1: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
4: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: \title{Critical Behaviour of the Drossel-Schwabl Forest Fire Model}
9:
10: \author{Peter Grassberger}
11:
12: \affiliation{John-von-Neumann Institute for Computing, Forschungszentrum J\"ulich,
13: D-52425 J\"ulich, Germany}
14:
15: \date{\today}
16:
17: \begin{abstract}
18: We present high statistics Monte Carlo results for the Drossel-Schwabl
19: forest fire model in 2 dimensions. They extend to much larger lattices (up to
20: $65536\times 65536$) than previous simulations and reach much closer to the
21: critical point (up to $\theta \equiv p/f = 256000$). They are incompatible
22: with all previous conjectures for the (extrapolated) critical behaviour,
23: although they in general agree well with previous simulations wherever they
24: can be directly compared. Instead, they suggest
25: that scaling laws observed in previous simulations are spurious, and that
26: the density $\rho$ of trees in the critical state was grossly underestimated.
27: While previous simulations gave $\rho\approx 0.408$, we conjecture that $\rho$
28: actually is equal to the critical threshold $p_c = 0.592\ldots$ for site
29: percolation in $d=2$. This is however still far from the densities reachable
30: with present day computers, and we estimate that we would need many orders
31: of magnitude higher CPU times and storage capacities to reach the true critical
32: behaviour -- which might or might not be that of ordinary percolation.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \maketitle
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38:
39: Empirical analyses suggest that power laws with anomalous exponents are ubiquitous
40: in nature, ranging from $1/f$ noise and earth quake distributions to fractal
41: coast lines, species extinction rates, weather records, and the statistics of DNA
42: \cite{mandelbrot,bak,buldyrev,koscielny}. On the other hand, it is well known
43: that such scaling laws -- most clearly seen by linear relationships in log-log
44: plots -- can be spurious. Log-log plots have a notorious tendency to suggest
45: linear curves, even if there are no real power laws.
46:
47: It would thus be extremely useful if these empirical observations could be
48: backed by theoretical models where power laws can be either proven exactly or
49: at least verified beyond doubt by high statistics simulations. Unfortunately,
50: equilibrium systems in general show anomalous scaling laws only at critical
51: points which are codimension one phenomena: One has to fine tune some parameter
52: (e.g. temperature) to reach them, otherwise no power laws are obtained. Thus,
53: they cannot be used to justify why such power laws should be seen in nature.
54:
55: A possible solution of this puzzle was indicated in \cite{btw,bak} where it was
56: suggested that many {\it non-equilibrium} systems could be driven by their dynamics
57: into a critical state. The main ingredients of this {\it self organized criticality}
58: (SOC) is slow driving towards some instability and a mechanism to relax the
59: tensions built up by the drive locally and partially. Since the tensions are not
60: relaxed completely (in many models they are just redistributed), the state becomes
61: marginally stable and apt to relaxation events on wider and wider length scales,
62: which then lead to anomalous scaling laws. The paradigmatic model is the
63: ``sand pile" of \cite{btw} which does not describe real sand piles but which
64: was proven exactly to show anomalous scaling laws at least for some of its
65: observables \cite{dhar,priezzhev,glkp}.
66:
67: Another model which was proposed to show SOC is the forest fire model introduced
68: independently by Henley \cite{henley} and by Drossel and Schwabl \cite{ds}. In this
69: lattice model with discrete time each site can be either occupied by a tree or empty.
70: New trees are grown with small fixed rate $p$ on empty sites, and with a rate $f\ll
71: p$ sites are hit by lightning strokes which then burn the entire cluster of trees
72: connected to this site. Burning happens infinitely fast, so the only relevant
73: parameter is the ratio $\theta = p/f$ which also sets the scale for the average
74: fire size (the number of trees burnt after one lightning). Criticality is observed
75: in the limit $\theta \to \infty$.
76:
77: The Drossel-Schwabl model (called DS model in the following)
78: is different from other SOC models in two ways.
79: \begin{itemize}
80: \item It involves not only the separation between
81: two time scales (the slow build-up of stress and the fast relaxation), but
82: involves {\it three} time scales: The fast burning of connected clusters of trees,
83: the slow re-growth, and the even slower rate of lightnings.
84: \item The growth of trees does not lead to a state which is inherently
85: unstable (as does the addition of sand grains to the top of a pile does), but only
86: to a state {\it susceptible} to being burnt. Without lightning, the tree density
87: in any patch of forest can go far beyond criticality. When the lightning strikes
88: finally, the surviving trees have a density far above critical.
89: \end{itemize}
90:
91: Indeed, it was observed in \cite{grass} that the stationary steady state of
92: the model is not ``critical" in most regions, in the sense that its tree density
93: is not marginal for the spreading of fire. Rather, it is composed of large
94: patches of roughly uniform density, most of which are either far below or far
95: above the critical density for spreading. Nevertheless, power laws were observed
96: for several observables, partly because these patches occur with all sizes,
97: so that also the fires had a broad spectrum of sizes.
98:
99: While normal scaling with mean field exponents had been seen in \cite{ds}, all
100: subsequent simulations \cite{grass,henley,christensen,clar,honecker} showed
101: clear signs of anomalous scaling:
102: \begin{itemize}
103: \item The fire size distribution scaled, for small $s$ ($s$ is
104: the number of trees burnt in one fire) and in the limit $\theta\to\infty$,
105: as $P(s) \sim s^{1-\tau}$ with $\tau \approx 2.15$;
106: \item For finite $\theta$,
107: $P(s)$ is essentially cut off at $s_{\rm max} \sim \theta^\lambda$ with
108: $\lambda \approx 1.1$;
109: \item The average rms. radius $R(\theta)= \langle R^2\rangle^{1/2}$ of all
110: fires scaled as $\theta^\nu$ with $\nu \approx 0.58$. Here, $R^2$ is the
111: Euclidean distance of a burning tree from the site of lightning,
112: and the average is taken over all trees in all fires at fixed $\theta$; and
113: \item The rms. radius $R(s,\theta)$ of fires of fixed
114: size $s$ scaled as $s^{1/D}$ where the fractal dimension $D$ of fires is
115: $D \approx 1.96$ \cite{clar} to $2.0$ \cite{grass}.
116: \end{itemize}
117: Finally, the average
118: density of trees was found to be $\rho = 0.408 - {\rm const}/\sqrt{\theta}$.
119:
120: There were however seen already at that time large corrections to this scaling
121: law and deviations from conventional ansatzes. Thus,
122: \begin{itemize}
123: \item The determination of $\tau$ was subject to large systematic
124: uncertainties \cite{grass};
125: \item The scaling $R \sim s^{1/D}$ was observed in \cite{grass} only for
126: fires of typical size ($s\sim \theta$). For large $s$, $R$ was significantly
127: larger;
128: \item For finite $\theta$, the fire distribution $P(s)$ did not follow the
129: normal scaling ansatz $P = s^{1-\tau} \phi(s/s_{\rm max})$ \cite{grass};
130: \item There are (at least) two differently divergent length scales
131: \cite{honecker}: The correlation length evaluated from {\it all} pairs
132: of sites scales differently with $\theta$ than $R(\theta)$ \cite{footnote1};
133: \item Finite size behaviour is abnormal \cite{schenk0}.
134: \end{itemize}
135:
136: In two recent publications, these problems were taken up again. In
137: \cite{vespignani} it was claimed that they are due to non-leading
138: corrections to scaling. In \cite{schenk} a more radical solution was
139: proposed with two distinct classes of fires which both contribute to the
140: scaling limit. In the latter paper also a connection to ordinary
141: percolation was proposed, and the conclusion was backed by a ``coarse
142: grained" model which supposedly could mimic the DS model at extremely
143: large $\theta$ and on extremely large lattices.
144:
145: It is the purpose of this paper to present very large simulations which
146: show quite unambiguously that none of these describe really the true critical
147: behaviour of the DS model. While our simulations agree perfectly with
148: previous ones for the lattice sizes and $\theta$ values used there, we shall
149: see that the supposed scaling laws are just transients. Even the present
150: simulations do not reach the true asymptotic regime, but some suggestive
151: features of the true asymptotics do emerge.
152:
153: We describe our simulations and their results in the next section. In the
154: last section we draw our conclusions.
155:
156: \section{The Simulations}
157:
158: Our simulations are straightforward, with a few subtleties. They follow
159: Ref.\cite{grass} in taking $p\to 0$ by making no attempts to grow new trees
160: while a cluster burns. As in \cite{grass} we made {\it exactly} $\theta$
161: growth attempts on randomly chosen sites between two successive lightnings,
162: instead of letting this number fluctuate. In the large $L$ limit this should
163: not make any difference. But in contrast to \cite{grass}, where a depth first
164: algorithm had been used, we used a breadth first algorithm to burn the cluster
165: \cite{footnote2}.
166:
167: In order to simulate very large lattices
168: with minimal storage, we use multi-spin coding, i.e. we use only one bit to
169: store the status of a site. In this way we could simulate lattices of size
170: $L\times L,\; L = 65536$ on computers with 1 GB main memory. Notice that we do
171: not need to store for every tree whether it is burning or not, since the
172: burning trees are stored in a separate list which is updated at each time
173: step. Boundary conditions were helical, i.e. sites are indexed by one scalar
174: index $i$, with neighbours having indices $i\pm 1$ and $i\pm L$, and with
175: $i+L^2\equiv i$. The largest previous simulations \cite{vespignani} had used
176: $L=19000$.
177:
178: We were careful to discard sufficiently long transients (between $1.6\time 10^6$
179: and $1.2\times 10^7$ lightnings; this is up to one order of magnitude longer
180: than those in \cite{honecker,vespignani}) before taking statistics. This is
181: needed since excessively large fires occur during these transients, and thus the
182: tail of the distribution $P(s)$ is heavily influenced by them. We believe that
183: previous analyses were affected by this problem which is easily overlooked
184: since bulk properties (such as $\rho$ or $P(s)$ for typical $s$) show much
185: faster convergence. The total number of fires in each run used for averaging was
186: between $10^9$ (for $\theta\le 250$) and $9.3\times 10^6$ (for $\theta = 256000$;
187: see Table 1). Previous authors \cite{vespignani} went only to $\theta = 32768$
188: with $2.5\times 10^7$ fires. Compared to that, our statistics is larger by
189: roughly 1 order of magnitude. All simulations were done on fast Alpha
190: workstations. The CPU times per run varied between 15h and 4 weeks. As random
191: number generator we used Ziff's four-tap generator with period $2^{9689}-1$
192: \cite{ziff}.
193:
194: We tested for finite size effects by making for the same $\theta$ several
195: runs on lattices of different sizes. Previously, finite size effects had been
196: studied systematically in \cite{schenk0}, but only for much smaller lattices
197: ($L\le 2000$; the authors of \cite{vespignani} called their analysis a
198: finite size analysis, but they actually made a conventional scaling analysis
199: without checking the finite size behaviour). For $\theta=64000$, e.g., we
200: made runs with $L=2^{14}, 2^{15},$ and $2^{16}$. We verified that distributions
201: like $P(s)$, $R(s,\theta)$, or $P(t)$ ($t$ is the burning time of a
202: fire) were independent of $L$ within the statistical accuracy, i.e. any
203: systematic $L$-dependence was masked by statistical fluctuations.
204:
205: Systematic
206: dependencies were seen only for averaged quantities like $\langle s\rangle$,
207: $\rho$, or $R(\theta)$. Indeed, $\rho$ can be measured either immediately
208: before or immediately after a lightning. Since each lightning burns in
209: average $\langle s\rangle$ trees (here $\langle s\rangle$ is averaged over
210: {\it all} lightnings, whether they hit a tree or an empty site), we have
211: $\rho_{\rm before} - \rho_{\rm after} = \langle s\rangle /L^2$. We found
212: that $\rho_{\rm before}$ decreased with $L$, while $\rho_{\rm after}$
213: increased with it (see Table 1). More precisely, we have
214: \be
215: \rho_{\rm after}(L) \approx \rho(\infty) - 0.6\,\langle s\rangle /L^2 .
216: \ee
217: Notice that $\langle s\rangle$ is given for $L\to\infty$ exactly by
218: $\langle s\rangle = (1-\rho)\theta$ \cite{ds}. For finite $L$, one has
219: to replace just $\rho$ by $(\rho_{\rm before}+\rho_{\rm after})/2$, to
220: leading order in $1/L$. This was verified in the simulations, but it tests
221: just stationarity and the absence of gross mistakes.
222:
223: The rms. radius of fires depended on $L$ and $\theta$ in a more complicated
224: way, see Table 1. The data were less clear in that case, but they could be
225: fitted by
226: \be
227: R(\theta)_{L=\infty} - R(\theta)_L \approx 0.004\,\theta^{3/2}/L.
228: \ee
229:
230: \begin{figure}
231: %Fig 1a,b
232: \psfig{file=fig1a.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
233: \psfig{file=fig1b.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
234: \caption{(a) Log-log plot of $P(s)$ versus $s$, for fixed $\theta$ ranging
235: from 125 to 256000. Here and in Figs.2 and 5 we used logarithmic binning
236: with 2 per cent bin size, to suppress excessive statistical fluctuations.\\
237: (b) Enlarged part of the same data, multiplied with $s^{1.19}$.}
238: \label{ps.ps}
239: \end{figure}
240:
241: Results for the fire size distributions $P(s)$ are shown in Fig.1. We see the
242: approximate power decay $s^{1-\tau}$ for $s < s_{\rm max}$ with $s_{\rm max}$
243: roughly proportional to $\theta$. But we see also the strong deviations from
244: this power law first observed in \cite{grass}. Due to these deviations, $P(s)$
245: decreases with $\theta$ in the scaling region (making the effective value of
246: $\tau$ increase with $\theta$), but has a growing bump at $s\approx s_{\rm
247: max}$. In \cite{schenk} it was conjectured that the asymptotic value of $\tau$,
248: estimated from the scaling region $1 \ll s \ll \theta$ in the limit $\theta
249: \to \infty$, is $\tau=2.45$. This was based on heuristics and on simulations
250: for small $\theta$ on very small lattices ($L=1300$).
251: In order to test it, we plotted $P(s)$ in Fig.1b after multiplying it with a
252: suitable power of $s$. It is seen that $s^{1.19}\,P(s)$ becomes flat in a wider
253: and wider region of $s$ as $\theta$ increases. For very small fires ($s < 300$)
254: $P(s)$ decreases faster than $s^{-1.19}$, but there is no indication that the
255: slope increases with $\theta$ for $\theta > 8000$. Based on this evidence we
256: would thus conclude that $\tau = 2.19\pm 0.01$, ruling thereby out the value of
257: \cite{schenk} -- provided, of course, that there is no change of behaviour as
258: $\theta$ becomes even larger.
259:
260: \begin{figure}
261: %Fig 2a,b
262: \psfig{file=fig2a.ps,width=5.8cm,angle=270}
263: \psfig{file=fig2b.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
264: \caption{(a) Log-log plot of $P_{\rm int}(s)$ versus $s$, for fixed $\theta$
265: ranging from 125 to 256000. \\
266: (b) Enlarged part of the same data, multiplied with $s^{0.19}$.}
267: \label{ps_int.ps}
268: \end{figure}
269:
270: In \cite{grass} it was conjectured that the bump near $s\approx s_{\rm max}$ is
271: due to the cut-off. If the {\it integrated} distribution $P_{\rm int}(s) =
272: \sum_{s'=s}^\infty P(s')$ were just a power multiplied by a sharp cut-off, its
273: derivative $P(s)$ would have a bump where the cut-off sets in. This bump would
274: consist of those events which would have been in the tail which is cut off. If
275: this were right and $P_{\rm int}(s)$ would indeed show normal scaling, we should
276: expect the height of the bump in Fig.1b to be independent of $\theta$. But this
277: is obviously not the case. Instead, it increases with $\theta$, suggesting a
278: different scaling law $s^{1-{\tau'}}$ for the envelope of the curves in Fig.1a,
279: with $\tau' = 2.111\pm 0.006$.
280:
281: A similar conclusion is reached by looking directly at $P_{\rm int}(s)$.
282: Indeed, log-log plots of $P_{\rm int}(s)$ versus $s$ are much more straight
283: in the scaling region (Fig.2a). But again a blow-up after multiplication by a
284: suitable power of $s$ shows that this is misleading (Fig.2b). Even $P_{\rm int}(s)$
285: is not convex for $\theta > 1000$, and it develops an increasingly sharp shoulder
286: near $s=s_{\rm max}$ as $\theta \to\infty$. We can try to obtain an alternative
287: estimate of $\tau$ by fitting straight lines such that they touch both maxima in
288: Fig.2b. Results of this are shown in Fig.3. In contrast to the previous estimate of
289: $\tau$ they would indicate that the effective $\tau$ decreases with $\theta$ and is
290: clearly less than 2.19 for $\theta\to\infty$ (also the value 2.159 of \cite{honecker}
291: seems hardly compatible with the extrapolation of Fig.3 to $\theta\to\infty$). But
292: a convergence to $2.11$ seems quite possible, as we would expect if the bumps in
293: fig.1b have a width independent of $\theta$ (which is not excluded by the data).
294:
295: This obviously means that these scaling
296: violations are not corrections which disappear in the limit $\theta\to\infty$, as
297: was claimed in \cite{vespignani}. It rather indicates that the conventional scaling
298: picture, and in particular the usual ansatz
299: \be
300: P(s) = s^{1-\tau}\phi(s/s_{\rm max}),
301: \ee
302: is basically wrong, as was already conjectured in \cite{grass,schenk}.
303:
304: \begin{figure}
305: %Fig 3
306: \psfig{file=fig3.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
307: \caption{Log-log plot of effective $\tau$ values, obtained by drawing lines
308: tangent to both maxima in Fig.2b. Notice that this is only defined when
309: $P_{\rm int}(s)$ is not convex, i.e. only for $\theta \ge 1000$.
310: Error bars are roughly of the size of the symbols.}
311: \label{tau.ps}
312: \end{figure}
313:
314: Previous analyses indicated that $s_{\rm max}$ actually increased faster than
315: $\theta$, roughly as
316: \be
317: s_{\rm max} \sim \theta^\lambda \label{lambda}
318: \ee
319: with $\lambda\approx 1.08$. We verified this qualitatively, but verified also the
320: finding of \cite{grass} that $s_{\rm max}$ and thus also $\lambda$ are not well
321: defined since the sharpness of the cut-off increases with $\theta$. This is already
322: obvious from Fig.2b, but it persists for larger values of $s$ not shown in this
323: plot. It can also be seen by making copies of Fig.2a on transparencies and
324: overlaying them.
325:
326: Better scaling than for $P(s)$ was seen in \cite{grass} for $R(\theta)$. Our present
327: data are fully compatible with those of \cite{grass,clar,honecker,footnote1}, but
328: involve much higher statistics and cover a wider range of $\theta$. Thus it might not
329: be too surprising that we now do not see perfect scaling any more. But the observed
330: deviations from a pure power law (see Fig.4) are much larger than expected from
331: subasymptotic corrections \cite{footnote3}. They clearly show that the previously
332: seen power law was spurious and does not describe the asymptotic behaviour. A power
333: law fit through the last two points would give $R(\theta)\sim \theta^{0.563}$, but
334: this is obviously not yet the asymptotic behaviour. Again, as for $P(s)$ and
335: $P_{\rm int}(s)$, we cannot yet say what the correct asymptotic behaviour will be.
336: In any case, the claim of \cite{honecker} that there are two different diverging
337: correlation lengths becomes obsolete.
338:
339: \begin{figure}
340: %Fig 4
341: \psfig{file=fig4.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
342: \caption{Log-linear plot of $\theta^{0.582}\, R(\theta)$ versus $\theta$,
343: where the power of $\theta$ was chosen such that the data fall roughly on a
344: horizontal line. Without the factor $\theta^{0.582}$, the data would be
345: hardly distinguishable from a straight line on a log-log plot.}
346: \label{nu.ps}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349: \begin{figure}
350: %Fig 5
351: \psfig{file=fig5.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
352: \caption{Log-linear plot of $R(s,\theta) / \sqrt{s}$ versus $s$, for selected
353: values of $\theta$.}
354: \label{rs.ps}
355: \end{figure}
356:
357: \begin{figure}
358: %Fig 6
359: \psfig{file=fig6.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
360: \caption{Plot of $\nu_{\rm eff}$ versus $1/\theta$, where $\nu_{\rm eff}$ is
361: defined by $R(s,\theta)\sim s^{\nu_{\rm eff}}$ at the inflection points in Fig.5.}
362: \label{nuu.ps}
363: \end{figure}
364:
365: An indication of the origin of all these puzzles comes from looking at $R(s,\theta)$.
366: This is defined analogously to $R(\theta)$, except that the averaging is now done
367: over all fires of fixed size $s$. We expect $R(s,\theta) \sim s^{1/D}$ if fires are
368: fractal with dimension $D$. Previous analyses had given $D\approx 2$ (or slightly
369: less). Thus we do not plot $R(s,\theta)$ versus $s$, but $R(s,\theta)/s^{1/2}$.
370: From Fig.5 we see that there are 3 distinct regions which by and large coincide
371: with the three regions (left bump, flat middle part, and right peak) in Fig.1b.
372: \begin{itemize}
373: \item Region I: These are very small clusters, of size $s<300$. For them $R(s,\theta)$
374: increases faster than $\sqrt{s}$, which might suggest $D<2$. But we rather interpret
375: this as a finite-cluster artifact. Indeed, even compact clusters (with $D=2$) with
376: a crumpled boundary will show an effective fractal dimension $<2$. These small
377: clusters arise from lightnings which hit either very small regions with supercritical
378: tree density which burn off completely, or regions of subcritical density on which
379: the fires form subcritical percolation clusters. Both mechanisms give compact clusters
380: with fuzzy boundary. In any case, region I becomes less and less important as $\theta$
381: increases. \\
382: \item Region II: This is roughly equal to the scaling region in fig.1b. Here $R(s)$ is
383: nearly proportional to $\sqrt{s}$, i.e. $D$ is very close
384: to 2 -- but not quite. Also, we see a clear decrease of the minimal slope in Fig.5
385: with $\theta$, but it seems not to be sufficient to give $D=2$ in the limit $\theta\to
386: \infty$ (see Fig.6). According to Fig.6 the critical exponent $\nu$ defined by
387: $R(s,\theta) \sim s^\nu$ in region II seems to converge to 0.505 for $\theta\to\infty$,
388: corresponding to $D = 1.98$. This is half way between the best previous estimates
389: $D=1.96$ \cite{clar} and $D=2.0$ \cite{grass}. It indicates that clusters in Region
390: II are fractal, but more compact than critical percolation clusters ($D= 1.89$).\\
391: \item Region III: In the region of very large fires, corresponding to the increasing
392: bumps in Fig.1b, the apparent fractal dimension decreases again. Unfortunately, due
393: to the strong curvatures of the curves in Fig.5 in this region, we cannot quote
394: any definite dimension value. But by plotting $R(s,\theta)/s^\nu$ with suitable
395: values of $\nu$ on log-log scales, we see that (i) the maximal values of $\nu$
396: increase slowly with $\theta$ (except for the very largest $\theta$ where statistics
397: is poor); and (ii) for our largest $\theta$ and $s$, we have
398: $\nu \approx 0.64$. Thus the largest fires are definitely more fractal than critical
399: percolation clusters!
400: \end{itemize}
401:
402: In terms of the scenario with roughly homogeneous patches with constant tree
403: density \cite{grass,clar,schenk}, fires in region II correspond to single patches
404: of typical size which are hit by lightning just when their density has reached
405: about the critical percolation threshold. If lightning would always strike
406: exactly at criticality, and if all trees in the patch would have burnt during the
407: last fire so that all trees now are placed randomly, this would give $D=1.89$. Fires
408: in region II are more compact mainly because it will take some time until a
409: lightning strikes by chance the region, after it has reached the critical density.
410:
411: The larger a patch is, the bigger will be its perimeter and thus also the chance
412: that a fire ``spills over" and burns also a neighbouring patch, and from this
413: also a next patch, etc. Since this will happen only along parts of the perimeter,
414: the resulting fires will be rather fuzzy, with effective dimension $<2$. We propose
415: that such fires dominate in region III. Although they are rather few in number, they
416: are very important since they burn large parts of the entire lattice, and they
417: lead to rearrangements of the global pattern of patches. Notice that fires in region
418: III burn only small parts of the entire region they cover, leaving behind more
419: unburnt trees than fires of type II. Since they dominate more and more as
420: $\theta$ increases, one might suspect that this leads to an increase of $\rho$
421: with $\theta$.
422:
423: \begin{figure}
424: %Fig 7
425: \psfig{file=fig7.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
426: \caption{Plot of $\rho$ versus $1/\sqrt{\theta}$. These values were extrapolated
427: to $L\to\infty$ using Eq.(1), but for the largest $L$ the extrapolation shifted
428: them by less than the error bars (which are indicated {\it inside} the squares).
429: The dashed line is a fit of the small
430: $\theta$ values ($\theta \le 8000$) to an ansatz $\rho = a-b/ \sqrt{\theta}$.}
431: \label{rho.ps}
432: \end{figure}
433:
434: Indeed, a slight increase of $\rho$ with $\theta$ had been seen in all previous
435: simulations. The best previous estimates were $\rho = 0.4075 - const / \sqrt{\theta}$
436: \cite{grass} (unfortunately, the constant multiplying $\theta^{-1/2}$ was
437: estimated wrongly in \cite{grass} due to a simple mistake) and
438: $\rho = (0.4084\pm 0.0005)-const/\theta^{0.47}$ \cite{honecker,vespignani}.
439: The results of our present simulations are shown in Fig.7. For
440: $\theta < 10^4$ we see a perfect agreement with previous results, but for larger
441: $\theta$ there is dramatic disagreement: Our measured values are higher than
442: predicted by extrapolation from small $\theta$, by up to 100 standard deviations.
443: It is not clear why this was missed in \cite{vespignani}. But we might mention that
444: no data for $\theta>10000$ are shown in Fig.1 of \cite{vespignani}, although the
445: authors claimed to have made high statistics measurements up to $\theta=32768$.
446:
447: When plotted against $\log\theta$, our values of $\rho$ follow roughly a straight
448: line for $\theta \ge 4000$. We should of course not take this as the asymptotic
449: behaviour, since $\rho$ can never increase beyond $p_c = 0.5927\ldots$ which is
450: the critical value for site percolation in 2 dimensions. But we can use it to
451: obtain a very crude estimate of the order of magnitude when $\rho\approx p_c$
452: should be reached. It is $\theta \approx 10^{40}$.
453:
454: Although any prediction based on such a large extrapolation should be taken with
455: great care, we conjecture that indeed $\rho$ converges to $p_c$ for $\theta\to
456: \infty$. The main reason is that we see no other plausible scenario compatible with
457: our present numerics. It is not clear whether fires in this limit correspond to
458: critical percolation clusters, since we must expect that weak correlations in the
459: tree densities survive in this limit, sufficiently so to spoil any agreement with
460: uncorrelated percolation on large scales.
461:
462: \begin{figure}
463: %Fig 8
464: \psfig{file=fig8.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
465: \caption{Rescaled average fire sizes for fixed local density.}
466: \label{s_loc.ps}
467: \end{figure}
468:
469: A last hint in favour of our claim that large fires asymptotically are
470: dominantly associated to regions of critical tree densities (i.e., $\rho
471: \approx p_c$), even though they might not form critical percolation clusters,
472: is obtained by studying the mean sizes of fires which started in regions
473: of given tree density. If a lightning hits a tree at site $i$, we define
474: the local tree density $\rho_{\rm loc}$ at this site as the number of other
475: trees in the surrounding square of size $9\times 9$ divided by 80. This size
476: is of course rather arbitrary, but we obtained qualitatively similar results
477: for squares of sizes $7\times 7$ and $5\times 5$. In Fig.8 we plot the average
478: fire size $s(\rho_{\rm loc})$, divided by the overall mean $\langle s\rangle$,
479: against $\rho_{\rm loc}$. For small $\theta$ we see a monotonic increase
480: which is easily understood: Since even the largest patches of uniform density
481: are not much larger than the square, large fires can only result from regions
482: with high local density. This is no longer true for large $\theta$. There, patches
483: with very high density are probably small, otherwise they would already have
484: been burnt down earlier. At values of $\theta$ reached in this work the largest
485: $s(\rho_{\rm loc})$ are still for large $\rho_{\rm loc}$, but a pronounced peak at
486: $\rho\approx p_c$ develops where $s(\rho_{\rm loc})$ has a local maximum. Since
487: also the number of sites with $\rho_{\rm loc}\approx p_c$ is much larger than
488: those with $\rho_{\rm loc}\gg p_c$ (see next paragraph), we see that it is fires
489: in regions with critical density which play an increasing important role as
490: $\theta\to\infty$. In any case, the very strong dependence of $s(\rho_{\rm loc})$
491: on $\theta$ shows that we are still far from the asymptotic region where we
492: expect this dependence to disappear.
493:
494: \begin{figure}
495: %Fig 9
496: \psfig{file=fig9.ps,width=6.cm,angle=270}
497: \caption{Distribution of local densities.}
498: \label{P_loc.ps}
499: \end{figure}
500:
501: Finally, we show in Fig.9 the distribution of local densities itself. It depends
502: rather weakly on $\theta$ (less than $s(\rho_{\rm loc})$, at least), but the
503: precise way it does depend on $\theta$ is rather surprising and not yet fully
504: understood. First of all, it develops an increasingly sharp maximum which slowly
505: shifts from $\rho_{\rm loc}\approx 0.4$ to $\rho_{\rm loc}\approx 0.6$ as
506: $\theta$ increases. This is to be expected after our previous observations. What
507: is unexpected and hard to explain is a shoulder at $\rho_{\rm loc}\approx 0.8$
508: which develops for the largest $\theta$ values. It is not very large but
509: statistically highly significant (it was seen in all runs with $\theta \ge 32000$).
510: Presumably related to it is a shoulder at small $\rho_{\rm loc}$ ($\approx 0.1$)
511: which also increases with $\theta$: If patches with density $> 0.7$ burn, they
512: leave behind extremely strongly depleted patches. One possible reason why such
513: high density patches can survive at all is that many large fires are fractal
514: and leave behind small disconnected regions of fairly high but subcritical
515: density. These regions then are too small to have a chance to be hit by
516: lightning until their density has grown far beyond $p_c$.
517:
518: \section{Discussion}
519:
520: The simulations reported in this paper leave little doubt that all scenarios
521: proposed so far for the Drossel-Schwabl forest fire model do not
522: describe the asymptotic behaviour for $\theta\to\infty$, where the model
523: should show SOC according to the standard folklore. Indeed, we do not see
524: much indications for {\it any} power laws in this model, as all proposed
525: scaling laws seem to be just transient. There are a number of observables which
526: do show straight lines on log-log plots (such as Fig.1a in the central region
527: of $s$ or the envelope to Fig.1a), but it seems more likely that also these are
528: spurious.
529:
530: This situation is of course not altogether new. There are a number of models
531: which were supposed to show anomalous scaling, but closer scrutiny proved
532: otherwise. A good example is the Bak-Chen-Tang forest fire model \cite{bct}
533: which at least in $d=2$ is not critical \cite{gk}. Other examples include
534: the Newman-Sneppen model \cite{newman} where one can prove semi-numerically
535: that the observed power laws are transient \cite{grass-unpub} and maybe even the
536: ``classical" abelian sandpile model in $d=2$. While power laws for {\it waves}
537: were proven rigorously in that model, it might well be that the observed
538: deviations from finite size scaling \cite{demenech,tebaldi} do not herald
539: multifractality but just simply no scaling at all. One indication for the
540: latter is the fact that some scaling laws show violations which do not seem
541: do vanish for increasing system sizes \cite{glkp}. Also, some other quantities
542: in the sandpile model which involve superpositions of many waves depend {\it
543: qualitatively} on the geometry of the lattice (square {\it vs.} strip)
544: \cite{grass-unpub}. For a system with true scaling one would not expect this.
545:
546: The situation becomes even worse when going to real life phenomena. It does not
547: seem unlikely that many of the observed scaling laws are just artifacts or
548: transients. Problems of spurious scaling in models which can be simulated with
549: very high precision such as the present one should be warnings that not every
550: power law supposedly seen in nature is a real power law.
551:
552: Acknowledgement: I am indebted to Walter Nadler for critically reading the
553: manuscript.
554:
555: Note added: After finishing this paper, I was informed that similar
556: conclusions had been reached in a recent paper \cite{pruessner}, where
557: the authors studied $P(s)$ with comparable (or even larger) statistics but
558: on somewhat smaller lattices and for somewhat smaller $\theta$ than in the
559: present paper. Unfortunately, neither the spatial sizes of fires nor
560: precise values of $\rho(\theta)$ were measured in \cite{pruessner}. I am
561: indebted to Gunnar Pruessner for sending me this paper, for very helpful
562: correspondence and for pointing out some misprints in my manuscript.
563:
564:
565: \begin{table*}
566: \begin{center}
567: %\begin{ruledtabular}
568: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|r|c|r@{ $\pm$ }l|r@{ $\pm$ }l|} \hline
569: $\qquad\theta\qquad$ & $\;\;\log_2L\;\;$ & $N\qquad$ & $\quad N_{trans}\quad$
570: &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{density} &\multicolumn{2}{c|}{$R(\theta)$}\\ \hline
571: 256000 & 16 &$ 9.3\times 10^6$ & $2.0\times 10^6$ & 0.410667 & 0.000036 & 2635.138&2.59 \\ \hline
572: 128000 & 16 &$ 7.5\times 10^6$ & $3.0\times 10^6$ & 0.409321 & 0.000042 & 1789.675&1.96 \\
573: & 15 &$ 15.2\times 10^6$ & $1.6\times 10^6$ & 0.409231 & 0.000043 & 1787.024&1.37 \\ \hline
574: 64000 & 16 &$ 46.4\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.407908 & 0.000013 & 1205.893&0.55 \\
575: & 15 &$ 42.5\times 10^6$ & $3.0\times 10^6$ & 0.407904 & 0.000037 & 1203.097&0.56 \\
576: & 14 &$ 37.7\times 10^6$ & $1.0\times 10^6$ & 0.407832 & 0.000038 & 1202.836&0.59 \\ \hline
577: 32000 & 15 &$ 42.3\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.406623 & 0.000038 & 808.948&0.37 \\
578: & 14 &$ 78.3\times 10^6$ & $3.0\times 10^6$ & 0.406633 & 0.000037 & 807.253&0.27 \\ \hline
579: 16000 & 15 &$ 106.8\times 10^6$ & $8.0\times 10^6$ & 0.405428 & 0.000009 & 539.719&0.16 \\
580: & 14 &$ 103.3\times 10^6$ & $5.0\times 10^6$ & 0.405401 & 0.000017 & 539.063&0.16 \\
581: & 13 &$ 73.2\times 10^6$ & $2.0\times 10^6$ & 0.405360 & 0.000029 & 538.464&0.20 \\ \hline
582: 8000 & 14 &$ 166.3\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.404188 & 0.000008 & 359.049&0.084 \\
583: & 13 &$ 110.9\times 10^6$ & $3.0\times 10^6$ & 0.404135 & 0.000028 & 358.703&0.102 \\ \hline
584: 4000 & 14 &$ 207.8\times 10^6$ & $8.0\times 10^6$ & 0.402690 & 0.000007 & 239.213&0.050 \\
585: & 13 &$ 394.2\times 10^6$ & $4.0\times 10^6$ & 0.402691 & 0.000010 & 239.207&0.041 \\
586: & 12 &$ 332.7\times 10^6$ & $2.0\times 10^6$ & 0.402595 & 0.000011 & 238.992&0.044 \\ \hline
587: 2000 & 13 &$ 366.4\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.400614 & 0.000005 & 159.511&0.026 \\
588: & 12 &$ 525.7\times 10^6$ & $2.0\times 10^6$ & 0.400577 & 0.000012 & 159.441&0.021 \\ \hline
589: 1000 & 13 &$ 319.6\times 10^6$ & $9.0\times 10^6$ & 0.397636 & 0.000005 & 106.647&0.018 \\
590: & 12 &$ 458.4\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.397624 & 0.000006 & 106.681&0.015 \\
591: & 11 &$ 655.8\times 10^6$ & $4.0\times 10^6$ & 0.397570 & 0.000010 & 106.603&0.013 \\ \hline
592: 500 & 12 &$ 490.8\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.393419 & 0.000006 & 71.414&0.0097 \\ \hline
593: & 11 &$ 664.9\times 10^6$ & $3.0\times 10^6$ & 0.393399 & 0.000010 & 71.420&0.0083 \\ \hline
594: 350 & 12 &$ 663.4\times 10^6$ & $8.0\times 10^6$ & 0.390667 & 0.000004 & 58.093&0.0068 \\ \hline
595: 250 & 12 &$1000.0\times 10^6$ & $9.0\times 10^6$ & 0.387643 & 0.000003 & 47.757&0.0045 \\
596: & 11 &$ 664.4\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.387626 & 0.000007 & 47.768&0.0056 \\
597: & 10 &$1000.0\times 10^6$ & $2.0\times 10^6$ & 0.387574 & 0.000008 & 47.732&0.0045 \\ \hline
598: 175 & 11 &$ 733.6\times 10^6$ & $6.0\times 10^6$ & 0.383909 & 0.000006 & 38.788&0.0043 \\ \hline
599: 125 & 11 &$ 922.7\times 10^6$ & $8.0\times 10^6$ & 0.379837 & 0.000006 & 31.847&0.0032 \\
600: & 10 &$1000.0\times 10^6$ & $3.0\times 10^6$ & 0.379804 & 0.000008 & 31.850&0.0030 \\ \hline
601: 88 & 11 &$1000.0\times 10^6$ &$12.0\times 10^6$ & 0.374935 & 0.000004 & 25.903&0.0025 \\
602: & 10 &$1000.0\times 10^6$ & $8.0\times 10^6$ & 0.374910 & 0.000005 & 25.906&0.0025 \\ \hline
603: \end{tabular}
604: %\end{ruledtabular}
605: \caption{Statistics and main results: $N$ is the number of lightnings used for averaging,
606: $N_{trans}$ that of lightnings discarded during the transients. The density is measured after
607: fires got extinct and before new trees are grown. Notice that the density has much larger
608: errors in some runs than in others of comparable statistics. This results from the fact that
609: there are important long-ranged {\it negative} autocorrelations in the density time series,
610: and I had not written out the information needed to take them into account in these runs.}
611: \end{center}
612: \end{table*}
613:
614:
615: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
616: \bibitem{mandelbrot} B. Mandelbrot, {\it The Fractal Geometry of Nature} (W.H. Freeman,
617: San Francisco 1982).
618: \bibitem{bak} P. Bak, {\it How Nature Works: the science of self-organized criticality}
619: (Copernicus Press, New York 1996).
620: \bibitem{buldyrev} S.V. Buldyrev {\it et al.}, Physica {\bf A 249}, 430 (1998).
621: \bibitem{koscielny} E. Koscielny-Bunde {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 729
622: (1998).
623: \bibitem{btw} P. Bak, C. Tang, and K. Wiesenfeld, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 381 (1987)
624: \bibitem{dhar} D. Dhar, Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 1613 (1990).
625: \bibitem{priezzhev} E.V. Ivashkevich, D.V. Ktitarev, and V.B. Priezzhev, Physica A {\bf
626: 209}, 347 (1994); J. Phys. A {\bf 27}, L585 (1994).
627: \bibitem{glkp} D.V. Ktitarev, S. L\"ubeck, P. Grassberger and V.B. Priezzhev, Phys. Rev.
628: E {\bf 61}, 81 (2000).
629: \bibitem{henley} C.L. Henley, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. {\bf 34}, 838 (1989);
630: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 2741 (1993).
631: \bibitem{ds} B. Drossel and F. Schwabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 1629 (1992).
632: % Physica A {\bf 191}, 47 (1992).
633: \bibitem{grass} P. Grassberger, J. Phys. A {\bf 26}, 2081 (1993).
634: \bibitem{christensen} K. Christensen, H. Flyvbjerg, and Z. Olami, Phys. Rev. Lett.
635: {\bf 71}, 2737 (1993).
636: \bibitem{clar} S. Clar, B. Drossel and F. Schwabl, Phys. Rev. {\bf E 50}, 1009 (1994).
637: \bibitem{honecker} A. Honecker and I. Peschel, Physica A {\bf 239}, 509 (1997).
638: \bibitem{footnote1} The length $\xi_c$ defined in \cite{honecker} is closely related
639: to $R(\theta)$. With a slight change of notation compared to \cite{honecker}, it
640: is given by $\xi_c^2 = \sum_{y=1}^\infty y^2 K(y{\bf e}_1)/\sum_{y=1}^\infty
641: K(y{\bf e}_1)$ with $K({\bf y}) = \langle T({\bf x})T({\bf x}+{\bf y})\rangle_c$,
642: while $R^2(\theta) = \sum_{{\bf y}\in Z^2} y^2 K({\bf y})/\sum_{{\bf y}\in Z^2}
643: K({\bf y})$.
644: \bibitem{schenk0} K. Schenk, B. Drossel, S. Clar, and F. Schwabl, Eur. Phys. J. B
645: {\bf 15}, 177 (2000).
646: \bibitem{vespignani} R. Pastor-Satorras and A. Vespignani, Phys. Rev. {\bf E 61},
647: 4854 (2000).
648: \bibitem{schenk} K. Schenk, B. Drossel, and F. Schwabl, preprint cond-mat/0105121
649: (2001).
650: \bibitem{footnote2} The burning times quoted in \cite{grass} were obtained from the
651: stack hights in a recursive (depth-first) implementation. They do not agree with
652: the more realistic burning times obtained with breadth first algorithms and should
653: thus be considered as obsolete.
654: \bibitem{ziff} R.M. Ziff, Computers in Physics {\bf 12}, 385 (1998) (cond-mat/9710104).
655: \bibitem{footnote3} These deviations from scaling are qualitatively similar to those
656: seen on closer inspection in Fig.1 of \cite{honecker} for the correlation length
657: $\xi$, but not for $\xi_c$ which should be more closely related to $R(\theta)$.
658: \bibitem{bct} P. Bak, K. Chen, and C. Tang, Phys. Lett. {\bf A 147}, 297 (1990).
659: \bibitem{gk} P. Grassberger and H. Kantz, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 63}, 685 (1991).
660: \bibitem{newman} M.E.J. Newman and K. Sneppen, Physica D {\bf 110} 209 (1997).
661: \bibitem{demenech} M. De Menech, A.L. Stella, and C. Tebaldi, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58},
662: R2677 (1998).
663: \bibitem{tebaldi} C. Tebaldi, M. De Menech, and A.L. Stella, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83},
664: 3952 (1999).
665: \bibitem{grass-unpub} P. Grassberger, unpublished
666: \bibitem{pruessner} G. Pruessner and H.J. Jensen, preprint cond-mat/0201306 (2002)
667: \end{thebibliography}
668:
669: \end{document}
670: