1: \newif\ifreport
2: \reporttrue
3:
4: \newif\ifdraft
5: \drafttrue
6:
7: \ifreport
8: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
9: \usepackage{graphicx,latexsym}
10: \textheight24truecm
11: \textwidth15.5truecm
12: \hoffset-0.3truecm
13: \topmargin -0.9truecm
14: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0.5cm}
15:
16: \else
17:
18: \ifdraft
19: \documentclass[times, 12pt, pre,aps, preprint]{revtex}
20: \draft
21: \else
22: \documentclass[times, 12pt,pre,aps,twocolumn]{revtex}
23: \fi
24: \usepackage{graphicx}
25:
26: \fi
27:
28: \relax
29: \newlabel{item-alg-react}{{3}{1}}
30: \newlabel{item-alg-drop}{{4}{1}}
31: \newlabel{item-alg-finish}{{6}{1}}
32:
33:
34: \def\figureI#1{
35: \begin{figure}[#1]
36: \centering
37: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure1.ps}
38: \caption{
39: \label{fig-evolution}
40: An example time evolution under rule $\Rule 3,2$
41: from an initial state with $L=41$ into a cyclic state,
42: expressed both in the road representation and the symbolic representation
43: introduced in Sec.~\ref{sec-symbol-def} in the text.
44: Periodic boundary conditions are used.
45: }
46: \end{figure}
47: }
48:
49: \def\figureII#1{
50: \begin{figure}[#1]
51: \centering
52: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure2.ps}
53: \caption{\label{fig-limits}
54: Different limits and the exact solution
55: for the flow $\phi$ as a function of density $\rho$
56: at infinite length for (a) $\Rule 2,2$ and (b) $\Rule 3,2$.
57: The trivial limits are given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq-trivial-min}) and
58: (\ref{eq-trivial-max}).
59: The equations (\ref{eq-infinite-max}) and
60: (\ref{eq-infinite-min}) yield the tighter limits.
61: The enclosed regions are shown magnified in Fig.~\ref{fig-infinite}.
62: }
63: \end{figure}
64: }
65:
66: \def\figureIII#1{
67: \begin{figure}[#1]
68: \centering
69: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure3.ps}
70: \caption{
71: \label{fig-stackalg}
72: This algorithm calculates the final number of groups in the
73: given symbol string with periodic boundary conditions.
74: The symbols $?_{a,b}$ are represented as pairs $(a,b)$ and
75: the input string is read left to right.
76: Addition between pairs is defined as
77: $(a,b)+(c,d)=(a+c, b+d)$.
78: Step~\ref{item-alg-react} corresponds to
79: Eq.~(\ref{eq-diamondreact}) and
80: steps~\ref{item-alg-drop} and \ref{item-alg-finish} both correspond to
81: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-zerostarreact}) and (\ref{eq-zeroonereact})
82: in the text.
83: }
84: \end{figure}
85: }
86:
87: \def\figureIV#1{
88: \begin{figure}[#1]
89: \centering
90: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure4.ps}
91: \caption{
92: \label{fig-evolution-stack}
93: Evolution of the stack of the algorithm in Fig.~\ref{fig-stackalg} operating
94: on the sample string in Fig.~\ref{fig-evolution}.
95: In the end, the number of extra groups is the same as in
96: Fig.~\ref{fig-evolution}.
97: The doubled line signifies the end of the input string, after which
98: the stack is wrapped over (cf. step~\ref{item-alg-finish} of the
99: algorithm in Fig.~\ref{fig-stackalg}).
100: The division to dropped symbols and active stack is implicit --
101: it is only significant for the Markov model analysis of the algorithm
102: in Section~\ref{sec-exact-solution}.
103: The boxes depict the ``lifetimes'' of the sub-stacks started
104: by each input symbol.
105: The time steps of the Markov model are at the bottom lines of
106: these boxes, where the sub-stacks are finished.
107: }
108: \end{figure}
109: }
110:
111: \def\figureV#1{
112: \begin{figure}[#1]
113: \centering
114: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure5.ps}
115: \caption{\label{fig-symbols} The possible index combinations for
116: different symbols in the Markov model for the algorithm
117: discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec-exact-solution}.
118: By considering the possible outcomes of combined $0$ and non-$0$ symbols,
119: it can be seen that the parenthesized symbols can not occur.
120: The sets $D$ and $E$ defined in Sec.~\ref{sec-exact-solution}
121: are depicted by the different shadings. The marked sequences
122: are represented by the generating functions $\G_{1-m}(z)$ and $\G_1(z)$
123: discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec-genfunc}.
124: }
125: \end{figure}
126: }
127:
128: \def\figureVI#1{
129: \begin{figure}[#1]
130: \centering
131: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure6.ps}
132: \caption{\label{fig-g-loop}
133: Plots of the real solutions $\beta = \G_1(1/\alpha) + 1$ of the generating
134: function equation (\ref{eq-g-symmetric}) at $\rho=1/2$ for $C$
135: below, at, and above the correct $\phi$ for
136: (a) $\Rule 2,2$ and (b) $\Rule 3,2$.
137: Because $\beta$ is an ordinary generating function for a sequence of
138: positive values, the correct solution and all its derivatives must
139: be positive.
140: Furthermore, because $\alpha = 1/\rho$ corresponds to a sum of
141: probabilities, $\beta$ must converge at least for $|\alpha|\le1/\rho$.
142: This excludes too large values of $C$. For too small values,
143: the lower curve continues below $1$ yielding negative probabilities
144: and the upper curve is not feasible either,
145: because it is decreasing at $\alpha = 1/\rho$. Only the singular curve at the correct $C$
146: yields an admissible solution.
147: Because Eq.~(\ref{eq-g-symmetric}) is symmetric with respect to $(\alpha,k)$ and $(\beta,m)$,
148: the solutions have symmetry axis $\alpha=\beta$ when $m=k$. }
149: \end{figure}
150: }
151:
152: \def\figureVII#1{
153: \begin{figure}[#1]
154: \centering
155: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure7.ps}
156: \caption{\label{fig-infinite}
157: Infinite-space behavior of flow as a function of density under (a) $\Rule 2,2$ and (b) $\Rule 3,2$.
158: Average of 100 simulations with $L=10000$, theoretical flow,
159: and upper and lower limits given by
160: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-infinite-max}) and (\ref{eq-infinite-min}).
161: }
162: \end{figure}
163: }
164:
165: \def\figureVIII#1{
166: \begin{figure}[#1]
167: \centering
168: \includegraphics[scale=\figscale]{figure8.ps}
169: \caption{\label{fig-finite}
170: Finite-space behavior of the average flow $\overline \phi$ as a function of density
171: under (a) $\Rule 2,2$ and (b) $\Rule 7,7$ when $L=8$.
172: All points represent either evaluated formulas or averages calculated
173: over all configurations.
174: The trivial lower limit is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq-trivial-min}).
175: The upper limit given by Prop.~\ref{prop-finite-max} is exact for $m,k\ge L-1$
176: as demonstrated by b).
177: }
178: \end{figure}
179: }
180:
181:
182: \begin{document}
183:
184: \def\adr{
185: University of Jyv\"askyl\"a\\
186: Department of Mathematical Information Technology\\
187: P.O.~Box~35 (Agora), FIN-40351~Jyv\"askyl\"a, FINLAND}
188:
189: \ifreport
190:
191: \ifdraft\else
192: \input{report7_2001_frontmatter.tex}
193: \fi
194:
195: \title{Exact limiting solutions for certain\\deterministic traffic rules}
196: \author{Janne V. Kujala and Tuomas J. Lukka~%
197: \footnote{E-mail addresses: jvk@iki.fi, lukka@iki.fi}\\\\\adr}
198: \date{} %
199:
200: \def\text#1{\mbox #1}
201: \else
202:
203: \title{Exact limiting solutions for certain deterministic traffic rules}
204: \author{Janne V. Kujala\thanks{Email: jvk@iki.fi}
205: and Tuomas J. Lukka\thanks{Email: lukka@iki.fi}}
206: \address{\adr}
207: \date{April 28, 2001}
208: \fi
209:
210:
211: \maketitle
212:
213: \def\figscale{1}
214: \ifdraft\def\figscale{0.94}\fi
215: \ifreport\def\figscale{0.9}\fi
216:
217: \def\Rule#1,#2{{\mathcal R}_{#1,#2}}
218: \def\Rulef#1,#2{{\mathcal F}_{#1,#2}}
219: \def\Rules#1,#2{{\mathcal S}_{#1,#2}}
220: \def\Ruleflet{{\mathcal F}}
221: \def\Ruleslet{{\mathcal S}}
222: \def\g{f}
223: \def\G{F}
224:
225: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}
226: \newtheorem{coro}{Corollary}[prop]
227:
228:
229:
230:
231: \begin{abstract}
232: We analyze the steady-state flow as a function of the initial density for
233: a class of deterministic cellular automata rules (``traffic rules'')
234: with periodic boundary conditions [H. Fuk\'s and N. Boccara,
235: Int.~J.~Mod.~Phys.~C {\bf 9}, 1 (1998)].
236: We are able to predict from simple considerations
237: the observed, unexpected cutoff of
238: the average flow at unity.
239: We also present an efficient algorithm for determining the exact final
240: flow from a given finite initial state. We analyze the behavior of
241: this algorithm in the infinite limit to obtain for $\Rule m,k$
242: an exact polynomial equation maximally of $2(m+k)$th degree in the flow
243: and density.
244: \ifreport
245:
246: \medskip\noindent
247: {\bf Keywords:} Cellular automata, traffic modeling, generating functions\\
248: {\bf AMS Subject Classification:} 37B15, 68Q80\\
249: {\bf PACS:} 45.70.Vn
250: \fi
251: \end{abstract}
252:
253: \ifreport
254: \else
255: \pacs{45.70.Vn}
256: \fi
257:
258:
259: \section{Introduction}
260:
261: There is considerable interest in modeling traffic behavior
262: via one-dimensional cellular automata (CAs). The original models by
263: Nagel and Schreckenberg\cite{nagel-schreckenberg} and
264: Fukui and Ishibashi\cite{fukui-ishibashi} are analyzed in
265: e.g.~\cite{wang-statistical,%
266: wang-analytical,%
267: fuks-exact},
268: and the more general behavior
269: of sum-conserving CAs is considered in \cite{%
270: boccarafuks-numberconserving,%
271: boccarafuks-conserving%
272: }.
273: In \cite{fuksboccara-generalized},
274: Fuk\'s and Boccara introduced an interesting
275: class of generalized deterministic traffic rules $\Rule m,k$, which display
276: a surprising steady-state
277: behavior:
278: the expected flow of the cars never exceeds one
279: regardless of the constraint values $m$ and $k$.
280:
281: In these rules, as is usual for traffic rules, the road is represented
282: as a one-dimensional lattice where each site has as its value either
283: $0$ (empty) or $1$ (car).
284: Under $\Rule m,k$,
285: a block of cars (ones)
286: at most $k$ units long moves right at most $m$ units, or to the beginning
287: of the next group.
288: The same rule can also be expressed
289: as follows: at each turn, each maximal match of $1^x0^y$ is
290: replaced (see Fig.~\ref{fig-evolution}):
291: $$ 1^x0^y \rightarrow 1^{x-a}0^b1^a0^{y-b},$$
292: where $a=\min\{k,x\}$ and $b=\min\{m,y\}$.
293: From this representation, the dualism
294: between the motion of the cars under the rule $\Rule m,k$ and
295: the motion of the empty sites under rule $\Rule k,m$ in the opposite
296: direction, as mentioned
297: in \cite{fuksboccara-generalized}, is obvious.
298:
299: \ifreport
300: \figureI{tbp}
301: \fi
302:
303: The ``physical'' quantities of interest
304: in systems that obey these rules are $\rho$, the
305: density of ones, and $\phi$, the flow, defined as $\rho \left<v\right>$,
306: where $\left<v\right>$ is the average velocity of the cars.
307: For finite-length systems,
308: we write $\phi$ for the time-averaged steady-state flow from a single
309: state and $\overline \phi$ for the average of $\phi$ over all states.
310: For infinite-length systems, $\phi$ is the steady-state flow.
311: The equation
312: \begin{equation}
313: \label{eq-dualism}
314: \overline \phi_{\Rule m,k}(\rho) =
315: \overline \phi_{\Rule k,m}(1-\rho)
316: \end{equation}
317: expresses one consequence of the dualism discussed above.
318: There are also other quantities such as acceleration,
319: but these are outside the scope of this article.
320:
321: In this article, we examine the steady-state
322: flow of $\Rule m,k$, obtaining an exact polynomial equation
323: in the infinite case.
324: In the following sections, we first develop a formalism based on
325: representing the road as a sequence of blocks
326: rather than single sites.
327: We show that the average flow is fully determined by the number
328: of these blocks in the steady state.
329: In Sections~\ref{sec-simple-limits} and \ref{sec-algorithm},
330: we use this fact to obtain
331: simple upper and lower limits for the average flow and
332: present an efficient algorithm for calculating
333: the steady-state flow from a given finite initial state.
334: In Section~\ref{sec-exact-solution},
335: we consider the behavior of the algorithm in the infinite limit
336: and derive a steady-state condition,
337: which we then solve in Section~\ref{sec-genfunc},
338: yielding
339: an analytical solution
340: in the case of an infinite space.
341: Finally, in Section~\ref{sec-finite}, we obtain
342: a non-trivial upper limit for the expected average flow in a finite space.
343:
344:
345: \section{Fundamental properties of
346: \mbox{$\Rule {\lowercase{m}},{\lowercase{k}}$}}
347: \label{sec-fundamental}
348:
349: The flow of cars
350: under rule $\Rule m,k$ is easier to understand
351: if the state
352: of the road
353: is considered as a sequence of blocks
354: instead of single cars.
355: As we shall see later, it is practical to distinguish between
356: {\em short}, {\em just}, and {\em long} blocks,
357: comparing the length of
358: a block with $m$ or $k$ as follows:
359: a block of zeroes less than $m$ sites long is a short block,
360: more than $m$ sites long is a long block,
361: and exactly $m$ sites long is a just block.
362: For blocks of ones, the length is compared with $k$ in a similar fashion.
363: We say that a pair of a $0$-block and a $1$-block is a {\em group}
364: and define $\rho_G$ as the density of these groups.
365: We also define
366: $\rho_{0+}$ and $\rho_{0-}$ as the densities of long and
367: short $0$-blocks, respectively, and similar symbols for the $1$-blocks.
368:
369: The states of the system can be divided into nine different categories
370: by the existence of short and long blocks, see Table~\ref{tab-states}.
371: In the following, we will consider the three cyclic types of states
372: separately.
373: To verify that these are the only cyclic states we first show
374: that the following two cases are unstable:
375: long and short blocks of one kind, $\rho_{1+}>0$ and $\rho_{1-}>0$,
376: and
377: long blocks of both kinds, $\rho_{1+}>0$ and $\rho_{0+}>0$.
378: The other cases follow from the same proofs by duality.
379:
380: \ifreport
381: \begin{table}
382: \centering
383: \footnotesize
384: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
385: \hline\hline
386: Lengths & $\rho_{0-}\ge0$, $\rho_{0+}=0$ & $\rho_{0-}>0$, $\rho_{0+} > 0 $ &
387: $\rho_{0-}=0$, $\rho_{0+}>0$ \\
388: \hline
389: $\rho_{1-}\ge0$, $\rho_{1+}=0$ &
390: Cyclic: Intermediate & Uncyclic & Cyclic: Free-flowing \\
391: $\rho_{1-}>0$, $\rho_{1+} > 0 $ &
392: Uncyclic & Uncyclic $\rho_G$ may increase &
393: Uncyclic, $\rho_G$ may increase \\
394: $\rho_{1-}=0$, $\rho_{1+}>0$ & Cyclic: Congested &
395: Uncyclic, $\rho_G$ may increase &
396: Uncyclic, $\rho_G$ may increase \\
397: \hline\hline
398: \end{tabular}
399: \caption{
400: \label{tab-states}
401: The different types of states in the system. As discussed in the text,
402: the existence of short and long blocks distinguishes the different types
403: of states.
404: }
405: \end{table}
406: \fi
407:
408: First, we note that new long blocks can never form, because a non-long block
409: of cars moves continually to the right and therefore can not absorb
410: other cars from the left. This also implies that a non-long block
411: can only be absorbed to an already long block on the right.
412: The duality proves the same for long $0$-blocks.
413: Furthermore, the length of a long block can not grow, because
414: long blocks emit just blocks whereas they can only absorb short
415: or just blocks.
416:
417: To show that the states that have both short and long
418: blocks of one type are unstable,
419: consider the sequence
420: $$
421: 1^x(0^{\le m}1^k)^z0^{\le m}1^y,
422: $$
423: where $x<k$, $y>k$, and $0^{\le m}$ represents a $0$-block that is either short
424: or just. On each of the $z$ first steps,
425: the block $1^y$ absorbs one just block and emits
426: one just block from the other end -- its length remains unchanged. However,
427: on the $(z+1)$th step it absorbs a block of length $x$
428: and emits a block of length
429: $k$. Therefore, the number of short blocks has decreased by one, and the length
430: of the long block has decreased by $k-x$, possibly transforming it into
431: a just or short block. Mathematical induction using this argument
432: shows that, if all $0$-blocks are short or just, then during the simulation,
433: either the number of short or long $1$-blocks drops to zero.
434: The number of groups does not change in this process.
435: An important observation is that
436: the long block behaves like a decaying quasi-particle
437: that is moving in the opposite direction from the ones
438: by continuously absorbing short or just blocks
439: and emitting just blocks.
440: Naturally, applying the dualism property proves the same for long and short
441: $0$-blocks.
442:
443: Next, we show that if there are both long $1$-blocks and long $0$-blocks,
444: the state is unstable.
445: We can first apply the
446: above property to show that either a long $1$-block decays
447: or it eventually meets
448: a long $0$-block moving in the opposite direction
449: (or else there are no long $0$-blocks
450: left in the system).
451: But when the long blocks meet, they react and annihilate each other partially
452: or wholly: the group
453: \begin{equation}\label{eq-diamondblock}
454: 0^x 1^y,
455: \end{equation}
456: where $x>m$ and $y>k$ emits just $0$-blocks leftwards
457: and just $1$-blocks rightwards
458: at each time step, reducing to
459: \begin{equation}\label{eq-diamondresult}
460: 0^{x-m} 1^{y-k}
461: \end{equation}
462: and increasing the number of groups by one.
463: Therefore, eventually either the long $0$-blocks,
464: the long $1$-blocks or both will
465: be exhausted, which shows that the initial state is not cyclic.
466:
467: This completes the study of the uncyclic states,
468: showing that from any initial state we will finally end up in one
469: of the remaining states shown in Table~\ref{tab-stable}.
470: We discuss these three cyclic types of states separately below.
471:
472: \ifreport
473: \begin{table}
474: \centering
475: \begin{tabular}{lcl}
476: \hline\hline
477: Description & Conditions & $\phi$ \\
478: \hline
479: Free-flowing & $\rho_{1+} = 0, \qquad \rho_{0-} = 0$ & $ m \rho $ \\
480: Intermediate & $\rho_{1+} = 0, \qquad \rho_{0+} = 0$ &
481: $ \rho (1-\rho) / \rho_G$ \\
482: Congested & $\rho_{1-} = 0, \qquad \rho_{0+} = 0$ & $ k (1-\rho) $ \\
483: \hline\hline
484: \end{tabular}
485: \caption{
486: \label{tab-stable}
487: The three different types of cyclic states for $\Rule m,k$ and the formula
488: for the flow $\phi$
489: in each.
490: }
491: \end{table}
492: \fi
493:
494:
495:
496: It is fairly easy to see that
497: if there are only short and just blocks,
498: then the $1$-blocks move in the positive direction
499: and the $0$-blocks move in the negative direction but
500: the number of blocks and the distribution
501: and relative order of the $0$ and $1$-blocks
502: among themselves do not change -- the state is obviously cyclic.
503: To evaluate the flow, we first note that
504: in such a state
505: each block of cars travels
506: on each step on average $(1-\rho) / \rho_G$ units forwards,
507: which, when multiplied by the density of cars yields
508: \begin{equation}
509: \phi = {\rho (1-\rho) \over \rho_G},\qquad\rho_{0+}=0,\ \rho_{1+}=0.
510: \end{equation}
511: As this class of states does not correspond
512: to either the free-flowing or congested phases of the
513: simpler traffic rules $\Rule 1,k$ and $\Rule m,1$,
514: we term it, for want of a better name, intermediate.
515:
516: The free-flowing states where
517: all $0$-blocks are long or just and all $1$-blocks are short or just
518: are also simple.
519: All the cars obviously move forwards at maximum speed and consequently,
520: these states are also cyclic, with
521: \begin{equation}
522: \phi = m \rho,\qquad\rho_{0-}=0,\ \rho_{1+}=0.
523: \end{equation}
524: Applying the dualism
525: between zeroes and ones
526: we obtain the formula
527: \begin{equation}
528: \phi = k (1-\rho),\qquad\rho_{0+}=0,\ \rho_{1-}=0,
529: \end{equation}
530: for the opposite case: congested states with
531: long or just $1$-blocks and short or just $0$-blocks.
532:
533:
534: We can summarize the above by noting that
535: $\rho$ and the final $\rho_G$ determine the type of the cyclic state.
536: This follows from the fact that the final average lengths
537: of $0$- and $1$-blocks
538: can hold for only one type of a cyclic state:
539: in the intermediate phase blocks must on the average be short or just
540: whereas in the free-flowing and congested phases either
541: $0$- or $1$-blocks must be long and the other blocks short or just
542: as shown in Table~\ref{tab-stable}.
543: Writing these conditions in terms of $\rho$ and $\rho_G$
544: allows us to combine
545: the above evaluations of $\phi$ into one surprisingly
546: simple formula:
547:
548: \begin{prop}
549: \label{prop-oneflow}
550: The average flow over a cycle
551: in any cyclic state of $\Rule m,k$ %
552: is
553: $$
554: \phi = \min \bigl\{m\rho,\, \rho (1-\rho) / \rho_G, \, k (1-\rho) \bigr\}.
555: $$
556: \end{prop}
557:
558: The treatment of long blocks above also yields the following
559: proposition.
560:
561: \begin{prop}
562: \label{prop-rhoginc}
563: During evolution of the system, $\rho_G$ can never decrease. It can
564: increase only when $\rho_{0+}>0$ and $\rho_{1+}>0$.
565: \end{prop}
566:
567: These two propositions give the system its interesting
568: characteristics: the final flow is completely determined by the
569: final value of $\rho_G$,
570: which in turn depends on the intricate reactions
571: of the long blocks.
572:
573: As a direct consequence of these propositions,
574: it is straightforward to obtain crude upper and lower limits
575: under both finite and infinite length (see Fig.~\ref{fig-limits}):
576:
577: \begin{prop}
578: The flow of any cyclic state (and thus the average flow over different
579: states) satisfies
580: \begin{eqnarray}
581: \label{eq-trivial-min}
582: \phi & \ge &
583: \min\{ m\rho,
584: \left| \rho- 1/2 \right| + 1/2 ,
585: k(1-\rho)
586: \} \\
587: \label{eq-trivial-max}
588: \phi & \le & \min\{m\rho, k(1-\rho)\}
589: \end{eqnarray}
590: for any $0\le\rho\le1$ and any size of the lattice.
591: \end{prop}
592:
593: The lower limit is obtained through considering what
594: is the greatest possible number of groups.
595: For a lattice of size $L$, this is easily seen
596: to be
597: $$
598: N_{G, \max} = L\left( \frac12 - \left|
599: \rho - \frac12 \right| \right),
600: $$
601: which together with Prop.~\ref{prop-oneflow}
602: yields the first part. The second inequality follows directly
603: from Prop.~\ref{prop-oneflow}.
604:
605: When $m=1$ or $k=1$, this proposition reduces to the well-known
606: flow formula
607: $$
608: \phi = \min \bigl\{ m\rho,\, k(1-\rho) \bigr\}
609: $$
610: discussed e.g.~in \cite{fuksboccara-generalized}.
611:
612: \ifreport
613: \figureII{tbp}
614: \fi
615:
616:
617: \section{Simple upper and lower limits at infinite length}
618: \label{sec-simple-limits}
619:
620: At infinite length, we can use block probabilities
621: \begin{equation}
622: p(a_1a_2\cdots a_n) = \rho^{\sum_i [a_i=1]}(1-\rho)^{\sum_i [a_i=0]}
623: \end{equation}
624: in the initial random state
625: in order to calculate various statistics.
626: The brackets $[\cdots]$ represent Iverson's notation\cite[p.~11]{iverson},
627: which evaluates to $1$ if the enclosed statement is true and to $0$
628: otherwise.
629:
630: \if0
631: In the following, we also make use of variants of the equation
632: $$
633: \sum_{v=i}^{j} p(A1^v0) = p(A1^i) - p(A1^{j+1})
634: $$
635: which is based on the Kolmogorov consistency condition for block
636: probabilities.
637: \fi
638:
639: The frequency of groups in the initial, random state
640: is obviously given by the density of group edges:
641: $$
642: \rho_{G,\text{initial}} = p(01) = \rho (1-\rho).
643: $$
644: Proposition~\ref{prop-rhoginc} tells us that
645: $$\rho_G > \rho_{G,\text{initial}}.$$
646: Combining these with Proposition~\ref{prop-oneflow}
647: yields the important upper limit
648: \begin{equation}
649: \phi \le \min\left\{ m\rho, 1, k(1-\rho)\right\},
650: \end{equation}
651: which is valid for {\em any} $\Rule m,k$, as Fuk\'s and Boccara
652: observed experimentally in
653: \cite{fuksboccara-generalized}.
654: The expected flow is cut off by the fact that
655: initial groups can never combine into fewer groups, which
656: limits the maximum speed of cars.
657: We shall show in Section \ref{sec-finite}
658: that this limit is also valid for finite-length systems.
659:
660: This limit does not take into account
661: the dynamics of the system but assumes that the final state has
662: the same number of groups as the initial state.
663: It is possible
664: to improve this upper limit by explicitly including some cases where
665: certain initial configurations are known to produce new groups.
666: For adjacent long blocks of zeroes and ones that directly
667: react with each other as shown by Eqs.~(\ref{eq-diamondblock}) and
668: (\ref{eq-diamondresult}), we have
669: \begin{eqnarray*}
670: \rho_G &\ge& \sum_{x,y\ge1}
671: \min\left\{\left\lceil{x\over m}\right\rceil,
672: \left\lceil{y\over k}\right\rceil\right\}
673: p(1 0^x 1^y 0) \\
674: & = & \sum_{r\ge0} p(0^{mr+1} 1^{kr+1}) =
675: {\rho (1-\rho) \over 1 - \rho^k (1-\rho)^m },
676: \end{eqnarray*}
677: which yields the tighter upper limit
678: \begin{equation}\label{eq-infinite-max}
679: \phi \le \min\left\{ m\rho, 1-\rho^k(1-\rho)^m, k(1-\rho) \right\}
680: \end{equation}
681: when combined with Proposition~\ref{prop-oneflow}.
682:
683: A lower limit can be estimated by computing the density of groups
684: that could arise by having all long blocks split maximally.
685: For ones, this is
686: $$
687: \rho_G \le \sum_{x\ge1} \left\lceil{x\over k}\right\rceil p(0 1^x 0) =
688: \sum_{r\ge0} p(0 1^{kr+1}) =
689: {\rho (1-\rho) \over 1-\rho^k}.
690: $$
691: Combining with the same formula for zeroes yields
692: \begin{equation}\label{eq-infinite-min}
693: \phi \ge \min\biggl\{m\rho, \max\bigl\{1-\rho^k,
694: 1-(1-\rho)^m\bigr\}, k(1-\rho)
695: \biggr\}.
696: \end{equation}
697:
698: Figure~\ref{fig-limits} shows the accuracy of these limits for
699: $\Rule 2,2$ and $\Rule 3,2$. For larger $m$ and $k$, the limits
700: become tighter, converging to unity geometrically as
701: $m$ and $k$ tend to infinity.
702:
703:
704: \section{Efficient algorithm for
705: computing\\\protect\nopagebreak the steady-state flow}
706: \label{sec-algorithm}
707:
708: It is not necessary to carry out the simulation to find
709: the number (or density) of groups in the final state, and thus the
710: steady-state flow.
711: In this section, we present an $O(L)$ algorithm for
712: finding
713: the final number of groups
714: from a given starting state
715: with periodic boundary conditions in a lattice of length $L$.
716: This is interesting from two different perspectives: first,
717: it makes it possible to calculate
718: the final flow for long strings more effectively.
719: Additionally, it helps
720: us to understand the dynamics of the system and
721: derive analytic results on the behavior of the system in
722: the next Sections.
723:
724: Let us define the symbols \label{sec-symbol-def}
725: $\star_{a,b}$, $\Diamond_{a,b}$, $0_{a,b}$ and $1_{a,b}$ all to correspond
726: to $0^{a+k} 1^{b+m}$ for different $a$ and $b$:
727: \begin{equation}
728: 0^{a+k} 1^{b+m} = \left\{
729: \begin{array}{l}
730: \star_{a,b} \mbox{, $a \le 0$ and $b \le 0$, } \\
731: 0_{a,b} \mbox{, $a > 0$ and $b \le 0$, } \\
732: 1_{a,b} \mbox{, $a \le 0$ and $b > 0$, } \\
733: \Diamond_{a,b} \mbox{, $a > 0$ and $b > 0$. }
734: \end{array}
735: \right.
736: \label{eq-defsyms}
737: \end{equation}
738: We represent the initial state in this notation and then
739: carry out a series of string replacements.
740: The final number of groups is obtained as the initial
741: number of symbols plus the number of extra groups created
742: by the replacements as shown below.
743:
744: Diamonds react as follows:
745: \begin{equation}
746: \label{eq-firstreact}\label{eq-diamondreact}
747: \Diamond_{a,b} \rightarrow ?_{a-m, b-k}, \qquad \Delta g = +1,
748: \end{equation}
749: where the wildcard symbol $?$
750: represents the correct symbol for the new indices from
751: Eq.~(\ref{eq-defsyms}) and
752: $\Delta g$ represents the number of new groups created by the reaction.
753:
754: Stars can be collected, along with zeroes and ones,
755: but zeroes only from the right and ones only from the left.
756: No new groups are created.
757: \begin{eqnarray}
758: \label{eq-firstcombine}%
759: \star_{a,b} \star_{c,d} & \rightarrow & \star_{a+c, b+d},
760: \qquad \Delta g = 0, \\
761: \label{eq-zerostarreact}%
762: \label{eq-firstdecay}%
763: 0_{a,b} \star_{c,d} & \rightarrow & ?_{a+c, b+d},
764: \qquad \Delta g = 0, \\
765: \label{eq-staronereact}%
766: \star_{a,b} 1_{c,d} & \rightarrow & ?_{a+c, b+d},
767: \qquad \Delta g = 0.
768: \end{eqnarray}
769: Finally, when a $0$ and a $1$ meet, it is possible to form new
770: groups:
771: \begin{equation}
772: \label{eq-lastreact}\label{eq-zeroonereact}
773: 0_{a,b} 1_{c,d} \rightarrow ?_{a+c, b+d},
774: \qquad \Delta g = 0. \\
775: \end{equation}
776: Note that new groups are not created directly by this reaction,
777: but the result may be a $\Diamond$.%
778:
779: The above replacements
780: recursively evaluate the reactions between long blocks.
781: To prove the correctness of a maximal application of
782: the replacements,
783: we consider the reactions occurring in an actual simulation.
784: As described in Section~\ref{sec-fundamental},
785: all new groups arise from the annihilations of long blocks
786: and the length of a long block can never grow.
787: Thus, the number
788: of extra groups is dictated by the sequence of short blocks
789: that reacting long blocks must absorb before annihilating.
790: In the following, we shall show that each of the nested annihilations
791: in an actual simulation is correctly represented by the string replacements.
792:
793: First, consider a subsequence starting with a long $0$-block and ending
794: with a long $1$-block with only short and just blocks between them.
795: Suppose further that the long blocks are long enough to
796: actually meet before turning into short or just blocks.
797: Then a maximal application of
798: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-firstcombine})--(\ref{eq-lastreact})
799: to the subsequence
800: subtracts the total ``shortness'' of the short
801: blocks from the long blocks yielding a diamond symbol,
802: which correctly represents what remains of the long blocks
803: when they meet.
804: The diamond will then annihilate according to
805: Eq.~(\ref{eq-diamondreact}) and yield the correct
806: number of extra groups and a symbol representing the
807: remainder (either a $\star$, if both long blocks are
808: completely annihilated, or a $0$ or $1$, if the
809: annihilation is partial).
810: This remainder symbol is exactly what would be the
811: result of an actual simulation of the subsequence
812: minus the just blocks that the sequence would
813: have emitted from both ends.
814: Because the just blocks do not affect long blocks outside
815: the subsequence, they can be disregarded.
816:
817: Suppose then that either long block would decay
818: before meeting the other long block.
819: Then an application of Eqs.~(\ref{eq-firstdecay})--(\ref{eq-lastreact})
820: to the subsequence
821: will at some point turn either
822: the $0$- or $1$-symbol into a $\star$
823: (or the whole sequence can turn into a $0$, $1$, or $\star$).
824: A long block at one or both ends of the subsequence has thus turned
825: into a just or short block, making it possible for outside long
826: blocks to react over the remaining just and short blocks of
827: the subsequence.
828: Again, the just blocks that a decaying long block
829: would emit are disregarded as they do not
830: affect the length or order of other long blocks.
831:
832: These are in fact all the cases that need to be considered,
833: as the above cases can be applied recursively to the
834: results of inner annihilations.
835: If neither case applies, we have found the final number
836: of groups, because either long $0$-blocks or long $1$-blocks
837: have then been exhausted and so there cannot be any other reactions
838: in an simulation nor can the replacements form any new $\Diamond$'s.
839: On the other hand, each of the applicable reactions
840: will be carried out at some point of a maximal application
841: of the replacements, because the $0$ and $1$-symbols
842: at the ends or a $\Diamond$ do not interact with outside symbols.
843: The replacements may evaluate the decay of the annihilating
844: long blocks in different order from the actual simulation,
845: but as the long blocks must absorb all short blocks
846: between them before they can meet and the short blocks
847: can not disappear unless absorbed by a long block,
848: the result is still the same.
849:
850: Note that the remainder of a $\Diamond$ may be any
851: non-$\Diamond$ symbol, causing complicated recursion as the
852: result of an annihilation affects further replacements.
853: For example, consider the replacements
854: $$
855: \underbrace{\underbrace{0\star\underbrace{0\star1}_{\displaystyle1}
856: }_{\displaystyle0}\star\underbrace{0\star1}_{\displaystyle\star}1}_{
857: \displaystyle1},
858: $$
859: where the innermost reactions must be evaluated before
860: the outer reactions can be considered regardless of the
861: order of the possible replacements.
862:
863: The iteration of
864: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-firstreact})--(\ref{eq-lastreact}) can be
865: carried out
866: by the stack algorithm shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-stackalg}.
867: Each symbol of the input string requires $O(l)$ operations
868: to be dealt with in this algorithm, where $l$ is the bit-length of the
869: symbol. This also includes the final steps to wrap the stack.
870: Therefore, the running time of this algorithm is
871: obviously $O(L)$ for a lattice of length $L$.
872:
873: \ifreport
874: \figureIII{tbp}
875: \fi
876:
877: The worst-case time for simply running the cellular automaton simulation,
878: on the other hand,
879: is $\Omega(L^2)$ since in this system far-away cars do interact with each
880: other.
881: For example, the initial state $0^{m+1}(1^k0^m)^{T-1}1^{k+1}$
882: (in the road representation)
883: would require $T$ simulation steps to reach a cyclic state.
884:
885: Figure~\ref{fig-evolution-stack} illustrates an application
886: of the algorithm on an example string.
887:
888: \ifreport
889: \figureIV{tbp}
890: \fi
891:
892:
893:
894:
895: \section{Steady-state conditions for the stack machine at the infinite limit}
896: \label{sec-exact-solution}
897:
898: It is often the case that
899: infinite limits of systems are easier to solve than finite cases.
900: This is also the case with $\Rule m,k$: in this section, we
901: examine the behavior of the stack machine algorithm as the length
902: approaches infinity.
903: We regard the evolution of the stack configurations as a Markov process
904: and derive a set of equations
905: for the stationarity of the probabilities of stack configurations.
906: These equations are solved in the next Section
907: to determine the probabilities of different annihilations
908: and thus the steady-state flow.
909:
910: Consider the symbols and reactions defined
911: above in Section~\ref{sec-symbol-def}.
912: All new groups are created from the diamonds,
913: which in turn can only arise when
914: a $0$-symbol is combined with a following $1$-symbol.
915: The algorithm in Fig.~\ref{fig-evolution-stack}
916: uses this fact to
917: find the final number of groups
918: by only tracking the reactions of $0$-symbols.
919: It scans through the input string linearly, from left to right,
920: maintaining
921: a stack of the processed symbols with all reactions
922: of $0$'s and $\Diamond$'s carried out.
923: This means that all the remaining $0$-symbols end up on top,
924: which we shall now call the {\em active part} of the stack.
925: When a non-$0$ input symbol consumes all the $0$'s,
926: we say that the symbol is dropped off
927: from the bottom of the active stack into the {\em inactive part},
928: as the symbol can no longer create new groups with the
929: \emph{following} symbols.
930:
931: In finite systems with periodic boundary conditions,
932: the processing of the input string is divided into two parts.
933: First, the input string is scanned as above.
934: When all of the input has been read, the inactive part of
935: the stack, comprising of $1$'s and $\star$'s,
936: is reprocessed with the zeroes in the active part, since the
937: $1$'s on the bottom of the stack may react with the $0$'s on top,
938: producing new groups.
939: The relative effect of this wrapping diminishes
940: as the length approaches infinity:
941: it is easy show that
942: we can ignore all symbols dropped to the inactive part
943: in the infinite limit.
944:
945:
946:
947: To obtain the limiting flow, we thus need to evaluate the
948: average number of new groups produced as the stack algorithm
949: processes a new symbol.
950: When new symbols are input, the active stack can either
951: grow infinitely or remain finite.
952: If the active stack remains finite,
953: the probabilities of different active stacks will
954: eventually reach a stationary distribution.
955: Once the stationary distribution is known,
956: it is straightforward to calculate the expected number
957: of new groups for a random input symbol.
958:
959: If, on the other hand, there are not enough $1$'s and $\star$'s to
960: annihilate the $0$'s and the stack grows infinitely,
961: we can use the dualism property and consider
962: the thus finite stack of $1$'s instead of $0$'s.
963: It turns out later that we do not even have to consider this
964: dualism explicitly, as the symmetry of the equations
965: is restored in the next section.
966:
967: Formally, we regard the evolution of the active stack
968: as a Markov process.
969: The
970: Markov property is satisfied as the next state depends only on the
971: current state and the upcoming independently distributed random symbol.
972: Clearly the process can reach each possible stack configuration
973: from every state and has a positive probability to remain in its current state
974: (the symbol $\star_{0,0}$).
975: Furthermore, given that the active stack will not grow infinitely,
976: the process will return to every state
977: an infinite number of times with probability one.
978: This means that the Markov chain is irreducible, aperiodic, and
979: Harris recurrent and therefore will converge to a unique stationary
980: distribution (see, e.g., \cite{FellerI} or
981: \cite[Proposition~6.3]{Nummelin1984}). %
982:
983: An essential property is that the algorithm can be applied
984: independent of the lower levels for each stacked symbol
985: until that sub-stack is finished, that is, until the lowest level
986: of the sub-stack turns into a $1$ or a $\star$,
987: which happens either immediately,
988: if the stacked symbol is already a $1$ or a $\star$, or
989: when a $1$ or $\star$ on higher level falls to the bottom level
990: consuming all $0$'s on the sub-stack.
991: This allows us to consider each level of the active stack
992: as the bottom of an identically distributed sub-stack.
993: The distribution is particularly interesting
994: when a sub-stack is just finished.
995: At these times the active stack consists of zeroes
996: at the bottom of each sub-stack and of the $1$ or $\star$
997: that finishes the topmost sub-stack (see Fig.~\ref{fig-evolution-stack}).
998:
999: Suppose $p(?_{x,y})$ is the distribution of symbols seen on the bottom
1000: level of the active stack at each time a sub-stack is finished.
1001: Then, if the symbol is a $0$, the same
1002: distribution of symbols will be seen on the bottom of the sub-stack
1003: above that symbol.
1004: Thus, a symbol distribution defines a distribution
1005: for stack configurations.
1006: Note that an arbitrary stack
1007: distribution can not be represented by such a symbol distribution
1008: but it is required that the stack symbols are identically and independently
1009: distributed and that the height of the stack is implied by the stack symbols
1010: as described above.
1011: Furthermore, even though each input symbol starts a sub-stack
1012: so that there is the same number of time steps as there are input
1013: symbols, the sub-stacks are finished out-of-synch with
1014: the time steps of the algorithm.
1015: This complication, however,
1016: is inconsequential as the expected density of new groups on
1017: each time step is still the same as the expected per-symbol density.
1018:
1019: For simplicity, we consider the input symbol distribution $p_i(?_{x,y})$
1020: to represent what remains of the symbol after initial
1021: reactions of $\Diamond$-symbols.
1022: This difference is only conceptual as the algorithm would
1023: immediately carry out the initial reactions for each input symbol anyway.
1024: It is easy to see that the resulting
1025: distribution must still be geometric; only a constant is required to
1026: normalize the lack of $\Diamond$'s. The normalized input distribution
1027: is defined for indices in the set
1028: $$
1029: D := \{\,(x,y): x>-m,\ y>-k,\ [x>0][y>0] = 0\,\}
1030: $$
1031: as
1032: \begin{eqnarray}
1033: p_i(?_{x,y}) &:=& {A(1-\rho)^x \rho^y \over 1-A},
1034: \end{eqnarray}
1035: where we define the symbol $A$ to represent the quantity
1036: \begin{eqnarray}
1037: A &:=& (1-\rho)^m \rho^k,
1038: \end{eqnarray}
1039: which occurs often in the formulas below.
1040: This quantity is
1041: the initial probability of a $\Diamond$,
1042: and the initial reactions
1043: produce a density of $A/(1-A)$ new groups
1044: (cf. Sec.~\ref{sec-simple-limits}).
1045: Here and in the following, we use densities
1046: relative to the initial symbol density $1$
1047: in the string of symbols.
1048:
1049: In our model the initial stack distribution is defined by
1050: $p(\cdot|t=0) := p_i(\cdot)$ corresponding to the distribution of stacks
1051: that results from running the algorithm on random input until the first
1052: non-$0$ symbol is stacked in, i.e., at the first time a sub-stack
1053: is finished (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig-evolution-stack}).
1054:
1055: The transition from a symbol distribution $p(\cdot|t)$ to the
1056: distribution $p(\cdot|t+1)$ on next time step can be defined
1057: by considering the possible ways for a given symbol to arise
1058: on each level of the stack: A symbol can be the result
1059: of a $0$ and a non-$0$ above it reacting as per
1060: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-zerostarreact}) and (\ref{eq-zeroonereact}).
1061: The reaction will result in a non-$\Diamond$ symbol $?_{x,y}$
1062: with probability
1063: $$
1064: p_c(?_{x,y}|t) =
1065: \sum_{a<x;\,a\le0}\sum_{b\le0} p(0_{x-a,b}|t)p(?_{a,y-b}|t).
1066: $$
1067: If, on the other hand, the result of the reaction is a diamond,
1068: it will further react, possibly several times,
1069: according to Eq.~(\ref{eq-diamondreact}) and
1070: yield $?_{x,y}$, where $(x,y)\in D$,
1071: with probability
1072: \begin{eqnarray*}
1073: p_d(?_{x,y}|t) &=&
1074: \sum_{r\ge1}\sum_{a\le0}\sum_{b\le0} p(0_{x-a+rm,b}|t)p(1_{a,y-b+rk}|t).
1075: \end{eqnarray*}
1076: In case there is another $0$ on top of a $0_{x,y}$, no reactions will occur
1077: and the $0_{x,y}$ remains for the next time step. Finally, if the
1078: symbol is not a $0$, it falls off from the bottom of the sub-stack and is
1079: replaced by a fresh symbol from the input distribution.
1080: Thus, the transition function can be written as
1081: \begin{eqnarray}
1082: &&p(?_{x,y}|t+1)\nonumber\\ &&\nonumber
1083: \quad=\ [(x,y)\in D]p_d(?_{x,y}|t) + [(x,y)\in E]p_c(?_{x,y}|t) \\
1084: &&\qquad +\ [x>0]p(?_{x,y}|t)p(0|t) + (1-p(0|t))p_i(?_{x,y}), %
1085: \label{eq-transition}
1086: \end{eqnarray}
1087: where $p(0|t)$ denotes the total probability of $0$-symbols and
1088: the set $E$ is defined as the complement of diamonds:
1089: $$
1090: E := \{\,(x,y): [x>0][y>0] = 0\,\}.
1091: $$
1092: Note that the
1093: transition function does not define a Markov chain for symbols but it
1094: implicitly defines a linear Markov operator for the subspace of stack
1095: distributions that are determined by symbol distributions.
1096:
1097: The stack distribution defined by a symbol distribution is stationary when
1098: \begin{equation}\label{eq-balance}
1099: p(?_{x,y}|t+1) = p(?_{x,y}|t).
1100: \end{equation}
1101: Thus, we need to find a symbol distribution $p(?_{x,y})$
1102: corresponding to the unique stationary stack distribution.
1103: The symbol distribution can then be used to determine probabilities
1104: for different reactions.
1105:
1106: \ifreport
1107: \figureV{tbp}
1108: \fi
1109:
1110: Figure~\ref{fig-symbols} represents the possible indices for different
1111: stack symbols. It is easy to see why some symbols can not occur at all, but
1112: even more can be said. The distribution of the stack symbols retains
1113: some of the geometric properties of the input distribution. The
1114: distribution of $0$-symbols is geometric in its $x$ index and the
1115: distribution of $1$-symbols is geometric in its $y$ index.
1116: (The distribution of $?_{x,y}$ is in fact geometric in $y$
1117: for all $(x,y)\in D$.)
1118: This can be justified by noting that two
1119: such symbols result from the same set of paths of the process
1120: with the corresponding difference only in $x$ or $y$ index of
1121: one specific input symbol (for $0$'s, the initial $0$ starting
1122: the sub-stack and for $1$'s, the final $1$ that falls through to
1123: the bottom of the sub-stack).
1124: These properties are listed below: %
1125: \begin{equation}\label{eq-symbol-geometric}
1126: \begin{array}{rcll}
1127: p(?_{x,y}) &=& 0, &x\le -m,\\ %
1128: p(\Diamond_{x,y}) &=& 0, &x > 0, y > 0, \\
1129: p(0_{x,y}) &=& (1-\rho)^{x-1} p(0_{1,y}), &x > 0, y \le 0, \\
1130: p(1_{x,y}) &=& \rho^{y-1} p(1_{x,1}), &x\le0, y > 0.
1131: \end{array}
1132: \end{equation}
1133: For a more rigorous proof, it is easy to check that the initial
1134: distribution $p_i(\cdot)$ has these properties and that
1135: the transition function maintains the properties.
1136: Thus, the limiting stationary distribution must also have the
1137: properties.
1138:
1139: The stationarity recurrence given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq-transition}) and
1140: (\ref{eq-balance}) can be transformed to
1141: \begin{eqnarray}
1142: {(1-[x>0]p(0))p(?_{x,y})\over(1-p(0))(1-\rho)^x \rho^y} = \nonumber
1143: {[(x,y)\in D]p_d(?_{x,y})\over(1-p(0))(1-\rho)^x \rho^y}&&\\
1144: +\ {[(x,y)\in E]p_c(?_{x,y})\over(1-p(0))(1-\rho)^x \rho^y}
1145: + {p_i(?_{x,y})\over(1-\rho)^x \rho^y}.&&\label{eq-balance2}
1146: \end{eqnarray}
1147: For clarity, we define $\g_{x,y}$ as the left side of the equation:
1148: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq-g}
1149: \g_{x,y} &:=& (1-\rho)^{-x} \rho^{-y} {1-[x>0]p(0)\over 1-p(0)} p(?_{x,y}).
1150: \end{eqnarray}
1151: This transformation of $p(\cdot)$ cancels out the geometric factors and
1152: will decouple the recursive $p(0)$ coefficient from the stationarity
1153: equation.
1154: The transformation is reversible as $p(0)$ can be obtained in terms of
1155: $\g_{x,y}$ from
1156: \begin{eqnarray}
1157: p(0) &=& \sum_{x>0,y}p(0_{x,y})
1158: = \sum_{x>0,y}(1-\rho)^x\rho^y \g_{x,y}.
1159: \end{eqnarray}
1160: With this definition, the geometric properties reduce to
1161: \begin{equation}
1162: \begin{array}{rcll}
1163: \g_{x,y} &=& \g_{x,1}, & x\le 0, y > 0,\\
1164: \g_{x,y} &=& \g_{1,y}, & x > 0, y \le 0.
1165: \end{array}
1166: \end{equation}
1167: We define analogously the components $d_{x,y}$ and $c_{x,y}$
1168: corresponding to terms on the right side of Eq.~(\ref{eq-balance2})
1169: and apply the definition of $\g_{x,y}$ and the above properties:
1170: $$
1171: \begin{array}{l}
1172: \displaystyle d_{x,y} := (1-\rho)^{-x} \rho^{-y} {p_d(?_{x,y})\over1-p(0)} \\
1173: \displaystyle \qquad=
1174: \sum_{r\ge1}A^r\sum_{a\le0}\sum_{b\le0} \g_{x-a+rm,b}\,\g_{a,y-b+rk}\\
1175: \displaystyle \qquad={A\over1-A}\sum_{a\le0}\sum_{b\le0} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,1}
1176: \end{array}
1177: $$
1178: for $(x,y)\in D$ and
1179: \begin{eqnarray*}
1180: c_{x,y} &:=& (1-\rho)^{-x} \rho^{-y} {p_c(?_{x,y})\over 1-p(0)} \\
1181: &=& \sum_{a\le0}\sum_{b\le0} \g_{x-a,b}\,\g_{a,y-b}\\
1182: &=& \sum_{a\le0}\sum_{b\le0} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,y-b}
1183: \end{eqnarray*}
1184: for $(x,y)\in E$.
1185: The stationarity condition given in Eq.~(\ref{eq-balance2})
1186: can then be expanded as
1187: \begin{eqnarray*}
1188: \g_{x,y} &=& [(x,y)\in D]d_{x,y} + [(x,y)\in E]c_{x,y}\\
1189: && \qquad\qquad\quad+\ (1-\rho)^{-x} \rho^{-y} p_i(?_{x,y})\\
1190: &=& [(x,y)\in D]{A\over1-A}\sum_{a}\sum_{b} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,1}\\
1191: &&+ [(x,y)\in E]\sum_{a<x;\,a\le0}\sum_{b} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,y-b} \\
1192: &&+ [(x,y)\in D]{A\over 1-A},
1193: \end{eqnarray*}
1194: where we have left out the summation limits for zero terms,
1195: based on $f_{a,b} = 0$ for $a>0$ and $b>0$.
1196:
1197: Noting that only the middle line really depends on $x$ and
1198: $y$ and that $\g_{a,\cdot} = 0$ for $a<-m$, the recurrence can be
1199: written as
1200: \begin{eqnarray}
1201: \g_{x,y} &=& [(x,y)\in D]{A\over C} \nonumber\\
1202: &&+ \sum_{a<x;\,a\le0}\sum_{b} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,y-b} \nonumber\\
1203: &&-\ [x>0][y>0]\left({1-A\over C}-1\right),\label{eq-balance3}
1204: \end{eqnarray}
1205: where we define
1206: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq-C}
1207: C &:=& {A \over \g_{1-m,1}}
1208: = {1-A \over \displaystyle\sum_{a}\sum_{b} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,1} + 1}
1209: \end{eqnarray}
1210: for reasons to become clear later.
1211:
1212: We have thus reduced the stationarity of the stack distribution
1213: given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq-transition}) and (\ref{eq-balance}) to the
1214: above convolution equation, where $f_{x,y}$ determines $p(?_{x,y})$ and
1215: is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq-g}).
1216:
1217: \section{Exact solution for the steady-state flow through generating functions}
1218: \label{sec-genfunc}
1219:
1220: The convolution recurrence in Eq.~(\ref{eq-balance3}),
1221: which is the stationarity condition for the stack distributions,
1222: can be solved using
1223: generating functions (cf.~\cite{concmath}).
1224: We define a formal generating function $\G_x(z)$ for the sequence
1225: $\g_{x,\cdot}$ by
1226: \begin{eqnarray}
1227: \G_x(z) &:=& \sum_y \g_{x,y} z^y.
1228: \end{eqnarray}
1229: This generating function is not quite ordinary: the sum goes over all
1230: $y$, positive and negative.
1231: In general the values of a generating function do not
1232: uniquely determine a sequence that is positive at an infinite distance
1233: in both directions.
1234: Here, however, we know that both $\G_1(z)$ and $\G_{1-m}(z)$ are
1235: uniquely defined generating functions, because
1236: when $x=1-m$,
1237: the term $\g_{x,y}$ is only
1238: positive at an infinite distance in the positive $y$ direction and
1239: when $x=1$, it is only positive at an infinite distance
1240: in the negative
1241: $y$-direction (see Fig.~\ref{fig-symbols}).
1242: The coefficients for the functions for other $x$ are
1243: positive infinitely in both the positive and negative
1244: $y$-direction but they are only
1245: used in the following calculations
1246: for formal multiplication and addition operations corresponding
1247: to well-defined convolution and sum operations on sequences.
1248:
1249:
1250: The term $\g_{x,y}$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eq-balance3})
1251: vanishes for $x\le-m$. Thus, we can represent
1252: it by the first non-zero case
1253: $\g_{1-m,y} = [y\ge1-k]A/C$,
1254: and the differences
1255: \begin{eqnarray}
1256: \g_{x,y} - \g_{x-1,y} &=& \nonumber
1257: [x\le1]\sum_{b} \g_{1,b}\,\g_{x-1,y-b}\\
1258: &&-\ [x=1][y>0]{1-C\over C}\qquad\qquad\label{eq-g-difference}
1259: \end{eqnarray}
1260: for $x>1-m$.
1261: With the generating function notation we have
1262: $\G_{1-m}(z) = (A/C) z^{1-k}/(1 - z)$
1263: and
1264: \begin{eqnarray*}
1265: \G_x(z) &-& \G_{x-1}(z) = \G_1(z) \G_{x-1}(z)
1266: - {1-C\over C}{[x=1]z\over 1-z}
1267: \end{eqnarray*}
1268: for $1-m<x\le1$. Thus,
1269: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq-gx}
1270: \G_x(z) &=& \left(\G_1(z) + 1 \right)^{x+m-1} \G_{1-m}(z)
1271: - {1-C\over C}{[x=1]z\over 1-z}
1272: \end{eqnarray}
1273: for $-m<x\le1$.
1274: Thus, if we can solve $\G_1(z)$ and $C$,
1275: we have determined $\G_x(z)$ for all $x$,
1276: because $C$ determines $\G_{1-m}(z)$.
1277:
1278: For $x=1$, equation~(\ref{eq-gx}) can be written as
1279: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq-g1}
1280: \left(\G_1(z) + 1\right) &=&
1281: \left(\G_1(z) + 1\right)^m
1282: {A z^{1-k}\over C(1-z)} - {z - C\over C(1-z)},
1283: \end{eqnarray}
1284: which is an $m$th degree equation with respect to $\beta
1285: := \G_1(z) + 1$. It is easy to see that there are at most two
1286: positive real solutions for $\beta$.
1287:
1288: Because we can solve $\G_1(z)$ given $C$,
1289: the complete solution for the stationary distribution of the stack
1290: configurations and thereby $\phi$
1291: now hinges on determining $C$.
1292: Unfortunately,
1293: the quantity $C$ cannot be solved directly from the above equations,
1294: since its definition is already used in solving them;
1295: equations relating $C$ and $\G_1(z)$ reduce to identities
1296: when combined with Eq.~(\ref{eq-g1}).
1297:
1298:
1299: However, there is a different, strange approach:
1300: we can determine $C$
1301: based on the fact that $\G_1(z)$ represents (indirectly)
1302: a probability distribution.
1303: The correct $\G_1(z)$ must obviously
1304: be analytic for some region $|z|>r$.
1305: Additionally,
1306: it must be positive and decreasing in $z$, because it has non-zero
1307: coefficients only for non-positive exponents of $z$, and
1308: all coefficients must be nonnegative since they are probabilities
1309: multiplied by a positive function of the index.
1310: These two constraints allow us to uniquely determine $C$ in the following.
1311:
1312: Eq.~(\ref{eq-g1}) can be solved with respect to $C$ as
1313: \begin{eqnarray}
1314: C &=& {\beta^m A z^{1-k} - z\over (1-z)\beta - 1}
1315: \end{eqnarray}
1316: (note that $\beta = \G_1(z) + 1$ depends on $z$).
1317: Substituting $\alpha := 1/z$ in this equation yields a perfectly symmetric form
1318: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq-g-symmetric}
1319: C &=& {A \alpha^k \beta^m - 1\over \alpha\beta - \alpha - \beta}.
1320: \end{eqnarray}
1321: Figure~\ref{fig-g-loop} depicts the solutions of Eq.~(\ref{eq-g-symmetric})
1322: with different values of $C$ for $\Rule 2,2$ and $\Rule 3,2$.
1323: The figures are essentially similar for larger $m$ and $k$ with
1324: at most two positive solutions and in addition one everywhere negative
1325: solution if $m$ is odd.
1326: In either case, it can be seen that a too large value of
1327: $C$ results to a gap in the solution and a too small value results to
1328: either a non-monotonous or a non-positive solution. Only the correct
1329: $C$ allows changing branches in the singularity point to obtain a
1330: feasible solution. This is analogous to the singular behavior of
1331: elliptic curves (cf.~\cite{elliptic}).
1332:
1333: \ifreport
1334: \figureVI{tbp}
1335: \fi
1336:
1337:
1338: Because the surface $C(\alpha, \beta)$ is smooth, the two constant-$C$
1339: contours can only cross at a critical point.
1340: The critical
1341: points $\nabla C(\alpha,\beta) = 0$ are determined by the equations
1342: $$
1343: \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
1344: A k \alpha^{k-1} \beta^m (\alpha\beta-\alpha-\beta)
1345: - (A \alpha^k \beta^m - 1)(\beta - 1) = 0,\\
1346: A m \alpha^k \beta^{m-1} (\alpha\beta-\alpha-\beta)
1347: - (A \alpha^k \beta^m - 1)(\alpha - 1) = 0.
1348: \end{array}\right.
1349: $$
1350: Multiplying by $(\alpha-1)$ and $-(\beta-1)$ and adding, the equations yield
1351: $k(\alpha-1)\beta = m(\beta-1)\alpha$.
1352: Changing variables to $a = (\alpha-1)/(m\alpha)$ and $b =
1353: (\beta-1)/(k\beta)$ yields a simple form $a = b$ for the equation.
1354: Substituting $\alpha = 1/(1-am)$ and $\beta = 1/(1-ak)$ to the critical point
1355: equations and to Eq.~(\ref{eq-g-symmetric})
1356: results in
1357: \begin{equation}\label{eq-critical2}
1358: \left\{\begin{array}{l}
1359: \displaystyle
1360: A \left(1-am\right)^{-k} \left(1-ak\right)^{-m}
1361: = {a\over 1-a(k+m-1)}, \\
1362: \displaystyle
1363: A \left(1-am\right)^{-k} \left(1-ak\right)^{-m}
1364: = 1 - C{1-a(k+m)\over(1-ak)(1-am)}.
1365: \end{array}\right.
1366: \end{equation}
1367: Now, we only need to reduce $a$ from this system and
1368: then we have an equation relating the unknown $C$ to the parameters
1369: $A$, $m$, and $k$.
1370: By eliminating the left sides we obtain from the right sides
1371: either $a=1/(k+m)$ corresponding to a pole of Eq.~(\ref{eq-g-symmetric}) or
1372: \begin{equation}\label{eq-quadratic-a}
1373: C[1-a(k+m-1)] = (1-ak)(1-am).
1374: \end{equation}
1375: This is a second degree equation for $a$ and its smaller solution is
1376: \begin{equation}\label{eq-a}\label{eq-first-solu}
1377: a = {1 + (1 - C)(k + m - 1) - c \over 2km},
1378: \end{equation}
1379: where we define
1380: \begin{equation}
1381: c := \sqrt{\left(1 + (1 - C) (k + m - 1)\right)^2 - 4(1 - C)km }.
1382: \end{equation}
1383: Note that the other solution with $+c$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq-a})
1384: does not yield a critical point.
1385:
1386: Now Eq.~(\ref{eq-quadratic-a}) can be used to rewrite
1387: the first equation of Eq.~(\ref{eq-critical2}) as
1388: \begin{eqnarray}
1389: A &=& C a \left(1-am\right)^{k-1} \left(1-ak\right)^{m-1}\\
1390: \label{eq-last-solu}%
1391: &=& C^k a \left(1-a(k+m-1)\right)^{k-1} \left(1-ak\right)^{m-k},
1392: \end{eqnarray}
1393: yielding $A$ as a function of $C$ in closed form
1394: with the solution of $a$ given by Eq.~(\ref{eq-a}).
1395: In the special case of $m=k$, we can solve $\rho$ from $A$
1396: in closed form and obtain the density as a function of flow.
1397:
1398: For any given $m$ and $k$, the
1399: equations~(\ref{eq-first-solu})--(\ref{eq-last-solu}) for $A$ and $C$
1400: can be expanded to a polynomial equation, which is easily seen to be
1401: second degree in $A$ and at most $2(m+k)$th degree in $C$.
1402: In practice the degree of $C$ seems to reduce to $m+k+1$,
1403: and we conjecture that this holds for all $m$ and $k$.
1404: For example, in the case of $m=k=2$, the equation can be written
1405: out as
1406: $$
1407: 16A^2 + 8AC^2 - 36AC^3 + (1 + 27A)C^4 - C^5 = 0.
1408: $$
1409:
1410:
1411: Now that we have determined all variables, we can determine
1412: probabilities for different reactions. The density of new groups on
1413: the bottom level of the active stack is
1414: \begin{eqnarray*}
1415: \rho_{\Delta g}
1416: &=& \sum_{(x,y)\in D}\sum_{r\ge1}r\sum_{a\le0}\sum_{b\le0}
1417: p(0_{x-a+rm,b})p(1_{a,y-b+rk})\\
1418: &=& (1-p(0))\!\!\!\!\sum_{(x,y)\in D}\sum_{r\ge1}
1419: rA^r\!\!\sum_{a,b\le0}\!\!(1-\rho)^x \rho^y \g_{1,b}\,\g_{a,1}\\
1420: &=& (1-p(0)){A\over(1-A)^2}{1-A\over A}\left({1-A\over C}-1\right).
1421: \end{eqnarray*}
1422: When all levels of the stack are taken into account, the
1423: total density of new groups is
1424: $$
1425: \rho_{\Delta g}(1 + p(0) + p(0)^2 + \ldots)
1426: = {1\over C}-{1\over 1-A}.
1427: $$
1428: Adding in the initial density $1$ and the density of groups arising
1429: from the initial reactions yields the final group density relative
1430: to the initial group density:
1431: $$
1432: {\rho_G\over\rho(1-\rho)}
1433: = 1 + {A \over 1-A} + \left({1\over C}-{1\over 1-A}\right)
1434: = {1 \over C}.
1435: $$
1436: Thus, in the intermediate phase, $\phi = C$.
1437: Furthermore, the
1438: phase transitions occur where $C$ as a function of $\rho$ crosses
1439: $m\rho$ or $k(1-\rho)$, the flow of free-flowing and congested phases.
1440: For example, when $m=k=2$ the phase transitions can be solved to be exactly at
1441: $$
1442: \rho={1\over2}\pm{1\over7}\left(2\sqrt{2}-{5\over 2}\right).
1443: $$
1444:
1445: The most important results are summarized below:
1446: \begin{prop}
1447: The flow at infinite time for random infinite strings
1448: in the intermediate phase
1449: is $C$, where $1/C$ is the expected number of extra groups arising
1450: per each input symbol and is determined by
1451: Eqs.~(\ref{eq-first-solu})--(\ref{eq-last-solu}).
1452: The flow depends on $\rho$ only through the
1453: quantity $A = (1-\rho)^m\rho^k$.
1454: \end{prop}
1455: \begin{prop}
1456: For any given $m$ and $k$, the flow $\phi$ at infinite time
1457: and the density $\rho$ in the intermediate phase
1458: can be related by a polynomial equation maximally
1459: of degree $2(m+k)$.
1460: \end{prop}
1461:
1462:
1463:
1464: \section{Upper limit for steady-state flow in finite systems}
1465: \label{sec-finite}
1466:
1467: Carrying out calculations for finite systems is considerably more difficult,
1468: since the probabilities are no longer independent of each other.
1469: However, the following interesting limit can be derived.
1470:
1471: \begin{prop}\label{prop-finite-max}
1472: The average flow in steady states starting from random binary strings
1473: of length $L$ with $0 < \rho < 1$ satisfies
1474: $$
1475: \overline \phi \le
1476: \min\left(m \rho, 1 - {L \choose \rho L}^{-1},
1477: k (1-\rho)\right),
1478: $$
1479: where equality applies at least when $k \ge L-1$ and $m \ge L-1$.
1480: \end{prop}
1481:
1482: Proof.
1483: If $0 < \rho < 1$, the number of different initial states
1484: with a given number of groups can be counted by considering
1485: different ways of placing the group boundaries on the string.
1486: The distribution of $N_G$ for random binary strings can be
1487: simplified to
1488: $$
1489: p(N_G) =
1490: \left\{
1491: \begin{array}{r} \displaystyle
1492: {\displaystyle L \over \displaystyle N_G} { \displaystyle
1493: {\rho L-1 \choose N_G-1} {(1-\rho)L-1
1494: \choose N_G-1}
1495: \over
1496: \displaystyle
1497: {L \choose \rho L} } \mbox{, if $N_G>0$,} \\
1498: 0 \mbox{, if $N_G \le 0$.}
1499: \end{array}
1500: \right.
1501: $$
1502: Using basic binomial coefficient sum formulas (see e.g.~\cite{concmath})
1503: and noting that $N_G$ cannot be zero,
1504: the expected value of $L/N_G$ is
1505: $$
1506: \left< { L \over N_G } \right> =
1507: \sum_{N_G} N_G p(N_G) =
1508: {1 \over \rho (1-\rho)}
1509: \left( 1 - {L \choose \rho L}^{-1} \right).
1510: $$
1511: From this, the formula in the Proposition follows. Finally, the equality
1512: follows simply from the fact that if the condition given holds, no groups
1513: can split.
1514:
1515: Note that with reasonable $L$ and $\rho L$, the reciprocal of the binomial
1516: coefficient is negligibly small compared to 1.
1517:
1518:
1519:
1520:
1521: \section{Simulations}
1522:
1523: Simulations were carried out to test the theoretical results.
1524: For small $L$, complete summations were possible so the simulated
1525: curves are in fact exact. For large $L$, a number of random initial
1526: configurations were generated and the evolution of the system
1527: simulated. Since the resulting
1528: steady-state flow under $\Rule m,k$, when $m>1$ and $k>1$,
1529: depends on the whole initial state (and not just $\rho$,
1530: as for when $m=1$ or $k=1$), the samples so simulated will in general
1531: not have the same flow. Therefore, the standard deviation is displayed
1532: along with the average of the resulting flows, giving an idea of
1533: the strength of the fluctuations. As $L$ tends to infinity, the
1534: fluctuations slowly average out,
1535: displaying the usual $1/\sqrt L$ behavior for the standard deviation.
1536:
1537: Figure~\ref{fig-infinite} depicts the simulated flow and
1538: exact solution for infinite space. The theoretical solution
1539: agrees well with simulated results.
1540: Figure~\ref{fig-finite} shows the simulated flow and
1541: upper and lower limits for finite space.
1542: For $m,k\ge L-1$ the upper limit is exact as confirmed
1543: by the simulation.
1544:
1545: \ifreport
1546: \figureVII{tbp}
1547: \figureVIII{tbp}
1548: \fi
1549:
1550: \section{Conclusions}
1551:
1552: In this article, we have solved the behavior of the generalized
1553: traffic rules $\Rule m,k$ for infinite lengths of road and uniform
1554: random initial conditions.
1555:
1556:
1557: We have derived an efficient algorithm for computing
1558: the average flow from an initial state under the
1559: generalized traffic rules $\Rule m,k$.
1560: The idea behind the algorithm is an appropriate
1561: representation of the road as a string of $0^x1^y$ blocks
1562: instead of single sites, and the fact that finding the
1563: average flow can be reduced to finding the number of
1564: these blocks in the cyclic state.
1565:
1566: The algorithm works by decoupling the time from the
1567: simulation and considering directly the different reactions
1568: that would happen during the evolution of the system.
1569:
1570: Analysis of the algorithm in the infinite limit
1571: yields an exact solution for the flow in an infinite space.
1572: Simulated results agree perfectly with the analytic
1573: solution.
1574:
1575: Finite-space behavior is more complex because
1576: single sites are no longer independent.
1577: We have, however, been able
1578: to obtain for the average flow a non-trivial upper limit,
1579: which is exact for $m,k\ge L-1$.
1580:
1581: \section*{Acknowledgments}
1582:
1583: The authors would like to thank Rauli Ruohonen for discussions and comments
1584: on this manuscript.
1585:
1586: \ifreport
1587: \def\pre{Phys.~Rev.~E}
1588: \bibliographystyle{plain}
1589: \else
1590: \bibliographystyle{prsty}
1591: \fi
1592: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
1593:
1594: \bibitem{boccarafuks-conserving}
1595: Nino Boccara and Henryk Fuk{\'s}.
1596: \newblock Cellular automaton rules conserving the number of active sites.
1597: \newblock {\em J. Phys. A}, 31:6007--6018, 1998.
1598:
1599: \bibitem{boccarafuks-numberconserving}
1600: Nino Boccara and Henryk Fuk{\'s}.
1601: \newblock Number-conserving cellular automata.
1602: \newblock {\em Fundamenta Informaticae}, to be published.
1603:
1604: \bibitem{FellerI}
1605: William Feller.
1606: \newblock {\em An introduction to probability theory and its applications},
1607: volume~1.
1608: \newblock Wiley, New York, third edition, 1968.
1609:
1610: \bibitem{fuks-exact}
1611: Henryk Fuk{\'s}.
1612: \newblock Exact results for deterministic cellular automata traffic models.
1613: \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E}, 60:197--202, 1999.
1614:
1615: \bibitem{fuksboccara-generalized}
1616: Henryk Fuk{\'s} and Nino Boccara.
1617: \newblock Generalized deterministic traffic rules.
1618: \newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys. C}, 9:1--12, 1998.
1619:
1620: \bibitem{fukui-ishibashi}
1621: M.~Fukui and Y.~Ishibashi.
1622: \newblock {\em J. Phys. Soc. Jpn}, 65:1868, 1996.
1623:
1624: \bibitem{concmath}
1625: Ronald~L. Graham, Donald~E. Knuth, and Oren Patashnik.
1626: \newblock {\em Concrete Mathematics}.
1627: \newblock Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, second
1628: edition edition, 1994.
1629:
1630: \bibitem{iverson}
1631: Kenneth~E. Iverson.
1632: \newblock {\em A Programming Language}.
1633: \newblock Wiley, New York, 1962.
1634:
1635: \bibitem{elliptic}
1636: Anthony~W. Knapp.
1637: \newblock {\em Elliptic Curves}.
1638: \newblock Mathematical Notes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New
1639: Jersey, 1992.
1640:
1641: \bibitem{nagel-schreckenberg}
1642: K.~Nagel and M.~Schreckenberg.
1643: \newblock {\em J. Phys. I}, 2:2221, 1992.
1644:
1645: \bibitem{Nummelin1984}
1646: Esa Nummelin.
1647: \newblock {\em General irreducible Markov chains and non-negative operators}.
1648: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984.
1649:
1650: \bibitem{wang-statistical}
1651: Bing-Hong Wang, Yvonne-Roamy Kwong, and Pak-Ming Hui.
1652: \newblock Statistical mechanical approach to {F}ukui-{I}shibashi traffic flow
1653: models.
1654: \newblock {\em \pre}, 57:2568, 1998.
1655:
1656: \bibitem{wang-analytical}
1657: Bing-Hong Wang, Lei Wang, P.~M. Hui, and Bambi Hu.
1658: \newblock Analytical results for the steady state of traffic flow models with
1659: stochastic delay.
1660: \newblock {\em \pre}, 58:2876, 1998.
1661:
1662: \end{thebibliography}
1663:
1664: \ifreport
1665: \else
1666: \onecolumn
1667:
1668: \begin{table}[p]
1669: \caption{
1670: \label{tab-states}
1671: The different types of states in the system. As discussed in the text,
1672: the existence of short and long blocks distinguishes the different types
1673: of states.
1674: }
1675: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
1676: Lengths & $\rho_{0-}\ge0$, $\rho_{0+}=0$ & $\rho_{0-}>0$, $\rho_{0+} > 0 $ &
1677: $\rho_{0-}=0$, $\rho_{0+}>0$ \\
1678: \hline
1679: $\rho_{1-}\ge0$, $\rho_{1+}=0$ &
1680: Cyclic: Intermediate & Uncyclic & Cyclic: Free-flowing \\
1681: $\rho_{1-}>0$, $\rho_{1+} > 0 $ &
1682: Uncyclic & Uncyclic $\rho_G$ may increase &
1683: Uncyclic, $\rho_G$ may increase \\
1684: $\rho_{1-}=0$, $\rho_{1+}>0$ & Cyclic: Congested &
1685: Uncyclic, $\rho_G$ may increase &
1686: Uncyclic, $\rho_G$ may increase \\
1687: \end{tabular}
1688: \end{table}
1689:
1690: \begin{table}[p]
1691: \caption{
1692: \label{tab-stable}
1693: The three different types of cyclic states for $\Rule m,k$ and the formula
1694: for the flow $\phi$
1695: in each.
1696: }
1697: \begin{tabular}{lcl}
1698: Description & Conditions & $\phi$ \\
1699: \hline
1700: Free-flowing & $\rho_{1+} = 0, \qquad \rho_{0-} = 0$ & $ m \rho $ \\
1701: Intermediate & $\rho_{1+} = 0, \qquad \rho_{0+} = 0$ &
1702: $ \rho (1-\rho) / \rho_G$ \\
1703: Congested & $\rho_{1-} = 0, \qquad \rho_{0+} = 0$ & $ k (1-\rho) $ \\
1704: \end{tabular}
1705: \end{table}
1706:
1707: \figureI{p}
1708: \figureII{p}
1709: \figureIII{p}
1710: \figureIV{p}
1711: \figureV{p}
1712: \newpage
1713: \figureVI{p}
1714: \figureVII{p}
1715: \figureVIII{p}
1716:
1717: \fi
1718:
1719: \end{document}
1720: