1: \input{epsf}
2: %\documentstyle[aps,preprint]{revtex}
3: \documentstyle[aps,amssymb,preprint]{revtex}
4: \textwidth 14cm
5: \baselineskip 36pt
6:
7: \DeclareMathSymbol{\Z}{\mathbin}{AMSb}{"5A}
8: \begin{document}
9: \tightenlines
10:
11: \title{Absorbing-state phase transitions with extremal dynamics}
12:
13: \author{Ronald Dickman$^\dagger$ and Guilherme J. M. Garcia$^*$ \\
14: {\small Departamento de F\'\i sica, Instituto de Ci\^encias Exatas}\\
15: {\small Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Caixa Postal 702}\\
16: {\small CEP 30123-970, Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais, Brazil} }
17:
18: \date{\today}
19:
20: \maketitle
21: \vskip 0.5truecm
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24:
25: Extremal dynamics represents a path to self-organized
26: criticality in which the order parameter is tuned to a
27: value of zero.
28: The order parameter is associated with a phase transition to an
29: absorbing state. Given a process that exhibits a phase transition
30: to an absorbing state, we define an ``extremal absorbing"
31: process, providing the link to the associated extremal (nonabsorbing)
32: process. Stationary properties of the latter correspond to
33: those at the absorbing-state phase transition in the former.
34: Studying the absorbing version of an extremal dynamics
35: model allows to determine certain critical exponents
36: that are not otherwise accessible.
37: In the case of the Bak-Sneppen (BS)
38: model, the absorbing version is closely related to the
39: ``$f$-avalanche" introduced by Paczuski, Maslov and Bak
40: [Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53}, 414 (1996)], or, in spreading
41: simulations to the ``BS branching process" also studied by
42: these authors. The corresponding nonextremal process
43: belongs to the directed percolation universality class.
44: We revisit the absorbing BS model, obtaining
45: refined estimates for the threshold and critical
46: exponents in one dimension. We also study
47: an extremal version of the usual contact process,
48: using mean-field theory and simulation.
49: The extremal condition slows the spread of activity and
50: modifies the critical behavior radically, defining an
51: ``extremal directed percolation"
52: universality class of absorbing-state phase transitions.
53: Asymmetric updating is a relevant perturbation for this class, even though
54: it is irrelevant for the corresponding nonextremal class.
55:
56:
57: \vspace{1em}
58: %\noindent PACS: 05.65.+b, 02.30.Ks, 05.40.-a, 87.10.+e CONFERIR
59: \vspace{2em}
60:
61: \noindent
62: $^\dagger$ Electronic address: dickman@fisica.ufmg.br\\
63: $^*$ Electronic address: gjmg@fisica.ufmg.br
64:
65: \end{abstract}
66:
67: \newpage
68:
69:
70: \section{INTRODUCTION}
71:
72: Extremal dynamics has been employed extensively in modelling
73: far from equilibrium systems such as biological
74: evolution \cite{BS} and driven interfaces \cite{driven,leschhorn}.
75: Although processes with extremal dynamics do not have a phase transition
76: (there is no control parameter) they
77: exhibit scaling properties reminiscent of those
78: observed at continuous phase transitions \cite{pmb94,pmb96}.
79: Indeed, it was suggested some time ago that the appearance of
80: ``self-organized" scaling properties in extremal dynamics and in
81: sandpile models corresponds to forcing the order parameter (associated
82: with an underlying phase transition) to zero from above \cite{sornette95}.
83: The purpose of this work is to explore the connection between
84: these scaling properties and those observed at a
85: phase transition to an absorbing state.
86: The connection between extremal dynamics and directed percolation (DP),
87: the prime example of an absorbing-state phase transition,
88: was first suggested by Paczuski, Maslov and Bak \cite{pmb94}
89: and investigated in detail by these authors in the context of the
90: Bak-Sneppen (BS) model and related processes \cite{pmb96}.
91: (The latter work, as well as Ref. \cite{Grassberger:1995},
92: clearly demonstrated that the critical
93: exponents of the BS model are {\it not} those of DP.)
94: Sornette and Dornic \cite{sornette96} and
95: Grassberger and Zhang \cite{gz96} have shown how a variant
96: of directed percolation
97: may be transformed via extremal dynamics to display SOC.
98: These studies indicate that self-organized criticality
99: (SOC) \cite{BTW} under extremal
100: dynamics arises because the system is driven to a critical point
101: associated with a phase transition to an absorbing
102: state \cite{sornette96}, as is also the case for
103: sandpiles \cite{Dickman et al:2000}.
104:
105: In the present work we are particularly interested in the modifications
106: needed to transform a (non-extremal, non-SOC) model having an absorbing state
107: to one exhibiting SOC under extremal dynamics. We develop a general
108: scheme relating the two classes of models via an intermediate,
109: ``extremal-absorbing" process
110: whose absorbing-state critical point corresponds exactly to the
111: critical behavior observed in the corresponding SOC model.
112: Two examples (the
113: BS model and an extremal contact process) are studied in detail,
114: yielding refined estimates for critical properties, and evidence
115: of a new universality class associated with absorbing phase transitions
116: under extremal dynamics.
117:
118:
119: The prime example of extremal dynamics is the
120: BS model \cite{BS,flyvbjerg}, proposed to explain
121: mass extinctions observed in the fossil record.
122: While its application in the evolutionary context is debated \cite{drossel02},
123: it remains an intriguing and incompletely understood example of
124: scaling behavior far from equilibrium.
125: The contact process (CP) \cite{harris} is the most familiar example
126: of a Markov process exhibiting a phase transition to an
127: absorbing state. We focus on the absorbing version of the
128: BS model, and the extremal version of the CP, to illustrate the relations
129: between extremal dynamics and absorbing phase transitions.
130: Our analysis
131: of the spread of activity leads
132: to new or refined values for the exponents $\delta$,
133: $\eta$, $\nu_{||}$, $\beta'$ and $z_{sp}$, and for the
134: critical threshold of the BS model.
135: (For extremal dynamics, the avalanche exponent
136: is $\tau = 1 +\delta$.)
137: Finite-size scaling analysis
138: of stationary properties at the critical point yields
139: estimates of the exponent ratios $\beta/\nu_\perp$ and
140: $\nu_{||}/\nu_\perp$.
141:
142: Studies of modified BS models have shown that scaling properties
143: are insensitive to changes that preserve its basic symmetries
144: (that is, invariance under translation and reflection)
145: \cite{Garcia and Dickman:1,Garcia and Dickman:2003,Head and Rodgers:1998},
146: pointing to the
147: existence of a BS universality class. Nonextremal models
148: that exhibit a phase transition to an absorbing state,
149: and that possess these same symmetries, and no additional ones,
150: belong generically to
151: the directed percolation (DP) universality class \cite{janssen,grassberger}.
152: Here we show that such models fall in a new ``extremal-DP"
153: universality class
154: when modified to follow extremal dynamics.
155: The absorbing phase transition corresponding to the scaling
156: behavior of the BS and other extremal models belongs to
157: the extremal-DP class, not that of ordinary
158: directed percolation. In other words, extremal dynamics is a
159: relevant perturbation for absorbing-state transition,
160: just as was shown by Sneppen in the context of
161: interface depinning \cite{driven}.
162:
163:
164: The balance of this paper is organized as follows.
165: Section II presents a general scheme linking ordinary
166: absorbing-state phase transitions and extremal dynamics
167: via an intermediary ``extremal-absorbing" model.
168: In Sec. III we describe our simulation method
169: and results.
170: Our findings regarding scaling and universality
171: are discussed in Sec. IV.
172: Mean-field analyses are presented
173: in the Appendix.
174:
175:
176: \section{Absorbing state models and extremal dynamics}
177:
178: In this section
179: we examine how a stochastic model with an
180: absorbing-state phase transition may be transformed to
181: exhibit scale invariance under extremal dynamics.
182: We begin, for generality, by defining a rather abstract scheme, and
183: then discuss specific examples.
184: A large class of models exhibiting an absorbing-state phase transition may
185: be formulated as follows \cite{liggett,hinrichsen,konno,marro}.
186: Consider a stochastic process ${\cal S}$ defined on a connected
187: graph ${\cal G}$ of $N$ sites. (${\cal G}$ consists of a set of sites
188: with links between certain pairs of sites. Typical examples are a ring of
189: $N$ sites, and the $d$-dimensional hypercubic lattice $\Z^d$,
190: with links between nearest neighbors.)
191: The {\it state} $\sigma(i)$ of site $i$ is 0 or 1, the latter value denoting an
192: active site, the former an inactive one.
193: For each site $i$ in ${\cal G}$ we define a neighborhood
194: $v(i) \subset {\cal G}$, or,
195: more generally, a set of neighborhoods $v_1(i)$, $v_2(i)$,...,$v_n(i)$.
196:
197: The dynamics of ${\cal S}$ proceeds in steps.
198: Each step involves choosing an active site $i$ (the {\it central site}
199: for this step),
200: at random, and changing the states of the sites in $v(i)$ according to
201: a certain rule $f$.
202: In case there are two or more neighborhoods,
203: one of them, $v_r(i)$ say,
204: is chosen at random from the collection, with probability $p_r$,
205: and a rule $f_r$ is applied to the site or sites in $v_r$.
206: In general $f$ (or $f_r$) is a probabilistic rule.
207: At each step the number of active sites may change, and if at any moment there
208: are no active sites ($\sigma(i) = 0, \forall i \in {\cal G}$),
209: the process has fallen into an absorbing state and there is no further
210: evolution. Otherwise the dynamics proceeds to the next step.
211:
212: Using $\sigma_n$ to denote the entire set of activity variables
213: $\sigma(1), \sigma(2),..., \sigma(N)$ at step $n$,
214: the dynamics generates a sequence $\sigma_1, \sigma_2,...$
215: starting from the initial configuration $\sigma_0$. It is frequently of interest to
216: associate a continuous time variable $t$ with the process. This is usually done by
217: associating a time increment $\Delta t = 1/N_a$ with each step, where $N_a$ is the
218: number of active sites just before the step is realized. We define the
219: {\it order parameter} as $\rho(t) = \mbox{Prob} [\sigma_t(i) = 1]$, i.e., the fraction of
220: active sites at time $t$. (The event space here is the set of all realizations
221: of the process up to time $t$, starting from a given initial
222: probability distribution on configuration space.)
223: If the stationary order parameter, defined by
224: $\lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \rho$, vanishes, the process is said to be in
225: the {\it absorbing phase}; otherwise it is
226: in the {\it active} phase.
227:
228:
229: A simple model exhibiting a phase transition to an
230: absorbing state
231: is the {\it contact process} (CP) \cite{harris}.
232: Here we consider the one-dimensional
233: version. There are three sets $v_r(i)$, conveniently denoted as
234: $v_0(i) = i$
235: and $v_{\pm}(i) = i \pm 1$. The associated probabilitites are $p_0$
236: and $p_\pm = (1-p_0)/2$. In terms of the usual
237: parametrisation \cite{harris,marro},
238: $p_0 = 1/(1+\lambda)$, where $\lambda \geq 0$ represents
239: the rate of spread of activity.
240: (In the ``epidemic" interpretation of the CP, active sites represent infected
241: organisms, inactive sites susceptibles, and $\lambda$ is the
242: infection rate.)
243: The updating rules are: $f_0 = 0$,
244: $f_\pm = 1$. In other words, an active site has a probability
245: per unit time of $1/(1+\lambda)$ to become inactive,
246: while an inactive site $j$ becomes active
247: at rate $\lambda n_a(j)/[2(1+\lambda)]$, where $n_a(j)$ is the
248: number of active neighbors of site $j$.
249: As is well known, the one-dimensional
250: CP exhibits a continuous phase transition
251: between an absorbing phase and an active one at
252: $\lambda_c \simeq 3.29785$ \cite{liggett,konno,marro}.
253:
254:
255: It is convenient to associate the control
256: parameter with the updating rule $f$ rather than with the
257: probabilities $p_r$. We therefore
258: reformulate the CP as follows.
259: With the sets $v_0(i)$ and $v_\pm (i)$ defined
260: above, we take $p_0 = 1/2$ and $p_\pm = 1/4$,
261: and define $q = \lambda/(1+\lambda)$.
262: The updating functions are:
263: \begin{equation}
264: f_0 = \left\{
265: \begin{array}{lrl}
266: 1, & \mbox{w.p.} & q \\
267:
268: 0, & \mbox{w.p.} & 1-q
269:
270: \end{array} \right.
271: \label{f0cp}
272: \end{equation}
273: (`w.p.' denotes ``with probability"),
274: and
275: \begin{equation}
276: f_\pm = \left\{
277: \begin{array}{llll}
278: 1, & \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
279: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
280: \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
281: \mbox{ if } & \sigma(i\pm 1) = 1\\
282:
283: \left.
284: \begin{array}{lrl}
285:
286: 1, & \mbox{w.p.} & q \\
287:
288: 0, & \mbox{w.p.} & 1-q
289: \end{array} \right\} \mbox{ if } \sigma(i\pm 1) = 0
290:
291: \end{array} \right.
292: \label{fpmcp}
293: \end{equation}
294: It is easy to verify that the transition rates satisfy
295: $w(0 \to 1)/w( 1 \to 0) = n_a \lambda/2$, just as in the original
296: formulation. The critical value $q_c \simeq 0.76733$.
297:
298: The following three-site contact process (CP3) will play an
299: important role in our analysis \cite{jovanovic}. For each site we define the set
300: $v(i) = \{i\!-\!1,i,i\!+\!1\}$ (the central site and its nearest
301: neighbors).
302: The updating function $f$ takes values of 1 and 0 with probabilities
303: $q$ and $1\!-\!q$ respectively, independently at each of the three sites
304: in $v(i)$. (In Ref. \cite{jovanovic} this is called 'model 3'.)
305: Simulations of the CP3 show that it
306: exhibits a continuous phase transition at $q = q_c \simeq 0.63523(3)$.
307: Further interacting particle systems, such as the pair contact
308: process \cite{iwanpcp} and the diffusive CP \cite{dcp}, can be
309: accomodated within the scheme set out above.
310:
311: We shall assume that the process ${\cal S}$ is defined so
312: that the control parameters (such as $q$) are associated
313: with the updating rule $f$.
314: Each time a site is updated,
315: the value of $f$ may be determined
316: by comparing a random number $x$ with the parameter
317: in question. (This is of course the usual procedure in simulations.)
318: In the CP3, for example, we take $f = 1$ if $x < q$,
319: and zero otherwise, where $x$ is uniformly
320: distributed on the interval [0,1].
321: Call the random number associated with the most recent updating of
322: site $i$, $x_i$, so that $\sigma(i) = \Theta(q - x_i)$ with $\Theta$
323: the unit step function.
324: (The initial values of the $x_i$ are assigned according to the state
325: variables $\sigma(i)$.
326: For example, if all sites are initially active, we draw the initial
327: $x_i$ from the distribution uniform on $[0,q]$.)
328: For the CP, Eq. (\ref{f0cp}) requires that
329: we update the central site $i$ with a number chosen
330: uniformly from [0,1]. According to Eq. (\ref{fpmcp}),
331: the same applies when updating an {\it inactive}
332: neighbor ($i \pm 1$), but when updating an {\it active} neighbor,
333: the random number
334: $x$ is drawn from the interval $[0,q]$, since an active neighbor
335: remains active.
336:
337: Summarizing, we have shown how a particle system ${\cal S}$
338: may be formulated using
339: a set of random variables $x_i$,
340: such that site $i$ is active if $x_i$ is smaller than a certain
341: parameter $q$. ${\cal S}$ suffers an absorbing-state phase transition
342: at $q = q_c$.
343: We now define two related processes, ${\cal S}_{EA}$ and ${\cal S}_E$.
344: The former, {\it extremal absorbing} process,
345: is obtained by modifying how the central site is
346: selected. Instead of choosing it at random from among the
347: currently active sites, it is taken to be {\it the active site having
348: the smallest} $x_i$. As in the original process ${\cal S}$,
349: if there are no active sites
350: (i.e., $x_j > q$, $\forall j \in {\cal G}$), the process has
351: reached an absorbing configuration and the evolution ceases.
352: Thus ${\cal S}_{EA}$ possesses an absorbing state, and
353: since the original process ${\cal S}$ exhibits a phase transition
354: between an active and an absorbing phase as the control parameter $q$
355: is varied, we expect ${\cal S}_{EA}$ to as well,
356: at some value $q_{c,E}$.
357: (The reason is that the relative likelihood
358: of generating and destroying active sites varies with $q$, just as in
359: ${\cal S}$.)
360: Mean-field theory (see Appendix) yields
361: $q_{c,E} = q_c$. Due to the different
362: correlations generated under extremal dynamics, however, the critical
363: value $q_{c,E}$ of ${\cal S}_{EA}$ is in general different from $q_c$.
364:
365: We define the {\it extremal} process ${\cal S}_E$ by relaxing the condition in
366: ${\cal S}_{EA}$, that the extremal site $i$ must be active
367: (i.e., have $x_i < q$) for the dynamics to proceed.
368: %Since in ${\cal S}_E$ there is no distinction between active and inactive
369: %sites, we may dispense with the variables $\sigma(i)$.
370: If ${\cal S}$ is the original contact process,
371: then ${\cal S}_E$ is a process in which either the
372: minimal site or one of its nearest neighbors is updated at each step.
373: If ${\cal S}$ is the CP3, ${\cal S}_E$ is the familiar Bak-Sneppen
374: model. Note that ${\cal S}_E$ has no absorbing state,
375: hence no phase transition to such a state.
376: Its stationary properties are nevertheless
377: intimately connected with the critical-point properties of
378: ${\cal S}_{EA}$, as we now explain.
379:
380: Of particular interest is the
381: stationary probability density $\overline{p}(x)$
382: of site variables under extremal dynamics. As is well known,
383: $\overline{p}(x) = C \Theta (x-q_{c,E}) \Theta (1-x)$
384: in the Bak-Sneppen model, in the infinite-size limit.
385: ($C = 1/(1-q_{c,E})$ is the normalization factor.)
386: We expect $\overline{p}(x)$ to exhibit a step-function
387: singularity in any extremal model ${\cal S}_E$ \cite{Garcia and Dickman:1}.
388: This feature is in fact already present in the original
389: absorbing-state model ${\cal S}$ at its critical point,
390: because at the critical point $q = q_c$, the stationary
391: density of active sites (having $x_j < q$) tends to zero as
392: the system size $N$ goes to infinity. The distribution on the
393: ``allowed" region $x > q$ is uniform, since the $x_j$ are
394: drawn from a uniform distribution.
395: Thus $\overline{p}(x)$ jumps from zero to a finite value
396: at $x = q_c$.
397: In the {\it supercritical} regime ($q > q_c$),
398: $\overline{p}(x)$ is equal to a constant $p_1$ for $x < q$,
399: such that $qp_1 = \rho$ (the order parameter),
400: and takes a different constant value, $p_2$, on the interval $[q,1]$.
401: Once again, the stationary density
402: is discontinuous at $x = q$.
403:
404: What holds for ${\cal S}$ also holds qualitatively for
405: ${\cal S}_{EA}$. The critical value $q_{c,E}$ may, as noted, differ
406: from $q_c$, but since ${\cal S}_{EA}$ exhibits an absorbing-state
407: phase transition, its stationary distribution $\overline{p}(x)$
408: also has a step-function singularity.
409: Just at $q = q_{c,E}$, the order parameter $\rho = 0$, but
410: as $N \to \infty $ the survival time of the process
411: tends to infinity. This means that
412: the process can survive indefinitely, with the choice of the central site
413: {\it restricted to the set having} $x \leq q_{c,E}$.
414: The presence
415: of active sites in the range $q_{c,E} < x \leq q$ is then irrelevant, since
416: a site with $x \leq q_{c,E}$ is always available. Thus for
417: $q \geq q_{c,E}$, the distribution $\overline{p}(x)$ exhibits a
418: step-function singularity at $q_{c,E}$. Extremal dynamics
419: effectively ``pins" the singularity at $q_{c,E}$.
420: The foregoing remarks on ${\cal S}_{EA}$ obtain in the
421: infinite-size limit; for finite $N$ there is a nonzero probability
422: (for $q < 1$), that all sites have $x > q$ so that the system
423: eventually becomes trapped in the absorbing state.
424: (The mean lifetime, however, is expected to grow exponentially
425: with $N$, for $q > q_{c,E}$.)
426:
427: In summary, if ${\cal S}$ exhibits an absorbing-state phase transition,
428: then ${\cal S}_{EA}$ should as well, although not necessarily at the
429: same value of $q$. The distribution $\overline{p}(x)$ possesses a step
430: function singularity in both cases.
431: Near the critical point
432: ($q \gtrsim q_c$) of the original process
433: ${\cal S}$ we expect
434: $\rho \sim (q - q_c)^\beta$, with $\beta$ the critical exponent
435: associated with the order parameter.
436: Below the upper critical dimension
437: ($d_c = 4$ for DP \cite{janssen,grassberger}), $\beta < 1$.
438: In the supercritical regime of
439: ${\cal S}_{EA}$, on the other hand,
440: $\rho = \int_0^q \overline{p}(x) dx \propto (q-q_{c,E})$ since
441: $\overline{p}(x)$ jumps from zero to a finite value at $x = q_{c,E}$.
442: Thus the order parameter exponent $\beta$ is {\it unity} in ${\cal S}_{EA}$.
443: This is but one example showing that the extremal condition changes
444: the value of a critical exponent. Another example, established some
445: time ago by Paczuski and coworkers \cite{pmb96,pmb95},
446: is that the spreading exponent
447: $\eta$ (defined Sec. III.C) is generically zero for extremal
448: dynamics, whereas $\eta > 0$ for directed percolation.
449: Further evidence that extremal dynamics modifies
450: critical exponent values will be given below.
451:
452: In ${\cal S}_{E}$, the central site is always chosen (in
453: the $N \to \infty$ limit) from the
454: set $\{ i:x_i \leq q_{c,E}\}$, just as in ${\cal S}_{EA}$ at its
455: critical point.
456: Since the order parameter is zero
457: in the latter case, we may assert that extremal dynamics
458: effectively tunes the order parameter to zero.
459: ($\rho$ approaches zero from above as $N \to \infty$.)
460: As we have seen, the existence of sites with $q_{c,E} < x < q$
461: becomes irrelevant in ${\cal S}_{EA}$, in the infinite-size limit.
462: In other words, ${\cal S}_{E}$ is identical to the critical process
463: ${\cal S}_{EA}$ in this limit. (Starting from the same initial
464: configuration, and using the same set of random numbers,
465: the same sequence of
466: sites will be updated in the two processes.)
467:
468: Since the extremal version of the CP3 is the familiar Bak-Sneppen model,
469: we shall refer to the CP3$_{EA}$ as
470: the {\it absorbing Bak-Sneppen} (ABS) model.
471: Our objective is to characterize
472: the behavior of the ABS model and of the extremal and EA versions
473: of the contact process.
474: The ABS model is closely related to the $f$-{\it avalanche} process
475: studied in Ref. \cite{pmb96}. An $f$-avalanche (in the present notation,
476: $q$-avalanche), begins when the minimal site variable $x_{min} < q$,
477: the minimum having been {\it greater} than $q$ at the preceding step or steps,
478: and continues until the minimum is once again $> q$. (As $q$ approaches
479: $q_{c,E}$ from below, the mean avalanche duration diverges.) The dynamics of the
480: BS model continues, regardless of whether a given avalanche has terminated or not.
481: But in the ABS model $x_{min} > q$ represents an absorbing state and the
482: dynamics ceases. In the BS model, it is common to analyze
483: the properties of $q$-avalanches in the stationary state. It is similarly of
484: interest to study stationary properties of the ABS model, attained once the
485: system has relaxed, after an initial transient period. We may also study the
486: mean lifetime of the active state as a function of system size. Another
487: approach to studying absorbing-state phase transitions consists in
488: following the spread of activity starting from a single active site.
489: This spreading phenomenon in the BS model was studied in Refs. \cite{pmb94,pmb96},
490: where it is called the BS branching process, and in Ref. \cite{Grassberger:1995}
491: under the name of the BS($\tilde{p}$) model.
492:
493: The assertions regarding extremal and extremal-absorbing models
494: are supported by mean-field theory (MFT), which is presented in the Appendix.
495: In particular, for the ABS model
496: $\overline{p} = \frac{3}{2} \Theta (x- \frac{1}{3})$,
497: just as in the MFT of the original BS model.
498: In the extremal and the extremal-absorbing contact process, the
499: stationary probability densities exhibit (for $q > q_{c,E} = 1/2$),
500: {\it two} discontinuities, one at $x = \kappa \equiv q^2/(3q-1)$, the other
501: at $x=q > \kappa$. [These coalesce at $q=1/2$. Note that the
502: parameter $q$ continues to influence the form of $\overline{p}$
503: in the extremal contact process, due to the nature
504: of the updating rule, Eqs. (\ref{f0cp}) and (\ref{fpmcp}).]
505: These predictions are in qualitative agreement with
506: simulation.
507:
508:
509:
510: \section{SIMULATION RESULTS}
511:
512:
513: \subsection{Absorbing Bak-Sneppen Model: Simulation Method}
514:
515: Before discussing our results we insert
516: an observation on simulations of
517: the BS model. Since the site with the smallest variable, $x_{min}$,
518: must be identified at each step, it becomes important to
519: devise an effective search strategy. An efficient general-purpose
520: search algorithm uses a binary tree structure to identify $x_{min}$.
521: One approach \cite{Grassberger:1995} utilizes a lattice of $2^n$
522: sites. At the first level of selection, each site is compared
523: with one of its neighbors and the minimum of the pair selected.
524: At the next level the minimum between each neighboring pair
525: is selected, and so on, so that at the $n$-th level the global
526: minimum is identified.
527:
528: A second binary scheme \cite{pmpreprint} is formulated as
529: follows. Site 0 is placed at the apex of the tree. Site 1
530: is placed on the level below the apex, to the left of 0
531: if $x_1<x_0$, to the right
532: if $x_1>x_0$. A site $i$ is added to the tree in the
533: following way: we go down the tree comparing $x_i$ with the variables
534: $x_1,...,x_{i-1}$, turning left or right depending on whether $x_i$ is
535: smaller or larger than $x_j$, until we find an empty site.
536: Building the tree in this way,
537: $x_{min}$ will occupy the leftmost position in the tree.
538: In these schemes, maintaining the tree structure, once constructed
539: from the initial set of variables $x_i$, requires a small number of
540: operations at each step, and is many times more efficient that
541: a repeated global search for the minimim. We find, nonetheless,
542: that a suitably {\it restricted} search requires less cpu time
543: in the stationary state.
544:
545: A special property of the BS model (shared by its absorbing version,
546: and by other extremal models),
547: is that the minimal site falls, with a probability approaching unity
548: as the system size grows, in the interval $[0,q_{c,E}]$. At the same time
549: the density of sites with values in this interval approaches zero
550: as $N \to \infty$. This suggests maintaining a list of sites having
551: $x < q_{c,E}$ \cite{pmnote}. Then the search for $x_{min}$
552: may be restricted to the
553: list, except for the rare instances in which the latter is empty.
554: (For the ABS we must in any case restrict the search to sites
555: with $x \leq q$.)
556: If the system is large,
557: so that the typical number of sites with $x < q$ is not small,
558: it becomes advantageous to introduce a {\it second} list,
559: of sites having $x < q^{**} < q_{c,E}$. When this
560: relatively short list is nonempty (as is usually the case)
561: the search for $x_{min}$ is restricted to it.
562: In studies of the BS model,
563: we obtained the greatest efficiency using $q^{**} = 0.54$, while the
564: criterion for the first list was $x < 0.65$, that is, slightly
565: {\it below} $q_{c,E}$. (The occasional need to perform a global
566: search, in the rare instances when both lists are empty, is
567: more than compensated by their reduced sizes when using these
568: values.)
569: Compared with the
570: binary tree method, our approach results in threefold reduction in
571: CPU time, in the stationary state, for a system of 1000 sites.
572: (The binary tree approach may
573: prove more efficient for studying transients, since initially the
574: lists will not be short, if the $x_i$ values are chosen uniformly
575: on [0,1].)
576:
577:
578: \subsection{Absorbing Bak-Sneppen Model: Stationary Properties}
579:
580:
581: Using the simulation method described above, we conducted extensive
582: studies of the one-dimensional
583: ABS model. We initialize the system with
584: all sites active and allow it to relax until mean properties
585: fluctuate about stationary values. The stationary properties
586: are then obtained from temporal averages over the set of surviving
587: realizations.
588: Each step corresponds to a time interval of
589: $\Delta t=1/N_a$, with $N_a$ the number of active sites just
590: before the updating is performed.
591: Results for the stationary order parameter
592: (i.e., the density of sites with $x < q$), on lattices
593: confirm that in the supercritical regime ($q > q_{c,E}$),
594: the order parameter grows linearly with $q - q_{c,E}$, as anticipated
595: in Sec. II.
596:
597: We study the finite-size scaling
598: behavior of the stationary order parameter $\overline{\rho}$ and
599: of the lifetime $\tau$ at the critical point. ($\tau$ is
600: obtained from an exponential
601: fit to the survival probability $P_s(t)$.)
602: The expected
603: finite-size scaling behaviors at the critical point are:
604: $\overline{\rho} \sim L^{-\beta/\nu_\perp}$ and
605: $\tau \sim L^{\nu_{||}/\nu_\perp}$.
606: We performed simulations at $q = 0.66701$ and $0.66702$,
607: the latter being the preferred literature value for the
608: threshold in the one-dimensional BS model, while the former is
609: favored by the results discussed in the following subsection.
610: We studied systems of 1000, 2000, 4000,...,32000, sites in
611: simulations of $2 \times 10^7$ to $3 \times 10^8$ time steps.
612:
613: For $L=4000$ - 32000, the results for the order parameter
614: follow a power law with
615: $\beta/\nu_\perp = 0.755(5)$. The data for smaller system sizes,
616: however, show systematic deviations from a pure power law, leading
617: us to seek a correction to scaling term;
618: a correction decaying
619: $\propto L^{-1/2}$ leads to a good fit. We fit the expression
620: \begin{equation}
621: \ln \overline{\rho} = -\frac{\beta}{\nu_\perp} \ln L - \frac{b}{L^{1/2}}
622: \label{fitrho}
623: \end{equation}
624: to the data for $L \geq 1000$,
625: allowing $\beta/\nu_\perp$ and $b$ as adjustable
626: parameters; the best-fit values are $\beta/\nu_\perp = 0.769(7)$
627: and $b=3.69(20)$. The simulation data, and the difference from
628: best fit of Eq. (\ref{fitrho})
629: are plotted in Fig. 1, showing the high quality of fit.
630: The data for the lifetime, using system sizes of 125, 250,...8000
631: yield $\nu_{||}/\nu_\perp = 2.12(1)$, with no obvious
632: correction term (see Fig. 2).
633: We also determined the stationary moment ratio
634: $m = \overline{\rho^2}/\overline{\rho}^2$ at the critical
635: point. The estimates for $m$ decrease
636: slowly with $L$, and appear, when plotted versus $L^{-0.25}$, to
637: approach a limiting ($L \to \infty$) value of 1.030(5) (see Fig. 3).
638: (For the one-dimensional CP, $m=1.1737$ at the critical point.)
639: Essentially
640: the same results are obtained regardless of whether we use
641: $q_{c,E} = 0.66701$ or 0.66702 in these simulations.
642:
643:
644:
645: \subsection{Absorbing Bak-Sneppen Model: Spread of activity}
646:
647: Scaling properties at an absorbing state phase transition
648: are also reflected in the spread of activity from an initially
649: localized region \cite{torre}. In spreading simulations of the
650: ABS model we start the system with a single site $x_0 < q$
651: and all others above this value. (This is completely
652: equivalent to the BS branching process studied in
653: \cite{pmb94,pmb96,Grassberger:1995}.)
654: At $q=q_{c,E}$, the process
655: generates a scale-invariant pattern of activity that may be
656: characterized by power-laws for the survival probability $P_s(t)$,
657: the mean number of active sites $n(t)$ and the mean-square distance
658: $R^2 (t)= [n(t)]^{-1} \langle \sum_j r_j^2 (t) \rangle$.
659: ($r_j(t)$ denotes the position of the $j-th$ active
660: site at time $t$. Note that $n(t)$ is taken over all realizations,
661: including those that have become trapped in the absorbing state
662: at or before time $t$.) The scaling laws are typically written
663: in the form
664: \begin{equation}
665: P_s \sim t^{-\delta}, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;
666: n \sim t^\eta, \;\;\;\;\;\;\;
667: R^2 \sim t^{z_{sp}},
668: \label{sprexps}
669: \end{equation}
670: relations that have been verified to high precision for various
671: examples \cite{hinrichsen,marro}. (We use $z_{sp}$ to denote the spreading
672: exponent, to avoid confusion with the {\it dynamical} exponent $z$.)
673: The appearance of power laws is commonly used to locate
674: the critical point \cite{marro}.
675:
676: The spreading exponent $\delta$ is related to the
677: avalanche size exponent $\tau$,
678: defined (in the BS model) via $P_D (s) \sim s^{-\tau}$,
679: where $P_D (s) ds$ is the probability of an avalanche having a duration
680: between $s$ and $s+ds$.
681: Thus the survival probability $P_s(t) =
682: \int_t^\infty P_D(s) ds$, implying
683: $\tau= 1+\delta$.
684:
685: We performed spreading simulations of the ABS model at
686: $q$ = 0.66699, 0.66700, 0.66701, 0.66702 and 0.66703. Each realization was followed
687: up to a maximum time of about $2.7 \times 10^5$; the total number
688: of realizations ranged from $4 \times 10^5$ to $1.6 \times 10^6$,
689: depending on the value of $q$. To locate the critical point
690: we study the local slope $\delta(t) = d \ln P/ d\ln t$, plotted versus
691: $t^{-1}$. For $q < q_c$ the local slope is expected to veer downward
692: at large times, and vice-versa.
693: (Numerically, $\delta(t)$ is given by the slope of a least-squares linear
694: fit to the data in an interval $[t_0, 20t_0]$, with geometric mean $t$.)
695: On the basis of the local slope
696: data (see Fig. 4) we conclude that $q_{c,E} = 0.66701(1)$.
697: This is consistent with previous estimates, which place the
698: threshold at 0.66702(8) \cite{Grassberger:1995} and
699: 0.66702(3) \cite{pmb96}.
700: (We did not find analyses of the local slopes $\eta (t)$ or
701: $z_{sp} (t)$, defined analogously to $\delta (t)$,
702: useful in locating the critical point.)
703:
704: Analyzing the data at the critical point, we are unable to
705: obtain good fits to $P_s$, $n$ and $R^2$ using simple power-law
706: expressions. Including a subdominant power-law correction
707: in the relations of Eq. (\ref{sprexps}) greatly improves the
708: quality of fit. In particular, the survival
709: probability can be fit quite accurately using
710: \begin{equation}
711: \ln P_s \simeq -\delta \ln t + \phi_P t^{-1/4} +C
712: \label{Ppwc}
713: \end{equation}
714: where $C$ is a constant and the
715: best-fit values are $\delta = 0.084(1)$ and $\phi_P = 0.115$.
716: The same value for $\delta$ is found using the data for
717: $q=0.66702$.
718: (The choice of a correction term decaying as $t^{-1/4}$ is motivated
719: by the fact that the local slopes $\delta(t) $ and $z_{sp}(t)$ are essentially
720: linear when plotted versus $t^{-1/4}$, as seen in the inset of Fig. 4.)
721: In Fig. 5 we plot $P_s$ and the ratio of $P_s$ to the fitting function,
722: Eq. (\ref{Ppwc}); the ratio is seen to be essentially
723: constant for $t > 50$.
724: The mean-square displacement may also be fit using an asymptotic
725: power law and correction term. We find
726: \begin{equation}
727: \ln R^2 \simeq z_{sp} \ln t - \phi_R t^{-1/4} +C'
728: \label{R2pwc}
729: \end{equation}
730: with $z_{sp} = 0.921(10)$ and $\phi_{R} = 1.703$.
731:
732: It has been argued that $\eta=0$ quite generally for extremal
733: dynamics \cite{pmb96,pmb95}. Our data for the one-dimensional
734: ABS model support this conclusion: on a double-logarithmic plot,
735: $n(t)$ clearly grows more slowly than a power law. While $\eta=0$
736: is compatable with $n(t)$ growing without limit as $t \to \infty$
737: (for example, $\propto (\ln t)^\phi$,
738: as suggested in Ref. \cite{Grassberger:1995}),
739: our results support the conclusion
740: that $n(t)$ saturates at a {\it finite value} $n_\infty$ at long times.
741: Specifically, we are unable to fit the long-time behavior using
742: an expression of the form $n \sim (\ln t)^\phi$.
743: On the other hand, we find $d \ln n/d \ln t \propto t^{-\omega}$, with
744: $\omega \simeq 0.149$, suggesting
745: that $n(t) \simeq n_\infty \exp [ -c t^{-\omega}]$. In fact an excellent fit
746: is obtained using $c=1.92$ and $n_\infty = 14.574$, as can be seen in Fig. 6.
747: (Saturation of $n(t)$ does not occur on the time scale of the simulation;
748: for the anistropic case, shown in the inset of Fig. 6, saturation
749: is in fact evident.)
750:
751: In the absorbing phase ($q<q_{c,E}$),
752: the survival probability must vanish
753: as $t \to \infty$.
754: Our data follow $P_s \sim t^{-\delta}e^{-t/\tau}$, where $\tau \sim |q-q_{c,E}|^{-\nu_{||}}$,
755: with $\nu_{||}=2.54(2)$. On the other hand, for $q>q_{c,E}$, the survival
756: probability tends to a finite value as $t \to \infty$.
757: We obtain $\lim_{t\to \infty} P_s \equiv P_{\infty} \sim (q-q_{c,E})^{\beta^\prime}$,
758: with ${\beta^\prime}=0.20(1)$. (In DP and allied models $\beta' = \beta$
759: \cite{torre}, but this need not hold for models in other universality
760: classes.)
761:
762: In the CP and other nonextremal models, the spread of activity in the
763: supercritical regime follows a simple pattern: the size $R$ of the active region grows
764: linearly with time, and the number of active sites $n$ grows $\propto t^d$.
765: Our observation of
766: subdiffusive spreading (and saturation in $n$) at the critical point lead us to
767: investigate supercritical spreading in the ABS model. We find that spreading is indeed
768: {\it sublinear}. For example, using $q=0.7$ in a study extending to $t \simeq 9 \times 10^6$
769: to avoid transient effects, we obtain $R^2 \sim t^\chi$ with
770: $\chi = 1.20(4)$ and $n \sim t^\lambda$ with $\lambda = 0.61(2)$. (The exponent
771: governing $R^2$ should be twice that for $n$, since active regions have a finite
772: activity density in the supercritical regime.) Once again, extremal dynamics is seen to
773: limit the growth of activity.
774:
775:
776:
777: \subsection{CP3 Model}
778:
779: We performed spreading simulations of the CP3 model, using the approach
780: described in the previous subsection.
781: Each realization is followed up to a maximum time of
782: $6 \times 10^4$. Using the power-law behavior of $P_s(t)$ and $n(t)$
783: as the criterion for criticality, we find
784: $q_c=0.63525(3)$ for the CP3.
785: (Note that this is some 5\% smaller than the critical value
786: of the corresponding extremal model.) Analyzing the
787: local slopes, we obtain
788: $\delta=0.162(2)$, $\eta=0.312(2)$ and $z_{sp}=1.265(4)$. These values
789: are fully consistent with those for
790: directed percolation (see Table \ref{tab1}), confirming
791: that the CP3 model belongs to the same universality class as the
792: original contact process.
793:
794: A striking difference between extremal and nonextremal
795: models with an absorbing state is that the spread of activity
796: in the critical process is much slower in the former. This is of
797: course reflected in the value $\eta=0$ for extremal models,
798: (while for example $\eta = 0.314$ for DP in one dimension),
799: and in the subdiffusive growth in $R^2$ in the ABS model.
800: In Figs. 7 and 8 we compare typical evolutions in the ABS model and
801: its nonextremal analog, the CP3, at their respective critical points.
802: It is evident that
803: the activity spreads much more slowly
804: in the ABS than in the CP3. A further notable
805: difference is that in the ABS a site can remain active for a
806: very long time, i.e., while the site is not the
807: minimum site or a neighbor of it. Thus the rates
808: of both addition and loss of active sites are much smaller in the
809: critical extremal process than in the corresponding nonextremal one.
810:
811: \subsection{Extremal CP}
812:
813: In light of the discussion of Sec. II, it is of interest to
814: study the behavior of other absorbing-state models
815: under extremal dynamics. As a first step we report simulation results
816: for the extremal-absorbing contact process (CP$_{EA}$).
817: We performed spreading simulations to determine $q_{c,E}$ and
818: the exponents $\delta$, $\eta$ and $z_{sp}$, using simulations
819: running to a maximum time of $6 \times 10^4$ in $5 \times 10^5$
820: independent realizations. We find $q_{c,E} = 0.79415(5)$ for
821: the extremal CP, compared with 0.76733 for the original (non-extremal)
822: process. (Note that, as in the comparison between the CP3 and ABS
823: models, $q_{c,E} > q_c$. This may reflect the slower spread of activity
824: under extremal dynamics.)
825:
826: As in the case of the
827: ABS model, the decay of the survival probability at the critical
828: point follows an expression of the form of Eq. (\ref{Ppwc}), here with best-fit parameters
829: $\delta=0.0855$ and $\phi_P = 0.226$. The exponent $\delta$ is essentially the
830: same as found for the ABS model, while the
831: correction term is about twice as large. At the critical point
832: the derivative $d \ln n/d \ln t \sim t^{-0.1}$, again indicating a behavior
833: of the form $n(t) \simeq n_\infty \exp [ -c t^{-\omega}]$,
834: here with $\omega = 0.1$. The mean-square distance of active sites
835: from the origin grows in a manner similar to that in the ABS model.
836: We are again able to fit the data for $R^2$ using an expression of the form of
837: Eq. (\ref{R2pwc}), with
838: $z_{sp} = 0.932$ and $\phi_{R^2} = 2.026$.
839: These results strongly suggest that the CP$_{EA}$ belongs to the same
840: universality class as the ABS model.
841:
842: We turn now to the rather surprising behavior of the stationary
843: probability density $\overline{p}(x)$ in the extremal CP. Recall that
844: mean-field theory predicts $\overline{p}(x) = 2 \Theta (x-1/2)$ for
845: $q < q_{c,E} = 1/2$, while for $q > 1/2$ there are two steps, one
846: at $x = \kappa \equiv q^2/(3q-1)$, the other at $x=q$.
847: In simulations of the CP$_E$ on a ring we find a single step
848: discontinuity for $q < q_{c,E} = 0.79415$, and, for $q>q_{c,E}$, a pair of steps, one at
849: $x=q$, the other at $x=q_s<q$. The positions of the
850: singularities as obtained in simulation (using data for system sizes
851: $L=100$, 200,...,1600 to extrapolate the position in the infinite-size
852: limit), are shown in Fig. 9. The lower singularity
853: $q_s$ is seen to bifurcate from $q=q_{c,E}$ just at the critical point,
854: in qualitative agreement with MFT. Note however that the
855: position of the singularity is not constant for $q < q_{c,E}$, as
856: predicted by MFT.
857:
858: The density $\overline{p}(x)$ is shown for
859: $q = 0.794 \simeq q_{c,E}$ and $q=0.85$ in Fig. 10. In the latter case
860: it is evident that the step at $x=q$ is sharp (this is true even for small
861: systems) and derives from the singular nature of the updating rule.
862: The step at $x=q_s$, by contrast, is subject to finite-size rounding, and
863: becomes sharper with increasing system size, as is characteristic of
864: a critical singularity. The finite width of the peak at $x=q_c$
865: (in the process with $q = q_{c,E}$),
866: appears to be a finite size effect as well:
867: it becomes sharper with increasing $L$,
868: suggesting that the singularities merge in the limit $L \to \infty$.
869:
870:
871: \subsection{Anisotropic ABS Model}
872:
873: The scaling behavior of the Bak-Sneppen model changes when the
874: updating rule is asymmetric \cite{vendruscolo}. The same critical exponents
875: are found for
876: a highly anisotropic version in which at each step, only the
877: minimal site and its neighbor on the right are updated \cite{Maslov:1998},
878: and for weak anisotropy \cite{Garcia and Dickman:2003,head}, so that one may
879: identify an anisotropic BS universality class. In this section
880: we report results of spreading simulations of the anisotropic
881: absorbing BS model.
882: To obtain these results, we simulated the anisotropic ABS
883: (in the highly anisotropic version) in studies extending to a
884: maximum time of 1.6$\times 10^5$, using 3$\times 10^5$ realizations.
885:
886: Analysing the local slope $\delta(t) = d \ln P/ d\ln t$,
887: we determined the threshold of this model to be $q_{c,E} =0.72370(2)$.
888: (The best previous estimate is $0.7240(1)$
889: \cite{Garcia and Dickman:2}.)
890: A typical evolution of the critical spreading process is shown in Fig. 11.
891: The local slope $\delta(t)$ yields the estimate $\delta = 0.234(5)$.
892: For anisotropic models we define $R^2 (t)$ as the mean-square {\it radius
893: of gyration}, i.e., the distance is measured relative to the current
894: center of mass of the set of active sites, rather than to a fixed origin.
895: This is done to eliminate a spurious contribution due simply to the overall
896: drift in the active region.
897: For the anisotropic ABS model $R^2 (t)$ may again be fit with an expression
898: of the form of Eq. (\ref{R2pwc}), with
899: $z_{sp}=1.425(10)$ and $\phi_{R}=2.3(2)$.
900: The exponents $\delta$ and $z_{sp}$ are quite different from those of the isotropic model.
901: Despite these differences,
902: we again find $\eta=0$ for the anisotropic model.
903: As before, the mean number of active sites $n(t)$ saturates at long times,
904: more rapidly in fact than in the isotropic ABS model (see Fig. 6, inset).
905: We are able to
906: fit the data well using
907: $n(t)=n_{\infty}[1- e^{-ct^{1/4}}]$ with parameters $n_\infty = 5.206(3)$
908: and $c = 0.348$.
909:
910: The nonextremal model corresponding to the anisotropic ABS model is a two-site
911: contact process, CP2, which is simply the CP3 with updating restricted to the
912: central site and its neighbor on the right. We have verified that the spreading exponents
913: of the CP2 model are those of directed percolation. (Here again, we define $R^2$
914: as the mean-square radius of gyration.) This leads to the interesting conclusion that a
915: perturbation (asymmetric updating) that is {\it irrelevant} for a nonextremal model
916: is relevant for the corresponding extremal system.
917: (We note that, because the two sites in the CP2 are updated in the same manner,
918: the model does not fall in the so-called anisotropic-DP class, for which bonds
919: along different axes are present with different probabilities \cite{jaff85}.)
920:
921: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
922:
923: We investigate the relation between extremal dynamics,
924: exemplified by the Bak-Sneppen model, and nonextremal models exhibiting a
925: phase transition to an absorbing state, using general arguments,
926: mean-field theory and simulation. The relation between
927: the BS model and directed percolation was already suggested some
928: time ago \cite{pmb94,pmb96}. Here we clarify this
929: connection by showing how a generic
930: absorbing-state model can be transformed to an extremal one via the
931: associated extremal-absorbing model. The nonextremal
932: `precursor' of the BS model is a three-site contact
933: process \cite{jovanovic}, CP3,
934: which, like the original CP, belongs to the directed percolation
935: universality class. The BS model and the extremal
936: version of the CP belong to a common universality class that may be dubbed
937: `extremal DP' (EDP). A number of extremal dynamics classes distinct
938: from EDP are discussed in \cite{pmb96};
939: another example is the anisotropic BS model.
940: We expect that further extremal dynamics universality
941: classes exist, for example an extremal parity-conserving class \cite{paritycons},
942: although examples of the latter have yet to be studied.
943:
944: Our results for the critical exponents of the EDP class, which
945: includes the BS model and the extremal CP, are compared against those
946: of ordinary DP (in one spatial dimension) in Table I. (Here we have
947: taken the values $\eta=0$ and $\beta=1$ to be {\it exact} for EDP.)
948: The differences between the two sets of exponent values are evident.
949: Our results $\tau = 1+ \delta = 1.084(1)$, and
950: $z = \nu_{||}/\nu_\perp = 2.12(1)$ are in agreement
951: with the earlier estimates \cite{pmb96} of 1.07(1) and 2.10(5),
952: respectively. Our result is however somewhat higher than
953: Grassberger's result $\tau = 1.073(3)$ \cite{Grassberger:1995}.
954:
955: Certain scaling relations are expected to hold among the critical
956: exponents \cite{hinrichsen,marro,torre}.
957: In spreading processes one expects
958: $z_{sp} = 2 \nu_\perp/\nu_{||}$; our data are nearly consistent with this, yielding
959: $2 \nu_\perp/\nu_{||} - z_{sp} = 0.022(14)$.
960: The relation $\beta' = \delta \nu_{||}$ is also
961: satisfied: our data yield $\beta' - \delta \nu_{||} = -0.013(14)$.
962: Finally, we consider the generalized hyperscaling relation \cite{mendes}
963: \begin{equation}
964: 2\left(1 + \frac{\beta}{\beta'} \right) \delta + 2\eta = dz_{sp} \;,
965: \label{ghypsc}
966: \end{equation}
967: in $d$ dimensions.
968: Using our data, we find the difference between the two sides of this
969: relation to be 0.09(6).
970: Our results are marred by another inconsistency that may reflect
971: corrections to scaling or finite size effects:
972: the product $(\beta/\nu_\perp)^{-1} (\nu_{||}/\nu_\perp) \nu_{||}^{-1}$,
973: with the first two factors determined from finite-size scaling
974: at the critical point, and the final factor obtained from the
975: decay of the survival probability in the subcritical regime,
976: should equal $\beta=1$; our data yield 1.08(3).
977: These minor inconsistencies
978: suggest that one or more of the exponents may be in error by 5\% or so.
979: Refining their values will require accumulating larger data sets
980: in simulations of larger systems, a task we leave for future work.
981: (The studies reported here were quite demanding
982: computationally, representing approximately 6 months' cpu time
983: on an alpha workstation.)
984:
985: In the course of our study we revisit a three-site contact process
986: (CP3) that is the nonextremal analog of the BS model \cite{jovanovic}. We verify that the
987: CP3 belongs to the universality class of directed percolation,
988: as expected \cite{Grassberger:1995}. Similarly,
989: we define extremal and extremal-absorbing versions of the original contact
990: process (CP$_E$ and CP$_{EA}$, respectively) and verify that their scaling properties
991: are the same as those of the BS model. The stationary probability density
992: for the CP$_E$ follows, in general terms, the predictions of mean-field theory,
993: but certain interesting differences exist, as detailed in Sec. III.E.
994:
995:
996: It is clear that when an absorbing-state model is modified to follow
997: extremal dynamics, its critical exponents are altered.
998: In general extremal dynamics tens to slow the spread of activity
999: in the critical and supercritical regimes.
1000: One may nevertheless
1001: inquire whether any more general features of the original model
1002: are preserved under `extremalization'. A candidate for such a
1003: conserved property is the critical dimension $d_c$. In critical phenomena,
1004: various universality classes (differing in the symmetry group of the
1005: order parameter, or the presence of conserved quantities) may
1006: share the same $d_c$ if the algebraic structure of their
1007: continuum description (in particular, the power of the lowest-order
1008: nonlinear term in the order parameter, in a Landau-Ginzburg-Wilson
1009: effective Hamiltonian) is the same. Thus $d_c = 4$ for all models in the $n$-vector
1010: family. Extending this idea to extremal models is
1011: questionable, since there is no continuum description at hand.
1012: (At first glance, the notion of extremal dynamics in a
1013: description using a {\it continuous} activity density seems
1014: problematic, since there is always one and only one
1015: extremal site.) Be that as it may, it seems plausible that
1016: if the field theory for DP
1017: \cite{janssen,grassberger,cardy} were somehow modified to reflect extremal dynamics,
1018: the dominant nonlinearity would not change, so that $d_c$ would
1019: retain its value of four, as in DP. The upper critical
1020: dimension $d_c=4$ for the BS model was established some time ago by Boettcher
1021: and Paczuski \cite{Boettcher:2000}.
1022: Our argument suggests that extremal versions of other absorbing-state
1023: models have the same upper
1024: critical dimension as the corresponding nonextremal model.
1025: We hope to test this prediction in future work.
1026:
1027: Studying the anisotropic ABS model and its nonextremal counterpart, the CP2 model, we
1028: find that anisotropy is a relevant perturbation for extremal DP, while
1029: it is irrelevant for the corresponding nonextremal class. We suspect that other
1030: perturbations, such as diffusion, may exhibit a similar pattern of relevance.
1031:
1032:
1033: \vspace{1cm}
1034: \noindent {\bf ACKNOWLEDGMENTS}
1035: \smallskip
1036:
1037: \noindent We are grateful to Stefano Zapperi and Jafferson Kamphorst Leal da Silva
1038: for informative
1039: discussions, and to Paulo M. C. de Oliveira for helpful comments on the
1040: manuscript.
1041: We acknowledge CNPq and FAPEMIG, Brazil, for financial support.
1042:
1043:
1044:
1045:
1046: \begin {thebibliography} {99}
1047:
1048: \bibitem{BS}
1049: P. Bak and K. Sneppen,
1050: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 4083 (1993).
1051:
1052: \bibitem{driven}
1053: K. Sneppen,
1054: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 69}, 3539 (1992).
1055:
1056: \bibitem{leschhorn}
1057: H. Leschhon and L.-H. Tang
1058: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 49}, 1238 (1994).
1059:
1060: \bibitem{pmb94}
1061: M. Paczuski, S. Maslov, and P. Bak,
1062: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 27}, 97 (1994).
1063:
1064: \bibitem{pmb96}
1065: M. Paczuski, S. Maslov, and P. Bak,
1066: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 53}, 414 (1996).
1067:
1068: \bibitem{sornette95}
1069: D. Sornette, A. Johansen, and I. Dornic,
1070: J. Phys. I (France) {\bf 5}, 325 (1995).
1071:
1072: \bibitem{Grassberger:1995}
1073: P. Grassberger,
1074: Phys. Lett. A {\bf 200}, 277 (1995).
1075:
1076: \bibitem{sornette96}
1077: D. Sornette and I. Dornic,
1078: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54}, 3334 (1996).
1079:
1080: \bibitem{gz96}
1081: P. Grassberger and Y. C. Zhang,
1082: Physica A {\bf 224}, 169 (1996).
1083:
1084: \bibitem{BTW}
1085: P. Bak, C. Tang and K. Wiesenfeld,
1086: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 59}, 381 (1987).
1087:
1088: \bibitem{Dickman et al:2000}
1089: R. Dickman, M.A. Mu\~noz, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi,
1090: Braz. J. Phys. {\bf 30}, 27 (2000).
1091:
1092: \bibitem{flyvbjerg}
1093: H. Flyvbjerg, K. Sneppen and P. Bak,
1094: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 71}, 4087 (1993).
1095:
1096: \bibitem{drossel02}
1097: B. Drossel,
1098: Adv. Phys. {\bf 50}, 209 (2001);
1099: e-print: cond-mat/0101409.
1100:
1101: \bibitem{harris}
1102: T. E. Harris,
1103: Ann. Probab. {\bf 2}, 969 (1974).
1104:
1105: \bibitem{Garcia and Dickman:1}
1106: G. J. M. Garcia and R. Dickman,
1107: Physica A {\bf 332}, 318 (2004).
1108:
1109: \bibitem{Garcia and Dickman:2003}
1110: G. J. M. Garcia and R. Dickman, Physica A, to appear.
1111: e-print: cond-mat/0408164.
1112:
1113: \bibitem{Head and Rodgers:1998}
1114: D. A. Head and G. J. Rodgers,
1115: J. Phys. A {\bf 31}, 3977 (1998).
1116:
1117: \bibitem{janssen}
1118: H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B {\bf 42}, 151 (1981).
1119:
1120: \bibitem{grassberger}
1121: P. Grassberger,
1122: Z. Phys. B {\bf 47}, 365 (1982).
1123:
1124: \bibitem{liggett}
1125: T. M. Liggett,
1126: {\it Interacting Particle Systems},
1127: (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985).
1128:
1129: \bibitem{hinrichsen}
1130: H. Hinrichsen,
1131: Adv. Phys. {\bf 49}, 815 (2000).
1132:
1133: \bibitem{konno}
1134: N. Konno,
1135: {\it Phase Transitions of Interacting Particle Systems},
1136: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994).
1137:
1138: \bibitem{marro}
1139: J. Marro and R. Dickman,
1140: {\em Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models}
1141: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
1142:
1143: \bibitem{jovanovic}
1144: B. Jovanovi\'c, S. V. Buldyrev, S. Havlin and H. E. Stanley,
1145: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 50}, R2403 (1994).
1146:
1147: \bibitem{iwanpcp}
1148: I. Jensen,
1149: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 1465 (1993).
1150:
1151: \bibitem{dcp}
1152: I. Jensen and R. Dickman,
1153: J. Phys. A{\bf 26}, L151 (1993).
1154:
1155: \bibitem{pmb95}
1156: M. Paczuski, P. Bak, and S. Maslov,
1157: Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 74}, 4253 (1995).
1158:
1159: \bibitem{pmpreprint}
1160: P. M. C. Oliveira, personal communication and preprint,
1161: to appear in Braz. J. Phys.
1162:
1163: \bibitem{pmnote}
1164: The idea of using a single list, of sites with $x < 0.668$ (i.e.,
1165: below a value slightly above the threshold), is already suggested
1166: in Ref. \cite{pmpreprint}.
1167:
1168: \bibitem{torre}
1169: P. Grassberger and A. de la Torre,
1170: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 122}, 373 (1979).
1171:
1172: \bibitem{vendruscolo}
1173: M. Vendruscolo, P. De Los Rios, and L. Bonesi
1174: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54}, 6053 (1996).
1175:
1176: \bibitem{Maslov:1998}
1177: S. Maslov, P. De Los Rios, M. Marsili, and Y.-C. Zhang,
1178: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 7141 (1998).
1179:
1180: \bibitem{head}
1181: D. Head,
1182: Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 17}, 289 (2000).
1183:
1184: \bibitem{Garcia and Dickman:2}
1185: G. J. M. Garcia and R. Dickman, Physica A, to appear;
1186: eprint: cond-mat/0403036.
1187:
1188: \bibitem{jaff85}
1189: See
1190: J. Kamphorst Leal da Silva and M. Droz,
1191: J. Phys. C {\bf 18}, 745 (1985), and references therein.
1192:
1193: \bibitem{paritycons}
1194: P. Grassberger, F. Krause, and T. von der Twer,
1195: J. Phys. A {\bf 17}, L105 (1984);
1196: P. Grassberger,
1197: {\it ibid}. {\bf 22}, L1103 (1989);
1198: H. Takayasu and A. Yu. Tretyakov,
1199: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 3060 (1992);
1200: I. Jensen,
1201: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 50}, 3623 (1994).
1202:
1203: \bibitem{mendes}
1204: J. F. F. Mendes, R. Dickman, M. Henkel, and M. C. Marques,
1205: J. Phys. A {\bf 27}, 3019 (1994).
1206:
1207: \bibitem{cardy}
1208: J. L. Cardy and R. L. Sugar,
1209: J. Phys. A {\bf 13}, L423 (1980).
1210:
1211: \bibitem{Boettcher:2000}
1212: S. Boettcher and M. Paczuski,
1213: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 2267 (2000).
1214:
1215:
1216: \bibitem{deBoer:1994}
1217: J. de Boer, B. Derrida, H. Flyvbjerg, A.D. Jackson, T. Wettig,
1218: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 906 (1994).
1219:
1220: \bibitem{deBoer:1995}
1221: J. de Boer, A.D. Jackson, T. Wettig,
1222: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 51}, 1059 (1995).
1223:
1224: \bibitem{jensen96}
1225: I. Jensen,
1226: J. Phys. A {\bf 29}, 7013 (1996).
1227:
1228: \end {thebibliography}
1229:
1230:
1231: \newpage
1232: \centerline
1233: {\bf APPENDIX: MEAN-FIELD THEORY}
1234:
1235: \subsection{Extremal dynamics as a zero-temperature limit}
1236:
1237: There are several ways of formulating a mean-field theory (MFT)
1238: for extremal models. First we consider
1239: an approach \cite{Dickman et al:2000,head} in which the probability of a
1240: site $i$ being chosen as the central site is proportional to
1241: $e^{-\beta x_i}$;
1242: extremal dynamics is recovered in the limit $\beta \to \infty$.
1243: (In the present discussion the parameter $\beta$
1244: bears no relation to the critical exponent denoted by the same symbol in the
1245: main text.)
1246: Applied to the BS model, this approach yields the distribution
1247: $\overline{p}(x) = (3/2) \Theta (x - 1/3) \Theta (1-x)$
1248: when $\beta \to \infty$ \cite{Dickman et al:2000,head}.
1249:
1250: In the ABS model the distribution $p(x)$ evolves via
1251: \begin{equation}
1252: \frac{\partial p(x,t)}{\partial t} = - e^{-\beta x} p(x) \Theta(q-x)
1253: + 3 \int_0^q e^{-\beta y} p(y,t) dy - 2p(x,t) \int_0^q e^{-\beta y} p(y,t) dy
1254: \label{mf1}
1255: \end{equation}
1256: The first term represents a site with value $x$ being selected as the central site,
1257: which is only possible if $x < q$. The second term
1258: reflects updating three sites with new variables uniform
1259: on $[0,1]$, with the integral representing the overall rate
1260: of events. The final term represents updating of the two
1261: neighboring sites, and is obtained using the mean-field factorization
1262: of the nearest-neighbor joint probability density: $p(x,y,t) \simeq p(x,t)p(y,t)$.
1263: Note that in writing Eq. (\ref{mf1}) we have associated a time increment
1264: $dt = 1/N$, with $N$ the number of sites, with each event.
1265:
1266: Eq. (\ref{mf1}) admits an infinite set of stationary solutions for
1267: which $\overline{p}(x) = 0 $ on the interval $0 \leq x \leq q$. These represent absorbing states.
1268: To seek an active stationary solution we let
1269: $I= \int_0^q e^{-\beta y} p(y,t) dy$, and equate the time derivative to zero,
1270: yielding
1271: \begin{equation}
1272: \overline{p}(x) = \frac{3I}{2I + \Theta(q-x) e^{-\beta x}}
1273: \label{ss1}
1274: \end{equation}
1275: To determine $I$ we multiply Eq. (\ref{ss1})
1276: by $e^{-\beta x}$ and integrate from $x=0$ to $x=q$,
1277: leading to $I = (e^{-\beta/3} - e^{-\beta q})/[2(1 - e^{-\beta/3})]$,
1278: so that
1279: \begin{equation}
1280: \overline{p}(x) = \frac{\frac{3}{2} (e^{-\beta/3} - e^{-\beta q})}
1281: {(e^{-\beta/3} - e^{-\beta q}) + \Theta(q-x) e^{-\beta x} (1 - e^{-\beta/3})}
1282: \label{mfsta}
1283: \end{equation}
1284: In the limit $\beta \to \infty$,
1285: we find, for $q > 1/3$,
1286: the singular density $\overline{p}(x) = (3/2) \Theta (x-1/3)$.
1287: This is precisely the MF result for the original BS model.
1288: [When we take $\beta \to \infty$, the above expression reduces to
1289: $\overline{p}(x) = (3/2) \Theta (x-q)$ for $q < 1/3$. But this
1290: density is not normalized on $[0,1]$ and so must be rejected.
1291: We are left with only absorbing stationary solutions for $q < 1/3$.]
1292: Thus $q_{c,E} = 1/3$ in the MFT of the absorbing Bak-Sneppen
1293: model. Note that
1294: the parameter $q$ is irrelevant
1295: for $q > q_{c,E} = 1/3$, as was argued in Sec. II.
1296:
1297: A moment's reflection shows that the evolution of $p(x)$
1298: in the (nonextremal) CP3 model is given by Eq. (\ref{mf1}) with $\beta = 0$,
1299: since all active sites are then equally likely to be chosen as the
1300: central site. Taking the limit $\beta \to 0$ of the stationary
1301: solution, Eq. (\ref{mfsta}), one finds, for $q \geq 1/3$,
1302: the stationary density
1303: \begin{equation}
1304: \overline{p}(x) = \left\{
1305: \begin{array}{lr}
1306: \frac{1}{2}(3 - q^{-1}), & x < q \\
1307: \\
1308: \frac{3}{2}, & q <x \leq 1
1309:
1310: \end{array} \right.
1311: \label{cp3st}
1312: \end{equation}
1313: Eq. (\ref{cp3st}) confirms that the stationary density of
1314: a (nonextremal) model exhibiting an absorbing state phase transition
1315: is characterized by a steplike singularity, as asserted in Sec. II.
1316: For $q<1/3$, Eq. (\ref{cp3st}) yields an unphysical, negative
1317: density, showing that $q_c = 1/3$ for the CP3, in the mean-field
1318: approximation.
1319:
1320: The foregoing analysis is readily extended to the extremal-absorbing contact
1321: process (CP$_{EA}$) defined in Sec.~II. The rate of events is again
1322: given by $I= \int_0^q e^{-\beta x} p(x) dx$. At each event,
1323: there is a probability of 1/2 that the central site (which must
1324: have $x < q$) is replaced, while with probability 1/2 a
1325: neighbor is updated. Thus the loss terms in the equation for
1326: $p(x,t)$ are: $-(1/2)[e^{-\beta x} \Theta(q-x) + I]p(x)$.
1327: The gain term corresponding to updating of the central site
1328: is simply $I/2$, but for updating a neighbor it is
1329: $(I/2)[1-P(q) + (1/q)\Theta(q-x) P(q)]$, where
1330: $P(x) = \int_0^x p(y) dy$ is the probability that a given
1331: site $i$ has $x_i < x$. (The reason is
1332: that when updating an {\it active} neighbor, the new variable
1333: is chosen from the distribution uniform on $[0,q]$.) Thus
1334: the MF equation of motion is
1335:
1336: \begin{equation}
1337: \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -\frac{1}{2} e^{-\beta x} p(x) \Theta(q-x)
1338: + \frac{I}{2} \left[ 2 - P(q) + \frac{\Theta(q-x)}{q}P(q) - p(x) \right]
1339: \label{mf2}
1340: \end{equation}
1341: To find the stationary solution $\overline{p}(x)$ we first
1342: note that for $0 \leq x < q$,
1343: setting $\partial p/\partial t $ to zero yields
1344: \begin{equation}
1345: \overline{p}(x) = AI/(I+e^{-\beta x})
1346: \label{pxs}
1347: \end{equation}
1348: where $A = 2 + (q^{-1}-1)P(q)$. Integrating Eq. (\ref{pxs})
1349: from $x=0$ to $x=q$, we find
1350: \begin{equation}
1351: P(q) = Aq - \frac{A}{\beta}\int_{e^{-\beta q}}^1 \frac{du}{I+u}
1352: \label{pqss}
1353: \end{equation}
1354: If we now multiply Eq. (\ref{pxs}) by $e^{-\beta x}$ and integrate
1355: over the same interval, we obtain
1356: \begin{equation}
1357: \frac{A}{\beta}\int_{e^{-\beta q}}^1 \frac{du}{I+u} = 1
1358: \label{int}
1359: \end{equation}
1360: leading to $P(q) = 2 - q^{-1}$ in the stationary state. We see
1361: that $q_{c,E} = 1/2$ as in the MFT of the original contact process.
1362: Evaluating the integral in Eq. (\ref{int}) one finds
1363: $I = (e^{-\beta \kappa} - e^{-\beta q})/(1 - e^{-\beta \kappa})$,
1364: where $\kappa = q^2/(3q-1)$. The stationary density is
1365: \begin{equation}
1366: \overline{p}(x) = \frac{1}{q}
1367: \frac{(e^{-\beta \kappa} - e^{-\beta q})[1 +(2-q^{-1})\Theta(q-x)]}
1368: {(e^{-\beta \kappa} - e^{-\beta q})
1369: + e^{-\beta x}(1 - e^{-\beta \kappa}) \Theta(q-x) }
1370: \label{pxscp}
1371: \end{equation}
1372: For $q > 1/2$, we have $\kappa < q$, and in the limit $\beta \to \infty$,
1373: \begin{equation}
1374: \overline{p}(x) = \left\{
1375: \begin{array}{lr}
1376: 0, & x < \kappa \\
1377: \\
1378: \frac{1}{\kappa}, & \kappa < x < q \\
1379: \\
1380: \frac{1}{q}, & x > q
1381: \end{array} \right.
1382: \label{pxscpext}
1383: \end{equation}
1384: which is normalized and exhibits step-function singularities
1385: at $x = \kappa$ and $x = q$.
1386: For $q < 1/2$ on the other hand, $\kappa > q$ and Eq.(\ref{pxscp})
1387: does not yield an acceptable probability density, and we conclude that
1388: the only stationary state is the absorbing one.
1389: The critical point of the CP$_{EA}$ thus falls at $q_{c,E} = 1/2$
1390: in MF approximation.
1391:
1392: Taking $\beta \to 0$ in Eq. (\ref{pxscp}), we obtain the probability density for
1393: the original CP:
1394: \begin{equation}
1395: \overline{p}(x) = \left\{
1396: \begin{array}{lr}
1397: \frac{2q-1}{q^2}, & x < q \\
1398:
1399: \frac{1}{q}, & x > q
1400: \end{array} \right.
1401: \label{pxscp0}
1402: \end{equation}
1403:
1404: Finally, for the extremal CP, the equation of motion is
1405: \begin{equation}
1406: \frac{\partial p}{\partial t} = -\frac{1}{2} e^{-\beta x} p(x)
1407: + \frac{I}{2} \left[ 2 - P(q) + \frac{\Theta(q-x)}{q}P(q) - p(x) \right]
1408: \label{mf3}
1409: \end{equation}
1410: with $I = \int_0^1 e^{-\beta x} p(x) dx$.
1411: To find the stationary solution we write
1412: \begin{equation}
1413: \overline{p}(x) =
1414: \frac{2 + [q^{-1} \Theta(q-x) - 1]P(q)}{1 + I^{-1}e^{-\beta x}}
1415: \label{cpxest}
1416: \end{equation}
1417: Integrating from $0$ to $q$ and solving for $P(q)$ we find
1418: \begin{equation}
1419: P(q) = \frac{2(q-\gamma)}{q+ \gamma (q^{-1}-1)}
1420: \label{pqcpx}
1421: \end{equation}
1422: where
1423: \begin{equation}
1424: \gamma = \frac{1}{\beta} \ln \frac{I+1}{I+e^{-\beta q}}
1425: \label{gamma}
1426: \end{equation}
1427: Now multiply Eq. (\ref{cpxest}) by $e^{-\beta x}$ and integrate from
1428: 0 to 1 to obtain
1429: \begin{equation}
1430: 1 = A \int_0^q \frac{e^{-\beta x} dx}{I + e^{-\beta x}}
1431: + A' \int_q^1 \frac{e^{-\beta x} dx}{I + e^{-\beta x}}
1432: \label{one}
1433: \end{equation}
1434: where $A = 2/[q+ \gamma (q^{-1}-1)]$ and $A' = \gamma A/q$.
1435: If $P(q) > 0$, the first term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\ref{one})
1436: is nonzero and dominates as $\beta \to \infty$. Equating the
1437: first term to unity then leads to $\gamma = q^2/(3q-1) = \kappa$,
1438: and thence to $P(q) = 2 - q^{-1}$ which is positive for $q > 1/2$.
1439: A simple calculation then yields the distribution of Eq. (\ref{pxscpext})
1440: in the limit $\beta \to \infty$.
1441:
1442: If $q < 1/2$ the above solution is not valid since it implies $P(q) < 0$.
1443: We therefore take $P(q) = 0$, implying $\gamma = q$, and so $A = A' = 2$.
1444: Eq. (\ref{one}) now reads
1445: \begin{equation}
1446: 1 = 2q
1447: + \frac{2}{\beta} \ln \frac{I+e^{-\beta q}}{I+e^{-\beta}}
1448: \label{onea}
1449: \end{equation}
1450: Solving for $I$ and inserting the result in Eq. (\ref{cpxest}), we
1451: find in this case
1452: $\lim_{\beta \to \infty} \overline{p}(x)= 2 \Theta(x-1/2)$.
1453: These results have been verified via numerical integration.
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457: \subsection{Extremal dynamics on a complete graph}
1458:
1459: Another approach to formulating MFT for the BS model considers
1460: extremal dynamics on an $N$-site complete graph or
1461: random-neighbor model (two neighbors are selected at random each time
1462: a site is updated); the stationary density $\overline{p}(x)$
1463: becomes a step function in the infinite-size limit
1464: \cite{flyvbjerg,Garcia and Dickman:2003,deBoer:1994,deBoer:1995}.
1465: We now extend this approach to the ABS model.
1466: Let $P(x) = \mbox{Prob} [x_i < x] = \int_0^x p(y) dy$ be the
1467: distribution function and let $Q(x) = 1 - P(x)$.
1468: By definition $Q$ is a non-increasing function with $Q(0) = 1$ and
1469: $Q(1) = 0$, since $p(x) = 0$ outside the interval [0,1].
1470:
1471:
1472: Activity in the ABS model is predicated on the minimal site
1473: $x_{min}$ being smaller than $q$; the probability of
1474: this event, under the MF factorization, is $1 - [Q(q)]^N$.
1475: Given $x_{min} < q$, updating the extremal site and two
1476: neighbors results, on the average, in the increment:
1477: $dP(x) = (1/N)\{-[1 - Q(x_<)^N] - 2P(x) + 3x \}$,
1478: where $x_< \equiv \min\{x, q\}$, so that the first term
1479: represents loss of the minimal site, the second removal
1480: of two neighbors, and the third random replacement
1481: of the three site variables with numbers uniform on [0,1].
1482: If we adopt a time increment $dt = 1/N$ for each such
1483: event, the equation of motion for $P$ is
1484: \begin{equation}
1485: \frac{\partial P(x,t)}{\partial t} = - [1 - Q(x_<,t)^N]
1486: +[1 - Q(q,t)^N][3x - 2P(x,t)]
1487: \label{dPdt1}
1488: \end{equation}
1489: Note that
1490: the evolution ceases if $Q(q,t) = 1$, i.e., if there are no
1491: active sites. (Since $Q$ is nonincreasing $Q(q) = 1
1492: \Rightarrow Q(x_<) = 1$.)
1493:
1494: For $q > 1/3$, the stationary solution to Eq. (\ref{dPdt1}) corresponds
1495: to a density
1496: $\overline{p}(x)$ that approaches a step function,
1497: $(3/2) \Theta (x-1/3)$, as $N \to \infty$.
1498: A simple calculation yields the dominant contribution for large $N$:
1499: \begin{equation}
1500: \overline{Q} \simeq \left\{
1501: \begin{array}{lr}
1502: (1-3x)^{1/N}, & x < \frac{1}{3} \\
1503:
1504: \frac{3}{2} (1-x) + {\cal O}(e^{-\mbox{const.}N}) & x > \frac{1}{3}
1505:
1506: \end{array} \right.
1507: \label{Qss}
1508: \end{equation}
1509: (One should note however that the convergence is nonuniform in $x$,
1510: being slower the closer $x$ is to the critical value of 1/3.)
1511: For $q < 1/3$ we are unable to find an accepable stationary solution with
1512: $Q < 1$ (i.e., $\overline{p} > 0$), for $x < q$, and conclude that only absorbing
1513: solutions exist.
1514:
1515: The analysis of the ABS model on a complete graph confirms that in
1516: the infinite-size limit,
1517: the model enjoys the usual properties of the BS model for
1518: $q > q_{c,E} = 1/3$, and
1519: falls into the absorbing state for $q < 1/3$.
1520:
1521: The evolution of $P(x,t)$ in the extremal CP follows, in MF approximation,
1522: the equation
1523: \begin{equation}
1524: \frac{\partial P(x,t)}{\partial t} = - \frac{1}{2}[1 - Q(x,t)^N] +\frac{x}{2}
1525: - \frac{1}{2}P(x,t) + \frac{1}{2} [x^* P(q,t) + x Q(p,t) ]
1526: \label{dPdt2}
1527: \end{equation}
1528: where $x^* = \min\{x/q,1\}$. Numerical integration shows that the
1529: solution converges, for large $N$, to a stationary distribution
1530: consistent with the singular density
1531: found above in the limit $\beta \to \infty$.
1532:
1533:
1534:
1535:
1536: \newpage
1537:
1538: \begin{table}
1539: \caption{Critical exponents for the one-dimensional absorbing Bak-Sneppen model (ABS) and
1540: contact process (CP).
1541: CP exponents from Refs. [23] and [41].}
1542: \begin{center}
1543: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
1544: Exponent & ABS & CP \\
1545: \hline
1546: $\beta$ & 1 & 0.27649(4) \\
1547: $\beta^\prime$ & 0.20(1) & ($=\beta$) \\
1548: $\nu_{||}$ & 2.54(2) & 1.73383(3) \\
1549: $\beta/\nu_{\perp}$ & 0.77(1) & 0.25208(5) \\
1550: $\nu_{||}/\nu_\perp$ & 2.12(1) & 1.58071(11)\\
1551: $\delta$ & 0.084(1) & 0.15947(3) \\
1552: $\eta$ & 0 & 0.31368(4) \\
1553: $z_{sp}$ & 0.921(10) & 1.26523(3)
1554: \label{tab1}
1555: \end{tabular}
1556: \end{center}
1557: \end{table}
1558:
1559:
1560: \begin{table}
1561: \caption{Spreading exponents for the CP3 and CP$_{EA}$ models and the anisotropic absorbing
1562: Bak-Sneppen (AABS)
1563: model in one dimension.}
1564: \begin{center}
1565: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
1566: Exponent & CP3 & CP$_{EA}$ & AABS \\
1567: \hline
1568: $\delta$ & 0.162(2) & 0.0855(20) & 0.234(5) \\
1569: $\eta$ & 0.312(2) & 0 & 0 \\
1570: $z_{sp}$ & 1.265(4) & 0.932(20) & 1.425(10)
1571: \label{tab2}
1572: \end{tabular}
1573: \end{center}
1574: \end{table}
1575:
1576:
1577:
1578: %\begin{figure}
1579: %\epsfysize=6cm
1580: %\epsfxsize=6cm
1581: %\centerline{
1582: %\epsfbox{perfil.eps}}
1583: %\caption{Stationary probability densities for the BSab with $n=5$.}
1584: %\label{fig1}
1585: %\end{figure}
1586:
1587: \newpage
1588: \noindent FIGURE CAPTIONS
1589: \vspace{1em}
1590:
1591: %rfss.eps
1592: \noindent FIG. 1. Stationary activity density (filled symbols)
1593: $\overline{\rho}$ versus system size $L$ in the one-dimensional
1594: ABS model at the critical point. Open symbols: difference
1595: between $\overline{\rho}$ and the fitting function, Eq. (\ref{fitrho}),
1596: shifted vertically for visibility.
1597: \vspace{1em}
1598:
1599: %tauvl.eps
1600: \noindent FIG. 2. Mean lifetime $\tau$ (filled symbols) versus system size $L$
1601: in the one-dimensional
1602: ABS model at the critical point.
1603: Open symbols: $\tau/L^{\nu_{||}/\nu_\perp}$ (shifted vertically
1604: for visibility).
1605: \vspace{1em}
1606:
1607: %mfss.eps
1608: \noindent FIG. 3. Moment ratio $m$ for the ABS model versus system size
1609: $L^{-0.25}$. Points: simulation data; line: best linear fit,
1610: $m = 1.0295 + 0.268 L^{-0.25}$.
1611: \vspace{1em}
1612:
1613: %deltat.eps
1614: \noindent FIG. 4. Local slope $\delta(t)$ versus $1/t$ in the ABS model.
1615: $q$ values (bottom to top) 0.66700, 0.66701, 0.66702 and 0.66703.
1616: Inset: data for $q=0.66701$ plotted versus $1/t^{0.25}$.
1617: \vspace{1em}
1618:
1619: %p701.eps
1620: \noindent FIG. 5. Survival probability $P_s(t)$ in the ABS model at the critical
1621: point, $q= 0.66701$. The nearly constant function represents
1622: the ratio of $P_s$ to the fitting function, Eq. (\ref{Ppwc}).
1623: \vspace{1em}
1624:
1625: %n701.eps
1626: \noindent FIG. 6. Mean number of active sites $n(t)$ in the ABS model at the critical
1627: point, $q= 0.66701$.
1628: The solid curve represents the fitting function described in the text.
1629: Inset: a similar plot, for the critical {\it anisotropic} ABS model.
1630: \vspace{1em}
1631:
1632: %cp3crev.eps
1633: \noindent FIG. 7. Spread of activity in a typical realization of
1634: the critical CP3 model ($q=0.63525$).
1635: \vspace{1em}
1636:
1637: %abscrev.eps
1638: \noindent FIG. 8. Spread of activity in a typical realization of
1639: the critical ABS model ($q=0.66701$).
1640: \vspace{1em}
1641:
1642: %qc.eps
1643: \noindent FIG. 9.
1644: Position $q_s$ of the singularity in the stationary probability density
1645: of the extremal CP. The upper line of singularities, $x=q$,
1646: bifurcates from $q_s$ at the critical value $q_{c,E}$.
1647: \vspace{1em}
1648:
1649: %pcpe.eps
1650: \noindent FIG. 10.
1651: Stationary probability density $\overline{p}(x)$ in the CP$_E$ for
1652: $q = 0.794 $ (left) and $q=0.85$ (right); system size $L=1600$.
1653: \vspace{1em}
1654:
1655: %absancrev.eps
1656: \noindent FIG. 11.
1657: Spread of activity in a typical realization of
1658: the critical anisotropic ABS model ($q=0.72370$).
1659:
1660:
1661:
1662: \end{document}
1663:
1664:
1665:
1666: