|   |   | 
| Line 88: | Line 88: | 
|  | 
 |  | 
 | 
|  | Let's define the random jumps  and the associated random walk |  | Let's define the random jumps  and the associated random walk | 
|  | <center><math>  \eta_1 = \frac{\Delta_1}{(1+m^2)L}- x_1, \;  \eta_2=\frac{\Delta_2}{(1+m^2)L}- (x_2-x_1) \; \eta_3=\frac{\Delta_3}{(1+m^2)L}- (x_3-x_2)  \ldots  \\ |  | <center><math>  \eta_1 = \frac{\Delta_1}{(1+m^2)L}- x_1, \;  \eta_2=\frac{\Delta_2}{(1+m^2)L}- (x_2-x_1) \; \eta_3=\frac{\Delta_3}{(1+m^2)L}- (x_3-x_2)  \ldots    | 
|  | X_t= \sum_{i=1}^t \eta_i \; \test{with} \; \langle \eta_i\rangle =  \left(\frac{\overline{\Delta}}{(1+m^2)} -\frac{1}{P_w(0)}\right)/L
 |  | 
|  |    </math></center> |  |    </math></center> | 
		Revision as of 19:58, 2 March 2024
Avalanches and Bienaymé-Galton-Watson process
 Goal:  We solve the mean field version of the cellular automaton, derive its avalanche statistics and make a connection with the Bienaymé-Galton-Watson process used to describe an epidemic outbreak.
Fully connected (mean field) model for the cellular automaton
Let's study the mean field version of the cellular automata introduced in the previous lecture.
We introduce two approximations:
- Replace the Laplacian, which is short range, with a mean field fully connected interction

.
- The local threshold are  all equal. In particular we set

.
As a consequence, in the limit  , the statistical properties of the system are  described by the  distribution of the local stresses
, the statistical properties of the system are  described by the  distribution of the local stresses  . For simplicity, instead of the stresses, we study the distance from threshold
. For simplicity, instead of the stresses, we study the distance from threshold
 
Our goal is thus to determine their distribution  , given their intial distribution,
, given their intial distribution,  , and a value of
, and a value of  .
.
Dynamics
Let's rewrite the dynamics with the new variables
-  Drive: Increasing  each point decreases its distance to threshold each point decreases its distance to threshold

.
As a consequence
  
  
-  Instability 1: Stress drop    The instability occurs when a point is at  . Then, the point is stabilized (stress drop): . Then, the point is stabilized (stress drop):
 
Increasing  ,  a fraction
,  a fraction  of the blocks is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to threshold becomes
  of the blocks is unstable. Due to the stress drop, their distance to threshold becomes  . Hence, one writes
. Hence, one writes
 ![{\displaystyle \partial _{w}P_{w}(x)\sim m^{2}\left[\partial _{x}P_{w}(x)+P_{w}(0)g(x)\right]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/cd334a98bc7e2b35ea98753c97e9fc924045305d) 
 
-  Instability 2: Stress redistribution    The stress drop of a single block induces a stress redistribution where all blocks approach threshold.
 
The total stress drop is   hence all points move to the origin of
 hence all points move to the origin of  
  
 
part of them shifts, part of them become unstable... we can write
 ![{\displaystyle \partial _{w}P_{w}(x)=m^{2}\left[\partial _{x}P_{w}(x)+P_{w}(0)g(x)\right]\left[1+P_{w}(0){\frac {\overline {\Delta }}{1+m^{2}}}+(P_{w}(0){\frac {\overline {\Delta }}{1+m^{2}}})^{2}+\ldots \right]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/55c23803ba97967a518e84ac3534bb867dc25554) 
 
and finally:
 ![{\displaystyle \partial _{w}P_{w}(x)={\frac {m^{2}}{1-P_{w}(0){\frac {\overline {\Delta }}{1+m^{2}}}}}\left[\partial _{x}P_{w}(x)+P_{w}(0)g(x)\right]}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/407227dd8156d959de3a6336729791cc655e0f2e) 
 
Stationary solution
Increasing the drive the distribution converge to the fixed point:
  
 
- Determne   using using
 
 
  
 
which is well normalized.
Critical Force
The  average distance from the threshold gives a simple relation for the critical force, namely  . Hence for the automata model we obtain:
. Hence for the automata model we obtain:
  
 
Exercise:
Let's assume an exponential distribution of the thresholds and show
 
 
Avalanches or instability?
Given the initial condition and   , the state of the system is described by
, the state of the system is described by   . For each unstable block, all the blocks receive a kick. The mean value of the kick is
. For each unstable block, all the blocks receive a kick. The mean value of the kick is 
 
Is this kick able to destabilize another block? The equation setting the  average  position of the most unstable block is
 
Hence, for large systems we have
 
We expect three possibilities:
- if the mean kick,  is smaller than the mean gap is smaller than the mean gap , the system is subcritical and avalanches quickly  stops. , the system is subcritical and avalanches quickly  stops.
- if the mean kick,  is equal to the mean gap is equal to the mean gap , the system is critical and avalanches are power law distributed , the system is critical and avalanches are power law distributed
- if the mean kick,  is larger of the mean gap is larger of the mean gap , the system is super-critical and avalanches are unstable. , the system is super-critical and avalanches are unstable.
Noe that in the stationary regime the system is  subcritical when   and critical for
 and critical for  
Mapping to the Brownian motion
Let's define the random jumps  and the associated random walk
