper
443: and sharper as $L$ increases with $D_{max}$ approaching 2 from below
444: as $L$ increases for all values of $\alpha$ we have studied. As
445: indicated above, the incorrect results obtained by OFC were due to the
446: fact that there is a strong system size dependence that varies with
447: $\alpha$ and is not described by FSS. In addition to a systematic
448: change in apparent $\tau$ as $L$ increases, the largest dimension of
449: earthquakes, $D_{max}$, is increasing only slowly towards two, and
450: probability distribution of avalanche dimensions is getting sharper at
451: the cutoff. This means that large avalanches are suppressed in small
452: systems relative to the total amount of force in the system as compared to a
453: larger system, and that a FSS ``fit'' for any $L$ range will always
454: give an apparent $D>2$, which is not allowed. In this sense the
455: model appears to violate $FSS$ for all values of $L$.
456:
457:
458: \section{Conclusions}
459:
460: The main results of this paper are as follows: The nonconservative
461: model on a two dimensional lattice self-organizes into a critical
462: state. The critical state is robust and universal over a range of
463: values of the dissipation parameter, $\alpha$, and for different
464: boundary conditions. The model does not exhibit finite-size scaling.
465: The cutoff becomes sharper as $L$ increases with largest earthquakes
466: of dimension $D_{max}$ approaching two from below. Nevertheless, the
467: probability distribution of earthquake sizes is a power law with a
468: universal exponent $\tau \simeq 1.8$. This value can be identified
469: with an exponent $B=\tau -1$ for the distribution of energy dissipated
470: in earthquakes. According to the Gutenberg-Richter law this is a
471: power law with $B=0.8 {\rm \ to \ }1$, completely consistent with our
472: result.
473:
474: \medskip
475:
476: We thank K. Christensen and H. J. Jensen for helpful conversations,
477: and P. Bak for comments on the manuscript. S.L. was supported
478: by the EPSRC through a post-doctoral research fellowship.
479:
480:
481: \begin{references}
482: \bibitem{soc} P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59},381
483: (1987); Phys. Rev. A {\bf 38}, 364 (1988).
484:
485: \bibitem{review}
486: For reviews see P. Bak,
487: {\it How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality}
488: (Copernicus, New York, 1996);
489: H. J. Jensen, {\it Self-Organized Criticality,}
490: (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1998).
491:
492:
493: \bibitem{gutenberg}
494: B. Gutenberg and C.F. Richter, Ann. Geofis. {\bf 9}, 1 (1956).
495:
496: \bibitem{bak-tang}
497: P. Bak and C. Tang,
498: J. Geophys. Res. B {\bf 94}, 15635 (1989).
499:
500: \bibitem{sornette} A. Sornette and D. Sornette, Europhys. Lett.
501: {\bf 9}, 197 (1989).
502:
503: \bibitem{ito}
504: K. Ito and M. Matsuzaki,
505: J. Geophys. Res. B {\bf 95}, 6853 (1990).
506:
507: \bibitem{burridge} R. Burridge and L. Knopoff, Bull.
508: Seismol. Soc. Am. {\bf 57},341 (1967).
509:
510: \bibitem{carlson-langer}
511: J. M. Carlson and J. S. Langer,
512: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 52}, 2632 (1989);
513: J. M. Carlson, J. S. Langer, and B. E. Shaw.
514: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 66}, 657
515: (1994).
516:
517: \bibitem{vieira} M. de Sousa Vieira, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 6288
518: (1992); M. de Sousa Vieira {\it et al}, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53}, 1441
519: (1996); M. de Sousa Vieira, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61}, 6056 (2000).
520:
521: \bibitem{universal} M. Paczuski and S. Boettcher.
522: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 111 (1996).
523:
524: \bibitem{takayasu} H. Takayasu and M. Matsuzaki, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 131},
525: 244 (1988).
526:
527: \bibitem{nakanishi} H. Nakanishi, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 43}, 6613 (1991).
528:
529: \bibitem{ofc} Z. Olami, H.J.S. Feder, and K. Christensen,
530: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 1244 (1992); K. Christensen and Z. Olami,
531: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 1829 (1992); K. Christensen and Z. Olami,
532: J. Geophys. Res. {\bf 97}, 8729 (1992); K. Christensen, Z. Olami, and
533: P. Bak, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 2417 (1992).
534:
535:
536:
537:
538:
539:
540: \bibitem{pepke} S. L. Pepke and J. M. Carlson,
541: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 50}, 236 (1994).
542:
543: \bibitem{turcotte} D. L. Turcotte,
544: Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 62} (10) 1377 (1999).
545:
546: \bibitem{klein} W. Klein and J. Rundle, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1288 (1993);
547: K. Christensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1289 (1993).
548:
549: \bibitem{lise} S. Lise and H. J. Jensen,
550: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}, 2326 (1996).
551:
552: \bibitem{french}
553: M. L. Chabanol and V. Hakim, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56}, 2343 (1997).
554:
555:
556: \bibitem{grass1} H. M. Broker and P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56},
557: 3944 (1997).
558:
559:
560: \bibitem{kertez} I.M. J\'anosi and J. Kerte\'sz, Physica A {\bf 200}, 174
561: (1993).
562:
563: \bibitem{socolar} J.E.S. Socolar, G. Grinstein, and C. Jayaprakash,
564: Phys. Rev E, {\bf 47}, 2366 (1993).
565:
566: \bibitem{grass2} P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49}, 2436 (1994).
567:
568: \bibitem{note} Throughout this work, in both figures and text,
569: $\log$ is the logarithm in base 10.
570:
571: \bibitem{middleton}
572: A. A. Middleton and C. Tang,
573: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 742 (1995).
574:
575: \bibitem{corral} A. Corral, C. J. Perez, A. Diaz-Guilera, and A. Arenas,
576: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 118 (1995).
577:
578: \bibitem{hwa-kardar}
579: T. Hwa and M. Kardar,
580: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 1813 (1989);
581: G. Grinstein, D.-H. Lee, and S. Sachdev,
582: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64},
583: 1927 (1990).
584:
585: \bibitem{paczuski}
586: M. Paczuski, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 2137 (1995).
587:
588: \bibitem{kadanoff}
589: L. P. Kadanoff, S. R. Nagel, L. Wu, and S. Zhou,
590: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 39}, 6524 (1989).
591:
592: \bibitem{stella}
593: M. De Menech, A. L. Stella, and C. Tebaldi, Phys. Rev. E
594: {\bf 58}, 2677 (1998);
595: C. Tebaldi, M. De Menech, and A. L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett.
596: {\bf 83}, 3952 (1999).
597:
598:
599:
600:
601:
602:
603:
604:
605:
606:
607:
608:
609:
610: \end{references}
611: \end{multicols}
612:
613:
614:
615:
616:
617:
618:
619:
620:
621:
622:
623:
624: \end{document}
625:
626:
627: