Pair contact process with diffusion: Failure of master equation field theory

Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics

Volumn 70, Issue 5 2, 2004, Pages

  Janssen, Hans Karl ^a   Van Wijland, Frédéric ^b   Deloubrière, Olivier ^c   Täuber, Uwe C ^c  

^a HEINRICH HEINE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS SUD   (France)

^c VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORRELATION METHODS; DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS; DIFFUSION; ELECTRIC CONTACTS; ELECTRIC FIELDS; FUNCTIONS; RANDOM PROCESSES; THERMODYNAMICS;

CONTACT PROCESSES (CP); DIRECTED PERCOLATIONS (DP); PAIR CONTACT PROCESS WITH DIFFUSION (PCPD); RENORMALIZATION GROUP (RG) FLOW EQUATION;

PHASE TRANSITIONS;

EID: 41349090791     PISSN: 15393755     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.70.056114     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. See, e.g., J. Marro and R. Dickman, Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996); B. Chopard and M. Droz, Cellular Automaton Modeling of Physical Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998).
2. See, e.g., J. Marro and R. Dickman, Nonequilibrium Phase Transitions in Lattice Models (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996); B. Chopard and M. Droz, Cellular Automaton Modeling of Physical Systems (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1998).
3. H. Hinrichsen, Adv. Phys. 49, 815 (2000); G. Odor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 663 (2004).
4. H. Hinrichsen, Adv. Phys. 49, 815 (2000); G. Odor, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 663 (2004).
5. H.K. Janssen, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 42, 151 (1981).
6. P. Grassberger, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 47, 365 (1982).
7. J. Cardy and U. C. Täuber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4780 (1996); J. Stat. Phys. 90, 1 (1998).
8. J. Cardy and U. C. Täuber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4780 (1996); J. Stat. Phys. 90, 1 (1998).
9. M. J. Howard and U. C. Täuber, J. Phys. A 30, 7721 (1997).
10. L. Peliti, J. Phys. A 19, L365 (1986); B. P. Lee, ibid. 27, 2633 (1994).
11. L. Peliti, J. Phys. A 19, L365 (1986); B. P. Lee, ibid. 27, 2633 (1994).
12. E. Carlon, M. Henkel, and U. Schollwöck, Phys. Rev. E 63, 036101 (2001).
13. H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. E 63, 036102 (2001); Physica A 320, 249 (2003) ; Eur. Phys. J. B 31, 365 (2003).
14. H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. E 63, 036102 (2001); Physica A 320, 249 (2003) ; Eur. Phys. J. B 31, 365 (2003).
15. H. Hinrichsen, Phys. Rev. E 63, 036102 (2001); Physica A 320, 249 (2003) ; Eur. Phys. J. B 31, 365 (2003).
16. H. Hinrichsen, Physica A 291, 275 (2001).
17. G. Ódor, Phys. Rev. E 62, R3027 (2000); 63, 067104 (2001); 67. 016111 (2003).
18. G. Ódor, Phys. Rev. E 62, R3027 (2000); 63, 067104 (2001); 67. 016111 (2003).
19. G. Ódor, Phys. Rev. E 62, R3027 (2000); 63, 067104 (2001); 67. 016111 (2003).
20. M. Henkel and U. Schollwöck, J. Phys. A 34, 3333 (2001).
21. K. Park, H. Hinrichsen, and I.-M. Kim, Phys. Rev. E 63, 065103(R) (2001).
22. G. Ódor, M. C. Marques, and M. A. Santos, Phys. Rev. E 65, 056113 (2002).
23. K. Park and I.-M. Kim, Phys. Rev. E 66, 027106 (2002).
24. R. Dickman and M. A. F. de Menezes, Phys. Rev. E 66, 045101(R) (2002).
25. J. Kockelkoren and H. Chaté, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 125701 (2003).
26. G. T. Barkema and E. Carlon, Phys. Rev. E 68, 036113 (2003).
27. J. D. Noh and H. Park, Phys. Rev. E 69, 016122 (2004).
28. M. Henkel and H. Hinrichsen, J. Phys. A 37, R117 (2004).
29. M. Doi, J. Phys. A 9, 1465 (1976); 9, 1479 (1976) P. Grassberger and P. Scheunert, Fortschr. Phys. 28, 547 (1980); L. Peliti, J. Phys. (Paris) 46, 1469 (1984).
30. M. Doi, J. Phys. A 9, 1465 (1976); 9, 1479 (1976) P. Grassberger and P. Scheunert, Fortschr. Phys. 28, 547 (1980); L. Peliti, J. Phys. (Paris) 46, 1469 (1984).
31. M. Doi, J. Phys. A 9, 1465 (1976); 9, 1479 (1976) P. Grassberger and P. Scheunert, Fortschr. Phys. 28, 547 (1980); L. Peliti, J. Phys. (Paris) 46, 1469 (1984).
32. M. Doi, J. Phys. A 9, 1465 (1976); 9, 1479 (1976) P. Grassberger and P. Scheunert, Fortschr. Phys. 28, 547 (1980); L. Peliti, J. Phys. (Paris) 46, 1469 (1984).
33. F. van Wijland, Phys. Rev. E 63, 022101 (2001).
34. The equilibrium theory of classical antiferromagnets might provide a useful analogy here: A "naive" continuum limit of the Ising or Heisenberg models directly leads to an action that contains only the local magnetization. In order to describe the physics correctly in terms of an appropriate effective coarsegrained theory, one must first introduce the staggered magnetization as the suitable order parameter, and only then carefully proceed with the continuum limit.
35. K. Park, H. Hinrichsen, and I.-M. Kim, Phys. Rev. E 66, 025101(R) (2002).
36. G. Ódor, Phys. Rev. E 67, 056114 (2003).
37. Implementing the exclusion constraint for the diffusion term as well merely adds irrelevant contributions to the actions (3) and (7).
38. Since we retain all powers of Ø, subsequent computations are equivalently carried out in either the shifted or unshifted actions. We have confirmed this through explicit calculations.
39. F. Wegner, in Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena, edited by C. Domb and M. S. Green (Academic Press, London, 1976), Vol. 6.
40. Remarkably, an identical two-loop result is found for the anomalous dimension of the branching rate in BAWs with m = 2 [5], albeit based on Feynman diagrams with inverted time arrows.
41. J. Cardy (private communication).
42. Indeed, even the nonperturbative exact RG approach leads precisely to the functional RG flow equation (15), and consequently to the fixed-point function (17).
43. J. Kockelkoren and H. Chaté, e-print cond-mat/0306039.