arxiv: v1 [nlin.cg] 7 Dec 2015

Transcription

1 When is a bottleneck a bottleneck? Andreas Schadschneider, Johannes Schmidt and Vladislav Pokov arxiv: v [nlin.cg] 7 Dec 205 Abstract Bottlenecks, i.e. local reductions of caacity, are one of the most relevant scenarios of traffic systems. The asymmetric simle exclusion rocess (ASEP) with a defect is a minimal model for such a bottleneck scenario. One crucial question is What is the critical strength of the defect that is required to create global effects, i.e. traffic jams localized at the defect osition. Intuitively one would exect that already an arbitrarily small bottleneck strength leads to global effects in the system, e.g. a reduction of the maximal current. Therefore it came as a surrise when, based on comuter simulations, it was claimed that the reaction of the system deends in non-continuous way on the defect strength and weak defects do not have a global influence on the system. Here we reconcile intuition and simulations by showing that indeed the critical defect strength is zero. We discuss the imlications for the analysis of emirical and numerical data. Introduction One of the most imortant scenarios in any traffic system are bottlenecks, i.e. (local) flow limitations. Tyical examles are a reduction in the number of lanes on a highway, local seed limits or narrowing corridors or exits in edestrian dynamics. The identification of bottlenecks gives imortant information about the erformance of the system. E.g. in evacuations, egress times are usually strongly determined by the relevant bottlenecks. Therefore a roer understanding of bottlenecks and their influence on roerties like the flow is highly relevant. One of the most natural questions is When does a bottleneck lead to a traffic jam? Does any bottleneck immediately lead to jam formation or is there a minimal bottleneck strength required? Intuitively one would say that even a small bottleneck Andreas Schadschneider Johannes Schmidt Vladislav Pokov Universität zu Köln, Institut für Theoretische Physik, Köln, Germany, as@th.uni-koeln.de,schmidt@th.uni-koeln.de,vladiokov@gmail.com

2 2 Andreas Schadschneider, Johannes Schmidt and Vladislav Pokov strength leads to macroscroically observable effects, like a reduction of the maximal current or jams. However, other scenarios have been considered as well and have even been art of legal guidelines. One rime examle in edestrian dynamics is the deendence of the current on the width of a corridor [, 2]. Originally it was believed that the current increases stewise, i.e. non-continuously, with increasing bottleneck width. This increase was assumed to haen when the corridor width allows an additional lane of edestrians to be formed (Fig. ). Taking the corridor width as measure for the bottleneck strength (rather its inverse) this imlies that an increasing bottleneck strength not necessarily leads to smaller current values or jam formation. In the meantime we know that this scenario is not correct and the current increases linearly with the width []. However it is still ossible that there are situations where lane formation is relevant and this scenario is more adequate, e.g. in colloidal systems [3]. In the following we will take a theoretical hysics oint of view by considering a minimal model for bottlenecks. Exerience shows that the results cature the generic nature of bottleneck transitions. 2 Bottlenecks in the ASEP The Asymmetric Simle Exclusion Process (ASEP) is a aradigmatic model of of nonequilibrium hysics (for reviews, see e.g. [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]) and arguably the simlest model that catures essential features of traffic systems, i.e. directed motion, volume exclusion and stochastic dynamics. It describes interacting (biased) random walks on a discrete lattice of N sites, where an exclusion rule forbids occuation of a site by more than one article. A article at site j moves to site j+ with rate if site j+ is not occuied by another article (Fig. 2). In the following we will mainly use a random-sequential udate. If sites are udated synchronously (arallel udate) the model is the v max = limit of the Nagel-Schreckenberg model [8, 9]. Many exact results are known for the homogeneous case of the ASEP, e.g. the fundamental diagram and the hase diagram in case of oen boundary conditions [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Fig. Three corridors of different widths w j. The bottleneck strength is inversely roortional to w j. Lane formation leads to a noncontinuous deendence of the current on the bottleneck strength. w w 2 w 3 bottleneck strength

3 When is a bottleneck a bottleneck? 3 8 r r Fig. 2 ASEP with a defect (slow bond) where the hoing robability is r<. r= corresonds to the homogeneous case. Left: Periodic boundary conditions with N = 8 sites, the slow bond is between sites 8 and. Right: Oen boundary conditions with N = 6 sites, the slow bond is between sites 8 and 9. β J max Fig. 3 Fundamental diagram of the ASEP with a defect r (circles). The full line is the fundamental diagram of the homogeneous system without defect. The current J(r) is indeendent of the global density ρ for ρ < ρ < ρ 2. The lateau value J lat in this region is smaller than the maximal flow J max in the homogeneous system. J lat J 0 ρ 0.5 ρ 2 ρ A simle but generic model for a bottleneck is obtained by relacing one of the hoing robabilities by a defect, or slow bond, with hoing robability r < (Fig. 2). Many roerties of this defect system have been obtained in a seminal aer by Janowsky and Lebowitz [0]. They have shown that the shae of the fundamental diagram can be understood by a simle mean-field theory. In the stationary state the current can be obtained by matching the current J hom in the homogeneous system with the current J def at the defect. Neglecting correlations at the defect site one finds that the defect has no influence on the system for low densities ρ < ρ and large densities ρ > ρ 2. The density remains uniform throughout the whole system and the current is identical to that of the homogeneous system (Fig. 3). For densities ρ < ρ < ρ 2, on the other hand, the fundamental diagram exhibits a lateau where the current is indeendent of the density (Fig. 3). The lateau value J lat corresonds to the maximal current that is suorted by the defect. In this density regime the stationary state is no longer characterized by a uniform density. Instead hase searation into a high and a low density region is observed. The high For the ASEP, due to article-hole symmetry, ρ = ρ 2.

4 4 Andreas Schadschneider, Johannes Schmidt and Vladislav Pokov density region corresonds to a jam that is formed at the defect osition (Fig. 4). For eriodic boundary conditions the length of jam shows characteristic fluctuations (Fig. 4, left) [0]. sace sace time time defect defect Fig. 4 Phase searation in the lateau regime. Left: Periodic boundary conditions. Right: Oen boundary conditions. For the ASEP with eriodic boundary conditions, random-sequential udate and a defect r mean-field theory makes quantitative redictions for the hase searated regime [0]. The value of the current in the lateau region is given by J lat = r (+r) 2 () and the densities in the low and high density region by ρ l = r +r. and ρ h = +r (2) The critical densities ρ, ρ 2 which determine the lateau regime ρ < ρ < ρ 2 are simly ρ = ρ l and ρ 2 = ρ h. (3) The mean-field results are suorted by systematic series exansions []. Fig. 5 shows the resulting hase diagram. For any defect r < only currents u to the lateau value J lat can be realized in the system which then hase searates into a high density region inned at the defect and a low density regime. For currents J< J lat the density is uniform. The imortant oint is that J lat < J max for any r< where J max is the maximal current in the homogeneous system. In other words: any bottleneck leads to a reduction of the current and a hase searated state (at intermediate densities).

5 When is a bottleneck a bottleneck? 5 J max Fig. 5 Phase diagram of the ASEP with defect according to [0]. The full line shows the current at the lateau as function of the defect hoing rate r. Any r < leads to a reduction of the maximal current comared to that of the homogeneous system J max. In the hase of uniform density the defect has only local effects. J forbidden lateau uniform density r 3 What is the critical bottleneck strength? Mean-field theory redicts that any bottleneck r < leads to the formation of a lateau in the fundamental diagram and the associated hase-searated state [0]. Defining the bottleneck strength by = r (4) this imlies that the critical bottleneck strength( ) c at which the defect has global influence on the system (e.g. its current or the density) is redicted to be ( ) c = 0, i.e. r c =. (5) As mentioned in the Introduction this is what is intuitively exected. Therefore it came as quite a surrise when it was claimed [2], based on extensive comuter simulations, that r c 0.8, i.e. ( ) (Ha) c 0.2. (6) The corresonding hase diagram is shown in Fig. 6. In contrast to Fig. 5, for defects r> r c all currents u to J max can be realized and there is no hase searation at any density for weak defects! In this case the bottleneck has only local effects which can be observed near the defect, but not in the whole system. Due to this aarent contradiction with exectations we have revisited the ASEP defect roblem in [3] based on highly accurate Monte Carlo simulations. Similar to [2] we have simulated the ASEP with oen boundary conditions, randomsequential dynamics (with =) and a defect in the middle of the system (Fig. 2). However, choosing α = β = 2 as in [2], corresonds exactly to the hase boundary of the high, low and maximal current hase [5, 6, 8]. Fluctuations in finite-size systems will systematically underestimate the defect current J(r) [3]. We have

6 uniform density 6 Andreas Schadschneider, Johannes Schmidt and Vladislav Pokov J max forbidden lateau J uniform density Fig. 6 Phase diagram of ASEP with defect according to [2]. Defects with r c < r have no influence on the current J. r r c therefore choosen α = β = well inside the maximal current hase which allows to obtain a much better statistics. To determine rather subtle bottleneck effects, very good statistics and advanced Monte Carlo techniques are required. To minimizes errors induced by seudorandom number generators we have used the Mersenne Twister [3]. Measurements of bottleneck effects for small defect strengths are easily hidden by fluctuations. Instead of using indeendent measurements for each defect strength r the systems are evolved in arallel, i.e. with the same rotocol and the same set of random numbers, which leads to a strong suression of fluctuations [3]. In order to minimize finite-size corrections, system lengths of u to N = were considered (Fig. 7) which is two orders of magnitude larger than the systems considered in [2]. x N=4.00 N=0.000 N= j FS ( r ) Fig. 7 Finite-size corrections to the current. The exactly known current in the infinite homogeneous system is J(N =,r=)=/ r

7 When is a bottleneck a bottleneck? 7 To estimate the global effects of the defect we first considered the finite-size current J(N,r) through a system of length N and with a defect r. Due to the fact that finite size corrections lead to an enhanced current, i.e. J(r,N) > J(r,N = ), one finds a lower bound for the critical hoing rate by satisfying J(N,r c ) J(N =,r= ) < 0. However, in this way we only could derive a lower bound r c 0.86 for the critical hoing rate (Fig. 7). Assuming the existence of an essential singularity at r c =, i.e. j() j(r) ex( a/( r)) [], further imrovement of the lower bound for the critical defect r c by increasing the system length is a hoeless enterrise: e.g. a numerical roof of r c > 0.9, r c > 0.95, r c > 0.99 would require N > 0 0, N > 0 22, N > 0 47, resectively. A much better quantity to determine the global influence of the defect (see e.g. Fig. 4, right) is the density rofile or rather the difference between the density rofile of the defect system with a corresonding homogeneous system (Fig. 8). Using the aroach of arallel evolving systems we could clearly show a nonlocal influence on the density rofile for defect strengths u to r= 0.99 (Fig. 8). This strongly suorts the mean-field rediction r c =. Fig. 8 Arbitrary defects r have a non-local effect on the density rofile. The figure shows the difference between the density rofile ρ r (x) with and that without defect ρ r= (x) where x= j/n is the rescaled osition. ρ r (x) ρ r = (x) 0 2 x 0 4 r=0.99 r=0.98 r=0.97 r=0.96 r= x x Discussion and relevance for emirical results Desite its relevance for alications some fundamental asects of bottlenecks are not fully understood. Even for a minimal model like the ASEP with a defect the influence of weak bottlenecks is rather subtle and can be easily lost in fluctuations. We have shown how to reconcile comuter simulations with the intuition that even small defects have a global influence on the system. These effects are not easily seen in a reduction of the current which resumably shows a non-analytic

8 8 Andreas Schadschneider, Johannes Schmidt and Vladislav Pokov deendence on the bottleneck strength. Bottlenecks are better identified by their effects on the density rofile which sreads throughout the whole system.. Based on a careful statistical analysis of Monte Carlo simulations we have found strong evidence that an arbitrarily weak defect 0 in the ASEP has a global influence on the system. Meanwhile a mathematical roof of ( ) c = 0 has been announced in [4]. These results are believed to be generic for bottleneck systems. As a consequence the identification of weak bottlenecks in noisy emirical data is extremely difficult. Even for comuter simulations very good statistics is required. Since the effect on the current is rather small, the density rofile might be a better indicator for the resence of weak bottlenecks. Acknowledgements We dedicate this contribution to the memory of our friend and colleague Matthias Craesmeyer. Financial suort by the DFG under grant SCHA 636/8- is gratefully acknowdledged. References. Seyfried, A., Passon, O., Steffen, B., Boltes, M., Rurecht, T., Klingsch, W.: New insights into edestrian flow through bottlenecks. Trans. Science 43, 395 (2009) 2. Schadschneider, A., Seyfried, A.: Emirical results for edestrian dynamics and their imlications for modeling. Netw. Heterog. Media 6, 545 (20) 3. Vissers, T., Wysocki, A., Rex, M., Löwen, H., Royall, C., Imhof, P.A., van Blaaderen, A.: Lane formation in driven mixtures of oositely charged colloids. Soft Matter 7, 2352 (20) 4. Liggett, T.M.: Stochastic Interacting Systems: Contact, Voter and Exclusion Processes, Sringer, New York (999) 5. Derrida, B.: An exactly soluble non-equilibrium system: The asymmetric simle exclusion rocess. Phys. Re. 30, 65 (998) 6. Schütz, G.M.: Exactly Solvable Models for Many-Body Systems Far from Equilibrium. in: Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, Vol. 9, C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz Ed., Academic Press, San Diego (200) 7. Blythe, R.A., Evans, M.R.: Nonequilibrium steady states of matrix roduct form: a solver s guide. J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 40, R333 (2007) 8. Schadschneider, A., Chowdhury, D., Nishinari, K.: Stochastic Transort in Comlex Systems: From Molecules to Vehicles, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (200) 9. Nagel, K., Schreckenberg, M.: A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic. J. Phys. I (France) 2, 222 (992) 0. Janowsky, S.A., Lebowitz, J.L.: Finite-size effects and shock fluctuations in the asymmetric simle-exclusion rocess. Phys. Rev. A 45, 68 (992). Costin, O., Lebowitz, J.L., Seer, E.R., Troiani, A.: The blockage roblem. Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sin. 8, 49 (203) 2. Ha, M., Timonen, J., den Nijs, M.: Queuing transitions in the asymmetric simle exclusion rocess. Phys. Rev. E 58, (2003) 3. Schmidt, J., Pokov, V., Schadschneider, A.: Defect-induced hase transition in the asymmetric simle exclusion rocess. EPL 0, (205) 4. Basu, R., Sidoravicius, V., Sly, A.: Last assage ercolation with a defect line and the solution of the slow bond roblem. arxiv: