arxiv: v2 [nlin.cg] 9 May 2016

Transcription

1 Phase coexistence phenomena in an extreme case of the misanthrope process with open boundaries Chikashi Arita, Chihiro Matsui Theoretische Physik, Universität des Saarlandes, 664 Saarbrücken, Germany Mathematical Informatics, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan Abstract arxiv:65.97v [nlin.cg] 9 May 6 The misanthrope process is a class of stochastic interacting particle systems, generalizing the simple exclusion process. It allows each site of the lattice to accommodate more than one particle. We consider a special case of the one dimensional misanthrope process whose probability distribution is completely equivalent to the ordinary simple exclusion process under the periodic boundary condition. By imposing open boundaries, high- and low-density domains can coexist in the system, which we investigate by Monte Carlo simulations. We examine finite-size corrections of density profiles and correlation functions, when the jump rule for particles is symmetric. Moreover, we study properties of delocalized and localized shocks in the case of the totally asymmetric jump rule. The localized shock slowly moves to its stable position in the bulk. Introduction: Exclusion process The exclusion process is one of paradigmatic models of non-equilibrium statistical physics, which is a Markov process of interacting particles on lattices []. et us consider a chain consisting of sites. Each site i of the chain is either empty (τ i = ) or accommodates a particle (τ i = ). A particle stochastically jumps to one of its nearest neighbor sites with the leftward and rightward rates, say, p and qp, if a target site is empty. The stationary distribution of the exclusion process is very simple in the periodic boundary condition where the th site is regarded as i = : all the possible configurations of particles are equally probable. Therefore, the stationary current is given by ( q)pρ( ρ) in the limit. Here ρ denotes the global density, i.e. the number of particles divided by. Open boundary conditions also provide us important perceptions. At the leftmost site (i = ), particles are injected into and extracted from the system with rates α and γ, respectively. Meanwhile we set the injection and extraction rates at the rightmost site (i = ) to be δ and β, respectively. et us consider that the left and right ends are connected to reservoirs of densities ρ and ρ, respectively, by relations α = pρ, β = p( ρ ), γ = pq( ρ ) and δ = pqρ. In the symmetric case q =, the stationary current and the density profile are given by [] J(ρ, ρ ) = p(ρ ρ )/, ρ i = ρ + (ρ ρ )i/. () The diffusion coefficient is simply given by the jump rate p, which is compatible with (). The exact stationary state is given in a matrix product form [], from which the correlation C = τ i τ i+ τ i τ i+ is calculated as C = i( i )(ρ ρ ) /[ ( )] () x( x)(ρ ρ ) / (x = i/, ). (3) Exact solutions and phenomenological arguments have been proposed also in the asymmetric case q []. Misanthrope process with the periodic boundary condition et us consider generalized exclusion processes, where each site can accommodate more than one particle [3, 4, 5]. The jump rates of particles depend on the occupation numbers of both departure and target sites: m n m n+ (rate p mn ), (4) m n m+ n (rate qp nm ). (5)

2 Figure : Misanthrope process with maximal occupancy, connected to density reservoirs at both ends. The arrows represent possible jumps of particles. In the extreme case (p = ), the dashed lines correspond to prohibited jumps. The misanthrope process [6] is a class of generalized exclusion processes, which is one of relevant models for traffic flow[7, 8]. When the maximal occupation number per site is, the misanthrope process is characterized by p = p + p. (6) See Fig. for the illustration of the model. (The open boundary condition will be explained in the next section.) We define ratios a and b of the parameters as p = a p, p = b p. (7) Under the periodic boundary condition, the stationary probability of finding a configuration τ τ is given by the product of single-site weights X m s as [6] P (τ τ ) = X τ X τ, (8) X = Z, X = λ Z, X = aλ Z, Z = + λ + aλ (9) with the fugacity parameter λ. In the limit with global density ρ fixed, λ is specified by the relation ln Z = ρ, which can be easily solved as λ λ λ = ρ/( ρ + R), R = ( 4a)( ρ)ρ. () We shall occasionally use notations X m (ρ) in order to emphasize that they are functions of the density via (). The rightward current of particles is calculated as [7] J (ρ) = m=, n=, X m (ρ)x n (ρ)p mn () = p ρ( ρ) [ ( ρ) + b(ρ + R )/ ] /( + R). () The leftward current and the current are given as J (ρ) = qj (ρ) and J(ρ) = ( q)j (ρ), respectively. The shape of the fundamental diagram changes, depending on the values of the parameters a and b, see Fig.. In this work we are particularly interested in the case where particles are extremely misanthrope, i.e. a =. (This restriction is similar to the repulsion process [9], a special case of the Katz-ebowitz-Spohn model [].) Under the periodic boundary condition, the probabilities of finding configurations are governed by the same master equations as the usual simple exclusion process: when the global density ρ is less than, all the sites are either occupied by one particle or empty. If the target site is occupied, any particle cannot jump due to p =. For ρ >, no empty site appears, and we regard the configurations τ τ as τ τ with τ i = τ i. Then we recover the same master equations as the simple exclusion process. For ρ = only the configuration is found, and J =. In summary, the single-site weights become { ( ρ, ρ, ) (ρ ), (X, X, X ) = (3) (, ρ, ρ ) (ρ > ), and the fundamental diagram of this extreme case consists of the two parabolas J = ( q)p ρ( ρ) ( < ρ ) and J = ( q)p (ρ )( ρ) ( < ρ < ), see Fig.. For ρ >, the dynamics (e.g. the mean-squared displacement) of an individual particle is different from the simple exclusion process.

3 J.5.5 a=.5, b=.5 a=.65, b= a=., b=. a=.5, b= J.5.5 Figure : Fundamental diagrams of the misanthrope process for various values of the parameters a and b with ( q)p =, and the extreme case a = with ( q)p = and ( q)p =. 3 Open boundary condition We consider the misanthrope process on the chain with open ends (Fig. ). At the left boundary, particles are injected and extracted with rates α τ and γ τ, respectively, depending on the occupation number τ of site. In the same way, at the right boundary, we impose injection and extraction rates, δ τ and β τ, respectively, depending on the occupation number τ. To realize the reservoir densities ρ and ρ at virtual sites i =,, we set α τ = p mτ X m (ρ ), β τ = p τm X m (ρ ), (4) m=, γ τ = q m=, m=, p τm X m (ρ ), δ τ = q m=, For the special case ρ = ρ, the stationary state is written in the product form (8). 4 Symmetric case For the symmetric case q =, the current between sites i and i + is given by p mτ X m (ρ ). (5) J i = G(τ i, τ i+ ) ( < i < ), (6) G(τ, σ) = ) p mn (g m (τ)g n (σ) g n (τ)g m (σ). (7) m=, n=, We use the following polynomial representation of Kronecker s delta g m (τ) = (m = τ), (m τ) for m, τ {,, }: g (τ) = g ( τ) = ( τ)( τ), g (τ) = τ( τ). For the boundaries, we have J = G(ρ, τ ), J = G(ρ, τ ), (8) G(ρ, τ) = ) p mn (X m (ρ)g n (τ) X n (ρ)g m (τ). (9) m=, n=, One finds that the current satisfies the gradient condition J i = K i K i+ [3], where K i s are given by { p g (τ i ) + p g (τ i ) ( < i < ), K i = h(ρ i ) (i =, ), () h(ρ) :=p X (ρ) + p X (ρ) () =p ρ [ ( ρ) + b(ρ + R )/ ]/ ( + R). () In the stationary state we have J = J = = J (=: J). Then we achieve Fick s law J(ρ, ρ ) = [ h(ρ ) h(ρ ) ] /, (3) K i =h(ρ ) + [ h(ρ ) h(ρ ) ] i/, (4) 3

4 i p =3, =3 p =9, =4.5 i/ ( x *, ).. p =6 p =3 p = p =9 d ` ( i, ) d /c.. (c) =78 =5 =36 =56 ( i/ x ) * d ( i, ) d /c.. (d) p =9, =7 p =6, =78 p =3, =78 p =, =7 5 5 * ( i/ x ) d /u Figure 3: Density profiles of the symmetric misanthrope process with p =. The values of p and are given in the panel. The discrepancies at site i = x for various values of p. The simulation results and numerical fittings are indicated by circles and solid lines, respectively. (c) Rescaled discrepancies vs. rescaled site for various values of with (p, p ) = (3, ). (d) Rescaled discrepancies vs. rescaled site for various values of p. For all the four sub-figures we have set the boundary densities as (ρ, ρ ) = (, ). For each set of the parameters (p, ) we performed two independent simulation runs. We also averaged the simulation data over 6 t 9 for p =, 3 or 6 t 8 for p = 6, 9. which indicates that the diffusion constant D is given by D(ρ) = d dρ h(ρ) = p This formula can be also expressed in the form ( ρ) + b(ρ + R ). (5) R D(ρ) = χ J (ρ), χ = Rρ( ρ)/( + R), (6) where the factor χ corresponds to the fluctuation of the density χ = λ dρ dλ = m=,, X m(ρ) ( m ρ ). In the special case p = p (b = ), we have h(ρ) = p ρ, D(ρ) = p and the linear profile because of K i = ρ i : ρ i = ρ + (ρ ρ )i/. (7) We expect that the hydrodynamic description is valid in a large system with x = i/ and t = t/ : t ρ(x, t ) = [ D(ρ(x, t )) ] x x ρ(x, t ). (8) In the stationary state, we have leading to an implicit form of a density profile ρ(x): D(ρ(x)) d dx ρ(x) = J(ρ, ρ ), (9) h(ρ(x)) h(ρ ) = xj(ρ, ρ ). (3) Though the formula for the current (3) is correct for any finite, the prediction (3) does not always provide the true analytic formula. However, we expect that the density profile τ x converges to (3) in the limit. When p =, the diffusion coefficient reduces to D(ρ) = p (ρ < ), p (ρ > ). (3) The density profiles in the cases ρ < ρ < and ρ > ρ > are equivalent to the simple exclusion process. An interesting situation is the case ρ > ρ <. From (3), the hydrodynamic prediction (3) of the density profiles becomes piecewise linear: { ρ + x ρ(x) = x ( ρ ) ( < x < x ), ρ + x x ( ρ ) (x (3) < x < ), x =(ρ )p / [ ( ρ )p + (ρ )p ]. (33) One may derive the formula (6) by assuming the factorization (8) with the weights (9) in the bulk sites []. In our case, we did not use any non-rigorous assumption to achieve (5). 4

5 C i x C 5 x=/8 x=/4 x=/.5 i/( ) C i x C 3.5 i/( ) x=/8 x=/4 x=/ C i (c) x=/8 x=/4 x=/ x C i/( ) C i.3 (d) x C 5.5 i/( ) x=/8 x=/4 x=/ Figure 4: Correlation profiles (37) with (m, n) = (,), (,), (,) (c) and (,) (d). The parameters were chosen as (p, p, ρ, ρ ) = (3,,, ) (x = /4). For each, we performed two independent simulation runs. We also averaged the simulation data over 6 t 9. The position x separates the space into high and low density domains, i.e. ρ(x) > for x < x and ρ(x) < for x > x. Under the further restriction p = p, it is completely linear, ρ(x) = ρ + x(ρ ρ ), which is compatible with the true density profile (7). On the other hand, for p p, we observe that the simulation results are deviated from the prediction, in particular, near x = x, see Fig. 3. et us denote the difference between the true density ρ i measured by simulations and the prediction by ρ(i, ) = ρ i ρ(i/). Figure 3 shows the discrepancy at the site i = x vs.. It seems that it exhibits power-law decay ρ(x, ) c d, and we expect that the exponent d is independent of b. The inset shows our numerical estimation of d, depending on the interval of the system size l/5 < < l that we use, e.g. d 4. for l 7. (The error bars are due to changing the value of p.) For the fitting lines in and rescaling of the x- and y-axes of (c) and (d), we use this value. 3 We observe overlap of markers for different values of in Fig. 3 (c), d ρ(x, )/c vs. (x x ) d. Furthermore we can find rescalers u + > and u <, such that the discrepancies of different values of b also overlap, see Fig. 3 (d). Technically we determined u ± via x ± as ρ(x ±, ) d (c) =.5 (x < x < x + ), (34) u ± = (x ± x ) d. (35) This result indicates the existence of a scaling function f ρ(x, ) { c d f ( (u + ) (x x ) d) (x x ), c d f ( (u ) (x x ) d) (x < x ). (36) Now we turn to nearest-neighbor correlation functions C mn i = g m (τ i ) g n (τ i+ ) g m (τ i )g n (τ i+ ) (37) for m, n {,, }, which satisfy m=,, Cmn i = n=,, Cmn i =. et us check whether the asymptotic behaviors are the same as the SSEP case (3). Fig. 4 shows the correlation profiles, multiplied by the system size. It seems that, far from i/( ) x = x, Ci mn s decay being proportional to or faster than the power law, since the lines of different values of are overlapping or almost. On the other hand, in the vicinity of x = x, they decay more slowly than. The insets also support these observations. (Another scenario could be that the finite-size effects are too strong to observe O( )-decay). 5 Totally asymmetric case We consider the totally asymmetric case q =. Since we know the fundamental diagram (Fig. ), the phase diagram (Fig. 5 ) is predictable by the extremal current principal, see the original works [, 3] for details e.g. the phase boundaries. In the extreme case p =, the regions ρ < ρ < and ρ > ρ > are equivalent to the usual simple exclusion process. In the minimal current phase the stationary state is an absorbing state, where each site is occupied by only one particle, and thus the particle current is. Therefore 3 We think that the power-law decay with the exponent slightly bigger than.4 is the most reasonable guess. However the following possibility has not been excluded: the slopes in the logarithmic frame continue to slowly decrease and diverge in the limit. 5

6 bulk = bulk= min bulk = bulk= bulk = bulk= maxi bulk= maxii Figure 5: Phase diagram of the totally asymmetric misanthrope process in the case where J(ρ) has two local maxima J(ρ maxi ) > J(ρ maxii ) (ρ maxi < ρ maxii ). The stationary current is give by J(ρ bulk ), in particular, J(ρ min ) is the local minimum. Phase diagram for p = p = p = (a =, b = ). we focus on the case ρ > > ρ. We also restrict our consideration to the case p = p =, where the two maximal currents have the same value. The phase diagram of the current is simplified as Fig. 5. We are particularly interested in properties of an anti-shock [4]. For the simple exclusion process, the second-class particle [5] is often used in order to microscopically probe the shock position. In this work, we define the shock position S as follows. et us denote by S the rightmost site occupied by two particles, and by S the leftmost empty site. Any configuration is written as τ τ S τ S+ τ (38) with τ i {, } for i < S and τ i {, } for i > S. In particular, S = when there is no site occupied by two particles, and S = when there is no empty site. Then we simply set S = S+S {,, 3,, }. (See [6, 7] for similar microscopic definitions of shocks.) Note that we always have S < S in the case ρ > > ρ. The tag S increases by one, according to jump of a particle at site S under the condition that τ S+ =. On the other hand, the tag S decreases by one, according to jump of a particle at site S under the condition that τ S =. These events shift the shock position leftward or rightward by /. When S S =, a particle at site S jumps to site S, which causes a non-local shift; in this situation, the tags are renewed, i.e. the second rightmost doubly occupied site becomes the new S and the second leftmost empty site becomes the new S. For example, for a configuration shown in the Fig. ; if a particle on the fourth site jumps to the fifth, the shock position changes as (S, S, S ) = (4, 9/, 5) (, 4, 6). The shock is delocalized on the phase transition line < ρ = ρ <.5, as shown in Fig. 6. The densities of the domains i < S and i > S are given by the reservoir densities ρ and ρ, respectively [3]. Figure 6 shows typical density profiles of spatial average r i := l l+ k= l τ k+i with l =, by using snapshots τ τ without time or ensemble average. Under the assumption that the motion of the shock is governed by a random walk with reflective boundaries, the density profile averaged over long time becomes linear, connecting ρ and ρ, see Fig. 6 (c). As shown in Fig. 6 (d), there is a regime where the mean-squared displacement, MSD = (S(t + t ) S(t )), is proportional to time t, supporting the random-walk description of the shock motion. In the inset, we plot the diffusion coefficient D S, which was estimated from simulation data t (S(t + t ) S(t )) in t [T/, T ]. We chose the value of T so as to avoid the saturation of the linearity caused by the reflective boundaries. The line is a guessed form D S = ( ρ)(3 ρ) ρ, which approaches as ρ.5. Actually, on the point ρ = ρ =.5, the location of the shock is restricted to the vicinity of S = /, see Fig. 6,, and (c). Now we examine properties of the shock in the maximal current phase. We denote the rescaled shock position by s = S/. In the sub-phase ρ <.5 ρ <.5, the left and right density domains are ρ eft = ρ and ρ Right =.5, from the general framework [, 3]. The shock velocity is given by v S = J(ρ eft) J(ρ Right ) ρ eft ρ Right, which is negative in this case. Finally the shock reaches the left boundary, in other words s =, see Fig. 7. In the sub-phase ρ >.5 ρ <.5 and its boundaries (dashed lines in Fig. 5 ), the densities of the left and right domains are ρ eft =.5 and ρ Right =.5, and therefore v S =. Indeed, from Fig. 7, it is difficult to see a clear tendency of the shock motion. By changing the time scale as Fig. 7, however, we observe that the shock moves to s =.5 in this sub-phase, and s =.5 on the phase boundary ρ =.5 ρ <.5. The density profiles in Fig. 7 (c) also imply that s =.5 and.5 are the stable positions. In the inset, the deviations from these values are observed, which are expected to be finite-size effect. On the other sub-phase boundary ρ <.5 ρ =.5, s =.75 because of a symmetry. We also measured the first passage time (F P T ), i.e. the 6

7 t =. =.5.5 s =.3 ri =.3 =. =.5.5 i/ i (c).5 i/ =. =.3 = (d) =. =.5 =.4 slope t DS..5 Figure 6: Simulation results on the phase transition line < ρ = ρ <.5. Kymograph of shocks in single simulation runs with = 4 and the initial position s =.5. Density profiles r i for = 4, made from snapshots. (c) Density profiles ρ i for = 3, averaged over time interval 6 t 8 and over two independent runs. (d) Mean-squared displacement vs. time and (inset) diffusion coefficient D S, by averaging over 5 simulation runs. first time when the shock hits a stable position, see Fig. 7 (d). The exponents z (F P T = O( z )) for ρ =.5 and.6 are found to be.4 and., respectively, while z = for ρ =.4 due to v S. We define a shock width by the standard deviation of the shock position S = S S, which seems to be proportional to some power of, i.e. S e, see Fig. 7 (e). The exponent e from fitting is e.74. We also performed fitting for other values of ρ with ρ =., and found the exponent between.7 < e <.8 (not shown here). This result is different from / and /3 observed in the exclusion process with a single-site defect [8]. The probability distribution of S (inset) consists of two curves, according to whether S is an integer or a half-integer. Both of them are well fitted by Gaussian distributions. One may also regard S S as another definition of the shock width, which is instantaneously measured in a given configuration. Figure 7 (f) implies that its average converges to some value as. (The solid line is a fitting curve in the form S S = v w.) This behavior is different from S. Furthermore we expect that the probability distribution of S S exhibits asymptotically exponential decay, see the inset of Fig. 7 (f). 6 Conclusions We investigated the extreme case (p = ) of the misanthrope process by imposing high (ρ > ) and low (ρ < ) densities at the reservoirs. For the symmetric case (q = ), the formula for the current (3) is correct for any system size. On the other hand, the true density profile is, in general, deviated from the hydrodynamic prediction, where the point x separates between high and low density domains. We expect that this discrepancy is a finite-size effect and exhibits a power-law decay at x = x. We also conjecture that there exists a scaling function in the vicinity of x = x. The nearest-neighbor correlations decay more slowly than O( ) in the vicinity of x = x as far as we observed simulations for <. They are proportional to or faster than power-law decays for x x or x x. For the totally asymmetric case (q = ), an anti-shock can exist, and we introduced a microscopic definition of its position. On the transition line ρ + ρ = ( < ρ <.5), where the motion of the shock position is diffusive, we probed the mean-squared displacement and measured the diffusion constant characterizing the motion of the shock. In the sub-phase ρ >.5 ρ <.5 of the maximal current phase, the formula of the shock velocity becomes. However we found that the shock spontaneously reaches a stable position s =.5. On the sub-phase boundaries the stable position becomes s =.5 or.75. The exponent of the shock width was found between.7 and.8. Acknowledgements CM is supported by JSPS Grant-in-Aid No. 5K939. References [] Derrida B., J. Stat. Mech. (7) P73 7

8 5 t 5 7 =.4 =.5 =.6 4 S t 7 4 =.5 =.6 =.4 4 S i (c) =.6 =.5 =.4 h s i i/ (d) Initial Position s =.75 Stable Position.6 s=.5.5 s=.5.4 s= S 7 3 S S.. Prob(S) (e) h S S i (f) Prob( S S ) S S Figure 7: Simulation results in the maximal current phase. The density of the right reservoir is chosen as ρ =.. (a,b) Kymographs of the shock in single simulation runs with = 4 and the initial position S =.75. The dashed line is the theoretical line S = tv S (c) Density profiles ρ i for = 3, and (inset) mean shock positions near the sub-phase boundary with guide for eyes by lines. (d) First passage time. The dashed line is F P T =.75/v S, and thin lines are fitting. (e) Shock width vs. system size for (ρ, ρ ) = (.7,.), and (inset) probability distribution of the shock position for =. (f) Mean instantaneous shock width vs. system size for (ρ, ρ ) = (.7,.), and (inset) probability distribution. Technical details: We performed two independent simulation runs for (c), 5 / runs for (d) or ten runs for (e) and (f). We also averaged over 6 t 8 for (c), (e) and (f). [] Blythe R. A. and Evans M. R., J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 4, R333 (7) [3] Kipnis C., andim C., and Olla S., Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 47, 475 (994) [4] Arita C., Krapivsky P.., and Mallick K., Phys. Rev. E 9, 58 (4) [5] Matsui C., J. Stat. Phys. 58, 9 (5) [6] Cocozza-Thivent C., Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Gebiete 7, 59 (985) [7] Kanai M., Phys. Rev. E 8, 667 () [8] Eymard R., Roussignol M., and Tordeux A., Stoch. Process. Their Appl., 3648 () [9] Krapivsky P.., J. Stat. Mech. (3) P6. [] Katz S., ebowitz J.., and Spohn H., J. Stat. Phys. 34, 497 (984) [] Becker T., Nelissen K., Cleuren B., Partoens B., and Van den Broeck C., Phys. Rev. E 9, 539 (4) [] Popkov V. and Schütz G. M., Europhys. ett. 48, 57 (999) [3] Hager J. S., Krug J., Popkov V., and Schütz G. M., Phys. Rev. E 63, 56 () [4] Belitsky V. and Schütz G. M., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46, 954 (3) [5] Boldrighini C., Cosimi C., Frigio A., and Grasso-Nuñes G.: J. Stat. Phys. 55, 6 (989) [6] Cividini J., Hilhorst H. J., and Appert-Rolland C., J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 47, (4) [7] de Gier J. and Finn C., J. Stat. Mech. (4) P74. [8] Janowsky S. A. and ebowitz J.., Phys. Rev. A 45, 68 (5) 8