|
|
Line 31: |
Line 31: |
|
| |
|
| | | |
| * <Strong> Instability : </Strong> The instability occurs when a point is at <math> x_i =0 </math>. Then, the point is stabilized: | | * <Strong> Instability : </Strong> The instability occurs when a point is at <math> x_i =0 </math> and is followed by a stabilization: |
| <center> <math> x_i =0 \to x_i = \Delta </math></center> with <math>\Delta </math> drawn from <math> g(\Delta) </math> | | <center> <math> x_i =0 \to x_i = \Delta </math></center> with <math>\Delta </math> drawn from <math> g(\Delta) </math>. |
| The fraction <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) </math> of the blocks is unstable and the stabilization induces the change <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) g(x) </math>. Hence, one writes
| | In our case, fraction <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) </math> of the blocks is unstable. The stabilization induces the change <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) g(x) </math>. Hence, one writes |
| <center> <math> \partial_w P_{w}(x) \sim m^2 \left[\partial_x P_w(x) + P_w(0) g(x) \right] </math> </center> | | <center> <math> \partial_w P_{w}(x) \sim m^2 \left[\partial_x P_w(x) + P_w(0) g(x) \right] </math> </center> |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| * <Strong> Redistribution </Strong> The stress drop of a single block induces a stress redistribution where all blocks approach threshold. | | * <Strong> Redistribution </Strong> The stabilization of a single block induces a redistribution where all blocks approach threshold. |
| <center><math> | | <center><math> |
| x_i \to = x_i - \frac{1}{L} \frac{\Delta}{1+m^2} | | x_i \to = x_i - \frac{1}{L} \frac{\Delta}{1+m^2} |
| </math></center> | | </math></center> |
| The total stress drop is <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) \int d x x g(x) = m^2 d w P_w(0) \overline{\Delta} </math> hence all points move to the origin of | | The total drop on the force acting on the unstable blocks <math> m^2 d w P_w(0) \int d x x g(x) = m^2 d w P_w(0) \overline{\Delta} </math> per unit length. |
| | This drop in partially compensated by the redistribution. The force acting on all points is increased of |
| <center> <math> m^2 dw P_w(0) \frac{\overline{\Delta}}{1+m^2} </math> </center> | | <center> <math> m^2 dw P_w(0) \frac{\overline{\Delta}}{1+m^2} </math> </center> |
| part of them shifts, part of them become unstable... we can write
| | Again, most of the distribution will be driven to instability while a franction of the blocks become unstable... we can write |
| <center> <math>\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] </math> </center> | | <center> <math>\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] </math> </center> |
| and finally: | | and finally: |
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
. For simplicity, instead of the stresses, we study the distance from threshold
Our goal is thus to determine their distribution
, given their intial distribution,
, and a value of
.
Dynamics
Let's rewrite the dynamics with the new variables
- Drive: Increasing
each point decreases its distance to threshold

.
As a consequence
- Instability : The instability occurs when a point is at
and is followed by a stabilization:

with
drawn from
.
In our case, fraction
of the blocks is unstable. The stabilization induces the change
. Hence, one writes
- Redistribution The stabilization of a single block induces a redistribution where all blocks approach threshold.
The total drop on the force acting on the unstable blocks
per unit length.
This drop in partially compensated by the redistribution. The force acting on all points is increased of
Again, most of the distribution will be driven to instability while a franction of the blocks become unstable... we can write
and finally:
Stationary solution
Increasing the drive the distribution converge to the fixed point:
- Determine
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:
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
. 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
, the system is subcritical and avalanches quickly stops.
- if the mean kick,
is equal to the mean gap
, the system is critical and avalanches are power law distributed
- if the mean kick,
is larger of the mean gap
, the system is super-critical and avalanches are unstable.
Note that in the stationary regime the system is subcritical when
and critical for
Mapping to the Brownian motion
Let's define the random jumps and the associated random walk
An avalanche is active until
is positive. Hence, the size of the avalanche identifies with first passage time of the random walk.
- Critical case : In this case the jump distribution is symmetric and we can set
. Under these hypothesis the Sparre-Andersen theorem state that the probability that the random walk remains positive for
steps is independent on the jump disribution and for a large number of steps becomes
. Hence, the distribution avalanche size is
This power law is of Gutenberg–Richter type. The universal exponent is
- Stationary regime: Replacing
with
we get
. For small m, the random walk is only sliglty tilted. The avalanche distribution will be power law distributed with
until a cut-off
Bienaymé Galton Watson process
A time
appears as infected individual which dies with a rate
and branches with a rate
. On average, each infection generates in average
new
ones. Real epidemics corresponds to
.
At time
, the infected population is
, while the total infected population is
Our goal is to compute
and we introduce its Laplace Transform:

. Note that the normalization imposes
.
- Evolution equation: Consider the evolution up to the time
as a first evolution from
to
and a following evolution from
to
. Derive the following equation for 
which gives
- Critical case: the stationary solution: Let's set
and
to recover the results of the mean field cellular automata. In the limit
the total population coincides with the avalanche size,
. The Laplace transform of
is
which gives
with
- Critical case: Asymptotics: We want to predict the power law tail of the avalanche distribution
. Taking the derivative with respect to
we have
and conclude that
and
Hence we find back our previous result