1: %\documentclass[aps,12pt]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[aps,twocolumn]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Stochastic dynamics of coupled systems and
8: spreading of damage}
9:
10: \author{T. Tom\'e$^1$, E. Arashiro$^2$,
11: J. R. Drugowich de Fel\'{\i}cio$^2$, M. J. de Oliveira$^1$}
12:
13: \affiliation{$^1$Instituto de F\'{\i}sica,
14: Universidade de S\~{a}o Paulo, \\
15: Caixa Postal 66318,
16: 05315-970 S\~{a}o Paulo, S\~{a}o Paulo, Brazil \\
17: $^2$Departamento de F\'{\i}sica e Matem\'atica, FFCLRP,
18: Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, \\
19: Av. Bandeirantes, 3900,
20: 014040-901 Ribeir\~ao Preto, S\~ao Paulo, Brazil}
21:
22: \date{\today}
23:
24: \begin{abstract}
25: We study the spreading of damage in the one-dimensional
26: Ising model by means of the stochastic dynamics
27: resulting from coupling the system and its replica by
28: a family of algorithms that interpolate
29: between the heat bath and the Hinrichsen-Domany
30: algorithms. At high temperatures the dynamics is exactly mapped
31: into de Domany-Kinzel probabilistic cellular automaton.
32: Using a mean-field approximation and Monte Carlo
33: simulations we find the critical line that
34: separates the phase where the damage spreads
35: and the one where it does not.
36:
37: PACS numbers:
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \maketitle
41:
42: \section{Introduction}
43:
44: It is well known that most models studied in
45: equilibrium statistical mechanics, such as
46: the Ising model, are defined in a static way through
47: the equilibrium Gibbs probability distribution associated to the Hamiltonian
48: of the model. It is desirable from the theoretical and
49: numerical point of view to assign a dynamics to such models. The
50: stochastic dynamics introduced by Glauber \cite{glauber}
51: is the prototype example of a dynamics assigned to a
52: static-defined model. The numerous versions of the
53: Monte Carlo method \cite{binder}, used in statistical mechanics
54: are also examples of dynamics assigned to static-defined models.
55: All of them are markovian processes that have the Gibbs
56: probability distribution as the stationary distribution.
57: In general they are either a continuous time process
58: governed by a master equation
59: \cite{kaw,kampen,lig,self,marro,livrotm}
60: or a probabilistic cellular automaton
61: \cite{livrotm,dk,derrida,lebowitz,tome,gueu}.
62: The latter is defined by a stochastic matrix, whose
63: elements are the transition probabilities, and the former by
64: the evolution matrix, whose nondiagonal elements are the
65: transition rates.
66:
67: If we wish to simulate, for instance, the Ising model we
68: have to choose one of the possible stochastic dynamics since there
69: are many. Having decided which dynamics to use,
70: that is, having decided which probabilistic rules to
71: use, we realize that there are several ways of doing the actual
72: simulation corresponding to the chosen probabilistic rules.
73: For instance, for the case of the
74: probabilistic cellular automaton used by
75: Derrida and Weisbuch \cite{derrida}
76: to simulate the Ising model, and which will
77: concern us here, there are several ways of realizing
78: the dynamics. We may use
79: the so called heat-bath algorithm \cite{barber} or the
80: algorithm introduced more recently
81: by Hinrichsen and Domany \cite{hd} or any other we
82: may invent. These algorithms govern the movement of the system in phase
83: space and they may be called {\it stochastic equations of motion} in phase
84: space. Different algorithms may be the
85: realization of the same probabilistic rule or stochastic dynamics.
86:
87: The description of a system
88: either by the equation of motion or by the time evolution of
89: the probability are equivalent.
90: An analogy can be made with the Brownian motion which
91: can be described either by the Langevin equation or by its
92: associated Fokker-Planck equation \cite{kampen,livrotm,stoch,mjo}.
93: The first is a stochastic equation of motion of a representative point
94: in phase space whereas the second governs
95: the time evolution of the probability distribution in phase space.
96:
97: In the study of spreading of damage
98: \cite{derrida,hd,grass1,creutz,stanley,mariz,grass2,tome,hwd,ara}
99: it has been realized that
100: algorithms that are realization of the same probalistic
101: rules may yield different results for the spreading of damage
102: \cite{mariz,hd,grass2,ara}, and they usually do.
103: The spreading of damage is a procedure through which we may
104: study the sensibility of the time evolution of systems
105: with respect to the initial conditions.
106: The procedure amounts to couple
107: the system with a replica of it,
108: each of them following the same equation of motion.
109: The coupling is acomplished by the use of the
110: same sequence of random numbers. The equation of motion for each system
111: together with the use of the same random number define the equation of
112: motion for the coupled system from which we obtain the
113: {\it joint transition probability} \cite{tome,gueu}
114: for the coupled system.
115:
116: Suppose one uses an algorithm to couple
117: a system and its replica.
118: This will lead us to certain joint transition probability.
119: If another algorithm is used,
120: which is also a realization of the same transition
121: probability for a single system, the joint transition
122: probability will be distinct. The correlation between
123: system and replica will also be distinct and, in particular,
124: the Hamming distance which is a measure of the
125: damage spreading will be different.
126: For example, in one-dimensional Ising model,
127: the heat-bath (HB) algorithm \cite{barber}
128: will give no spreading of damage whereas the
129: Hinrichsen-Domany (HD) algorithm \cite{hd} will exhibit a spreading of
130: damage above a certain temperature \cite{hd}.
131: This is an expressive example that the
132: spreading of damage is not a intrinsic static property of a given system,
133: but depends on the algorithm, or the stochastic equation of motion,
134: we use to perform the actual simulation \cite{hd,grass2}.
135:
136: In this paper we introduce a family of algorithms, or
137: equations of motion, spanned by a
138: parameter that interpolates between the HB and HD
139: algorithms. The associated transition probability
140: corresponds, for all values of the parameter, to the
141: Derrida-Weisbush (DW) probabilistic cellular automaton
142: \cite{derrida}.
143: If we use this family of algorithms to study the spreading
144: of damage, as we will do here,
145: the parameter will have no effect on each system separately
146: since for any possible value of the parameter
147: the algorithm is related to the same transition probability.
148: However, the joint transition probability will depend on the parameter
149: and the properties of the system, including the damage
150: spreading, will also depend on the parameter.
151:
152: A remarkable property of the dynamics introduced here
153: is that at infinite temperature it is
154: exactly mapped into the Domany-Kinzel (DK) probabilistic cellular
155: automaton \cite{dk}.
156: This gives support to a conjecture by Grassberger
157: \cite{grass2} according to
158: which the generic class of damage spreading transitions
159: is the same as the directed percolation to which belong
160: the transition ocurring in the DK probabilistic
161: cellular automaton.
162:
163: \section{Single system}
164:
165: Let us consider a one dimensional
166: lattice where at each site one attaches an Ising variable
167: $\sigma _i$ that takes the values $+1$ or $-1$ and denote by
168: $\sigma=\{\sigma_i\}$ the set of all variables of the lattice.
169: The time evolution of the probability $P_{\ell}(\sigma)$
170: of state $\sigma$ at discrete time $\ell$ is given by
171: \begin{equation}
172: P_{\ell+1}(\sigma^{\prime})=
173: \sum_{\sigma} W(\sigma^{\prime}|\sigma)P_{\ell}(\sigma)
174: \end{equation}
175: where $W(\sigma^{\prime}|\sigma)$
176: is the transition probability from state $\sigma$ to state
177: $\sigma^{\prime}$ which, for a probabilistic cellular
178: automaton is given by \cite{livrotm}
179: \begin{equation}
180: W(\sigma^{\prime}|\sigma)=
181: \prod_i w_{PCA}(\sigma_i^{\prime}|\sigma)
182: \end{equation}
183: where $w_{PCA}(\sigma_i^{\prime}|\sigma)$ is the
184: probability that site $i$ will be in state $\sigma_i^{\prime}$
185: in the next step given that the present state of the
186: system is $\sigma$.
187: The DW probabilistic cellular automaton
188: \cite{derrida}
189: for the one dimensional Ising model is defined by
190: \begin{equation}
191: w_{PCA}(\sigma_i^{\prime}|\sigma)=
192: w_{DW}(\sigma_i^{\prime }|\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_{i+1})
193: \end{equation}
194: with
195: \begin{equation}
196: w_{DW}(+1|\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_{i+1})=p_i(\sigma )
197: \label{2}
198: \end{equation}
199: and
200: \begin{equation}
201: w_{DW}(-1|\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_{i+1})=1-p_i(\sigma )
202: \label{3}
203: \end{equation}
204: where
205: \begin{equation}
206: p_i(\sigma)=\frac{e^{-\beta J(\sigma _{i-1}+\sigma_{i+1})}}
207: {e^{\beta J(\sigma _{i-1}+\sigma_{i+1})}+
208: e^{-\beta J(\sigma _{i-1}+\sigma_{i+1})}}
209: \end{equation}
210:
211: The site $i$ assumes the state $+1$ with a probability
212: $p_i(\sigma)$ that does not depend on the central site
213: $i$. If we choose the linear size of the system to be even
214: the dynamics is decomposed into two independent
215: dynamics for each sublattice.
216: It is possible to show \cite{derrida} that
217: the DW probabilistic cellular automaton
218: has as the stationary probability distribution
219: the Gibbs probability distribuiton
220: associated to the Ising model, namely,
221: \begin{equation}
222: P(\sigma )=\frac 1Z\exp \{\beta J\sum_i\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\}
223: \end{equation}
224: where $\beta=1/k_B T$,
225: so that it defines a stochastic dynamics that can be assigned
226: to the Ising model.
227:
228: The transition probabilities
229: $w_{DW}(\sigma_i^{\prime }|\sigma_{i-1},\sigma_{i+1})$
230: are shown in Table I
231: where we used the parameter $p$ defined by
232: \begin{equation}
233: p=\frac{e^{-2\beta J}}
234: {e^{2\beta J}+e^{-2\beta J}}
235: \label{8a}
236: \end{equation}
237:
238: \begin{table}
239: \begin{center}
240: \caption{Transition probabilities for the DW
241: probabilistic celular automaton}
242: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
243: \hline
244: $w_{DW}$ & $+$ & $-$ \\
245: \hline
246: $++$ & $1-p$ & $p$ \\
247: $+-$ & $\frac 12$ & $\frac 12$ \\
248: $-+$ & $\frac 12$ & $\frac 12$ \\
249: $--$ & $p$ & $1-p$ \\
250: \hline
251: \end{tabular}
252: \end{center}
253: \end{table}
254:
255: The actual computer realization of a probabilistic cellular
256: automaton can be made in several ways. Here, we introduce a
257: family of algorithms that are possible realizations
258: of the DW probabilistic cellular
259: automaton. It has a free parameter $a$ that interpolates
260: between the HD and HB algorithms.
261: At each time step all sites of the
262: lattice are updated in a synchronous way
263: by means of the following algorithm, or
264: equation of motion for the spin variables,
265: \begin{equation}
266: \sigma _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{p_i(\sigma )-\xi _i\}
267: \label{8}
268: \end{equation}
269: if $\sigma_{i-1}=\sigma _{i+1}$ and
270: \begin{equation}
271: \sigma _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{(a-\xi_i)(1-a-\xi_i)
272: (\frac 12-\xi _i)\}
273: \label{9}
274: \end{equation}
275: if $\sigma _{i-1}\neq \sigma _{i+1}$
276: where $\xi _i$ is a random number identically
277: distributed in the interval $[0,1]$.
278:
279: When $a=0$ one recovers the HD algorithm \cite{hd}
280: \begin{equation}
281: \sigma _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{p_i(\sigma )-\xi_i\} \qquad \sigma
282: _{i-1}=\sigma _{i+1}
283: \end{equation}
284: \begin{equation}
285: \sigma _i^{\prime }=-{\rm sign}\{\frac 12-\xi_i\} \qquad \sigma
286: _{i-1}\neq \sigma _{i+1}
287: \end{equation}
288: and when $a=1/2$ one recovers the HB algorithm \cite{barber,hd}
289: \begin{equation}
290: \sigma _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{p_i(\sigma )-\xi_i\}
291: \end{equation}
292: It is straightforward to show that the algorithm defined
293: by Eqs. (\ref{8}) and (\ref{9}) yields the
294: one-site transition probability
295: given by Eqs. (\ref{2}) and (\ref{3})
296: for any value of the parameter $a$.
297:
298: \section{Coupled system}
299:
300: Let us denote by $\sigma=\{\sigma_i\}$ and
301: $\tau=\{\tau_i\}$ the configurations of the system and its
302: replica, respectively. All sites of the system and its replica
303: are updated in a synchronous way according to the algorithm
304: \begin{equation}
305: \sigma _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{p_i(\sigma )-\xi_i\}
306: \label{13}
307: \end{equation}
308: if $\sigma_{i-1}=\sigma _{i+1}$ and
309: \begin{equation}
310: \sigma _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{(a-\xi_i)(1-a-\xi _i)
311: (\frac 12-\xi_i)\}
312: \label{14}
313: \end{equation}
314: if $\sigma _{i-1}\neq \sigma_{i+1}$ and
315: \begin{equation}
316: \tau _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{p_i(\tau )-\xi _i\}
317: \label{15}
318: \end{equation}
319: if $\tau_{i-1}=\tau_{i+1}$ and
320: \begin{equation}
321: \tau _i^{\prime }={\rm sign}\{(a-\xi_i)(1-a-\xi_i)
322: (\frac 12-\xi_i)\}
323: \label{16}
324: \end{equation}
325: if $\tau_{i-1}\neq \tau_{i+1}$.
326: Notice that the random number $\xi _i$ is the same for both systems.
327:
328: The coupled system will be described by a four-state probabilistic
329: cellular automaton defined by the time evolution
330: \begin{equation}
331: P_{\ell +1}(\sigma^{\prime};\tau^{\prime})=\sum_{\sigma} \sum_{\tau}
332: W(\sigma^{\prime};\tau^{\prime}|\sigma;\tau)
333: P_{\ell}(\sigma;\tau)
334: \end{equation}
335: of the joint probability $P_{\ell}(\sigma;\tau)$ of state
336: $(\sigma;\tau)$ at discrete time $\ell$ where
337: $W(\sigma^{\prime};\tau^{\prime}|\sigma;\tau)$
338: is the joint transition probability from state
339: $(\sigma;\tau)$ to $(\sigma^{\prime};\tau^{\prime})$,
340: and given by
341: \begin{equation}
342: W(\sigma^{\prime};\tau^{\prime}|\sigma;\tau)=\prod_i
343: w(\sigma _i^{\prime };\tau _i^{\prime }|
344: \sigma _{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\tau_{i-1},\tau _{i+1})
345: \end{equation}
346: >From the stochastic equation of motion given by Eqs.
347: (\ref{13}), (\ref{14}), (\ref{15}), and (\ref{16}),
348: we deduce the joint transition probabilities
349: $w(\sigma _i^{\prime };\tau _i^{\prime }|
350: \sigma _{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\tau_{i-1},\tau _{i+1})$
351: that the site $i$ of the system and the
352: replica assume the values $\sigma _i^{\prime }$ and $\tau _i^{\prime }$,
353: respectively.
354: The resultant joint transition probabilities
355: are displayed in Table II
356: and are valid for $0\leq a\leq p$.
357: For $p < a\leq 1$, the algorithm yields
358: a joint transition probability which is independent of $a$ and is the
359: one that results by formally replacing, in Table II, $a$ by $p$.
360: The joint transition probability fulfill the following properties
361: \begin{equation}
362: \sum_{\tau _i^{\prime }}w(\sigma _i^{\prime };\tau _i^{\prime }|
363: \sigma_{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\tau _{i-1},\tau _{i+1})=
364: w_{DW}(\sigma _i^{\prime }|\sigma_{i-i},\sigma _{i+1})
365: \label{20a}
366: \end{equation}
367: \begin{equation}
368: \sum_{\sigma _i^{\prime }}w(\sigma _i^{\prime };\tau _i^{\prime }|
369: \sigma_{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\tau _{i-1},\tau _{i+1})=
370: w_{DW}(\tau _i^{\prime }|\tau_{i-1},\tau _{i+1})
371: \label{21a}
372: \end{equation}
373: which contemplates the condition that the system
374: and the replica follow
375: their own dynamics independent of the coupling.
376:
377: The joint transition probabilities satisfy also
378: the following properties. (a) Reflection symmetry
379: in which the states of sites $i-1$ and $i+1$ are interchanged,
380: that is, $\sigma_{i-1} \leftrightarrow \sigma_{i+1}$ and
381: $\tau_{i-1} \leftrightarrow \tau_{i+1}$.
382: (b) System-replica symmetry in which the states of the
383: system and the replica are interchanged, that is,
384: $\sigma_i \leftrightarrow \tau_i$ for all sites.
385: (c) Up-down symmetry defined by the transformation
386: $\sigma_i \leftrightarrow -\sigma_i$ and
387: $\tau_i \leftrightarrow -\tau_i$ for all sites.
388:
389: \begin{table}
390: \begin{center}
391: \caption{Joint transition probabilities for the coupled system}
392: \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
393: \hline
394: $w$ & $+;+$ & $+;-$ & $-;+$ & $-;-$ \\
395: \hline
396: $++;++$ & $1-p$ & $0$ & $0$ & $p$ \\
397: $+-;+-$ & $\frac 12$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\frac 12$ \\
398: $-+;-+$ & $\frac 12$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\frac 12$ \\
399: $--;--$ & $p$ & $0$ & $0$ & $1-p$ \\
400: $++;--$ & $p$ & $1-2p$ & $0$ & $p$ \\
401: $--;++$ & $p$ & $0$ & $1-2p$ & $p$ \\
402: $+-;-+$ & $\frac 12$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\frac 12$ \\
403: $-+;+-$ & $\frac 12$ & $0$ & $0$ & $\frac 12$ \\
404: $+-;++$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ & $p-a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $a$ \\
405: $-+;++$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ & $p-a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $a$ \\
406: $++;+-$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $p-a$ & $a$ \\
407: $++;-+$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $p-a$ & $a$ \\
408: $-+;--$ & $a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $p-a$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ \\
409: $+-;--$ & $a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $p-a$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ \\
410: $--;-+$ & $a$ & $p-a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ \\
411: $--;+-$ & $a$ & $p-a$ & $\frac 12-a$ & $\frac 12-p+a$ \\
412: \hline
413: \end{tabular}
414: \end{center}
415: \end{table}
416:
417: The Hamming distance,
418: that characterizes the spreading of damage, is defined by
419: \begin{equation}
420: \Psi=\frac12 \langle 1-\sigma_i \tau_i \rangle
421: \end{equation}
422: which is also the order parameter related to the damage spreading
423: phase transition.
424:
425: \section{Relation with the DK automaton}
426:
427: In this section we show an exact relation
428: between the stochastic dynamics defined in Section III
429: and the DK probabilistic cellular
430: automaton \cite{dk}.
431: If we let $\eta_i$ be the occupation variable
432: attached to site $i$, that is, $\eta_i=0$ or $1$ according to
433: whether site $i$ is empty or occupied by one particle,
434: then the transition
435: probabilities
436: $w_{DK}(\eta^{\prime}_i|\eta_{i-1},\eta_{i+1})$
437: of the DK cellular automaton is given by
438: \begin{equation}
439: w_{DK}(1|00)=0
440: \end{equation}
441: \begin{equation}
442: w_{DK}(1|01)=w_{DK}(1|10)=p_1
443: \end{equation}
444: \begin{equation}
445: w_{DK}(1|11)=p_2
446: \end{equation}
447: The DK cellular automaton displays a critical line
448: in the phase diagram $p_1$ versus $p_2$ that separates
449: the absorbing state, for which the density of particles is zero,
450: and the active state, for which the density is nonzero.
451:
452: Now, let us denote by $\eta_i$ the coupling variable
453: associated to the dynamics of Section III
454: that takes the value $1$ or $0$
455: according whether $\sigma _i\neq \tau _i$ or $\sigma _i=\tau _i$
456: respectively, given by
457: \begin{equation}
458: \eta _i=\frac 12(1-\sigma _i\tau _i)
459: \end{equation}
460: The relation between the Hamming distance
461: and the coupling variables is just
462: \begin{equation}
463: \Psi=\langle \eta_i \rangle
464: \label{45}
465: \end{equation}
466: The joint transition probabilities in the variables $\eta _i$
467: and $\sigma_i$ are defined by
468: \[
469: \tilde{w}(\sigma _i^{\prime };\eta _i^{\prime }|
470: \sigma _{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\eta_{i-1},\eta _{i+1})=
471: \]
472: \begin{equation}
473: =w(\sigma _i^{\prime };\tau _i^{\prime }|
474: \sigma_{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\tau _{i-1},\tau _{i+1})
475: \end{equation}
476: where $\tau_i=\sigma _i(1-2\eta _i)$
477:
478: Summing over the coupling variable we get the following property
479: \begin{equation}
480: \sum_{\eta _i^{\prime }}\tilde{w}(\sigma _i^{\prime };\eta _i^{\prime}|
481: \sigma_{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\eta _{i-1},\eta _{i+1})=
482: w_{DW}(\sigma _i^{\prime }|\sigma
483: _{i-i},\sigma _{i+1})
484: \end{equation}
485: which contemplates, as in Eq. (\ref{20a}),
486: the condition that the system follows
487: its own dynamics independent of the coupling.
488: The main property we wish to show, however, is that for
489: infinite temperature, that is, for $p=1/2$ we have
490: \begin{equation}
491: \sum_{\sigma _i^{\prime }}\tilde{w}(\sigma _i^{\prime };\eta _i^{\prime }|
492: \sigma_{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\eta _{i-1},\eta _{i+1})
493: =w_{DK}(\eta _i^{\prime }|\eta_{i-i},\eta _{i+1})
494: \label{46}
495: \end{equation}
496: with the DK transition probabilites defined by
497: $p_2=0$ and $p_1=1-2a$.
498: This means that the subsystem defined by the variables
499: $\{\eta_i\}$ follows a dynamics identical to
500: the DK probabilistic cellular automaton.
501: >From relation (\ref{45}) it follows that the Hamming distance coincides
502: with the order parameter of the active state
503: displayed by the DK automaton.
504:
505: Yet for the case $p=1/2$, it is easy to show
506: that the joint transition probability satisfies
507: the property
508: \[
509: \tilde{w}(\sigma _i^{\prime };\eta _i^{\prime }|
510: \sigma _{i-i},\sigma _{i+1};\eta_{i-1},\eta _{i+1})=
511: \]
512: \begin{equation}
513: =w_{DW}(\sigma _i^{\prime }|\sigma _{i-i},\sigma_{i+1})
514: w_{DK}(\eta _i^{\prime }|\eta _{i-i},\eta _{i+1})
515: \end{equation}
516: with the DK transition probabilites defined by
517: $p_2=0$ and $p_1=1-2a$. Therefore, the $\sigma$-subsystem
518: and the $\eta$-subsystem are statistically independent.
519:
520: \section{Mean-field solution}
521:
522: Dynamic mean-field approximation has already been used
523: to study systems in nonequilibirum stationary
524: states \cite{self,marro,tome,dickman}.
525: Here we set up equations for an approximate solution
526: of the equation that governs the time evolution of
527: the coupled system. We start by writing down
528: the equations that give the time evolution of the one-site
529: and two-site probabilities, namely,
530: \[
531: P_{\ell+1} (\sigma_1;\tau_1)=
532: \sum_{\sigma_0,\sigma_2}\sum_{\tau_0,\tau_2}
533: w(\sigma_1;\tau_1|\sigma_0,\sigma_2;\tau_0,\tau_2)
534: \]
535: \begin{equation}
536: \times P_{\ell}(\sigma_0,\sigma_2;\tau_0,\tau_2)
537: \label{20}
538: \end{equation}
539: and
540: \[
541: P_{\ell+1} (\sigma _1,\sigma _3;\tau _1,\tau _3)=
542: \sum_{\sigma _0,\sigma _2.\sigma _4}\sum_{\tau _0,\tau _2,\tau _4}
543: w(\sigma_1;\tau_1|\sigma_0,\sigma_2;\tau_0,\tau_2)
544: \]
545: \begin{equation}
546: \times w(\sigma_3;\tau_3|\sigma_2,\sigma_4;\tau_2,\tau_4)
547: P_{\ell}(\sigma_0,\sigma_2,\sigma_4;\tau_0,\tau_2,\tau_4)
548: \label{21}
549: \end{equation}
550: >From now on we will drop the subscript $\ell$ and use
551: the prime superscript for quantities calculated at time $\ell+1$.
552: To get a set of closed equations we use the approximation
553: \[
554: P(\sigma_0,\sigma_2,\sigma_4;\tau_0,\tau_2,\tau_4)=
555: \]
556: \begin{equation}
557: =\frac 1{P(\sigma_2;\tau _2)}
558: P(\sigma_0,\sigma_2;\tau_0,\tau_2)
559: P(\sigma_2,\sigma_4;\tau_2,\tau_4)
560: \end{equation}
561: which defines the dynamic mean-field
562: pair approximation.
563:
564: The probabilities $P(\sigma_1;\tau_1)$ and
565: $P(\sigma _1,\sigma _3;\tau _1,\tau _3)$ cannot
566: be considered all independent variables.
567: Taking into account that they should have
568: the reflection symmetry and the system-replica
569: symmetry and, in addition,
570: assuming the up-down symmetry the
571: probabilities are related as follows
572: \begin{equation}
573: P(-;+)=P(+;-)=\frac12 \Psi
574: \end{equation}
575: \begin{equation}
576: P(-;-)=P(+;+)=\frac12 \Omega
577: \end{equation}
578: \begin{equation}
579: P(--;--)=P(++;++)=A
580: \end{equation}
581: \[
582: P(+-;--)=P(-+;--)=P(--;+-)=
583: \]
584: \[
585: =P(--;-+)=P(-+;++)=P(+-;++)=
586: \]
587: \begin{equation}
588: =P(++;-+)=P(++;+-)=B
589: \end{equation}
590: \begin{equation}
591: P(-+;-+)=P(+-;+-)=C
592: \end{equation}
593: \begin{equation}
594: P(--;++)=P(++;--)=D
595: \end{equation}
596: \begin{equation}
597: P(-+;+-)=P(+-;-+)=E
598: \end{equation}
599: These seven variables are not yet independent.
600: Only three of them can be considered independent which
601: we choose to be $\Psi$, $B$, and $D$.
602: The others are related to them by the
603: relations
604: \begin{equation}
605: \Omega=2P(+)-\Psi
606: \end{equation}
607: \begin{equation}
608: A=P(++)-2B-D
609: \label{31}
610: \end{equation}
611: \begin{equation}
612: C=\frac12-P(++)-\frac12 \Psi+D
613: \label{32}
614: \end{equation}
615: \begin{equation}
616: E=\frac12 \Psi-2B-D
617: \label{33}
618: \end{equation}
619: where $P(+)$ and $P(++)$ are the one-site and
620: two-site probabilities corresponding to a
621: single system. The exact solution of the one-dimensional
622: Ising model gives $P(+)=1/2$ and
623: $P(++)=[1+(\tanh\beta J)^2]/4$.
624:
625: >From the time evolution given by
626: Eqs. (\ref{20}) and (\ref{21})
627: and using Eqs. (\ref{31}), (\ref{32}), and (\ref{33})
628: we get the following closed equations for
629: $\Psi$, $D$, and $B$
630: \begin{equation}
631: \Psi^\prime =2\gamma D+8\alpha B
632: \label{34}
633: \end{equation}
634: \[
635: D^\prime=4\alpha^2\frac {B^2}\Omega+
636: (4\alpha^2+\gamma^2) \frac {B^2}\Psi+
637: \]
638: \begin{equation}
639: +2\gamma (\gamma+2\alpha) \frac {D B}\Psi
640: +2\gamma ^2 \frac {D^2}\Psi
641: \label{35}
642: \end{equation}
643: \begin{equation}
644: B^\prime=2\alpha B-4\alpha^2 \frac {B^2}\Omega
645: -4\alpha^2\frac {B^2}\Psi
646: -2\alpha\gamma \frac {DB}\Psi
647: \label{36}
648: \end{equation}
649: where
650: \begin{equation}
651: \gamma =1-2p
652: \end{equation}
653: and
654: \begin{equation}
655: \alpha =\frac12+p-2a
656: \end{equation}
657:
658: \begin{figure}
659: \epsfig{file=danfig1.eps,height=5cm}
660: \caption{Phase diagram in the plane $a$ versus $p$
661: where $p$ is relate to temperature by (\ref{8a}).
662: The continuous line corresponds to the
663: mean-field approximantion and the circles to the
664: Monte Carlo simulations.}
665: \end{figure}
666:
667: A stationary solution of the evolution equation is such that
668: the stationary probability $P(\sigma;\tau)$ is
669: zero when $\sigma \ne \tau$ which corresponds
670: to no damage spreading ($\Psi=0$).
671: >From Eqs. (\ref{34}), (\ref{35}), and (\ref{36})
672: we may obtain solutions with damage spreading ($\Psi \ne 0$).
673: The transition line is obtained by a linear analysis of
674: stability of the solution around $\Psi=0$ and by assuming
675: that the variables $B$ and $D$ vanishes linearly with $\Psi$.
676: Taking the limit $\Psi \to 0$
677: we find a transition line given by the implicit equation
678: \[
679: (1-\alpha)^2 \gamma^3-4\alpha(3\alpha^2-5\alpha+2) \gamma^2+
680: \]
681: \begin{equation}
682: +4\alpha^2(13\alpha^2-16\alpha+5)\gamma-8\alpha(3\alpha-2)=0
683: \end{equation}
684: whose solution is shown in the phase diagram of Fig. 1.
685: In particular, when $a=0$ (corresponding to the HD algorithm)
686: we have $\gamma=2(1-\alpha)$ which substituted
687: in the equation for the transition line gives
688: \begin{equation}
689: 1-9\alpha+33\alpha^2-59\alpha^3+53\alpha^4-20\alpha^5=0
690: \end{equation}
691: whose solution is $\alpha=0.696173$ from which
692: we get $p=0.196173$
693: so that $J/k_B T_c=0.352597$ and $T_c=2.83610$.
694: When $a=1/2$ (correspoding to the HB algorithm)
695: there is no transition.
696:
697: At infinite temperature, $p=1/2$, the mean-field
698: transition line gives $a=1/6$. Now, using the relation
699: $p_1=1-2a$ obtained from the equivalence
700: with the DK automaton, and taking into
701: account the result $p_1=2/3$
702: obtained in \cite{tome} in the pair approximation for the DK automaton
703: we have $a=1/6$ in coincidence with
704: our present result.
705:
706: \section{Numerical simulations}
707:
708: Our numerical simulations resulted in the
709: transition line shown in Fig. 1.
710: When $a=0$ we have obtained $p=0.285(1)$ which gives
711: $J/k_B T_c=0.230(1)$ and $T_c=4.35(2)$ in agreement with the
712: result by Hinrichsen and Domany \cite{hd}, namely $J/k_B T_c=0.2305$.
713: At infinite temperature, $p=1/2$, the numerical results
714: give a transition at $a=0.0955(1)$. Now, using the
715: relation $p_1=1-a$ obtained from the
716: mapping of our model into the
717: DK cellular automaton, we obtain $p_{1c}=0.809(1)$
718: in agreement with previous Monte Carlo numerical results,
719: namely $p_{1c}=0.8095(5)$ \cite{rieger}.
720:
721: \begin{figure}
722: \epsfig{file=danfig2.eps,height=5cm}
723: \caption{Time dependent Monte Carlo simulations for the damage
724: survival probability $P$ for a lattice with linear size
725: $L=1000$. Numerical data are shown for
726: $a=0.075$ and
727: $p=0.450$, $0.453$, $0.455$, $0.457$, and $0.460$
728: from bottom to top.}
729: \end{figure}
730:
731: The determination of the critical line
732: was obtained by using the time dependent
733: method \cite{torre,marro,grass2}.
734: We started with two one-dimensional lattices
735: (system and replica) with $L=1000$ sites.
736: Both lattices were initialized with completly indepedendent
737: random configurations so that half the spins were
738: damaged at the begining ($\Psi=1/2$).
739: The update was done in a synchronized way by using
740: the algorithm defined
741: by Eqs. (\ref{13}), (\ref{14}), (\ref{15}), and (\ref{16}),
742: with the same random number for both lattices.
743: The damage surviving probabilites $P(t)$,
744: obtained by taking the averages
745: over 2000 samples, were collected from $t=1$
746: to $t=1500$ Monte Carlo steps.
747: At the critical point
748: we expect the following asymptotic time behavior
749: \begin{equation}
750: P(t) \sim t^{-\delta}
751: \end{equation}
752: Therefore, a double-log plot of $P$
753: versus $t$ will be linear at the critical point.
754: In Fig. 2 we show how the critical value of
755: $p$ was found when $a=0.075$.
756: Several values of $p$, the ones shown in Fig. 2, were checked
757: in order to find a linear behavior in a log-log
758: plot of $P(t)$ versus $t$.
759: Our estimate in this case gives $p_c=0.455(1)$
760: for $a=0.075$. The straight line
761: fitted to the numerical data gives
762: $\delta=0.16(1)$ in agreement
763: with a transition belonging to the
764: direct percolation universality class \cite{marro}.
765: For other values
766: of $a$ the procedure were the same.
767:
768: \section{Conclusion}
769:
770: We have introduced a family of algorithms
771: to describe the time evolution of
772: the one-dimensional Ising model
773: The family of algorithms interpolates
774: between the HB and the HD algorithms
775: and the resulting stochastic dynamics
776: corresponds to the DW probabilistic
777: cellular automaton.
778: Coupling a system with its replica by using
779: the same sequence of random numbers, we have
780: determined the joint transition probability
781: which defines a four-state probabilistic
782: cellular automaton.
783: By using a dynamic pair mean-field approximation and
784: Monte Carlo simulations we have found that the stochastic
785: dynamics defined by the family of algorithms displays
786: a line of critical points separating a phase where the
787: damage spreads and a phase where it does not.
788: One important feature of the joint stochastic dynamics
789: studied here is that at infinite
790: temperature the joint dynamics is exactly mapped into
791: the DK probabilistic cellular automaton.
792: This result together with the Monte Carlo simulations
793: give support to a conjecture by Grassberger according
794: to which the damage spreading transition is in the
795: universality class of the directed percolation.
796:
797: \bigskip
798:
799: \begin{references}
800:
801: \bibitem{glauber} R. J. Glauber, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 4}, 294 (1963).
802:
803: \bibitem{binder}{\it Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Physics},
804: edited by K. Binder, 2nd. ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986).
805:
806: \bibitem{kaw} K. Kawasaki in {\it Phase Transitions and
807: Critical Phenomena}, edited by C. Domb and M. S. Green
808: (Academic Press, New York, 1972), vol. 2, p. 443.
809:
810: \bibitem{kampen} N. G. van Kampen, {\it Stochastic Process
811: in Physics and Chemistry} (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981).
812:
813: \bibitem{lig} T. M. Liggett, {\it Interacting Particle Systems}
814: (Spinger-Verlag, New York, 1985).
815:
816: \bibitem{self} T. Tom\'e and M. J. de Oliveira,
817: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 40}, 6643 (1989).
818:
819: \bibitem{marro} J. Marro and R. Dickman, {\it Nonequilibrium
820: Phase Transition in Lattice Models} (Cambridge University Press,
821: Cambridge, 1999).
822:
823: \bibitem{livrotm} T. Tom\'e e M. J. de Oliveira,
824: {\it Din\^amica Estoc\'astica e Irreversibilidade}
825: (Editora da Universidade de S\~ao Paulo, S\~ao Paulo, 2001).
826:
827: \bibitem{dk} E. Domany and W. Kinzel, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 53}, 447 (1984).
828:
829: \bibitem{derrida} B. Derrida and G. Weisbuch, Europhys. Lett.
830: {\bf 4}, 657 (1987).
831:
832: \bibitem{lebowitz} J. L. Lebowitz, C. Maes and E. R. Speer,
833: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 59}, 117 (1990).
834:
835: \bibitem{tome} T. Tom\'e, Physica A {\bf 212}, 99 (1994).
836:
837: \bibitem{gueu} E. P. Gueuvoghlanian and T. Tom\'e,
838: Int. J. Mod. Phys. B {\bf 11}, 1245 (1997).
839:
840: \bibitem{barber} M. N. Barber and B. Derrida, J. Stat. Phys.
841: {\bf 51}, 877 (1988).
842:
843: \bibitem{hd} H. Hinrichsen and E. Domany, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 56}, 94 (1997).
844:
845: \bibitem{stoch} T. Tom\'e and M. J. de Oliveira,
846: Braz. J. Phys. {\bf 27}, 525 (1997).
847:
848: \bibitem{mjo} M. J. de Oliveira, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B
849: {\bf 10}, 1313 (1996).
850:
851: \bibitem{grass1} P. Grassberger, Physica A {\bf 214}, 547 (1995).
852:
853: \bibitem{creutz} M. Creutz, Ann. Phys. {\bf 167}, 62 (1986).
854:
855: \bibitem{stanley} H. Stanley, D. Stauffer, J. Kertesz, and H. Hermann,
856: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 2326 (1987).
857:
858: \bibitem{mariz} A. M. Mariz, H. J. Hermann, and L. de Arcangelis,
859: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 59}, 1043 (1990).
860:
861: \bibitem{grass2} P. Grassberger, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 79}, 13 (1995).
862:
863: \bibitem{hwd} H. Hinrichsen, J. S. Weitz and E. Domany,
864: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 88}, 617 (1997).
865:
866: \bibitem{ara} E. Arashiro and J. R. Drugowich de Fel\'{\i}cio,
867: Braz. J. Phys. {\bf 30}, 677 (2000).
868:
869: \bibitem{martins} M. L. Martins, H. F. Verona de Rezende, C. Tsallis
870: and A. C. N. de Magalh\~aes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 66}, 2045 (1991).
871:
872: \bibitem{torre} P. Grassberger and A. de la Torre,
873: Ann. Phys. (NY) {\bf 122}, 373 (1979).
874:
875: \bibitem{dickman} R. Dickman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 34}, 4246 (1986).
876:
877: \bibitem{rieger} H. Rieger, A. Schadschneider and M. Schreckenberg,
878: J. Phys. A {\bf 27}, L423 (1994).
879:
880: \end{references}
881:
882: \end{document}
883:
884:
885: