1: \documentstyle[aps,preprint]{revtex}
2: \textwidth 15cm
3: \parskip 1em
4: \begin{document}
5: \draft
6: \tightenlines
7:
8: \title{Quasi-stationary simulation of the contact process}
9: \author{Ronald Dickman$^\dagger$ and Marcelo Martins de Oliveira$^*$
10: }
11: \address{
12: Departamento de F\'{\i}sica, ICEx,
13: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,\\
14: 30123-970
15: Belo Horizonte - Minas Gerais, Brasil\\
16: }
17:
18: \date{\today}
19:
20: \maketitle
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We review a recently devised Monte Carlo simulation method
23: for the direct study of quasi-stationary properties of
24: stochastic processes with an absorbing state. The method is
25: used to determine the static correlation function and the
26: interparticle gap-length distribution in
27: the critical one-dimensional contact process.
28: We also find evidence for power-law decay of the interparticle
29: distance distribution in the two-particle subspace.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: %PACS: 05.10.-a, 02.50.Ga, 05.40.-a, 05.70.Ln
33:
34:
35: \noindent {\small $^\dagger$electronic address: dickman@fisica.ufmg.br}
36:
37: \noindent {\small $^*$electronic address: mancebo@fisica.ufmg.br}
38:
39:
40: \newpage
41: \section{Introduction}
42:
43: Stochastic processes with an absorbing state arise frequently in
44: statistical physics \cite{vankampen,gardiner}, epidemiology
45: \cite{bartlett} and related fields.
46: Phase transitions to an absorbing state in spatially extended
47: systems, exemplified by the contact process \cite{harris,liggett},
48: are currently of great interest
49: in connection with self-organized criticality \cite{socbjp},
50: the transition to turbulence \cite{bohr}, and
51: issues of universality in nonequilibrium
52: critical phenomena \cite{marro,hinrichsen,odor04}.
53:
54: The {\it quasi-stationary} (QS) distribution, (that is, conditioned
55: on survival), is very useful in the study of
56: processes with an absorbing state model.
57: Conventional simulations of ``stationary" properties of lattice
58: models with an absorbing state actually study the quasi-stationary regime,
59: given that the only true stationary state for a finite system is the absorbing
60: one.
61: We recently devised a simulation
62: method that yields quasi-stationary properties directly \cite{qssim};
63: it samples the QS
64: probability distribution
65: just as conventional Monte Carlo simulation
66: samples the equilibrium distribution. Here we use the method
67: to study the static correlation function
68: and other configurational properties of the critical contact process,
69: the prime example of an absorbing-state phase transition.
70:
71:
72: In the following section we review the basis of our method.
73: Then in Sec. III we apply it to determine the static two-point correlation
74: function of the contact process on a ring. We summarize our findings in Sec. IV.
75:
76:
77: \section{Background}
78:
79: Consider a continuous-time Markov process $X_t$ taking values
80: $n = 0, 1, 2,...,S$,
81: with state $n\!=\!0$ absorbing.
82: We use $p_n(t)$ to denote the probability that $X_t = n$, given some initial
83: state $X_0$. The survival probability is
84: $P_s(t) = \sum_{n \geq 1} p_n(t) = 1 - p_0(t)$.
85: We suppose that as $t \to \infty$ the $p_n$, normalized by
86: the survival probability $P_s(t)$, attain a time-independent
87: form, thus defining the
88: quasi-stationary distribution $\overline{p}_n$:
89:
90: \begin{equation}
91: \overline{p}_n \equiv \lim_{t \to \infty} \frac{p_n (t) }{P_s (t)}
92: ,\;\;\;\; (n \geq 1),
93: \label{qshyp}
94: \end{equation}
95: with $\overline{p}_0 \equiv 0$. (We further assume that the limiting distribution
96: does not depend on the initial state, as long as $X_0 \neq 0$.)The QS distribution is
97: normalized so:
98: \begin{equation}
99: \sum_{n \geq 1} \overline{p}_n = 1.
100: \label{norm}
101: \end{equation}
102:
103: As shown in \cite{RDVIDIGAL}, the QS distribution is the
104: stationary solution to
105: the following equation of motion (for $n > 0$)
106:
107: \begin{equation}
108: \frac{d q_n}{dt} = -w_n q_n + r_n + r_0 q_n \;,
109: \label{qme}
110: \end{equation}
111: where $w_n = \sum_m w_{m,n}$ is the total rate of transitions out of state
112: $n$, and $r_n = \sum_m w_{n,m} q_m$ is the flux of probability into this
113: state. To see this, consider the master equation (Eq. (\ref{qme})
114: without the final term) in the QS regime. Substituting
115: $q_n(t) = P_s(t) \overline{p}_n$, and noting that in the QS regime
116: $d P_s/dt = -\overline{r}_0 = - P_s \sum_m w_{0,m} \overline{p}_m$,
117: we see that the r.h.s. of Eq. (\ref{qme}) is identically zero
118: if $q_n = \overline{p}_n$ for $n \geq 1$.
119: The final term in Eq. (\ref{qme}) represents a redistribution of the
120: probability $r_0$ (transfered to the
121: absorbing state in the original master equation),
122: to the nonabsorbing subspace.
123: Each nonabsorbing state receives a share
124: equal to its QS probability.
125:
126: In \cite{qssim} we introduce a process $X_t^*$, whose {\it stationary}
127: probability distribution is the {\it quasi-stationary} distribution
128: of $X_t$.
129: (Note that in order to have a nontrivial stationary
130: distribution, $X_t^*$ cannot
131: possess an absorbing state.)
132: The probability distribution of $X_t^*$ is governed by Eq. (\ref{qme}),
133: which implies that for $n>0$ (i.e., away from the absorbing
134: state), the evolution of $X_t^*$ is identical to that of $X_t$.
135: When $X_t$ enters the absorbing state, however, $X_t^*$ instead
136: jumps to a nonabsorbing one, and then resumes its ``usual" evolution
137: (with the same transition probabilities as $X_t$), until such time
138: as another visit to the absorbing state is imminent.
139:
140:
141: In Eq. (\ref{qme})
142: the distribution $q_n$ is used to determine the value of
143: $X_t^*$ when $X_t$ visits the absorbing state. Although one
144: has no prior knowledge of $q_n$ (or its long-time limit,
145: the QS distribution $\overline{p}_n$),
146: one can, in a simulation, use the
147: history $X_s^*$ ($0 < s \leq t$) up to time $t$, to
148: {\it estimate} the $q_n$.
149: This is done by saving
150: a sample $\{n_1, n_2, ..., n_M\}$ of configurations visited.
151: We update the sample
152: by replacing from time to time one of the configurations
153: with the current one.
154: In this way the distribution for the process $X_t^*$
155: will converge to the QS distribution (i.e., the stationary
156: solution of Eq. (\ref{qme})) at long times.
157: Summarizing, the process $X_t^*$ has the same dynamics as
158: $X_t$, except when a transition to the absorbing
159: state is imminent: $X_t^*$ then is placed in a nonabsorbing state,
160: selected at random from a sample over the history of the realization.
161: (In the simulation, a list of $M$ configurations is maintained. Whenever
162: the time increases by 1, the list is updated with probability $p_{rep}$,
163: by replacing a randomly chosen configuration on the list with the current one.)
164: In effect, the final term in Eq. (\ref{qme}) is represented as a
165: {\it memory} in the simulation.
166:
167: The above scheme was shown \cite{qssim}
168: to yield precise results, in accord with the
169: exact QS distribution for the contact process on a complete graph
170: \cite{RDVIDIGAL}, and with conventional simulations of the same model
171: on a ring, for which exact results are not available.
172: QS simulation results were found rather insensitive to the choice
173: of list size $M$ and replacement rate $p_{rep}$. In the studies
174: reported below we use $M=1000$ and $p_{rep} = 0.001$.
175:
176:
177: \section{Contact Process: Correlation Function}
178:
179: The contact process (CP) \cite{harris} is a continuous-time
180: Markov process on a lattice, in which
181: each site $i$ is
182: either occupied ($\sigma_i (t)= 1$),
183: or vacant ($\sigma_i (t)= 0$). Transitions from $\sigma_i = 1$ to
184: $\sigma_i = 0$ occur at a rate of unity, independent of the neighboring sites.
185: The reverse transition can only occur if at least one neighbor is
186: occupied: the transition from $\sigma_i = 0$ to $\sigma_i = 1$
187: occurs at rate
188: $\lambda r$, where $r$ is the fraction of nearest neighbors of site $i$
189: that are occupied; thus the state $\sigma_i = 0$ for all $i$ is absorbing.
190: ($\lambda $ is a control parameter governing the rate of spread of
191: activity.)
192: The order parameter
193: $\rho = \langle \sigma_i \rangle$ is the fraction of occupied sites.
194: The model exhibits a continuous phase transition at
195: $\lambda_c = 3.297848(20)$ \cite{iwanrd93}. For $\lambda < \lambda_c$,
196: the stationary value of $\rho$ is zero.
197:
198: The CP has attracted much interest as a
199: prototype of a nonequilibrium critical point, a simple representative of the
200: directed percolation (DP) universality class. Since its scaling properties
201: have been discussed extensively \cite{marro,hinrichsen,odor04} we review
202: them only briefly. As the critical point is approached, the
203: correlation length $\xi$ and correlation time $\tau$ diverge,
204: following $\xi \propto |\Delta|^{-\nu_\perp}$ and
205: $\tau \propto |\Delta|^{-\nu_{||}}$, where
206: $\Delta = \lambda - \lambda_c$ is the distance from the critical point. The order
207: parameter
208: scales as $\rho \propto \Delta^\beta$ for $\Delta > 0$.
209: At the critical point the quasi-stationary value of the
210: order parameter scales as: $\rho \propto L^{-\beta/\nu_\perp}$.
211:
212: An aspect of the CP that has not, to our knowledge, been studied in
213: simulations is the static correlation function. Of particular interest is how
214: correlations decay at the critical point. The correlation function is defined via
215: \begin{equation}
216: C(|i\!-\!j|) = \langle \sigma_i \sigma_j \rangle - \langle \sigma_i \rangle \langle\sigma_j \rangle
217: \label{defCr}
218: \end{equation}
219: where the average is over the stationary distribution of the process.
220:
221: Based on experience with equilibrium critical phenomena, we expect
222: $C(r)$ to decay as a power law at the critical point. The decay exponent
223: can be determined via a scaling argument. To begin, we normalize
224: $C(r)$ to its value at $r=0$:
225: \begin{equation}
226: c(r) \equiv \frac {C(r)}{C(0)} = \frac{C(r)}{\rho (1\!-\!\rho)}
227: \label{defcr}
228: \end{equation}
229: Now consider the scaled variance
230: \begin{equation}
231: \chi = L^d \left( \langle \rho^2 \rangle - \rho ^2 \right)
232: \label{chi}
233: \end{equation}
234: ($L$ denotes the lattice size.) At the critical point,
235: $\chi \sim L^{\gamma/\nu_\perp}$ with $\gamma = d \nu_\perp - 2 \beta$
236: \cite{marro}. A simple calculation yields
237: \begin{equation}
238: \chi = L^{-d} \sum_{i,j} C(|i\!-\!j|)
239: = \rho (1-\rho) \sum_{|\bf{x}| \leq {\it L/2}} c(|\bf{x}|)
240: \label{chiCr}
241: \end{equation}
242: where in the last step we used translation invariance, and assumed a
243: hypercubic lattice of $L^d$ sites. Now suppose $c(r) \sim r^{-\alpha}$
244: for large $r$. Approximating the sum by an integral, and recalling that
245: $\rho \sim L^{-\beta/\nu_\perp}$ at the critical point, we find
246: \begin{equation}
247: \chi \sim L^{d - 2 \beta/\nu_\perp} \sim L^{d - \alpha - \beta/\nu_\perp}
248: \label{scalalpha}
249: \end{equation}
250: implying that $\alpha = \beta/\nu_\perp$
251: and
252: \begin{equation}
253: C(r) \simeq \rho c(r) \propto (rL)^{-\beta/\nu_\perp}
254: \label{scalC}
255: \end{equation}
256: in the critical stationary state. The relation $\alpha = \beta/\nu_\perp$
257: was demonstrated some time ago by Grassberger and de la Torre, who showed
258: that $C(r) \sim r^{-2 \delta/z}$ at the critical point \cite{torre}.
259: (Their result is seen to be equivalent to ours when we recall the
260: scaling relations $z = 2\nu_\perp/\nu_{||}$ and $\delta = \beta/\nu_{||}$.)
261:
262:
263:
264: We use the QS simulation method outlined above to determine
265: the correlation function.
266: The process is simulated in five independent realizations
267: of $2 \times 10^8$ time steps.
268: As is usual, annihilation events are chosen with probability $1/(1+\lambda)$ and
269: creation with probability $\lambda/(1+\lambda)$. A site is chosen from
270: a list of currently occupied sites, and, in the case of annihilation, is
271: vacated, while, for creation events, a nearest-neighbor site is selected
272: at random and, if it is currently vacant, it becomes occupied. The time
273: increment associated with each event is $\Delta t = 1/N_{occ}$, where
274: $N_{occ}$ is the number of occupied sites just prior
275: to the attempted transition \cite{marro}.
276:
277: In Fig. 1 we plot $C^* (r) = L^{\beta/\nu_\perp} C(r)$ for
278: $L=1280$ and 2560, using
279: the best available estimate (from series analysis),
280: $\beta/\nu_\perp = 0.252072(8)$ \cite{jensen}.
281: The data collapse for the two lattice sizes is nearly perfect.
282: For $r \ll L$ the correlation function indeed follows a power law
283: $C^* \sim r^{-\beta/\nu_\perp}$, while for $r=L/2$ it attains a
284: minimum, as expected due to the periodic boundaries. To determine
285: the decay exponent we analyze the local slope $\alpha(r)$ (see Fig. 2),
286: obtained from a linear fit to the data for $\ln C^*$ versus $\ln r$, using
287: points equally spaced in $\ln r$, in finite intervals $[r_0, 3r_0]$.
288: For $r_0 \ll L$ the local slope is nearly constant, but it of course
289: veers upward as $r_0$ approaches $L/2$. We therefore perform an
290: extrapolation (to $r \to \infty$) of the local slope versus $1/r$,
291: using only the data on which the results for the two lattice sizes
292: agree, to eliminate finite-size effects. The result of this extrapolation
293: is $\beta/\nu_\perp = 0.252(1)$, consistent with the best
294: estimate.
295:
296: For $\lambda < \lambda_c$, the correlation function decays exponentially,
297: $C(r) \sim e^{-r/\xi}$. This is evident in the inset of
298: Fig. 1, where we plot $\tilde{C} = r^{\beta/\nu_\perp} C(r)$. Exponential
299: decay is clear for $\lambda = 0.99 \lambda_c$; linear regression
300: yields $\xi \simeq 356$ in this case, well below the system
301: size ($L=2560$) in this study. Interestingly, the
302: decay of $\tilde{C}$ is also perceptible for $\lambda = 0.999 \lambda_c$,
303: though partly masked due to the finite system size.
304: In general the decay of correlations should be evident for $L > \xi$,
305: where $\xi$ is the correlation length in the infinite-size limit.
306: Since $\xi \sim |\Delta|^{-\nu_\perp}$, deviations from criticality
307: on the order of $|\Delta| \sim L^{-1/\nu_\perp}$ (or greater)
308: should be detectable in the correlation function for a system of size $L$.
309:
310:
311: In the critical stationary state, the distribution of particles is scale-invariant,
312: as reflected in the power-law decay of $C(r)$. The distribution of {\it gaps}, or
313: strings of empty sites between successive occupied sites also follows a power law.
314: (A gap of size $g$ corresponds to sites $i$ and $i+g+1$ occupied and all intervening sites
315: empty.) We determine the gap-size distribution $P(g)$ (normalized to the number of
316: gaps in the configuration).
317: As shown in Fig. 3, $P(g)$ exhibits a power law decay, $P \sim g^{-\tau}$,
318: with $\tau \simeq 1.70$, over an intermediate range that appears to grow with system size.
319: Analysis of the local slope yields $\tau = 1.73(1)$.
320:
321: We can relate the exponent $\tau$ to other critical exponents via a
322: simple scaling argument. Since there is one gap per particle,
323: the mean gap size $\langle g \rangle$ is just the reciprocal
324: of the particle density. Thus in a system of size $L$ at the critical point,
325: $\langle g \rangle \sim L^{\beta/\nu_\perp}$. Assuming $P(g) \sim g^{-\tau}$
326: for $g \geq 1$, we have
327: \begin{equation}
328: \langle g \rangle \sim \int_1^l g^{1-\tau} dg \sim L^{2-\tau} \sim
329: L^{\beta/\nu_\perp}
330: \label{tauesc}
331: \end{equation}
332: implying $\tau = 2 - \beta/\nu_\perp \simeq 1.748$. Our simulation result is
333: about 1\% smaller than the value predicted by the scaling argument.
334: The discrepancy is likely caused by finite-size corrections that limit the
335: power-law regime of $P(g)$.
336:
337: Finally, we report preliminary results
338: on a surprising behavior of the interparticle distance
339: in the two-particle subspace. Let $d$ denote the separation between
340: the occupied sites, given that that exactly two sites are occupied.
341: (We take the minimum distance under periodic boundaries,
342: so that $d \leq L/2$.) Since particles are highly clustered
343: in the critical CP, we should expect the two-particle
344: distance distribution $P_2(d)$ to decay with separation. Our results (see Fig. 4)
345: from QS simulations at the critical point suggest a power-law decay,
346: $P_2(d) \sim d^{-\kappa}$, with $\kappa \simeq 2.45$. We have no
347: way of relating this exponent to the known critical exponents.
348: Indeed, whether $P_2(d)$ follows a power-law will have to be confirmed
349: in larger-scale simulations. This is somewhat challenging since,
350: as the system size increases, the probability of having exactly
351: two particles becomes ever smaller.
352:
353:
354: \section{Summary}
355:
356: We have applied a new simulation method for
357: quasi-stationary properties to determine the
358: static correlation function $C(r)$ of the critical contact
359: process in one dimension. Our results support the
360: behavior $C(r) \sim 1/(rL)^{\beta/\nu_\perp}$
361: anticipated from scaling arguments.
362: We also studied the gap-size distribution, which shows
363: evidence of a power-law decay, $P(g) \sim g^{-\tau}$,
364: with $\tau \simeq 2 - \beta/\nu_\perp$, the value predicted
365: by scaling. Finally we note an apparent scale-invariant
366: behavior of the interparticle distance distribution
367: $P_2(d)$ in the two-particle subspace.
368: Study of the correlation function and the gap-size distribution
369: promise to be useful in characterizing scaling behavior of
370: new models, and may also be useful in locating the critical
371: point.
372:
373: \vspace{1em}
374:
375: \noindent{\bf Acknowledgment}
376:
377: This work was supported by CNPq and FAPEMIG, Brazil.
378:
379:
380: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
381:
382: \bibitem{vankampen}
383: N. G. van Kampen,
384: {\it Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry}
385: (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992).
386:
387: \bibitem{gardiner}
388: C. W. Gardiner,
389: {\it Handbook of Stochastic Methods},
390: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990).
391:
392: \bibitem{bartlett}
393: M.S. Bartlett,
394: {\it Stochastic Population Models in Ecology and Epidemiology}
395: (Methuen, London, 1960).
396:
397: \bibitem{harris}
398: T. E. Harris,
399: Ann. Probab. {\bf 2}, 969 (1974).
400:
401: \bibitem{liggett}
402: T. Liggett,
403: {\it Interacting Particle Systems}
404: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985).
405:
406: \bibitem{socbjp}
407: R. Dickman, M. A. Mu\~noz, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi,
408: Braz. J. Phys. {\bf 30}, 27 (2000).
409:
410: \bibitem{bohr}
411: T. Bohr, M. van Hecke, R. Mikkelsen, and M. Ipsen,
412: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 5482 (2001), and references therein.
413:
414: \bibitem{marro}
415: J. Marro and R. Dickman,
416: {\it Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models}
417: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
418:
419: \bibitem{hinrichsen}
420: H. Hinrichsen,
421: Adv. Phys. {\bf 49} 815, (2000).
422:
423: \bibitem{odor04}
424: G. Odor,
425: Rev. Mod. Phys {\bf 76}, 663 (2004).
426:
427: \bibitem{qssim}
428: M. Martins de Oliveira and R. Dickman,
429: Phys. Rev. E, in press; cond-mat/0407797.
430:
431: \bibitem{RDVIDIGAL}
432: R. Dickman and R. Vidigal,
433: J. Phys. A {\bf 35}, 1145 (2002).
434:
435: \bibitem{iwanrd93}
436: I. Jensen and R. Dickman,
437: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 71}, 89 (1993).
438:
439: \bibitem{torre}
440: P. Grassberger and A. de la Torre,
441: Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 122}, 373 (1979).
442:
443: \bibitem{jensen}
444: I. Jensen,
445: J. Phys. A {\bf 32}, 5233 (1999).
446:
447: \end{thebibliography}
448:
449: \newpage
450:
451: FIGURE CAPTIONS
452: \vspace{1em}
453:
454: \noindent FIG. 1.
455: QS simulation results for the scaled correlation function
456: $C^* = L^{\beta/\nu_\perp} C(r)$ in the critical one-dimensional
457: contact process. Symbols: $\times$: $L=1280$; $+$: $L=2560$.
458: The slope of the straight line is -0.252.
459: Inset: semi-logarithmic plot of $\tilde{C} = r^{\beta/\nu_\perp}C(r)$
460: versus $r$ in a system of 2560 sites, for $\lambda = \lambda_c$ (upper curve), 0.1\% below $\lambda_c$
461: (middle) and 1\% below $\lambda_c$ (lower).
462: %fortf1n.eps
463: \vspace{1em}
464:
465: \noindent FIG. 2.
466: Local slope $- \alpha (r)$ of the correlation function versus $1/r$.
467: Open symbols: $L=1280$; filled symbols: $L=2560$.
468: %fortf2.eps
469: \vspace{1em}
470:
471: \noindent FIG. 3.
472: Gap-length distribution in the critical one-dimensional CP. $\Box$:
473: $L=640$; $+$: $L=5120$. The slope of the straight line is -1.73.
474: %fortf3.eps
475: \vspace{1em}
476:
477: \noindent FIG. 4.
478: Distribution of interparticle distances $d$ in the two-particle
479: subspace of the critical CP. Open symbols: $L=640$; filled symbols: $L=1280$.
480: The slope of the straight line is -2.45.
481: %fortf4.eps
482: \vspace{1em}
483:
484: \end{document}
485:
486: