1: %%%%%%%%%%%January 5, 2001 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: \documentstyle[aps,prl,multicol,epsf]{revtex}
3: %\documentstyle[aps,manuscript,epsf]{revtex}
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{\bf Scaling in a Nonconservative Earthquake Model of Self-Organised
6: Criticality }
7:
8: \author{Stefano Lise and Maya Paczuski}
9: \address{Department of Mathematics, Huxley Building, Imperial College
10: of Science, Technology, and Medicine, London UK SW7 2BZ \\}
11: \date{\today}
12:
13: \maketitle %\parskip 2ex
14:
15: \begin{abstract}
16: We numerically investigate the Olami-Feder-Christensen model for earthquakes
17: in order to characterise its scaling behaviour. We show that ordinary finite
18: size scaling in the model is violated due to global, system wide events.
19: Nevertheless we find that subsystems of linear dimension small compared to
20: the overall system size obey finite (subsystem) size scaling, with universal
21: critical coefficients, for the earthquake events localised within the
22: subsystem. We provide evidence, moreover, that large earthquakes responsible
23: for breaking finite size scaling are initiated predominantly near the
24: boundary.
25:
26: \end{abstract}
27:
28: \vspace{0.3cm}
29: {PACS numbers: 05.65.+b, 45.70.Ht}
30:
31:
32: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
33: \begin{multicols}{2}
34:
35: \section{Introduction}
36:
37: Many dynamical phenomena in nature are intermittent. This ``bursty'' dynamics
38: may be related to an underlying complex state, often characterised by long
39: range correlations in space and time. For example, the crust of the earth
40: alternates long periods of relative quiescence with burst of activity
41: (earthquakes), which have a wide range of possible sizes. The behaviour
42: of earthquakes is described by the empirical Gutenberg-Richter (GR)
43: law~\cite{gutenberg}, where the distribution of energy dissipated in
44: earthquake events is a power law over many orders of magnitude in
45: energy. The GR scaling extends from the smallest measurable earthquakes,
46: which are equivalent to a truck passing by, to the most disastrous that
47: have been recorded. Similar scale free behaviour of bursts is observed
48: in vastly different kinds of physical systems such as flux motion through
49: disordered type II superconductors placed in a magnetic field~\cite{field},
50: or in granular piles, under some conditions~\cite{frette}, etc.
51:
52: Self-organised criticality (SOC)~\cite{BTW} has been proposed as a general
53: dynamical principal behind the observed complex behaviour of many
54: natural phenomena. It refers to the fundamental property of slowly driven,
55: extended systems to organise, over a sufficiently long transient period,
56: into a dynamical critical state which lacks any characteristic time or length
57: scale. The amplitude of the response of the system to an external
58: perturbation follows a power law distribution. A number of simple models have
59: been developed to test the applicability of SOC to a variety of complex
60: interacting dynamical systems, such as sand piles and earthquakes
61: (for a review see e.g. ref.~\cite{bak_book,jen_book,turc_rev}).
62:
63: One of the basic theoretical problems is to identify robust, and thus
64: physically relevant mechanisms for SOC to emerge, and to define a
65: space of parameters and dynamical processes where SOC is a stable
66: feature. Although it has been proposed that the presence of
67: conservation laws (e.g. sand grains being transported in a sand pile)
68: or special symmetries was necessary for
69: SOC~\cite{hwa-kardar,grinstein}, many known examples of physical
70: phenomena and some models have been found where no apparent
71: conservation law or special symmetry exists. These include, besides
72: earthquakes, biological evolution, forest fires, epidemics, (possibly)
73: solar flares, (possibly) reconnection
74: events in the magnetotail, etc.~\cite{bak_book,jen_book,turc_rev}.
75: In contrast to conservative systems, the mechanisms for SOC in
76: non-conservative systems are not very well established.
77:
78:
79: A nonconservative SOC model that in recent years has attracted much
80: attention is the so called OFC model~\cite{ofc}. The OFC model is
81: a simplified lattice representation of a spring-block model for
82: earthquake dynamics which was originally introduced by Burridge and
83: Knopoff~\cite{burridge}. The Burridge-Knopoff model can be schematized as
84: a two dimensional network of blocks interconnected by springs. All blocks
85: are subject to an external driving force, which pulls them, and to a static
86: friction, which opposes their motion. In the OFC model, each site of a
87: lattice is associated with a continuous variable, which represent the force
88: acting on a block.
89: A slow driving is applied to the system by increasing uniformly and
90: simultaneously the forces of all the elements. When the force on a site
91: exceeds some threshold value (the maximal static friction), the site relaxes
92: and distributes part of its force to nearest neighbour sites.
93: Each such discharge event is accompanied by a local loss in accumulated force
94: from the system.
95: This conceptually simple and seemingly numerically tractable model
96: reproduces some of the qualitative phenomenology of the statistics of
97: earthquake events such as power law behaviour over a range of sizes, and
98: intermittency or clustering of large events~\cite{ofc_2}.
99: Extensions of the model have been recently developed which reproduce
100: to some extent Omori's law and other temporal patterns associated with
101: earthquakes~\cite{hainzl}.
102:
103:
104:
105: In the context of nonconservative models, the OFC model is of particular
106: interest as it is possible to directly control the level of conservation of
107: the dynamics through a parameter $\alpha$. Early analysis on relatively small
108: systems indicated that the OFC model exhibited SOC, in the sense that
109: earthquakes in the steady state obeyed finite size scaling (FSS) when the
110: system size was varied~\cite{ofc}. However, the critical coefficients
111: obtained using the FSS ansatz were found to be nonuniversal. In particular
112: the exponents characterising the power law distributions appeared to vary
113: with both the dissipation parameter, $\alpha$, and the form of the boundary
114: conditions. This would have been in sharp contrast to the usual fixed
115: point picture of critical phenomena where most microscopic details are
116: irrelevant. Moreover some apparent critical exponents obtained using FSS
117: violated physical bounds~\cite{klein}, putting some doubt on the existence of
118: criticality in the model. Recently it was shown using a multiscaling
119: analysis of large-scale simulations that, actually, the avalanche size
120: distribution has a universal power law behaviour, independent of the
121: dissipation parameter and for different boundary conditions, but that
122: the cutoff in the power-law distribution does not behave according to
123: FSS~\cite{lisepac}. In larger systems, proportionally more of the force
124: can be dissipated in the largest events that occur, and the cutoff function
125: becomes sharper and sharper as the system size increases.
126:
127:
128: Departures from standard FSS have been reported for various SOC models
129: as, for example, the sandpile model~\cite{stella}, the Drossel-Schwabl (DS)
130: forest fire model~\cite{schenk,pastor_1} and the Zhang model~\cite{pastor_2}.
131: In this paper we address the question of the origin of the breaking of
132: FSS and its relation to the mechanism responsible for SOC in the OFC
133: model. In particular we test the implicit assumption behind the FSS
134: hypothesis that a finite systems behaves as a subsystem of a larger
135: system. The paper is organised as follows.
136: In the section II we describe in some detail the model. In section
137: III we present the results of our numerical study relative to two different
138: type of probability distributions for earthquake sizes. The first distribution
139: concerns earthquakes which are localised within a given subsystem. We show
140: that this subset of earthquakes exhibits ordinary FSS as long as the linear
141: extent, $\lambda$, of the subsystem is sufficiently small compared to the
142: linear extent, $L$, of the entire system. The second distribution groups
143: earthquakes according to the position of their starting site relative to the
144: boundaries of the system. From this investigation, we deduce that FSS is
145: violated due to large events initiated in a region near the boundary.
146: Finally, in section IV we discuss our results and draw some conclusions.
147:
148: \section{The model}
149:
150: We consider a two-dimensional square lattice of $L \times L$ sites.
151: To each site $i$ of the lattice we associate a continuous variable
152: $F_i$, which initially take some random values between zero and a
153: threshold value $F_{th}$. The dynamics proceeds then indefinitely. In the
154: limit of infinite time scale separation between the slow driving and the
155: (almost) instantaneous earthquake process, the dynamics is:
156: \begin{enumerate}
157: \item {\em Uniform drive}: all forces $F_i$ are increased at the same rate,
158: until one of them reaches the value $F_{th}$.
159: \item {\em Earthquake}: when a site becomes unstable (i.e
160: $F_i \geq F_{th}$), the uniform driving is stopped and the system evolves
161: according to the following local relaxation rule
162: \begin{equation}
163: \label{av_dyn}
164: F_i \geq F_{th} \Rightarrow \left\{ \begin{array}{l}
165: F_i \rightarrow 0 \\
166: F_{nn} \rightarrow F_{nn} + \alpha F_i
167: \end{array} \right.
168: \end{equation}
169: until there are no more unstable sites. In eq.~(\ref{av_dyn}), the subscript
170: ``nn'' stands for the four nearest neighbours to site $i$.
171: \end{enumerate}
172: Since only a fraction, $4 \alpha$, of the force is redistributed in each
173: relaxation event (toppling), the model is nonconservative for
174: $\alpha<1/4$. In the following we concentrate on this case, i.e.
175: $ 0< \alpha <1/4$.
176:
177:
178:
179: To completely define the model we need to specify the boundary conditions.
180: Boundaries are believed to play a crucial role for the observation of
181: critical behaviour in the OFC model. It has been suggested that they act
182: as inhomogeneities which frustrate the natural tendency of the model to
183: order into a periodic state~\cite{grass2,socolar}.
184: Indeed, for sufficiently small values of the conservation parameter
185: $\alpha$ ($\alpha < \alpha _c \simeq 0.18$), a system with periodic boundary
186: conditions quickly reaches an exactly periodic state with only earthquakes
187: of size one. For larger values of $\alpha$ the situation is slightly more
188: complicated with multiple topplings involved in a single avalanche, but
189: the avalanches are still localised and criticality is not
190: observed~\cite{grass2}.
191: A system with open boundaries is prevented from reaching a periodic state
192: because boundary sites have fewer neighbours and therefore cycle at a
193: different frequency from bulk sites. Middleton and Tang suggested that the
194: inhomogeneity created by the boundaries propagates into the bulk of the
195: system, developing, in this way, long range spatial correlations. They named
196: this mechanism ``marginal synchronisation'' or phase locking~\cite{middleton}.
197: In accordance with previous studies, therefore, we consider open boundary
198: conditions. If a boundary (corner) site topples, an extra amount $\alpha F_i$
199: ($2 \alpha F_i$) is simply lost by the system.
200:
201:
202:
203: \section{Results: probability distributions}
204:
205: After a sufficiently long transient time, the system reaches a stationary
206: state. Several statistical properties can be used to characterise this state.
207: Most previous studies of the OFC model have focused on the behaviour of the
208: probability distribution of earthquake sizes, $P_L (s)$, where $L$ is the
209: size of the system and $s$ is the total number of topplings events during an
210: earthquake~\cite{ofc,lisepac,grass2,socolar,middleton,kertesz,corral,ceva}.
211: We choose instead to analyse the behaviour of different distributions for
212: avalanches sizes, which distinguish between earthquakes according to the
213: region of the lattice involved (e.g. bulk or boundary) and
214: the coordinates of the triggering site (see figure~\ref{scheme}). This
215: investigation is particularly relevant for the OFC model in view of the
216: strong inhomogeneity in the spatial distribution of
217: avalanches~\cite{grass2,middleton,ceva}. According to ref.~\cite{grass2},
218: for example, large avalanches are localised near the boundary (at least for
219: $\alpha < \alpha _c$). As a minor technical remark, we point out that we
220: exclude from our data avalanches which involve only one site ($s=1$) as they
221: appear to behave according to their own statistics~\cite{grass2}. As we are
222: mainly interested in asymptotically large earthquakes, this does not alter our
223: conclusions.
224:
225: We consider a subsystem of linear extent $\lambda$ centred in a system
226: of size $L$. The first distribution we introduce, $P_{conf}(\lambda,L,s)$,
227: is the normalised distribution of earthquake sizes restricted to earthquakes
228: which are confined entirely within the subsystem (e.g. avalanche (a) in
229: fig.~\ref{scheme}). The model is driven according to its usual dynamics
230: but only those particular earthquakes are counted. According to our
231: definition, the case $\lambda=L$ corresponds to the distribution of
232: avalanches which do not reach the boundary of the system.
233: As shown in fig.~\ref{fig_2}, the distribution $P_{conf}(\lambda,L,s)$
234: becomes independent of $L$, if $L$ is considerably larger then $\lambda$
235: (approximately $L \ge 2 \lambda$). When $L$ approaches $\lambda$, this is no
236: longer the case and the cutoff in the distribution is pushed to larger sizes.
237: Although we have shown in Fig.~\ref{fig_2} only the distributions for
238: $\alpha=0.18$ and $\lambda=32,64$, analogous considerations apply to
239: different values of $\alpha$ and for different sizes, $\lambda$. Since for
240: a generic $L$, $P_{conf}(\lambda,L,s) \neq P_{conf}(\lambda,\lambda,s)$,
241: a small portion of a large system is substantially different from a finite
242: system of the same size, contrary to what happens in equilibrium critical
243: phenomena. A similar observation was made in ref.~\cite{schenk} for the DS
244: forest fire model.
245: In the following, we denote with $P_{conf}(\lambda,s)$ the distribution
246: $P_{conf}(\lambda,L,s)$ in the limit where the distribution does not appear
247: to depend on $L$.
248: In order to determine numerically these distributions, for each value of
249: $\lambda$ we have simulated (for at least $2\cdot 10^9$ earthquakes) a system
250: of size $L=2 \lambda$. The dependence on $L$ of $P_{conf}$ can in this case be
251: safely neglected. With this choice, the accuracy of the measures and the
252: range of scales investigated are optimised, within our computational limits.
253:
254:
255:
256: In Fig.~\ref{fig_3} we report a FSS collapse of $P_{conf}(\lambda,s)$ for
257: different values of $\alpha$ . Contrary to the entire distribution of
258: earthquake sizes, $P_L(s)$, we observe that $P_{conf}(\lambda,s)$ satisfies
259: the FSS hypothesis, i.e.
260: $P_{conf}(\lambda,s)\simeq \lambda^{-\beta}f(s/\lambda^D)$, with universal
261: critical coefficients. The curve corresponding to $\alpha=0.15$ and
262: $\lambda=256$ shows some noisy behaviour, due to the difficulties in
263: collecting good statistics in this case. Indeed by decreasing $\alpha$, the
264: relative fraction of earthquakes in the bulk of the system (with size $s>1$)
265: diminishes. Nonetheless, there is no evident sign that FSS is violated in
266: this case. The critical exponents used in the fit of Fig.~\ref{fig_3} are
267: $\beta=3.6$ and $D=2$, independent of the dissipation parameter $\alpha$.
268: The value of the histogram exponent $\tau= \beta/D \simeq 1.8$ we obtain is
269: the same as that found for $P_L(s)$ \cite{lisepac}.
270: In addition, the value of $D$ we find corresponds to the largest possible
271: value for the entire distribution ($D_{max}$ in ref.~\cite{lisepac}), as it
272: can be shown that non-conservation requires $D \le 2$ \cite{klein}.
273:
274:
275: The scaling behaviour of $P_{conf}$ appear to be reasonably robust with respect
276: to translating the subsystem within the entire system; in fig.~\ref{fig_4} we
277: report a FSS plot for the subsystem placed on a boundary and on a corner of
278: the system for $\alpha=0.18$. While the FSS collapse for the subsystem placed
279: on the boundary is rather good, some deviations from FSS are observed in the
280: cut-off region for the case of the subsystem placed in the corner. We believe
281: this behaviour can be ascribed to the enhanced boundary effects in the latter
282: case (two side of the subsystem are boundary sides instead of only one) and
283: would disappear if larger (sub)systems could be studied.
284: This picture is confirmed by choosing different $\alpha$ values: for the
285: subsystem in the corner, deviations from FSS are more pronounced for
286: $\alpha=0.21$ and are absent for $\alpha =0.15$. For the subsystem on the
287: boundary, instead, the quality of FSS collapse is rather convincing in all
288: cases.
289:
290:
291:
292: We introduce next the distributions $P_<(\lambda,L,s)$ and $P_>(\lambda,L,s)$.
293: These are the normalised distribution of earthquakes which start respectively
294: within ($P_<$) and outside ($P_>$) the subsystem of size $\lambda$,
295: irrespective of whether they stay in or go out of the subsystem (see
296: fig.~\ref{scheme}).
297: The only difference between these two distributions, $P_<$ and $P_>$, is the
298: location of the site that triggers the avalanche.
299: We observe numerically that the distributions $P_<(\lambda,L,s)$ and
300: $P_>(\lambda,L,s)$ become independent of $\lambda$ respectively in the limit
301: $\lambda \ll L$ and $\lambda \simeq L$. As an example we report in
302: Fig.~\ref{fig_5} the behaviour of $P_<(\lambda,L,s)$ and $P_>(\lambda,L,s)$
303: for $\alpha =0.18$, $L=256$ and for various $\lambda$.
304: For simplicity, in the following we denote with $P_<(L,s)$ and $P_>(L,s)$ the
305: distributions in the limit where they do not depend on $\lambda$.
306:
307: We consider therefore two centred subsystems of linear extent
308: $\lambda_2>\lambda_1$, such that the above conditions are satisfied.
309: More specifically, we choose $\lambda_1 = \frac{3}{16} L$ and
310: $\lambda_2 = \frac{7}{8} L$. In this case $P_>$ corresponds to the subset
311: of earthquakes which are initiated in some ``boundary'' region and $P_<$
312: corresponds to the subset of earthquakes which are initiated within some
313: ``bulk'' region.
314: In fig.~\ref{fig_6} we report a FSS scaling plot both for $P_>$ and
315: $P_<$. In this figure we choose $D=2$ as the maximum allowed value.
316: It is clear that the boundary distribution $P_>$ cannot be collapsed
317: according to the FSS ansatz. In fact it develops a sharper and sharper
318: cutoff which changes shape and which has an excess of large events (the
319: cutoff moves towards right for increasing $L$).
320: The bulk distribution $P_<$ instead does not develop a noticeably sharper
321: cutoff and does not appear to change its shape. It may possibly
322: be collapsed according to the FSS ansatz. Consistent with the
323: results for $P_{conf}$ and for $P_L$, the power law exponent for $P_<$
324: is $\tau= \beta _1/D \simeq 1.8$.
325:
326:
327: The above numerical analysis indicates that the large events which
328: violate FSS are triggered by sites in a boundary region. Indeed the
329: behaviour of the cutoff for the collapsed probability distributions
330: $P_>$ and $P_L$ is very similar (see Fig.~1 in ref.~\cite{lisepac}).
331: Although large earthquakes are focussed mainly toward the boundary,
332: as suggested in ref.~\cite{grass2}, they occur also in the bulk of the
333: system, even for low values of $\alpha$, as can be deduced from
334: Fig.~\ref{fig_3} and Fig.~\ref{fig_6}. Moreover, we do not observe any
335: significant qualitative change in the behaviour of the system around
336: $\alpha = \alpha _c \simeq 0.18$, as claimed in ref.~\cite{grass2}.
337:
338:
339:
340: \section{Discussion and conclusions}
341:
342: Similarly to other SOC systems~\cite{stella,schenk,pastor_1,pastor_2}, the
343: nonconservative OFC model shows relevant deviations from simple
344: FSS~\cite{lisepac}.
345: In this paper we have investigated the origin of this phenomenon, finding
346: that FSS in the OFC model is violated because of large, system wide
347: earthquakes. In fact, we have found that earthquakes localised within a given
348: subsystem do obey ordinary FSS, with universal critical exponents,
349: independently of whether the subsystem is placed at the centre or on a
350: boundary of the system. The value of the power law exponent,
351: $\tau \simeq 1.8$, for the ``confined'' distribution agrees with the one for
352: the entire distribution. We have shown, moreover, that the probability
353: distribution for earthquakes initiated in a boundary region do not obey
354: FSS, because of an ``excess'' of large events. This would result in an
355: apparent exponent $D>2$ which is not allowed in the nonconservative case.
356: On the other hand, the probability distribution for earthquakes starting
357: in the bulk of the system is compatible with a FSS hypothesis. In particular,
358: the critical exponent is $D=2$ in this case, indicating that large
359: earthquakes responsible for breaking finite size scaling are initiated
360: predominantly near the boundary of the system.
361:
362:
363: Self-organised criticality in the OFC model has been ascribed to a mechanism
364: of ``marginal synchronisation''~\cite{middleton}. A system with open
365: boundaries becomes almost synchronised by an invasion process where spatial
366: correlations develop from the boundaries.
367: It was suggested that sites close to the boundaries start to organise
368: themselves first, building up long range correlations. The critical region
369: grows with time, until, in the stationary state, it invades the whole
370: lattice~. Our findings on the large events occurring at the
371: boundary seem to indicate that the effect of synchronisation is stronger for
372: boundary sites than for bulk sites. This view is supported also by the
373: ``on screen'' observation that large earthquakes tend to be triggered
374: repetitively by the same sites over a long time scale (a result which seems
375: to be confirmed also by the study in ref.~\cite{ceva}).
376:
377: \medskip
378:
379: S.L. acknowledges financial support from EPSRC (UK),
380: Grant No. GR/M10823/01.
381:
382: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
383:
384:
385: \bibitem{gutenberg}
386: B. Gutenberg and C.F. Richter, Ann. Geofis. {\bf 9}, 1 (1956).
387:
388: \bibitem{field}
389: S. Field, J. Witt, F. Nori and X.S. Ling,
390: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 1206 (1995);
391: C. Heiden and G.I. Rochlin,
392: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 21}, 691 (1968).
393:
394: \bibitem{frette}
395: V. Frette, {\it et. al.},
396: Nature {\bf 379}, 49 (1996).
397:
398: \bibitem{BTW} P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf59},
399: 381 (1987); Phys. Rev. A. {\bf 38}, 364 (1988).
400:
401: \bibitem{bak_book}
402: P. Bak,
403: {\it How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality}
404: (Copernicus, New York, 1996).
405:
406: \bibitem{jen_book}
407: H. Jensen,
408: {\it Self-Organized Criticality}
409: (Cambridge University Press,New York, 1998).
410:
411: \bibitem{turc_rev} D. L. Turcotte,
412: Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 62} (10) 1377 (1999).
413:
414: \bibitem{hwa-kardar}
415: T. Hwa and M. Kardar,
416: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 62}, 1813 (1989).
417:
418: \bibitem{grinstein}
419: G. Grinstein, D.-H. Lee, and S. Sachdev,
420: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 1927 (1990).
421:
422: \bibitem{ofc}
423: Z. Olami, H.J.S. Feder, and K. Christensen,
424: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 1244 (1992);
425: K. Christensen and Z. Olami,
426: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, 1829 (1992).
427:
428: \bibitem{burridge} R. Burridge and L. Knopoff, Bull.
429: Seismol. Soc. Am. {\bf 57},341 (1967).
430:
431: \bibitem{ofc_2}
432: K. Christensen and Z. Olami,
433: J. Geophys. Res. {\bf 97}, 8729 (1992);
434: K. Christensen, Z. Olami, and P. Bak,
435: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 2417 (1992).
436:
437: \bibitem{hainzl}
438: S. Hainzl, G. Zoller, and J. Kurths,
439: J. Geophys. Res. {\bf 104}, 7243 (1999);
440: Nonlinear Proc. Geoph. {\bf 7}, 21 (2000).
441:
442: \bibitem{klein}
443: W. Klein and J. Rundle, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 1288 (1993).
444:
445: \bibitem{lisepac}
446: S. Lise and M.Paczuski, Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 63}, 036111 (2001).
447:
448: \bibitem{stella}
449: M. De Menech, A. L. Stella, and C. Tebaldi,
450: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 2677 (1998);
451: C. Tebaldi, M. De Menech, and A. L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett.
452: {\bf 83}, 3952 (1999).
453:
454: \bibitem{schenk}
455: K. Schenk, B. Drossel, S. Clar, and F. Schwabl,
456: Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 15}, 177 (2000)
457:
458: \bibitem{pastor_1}
459: R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani,
460: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 61}, 4854 (2000)
461:
462: \bibitem{pastor_2}
463: R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani,
464: Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 18}, 197 (2000)
465:
466: \bibitem{grass2} P. Grassberger, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49}, 2436 (1994).
467:
468:
469: \bibitem{socolar} J.E.S. Socolar, G. Grinstein, and C. Jayaprakash,
470: Phys. Rev E, {\bf 47}, 2366 (1993).
471:
472:
473: \bibitem{middleton}
474: A. A. Middleton and C. Tang,
475: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 742 (1995).
476:
477:
478: \bibitem{kertesz} I.M. J\'anosi and J. Kerte\'sz, Physica A {\bf 200}, 174
479: (1993).
480:
481:
482: \bibitem{corral} \'{A}. Corral, C. J. P\'erez, A. D\'{\i}az-Guilera,
483: and A. Arenas,
484: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 74}, 118 (1995).
485:
486: \bibitem{ceva} H. Ceva, Phys. Lett. A, {\bf 245}, 413 (1998).
487:
488:
489: \end{thebibliography}
490:
491: \begin{figure}[hb]
492: \narrowtext
493: \epsfxsize=2.5in
494: \centerline{\epsffile{scheme.eps}}
495: \protect\vspace{0.2cm}
496: \caption[1]{\label{scheme}
497: Schematic representation of different types of avalanches.
498: The continuous line represents the lattice of size $L$, the dashed line
499: the subsystem of linear extent $\lambda$. Triggering sites are denoted
500: with a full circle, toppling sites with a cross. Avalanche (a) contributes
501: to the distribution $P_{conf}(\lambda,L,s)$;
502: (a) and (b) to $P_<(\lambda,L,s)$; (c) to $P_>(\lambda,L,s)$.
503: }
504: \end{figure}
505:
506:
507: \begin{figure}[hb]
508: \narrowtext
509: \epsfxsize=4.in
510: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_2.eps}}
511: \caption[1]{\label{fig_2}
512: Probability distribution $P_{conf}(\lambda,L,s)$ for $\alpha=0.18$ and
513: (a) $\lambda=32$ and (b) $\lambda=64$.
514: }
515: \end{figure}
516:
517:
518:
519: \begin{figure}[hb]
520: \narrowtext
521: \epsfxsize=4.in
522: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_3b.eps}}
523: \caption[1]{\label{fig_3}
524: Finite-size scaling plots of $P_{conf}(\lambda,s)$ (with the subsystem
525: placed at the centre) for (a) $\alpha=0.15$,
526: (b) $\alpha=0.18$ and (c) $\alpha=0.21$. The critical exponents are
527: $\beta=3.6$ and $D=2$; the slope of the straight line is $\tau =1.8$.
528: For visual clarity, curves (a) and (c) have been shifted along the
529: $x$-axis, $x \rightarrow x-1$ and $x \rightarrow x+1$ respectively.
530: }
531: \end{figure}
532:
533:
534:
535: \begin{figure}[hb]
536: \narrowtext
537: \epsfxsize=4.in
538: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_4_18.eps}}
539: \caption[1]{\label{fig_4}
540: Finite-size scaling plots of $P_{conf}$ for the subsystem placed
541: (a) on a corner and (b) on a boundary of the system ($\alpha=0.18$).
542: The critical exponents are $\beta=3.6$ and $D=2$; the slope of the straight
543: line is $\tau =1.8$. Curve (a) has been shifted, $x \rightarrow x-1$.
544: }
545: \end{figure}
546:
547:
548: \begin{figure}[hb]
549: \narrowtext
550: \epsfxsize=4.5in
551: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_5.eps}}
552: \caption[5]{\label{fig_5}
553: Probability distributions (a) $P_<(\lambda,L,s)$ and (b) $P_>(\lambda,L,s)$
554: for $\alpha=0.18$, for $L=256$ and for various $\lambda$.}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557:
558: \begin{figure}[hb]
559: \narrowtext
560: \epsfxsize=4.5in
561: \centerline{\epsffile{fig_6.eps}}
562: \caption[5]{\label{fig_6}
563: Finite-size scaling plots of (a) $P_<(L,s)$ and (b) $P_>(L,s)$. Different
564: sets of curves corresponds, from left to right, to $\alpha=0.15$ (shifted
565: by $x \rightarrow x-1$), $\alpha=0.18$ and $\alpha=0.21$ (shifted by
566: $x \rightarrow x+1$). The exponents are $\beta _1=3.6$, $\beta _2=3.9$
567: and $D=2$.}
568: \end{figure}
569:
570: \end{multicols}
571: \end{document}
572:
573:
574:
575:
576:
577:
578: