- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review E

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Simple unified view of branching process statistics: Random walks in balanced logarithmic potentials

Serena di Santo1,2,3, Pablo Villegas1, Raffaella Burioni2,3, and Miguel A. Muñoz1,*

  • 1Departamento de Electromagnetismo y Física de la Materia e Instituto Carlos I de Física Teórica y Computacional, Universidad de Granada, E-18071, Granada, Spain
  • 2Dipartimento di Fisica e Scienza della Terra, Università di Parma, via G.P. Usberti, 7/A, 43124, Parma, Italy
  • 3INFN, Gruppo Collegato di Parma, via G.P. Usberti, 7/A, 43124, Parma, Italy

  • *mamunoz@onsager.ugr.es
PDF

Phys. Rev. E 95, 032115 – Published 7 March, 2017

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.95.032115

Abstract

We revisit the problem of deriving the mean-field values of avalanche exponents in systems with absorbing states. These are well known to coincide with those of unbiased branching processes. Here we show that for at least four different universality classes (directed percolation, dynamical percolation, the voter model or compact directed percolation class, and the Manna class of stochastic sandpiles) this common result can be obtained by mapping the corresponding Langevin equations describing each of them into a random walker confined to the origin by a logarithmic potential. We report on the emergence of nonuniversal continuously varying exponent values stemming from the presence of small external driving – that might induce avalanche merging – that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been noticed in the past. Many of the other results derived here appear in the literature as independently derived for individual universality classes or for the branching process itself. Still, we believe that a simple and unified perspective as the one presented here can help (1) clarify the overall picture, (2) underline the superuniversality of the behavior as well as the dependence on external driving, and (3) avoid the common existing confusion between unbiased branching processes (equivalent to a random walker in a balanced logarithmic potential) and standard (unconfined) random walkers.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (53)

  1. T. Liggett, Interacting Particle Systems, Classics in Mathematics (Springer, New York, 2004).
  2. T. E. Harris, The Theory of Branching Processes (Dover, New York, 1989).
  3. J. Marro and R. Dickman, Nonequilibrium Phase Transition in Lattice Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999).
  4. M. Henkel, H. Hinrichsen, and S. Lübeck, Non-Equilibrium Phase Transitions: Absorbing Phase Transitions, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
  5. G. Ódor, Universality in Nonequilibrium Lattice Systems: Theoretical Foundations (World Scientific, Singapore, 2008).
  6. G. Grinstein and M. A. Muñoz, in Fourth Granada Lectures in Computational Physics, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 493, edited by P. Garrido and J. Marro (Springer, New York, 1996), p. 223.
  7. K. A. Takeuchi, M. Kuroda, H. Chaté, and M. Sano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 234503 (2007).
  8. H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B 42, 151 (1981).
  9. P. Grassberger, Z. Phys. B 47, 365 (1982).
  10. J. Binney, N. Dowrick, A. Fisher, and M. Newman, The Theory of Critical Phenomena (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993).
  11. Another group of universal behavior is that of systems with noise proportional to the activity (rather that to the square root of the activity); these encode a different type of processes where the most dominant fluctuations are not demographic, but associated to spatiotemporal variability in the overall parameters [48, 49, 50].
  12. R. Dickman and A. Y. Tretyakov, Phys. Rev. E 52, 3218 (1995).
  13. I. Dornic, H. Chaté, J. Chave, and H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 045701 (2001).
  14. O. A. Hammal, H. Chaté, I. Dornic, and M. A. Muñoz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 230601 (2005).
  15. P. Grassberger, Math. Biophys. 63, 157 (1983).
  16. H. K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B 58, 311 (1985).
  17. A. Vespignani, R. Dickman, M. A. Muñoz, and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5676 (1998).
  18. J. A. Bonachela and M. A. Muñoz, J. Stat. Mech. (2009) P09009.
  19. L. P. Kadanoff, S. R. Nagel, L. Wu, and S.-M. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A 39, 6524 (1989).
  20. J. P. Sethna, K. A. Dahmen, and C. R. Myers, Nature (London) 410, 242 (2001).
  21. A. Baldassarri, F. Colaiori, and C. Castellano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 060601 (2003).
  22. M. A. Muñoz, R. Dickman, A. Vespignani, and S. Zapperi, Phys. Rev. E 59, 6175 (1999).
  23. J. Bonachela, Universality in self-organized criticality, Ph.D. thesis, University of Granada, Granada, Spain, 2008.
  24. S. Lübeck, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 18, 3977 (2004).
  25. H. N. Huynh and G. Pruessner, Phys. Rev. E 85, 061133 (2012).
  26. H. W. Watson and F. Galton, J. Anthropol. Inst. Great Britain and Ireland 4, 138 (1875).
  27. W. Feller, Ann. Math., Second Series 54, 173 (1951).
  28. P. Hilton and J. Pedersen, Math. Intell. 13, 64 (1991).
  29. N. Dershowitz and C. Rinderknecht, Math. Mag. 88, 187 (2015).
  30. S. Redner, A Guide to First-Passage Processes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001).
  31. M. Plischke and B. Bergersen, Equilibrium Statistical Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 2006).
  32. S. Zapperi, K. B. Lauritsen, and H. E. Stanley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4071 (1995).
  33. R. Otter, Ann. Math. Stat. 20, 206 (1949).
  34. M. A. Muñoz, G. Grinstein, and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. E 56, 5101 (1997).
  35. H. K. Janssen, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 17, S1973 (2005).
  36. N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 1 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1992).
  37. C. Gardiner, Stochastic Methods: A Handbook for the Natural and Social Sciences, Springer Series in Synergetics (Springer, New York, 2009).
  38. An alternative approach to analyze Langevin equations such as Eq. (6) consists in reabsorbing the noise amplitude into the time scale, leading to a standard random walk with a different “clock” [51]. Another interesting possibility is deriving these results from a more general fractional Brownian motion [52].
  39. A. Bray, Phys. Rev. E 62, 103 (2000).
  40. F. Colaiori, Adv. Phys. 57, 287 (2008).
  41. In the case of the standard RW case the scaling function GRW has been exactly derived (see, e.g., Ref. [53]), but its specific form is not essential for our purposes here.
  42. S. Papanikolaou, F. Bohn, R. L. Sommer, G. Durin, S. Zapperi, and J. P. Sethna, Nat. Phys. 7, 316 (2011).
  43. J. M. Beggs and D. Plenz, J. Neurosci. 23, 11167 (2003).
  44. H. G. Schuster, D. Plenz, and E. Niebur, Criticality in Neural Systems (John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, 2014).
  45. J. Essam, J. Phys. A 22, 4927 (1989).
  46. A. Dobrinevski, P. L. Doussal, and K. J. Wiese, Europhys. Lett. 108, 66002 (2015).
  47. L. Laurson, X. Illa, S. Santucci, K. T. Tallakstad, K. J. Måløy, and M. J. Alava, Nat. Commun. 4, 2927 (2013).
  48. G. Grinstein, M. A. Muñoz, and Y. Tu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4376 (1996).
  49. W. Genovese, M. A. Muñoz, and J. M. Sancho, Phys. Rev. E 57, R2495 (1998).
  50. M. A. Muñoz, F. Colaiori, and C. Castellano, Phys. Rev. E 72, 056102 (2005).
  51. K. J. Rubin, G. Pruessner, and G. A. Pavliotis, J. Phys. A 47, 195001 (2014).
  52. M. Ding and W. Yang, Phys. Rev. E 52, 207 (1995).
  53. S. N. Majumdar and A. Comtet, J. Stat. Phys. 119, 777 (2005).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. E 95, 032115– Published 7 March, 2017
  • Received 11 January 2017

©2017 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation