4.6 Article

Number of distinct sites visited by a resetting random walker

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/ac6b69

关键词

stochastic resetting; number of visited sites; stochastic processes; random walks; extreme value statistics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, we investigate the number of distinct sites visited by resetting random walkers on a d-dimensional hypercubic lattice. We find that the recurrence-transience transition observed in standard random walks disappears with resetting, and we compute the crossover scaling function between different regimes in the limit of small resetting probability. Additionally, we derive the full distribution of visited sites in one dimension and introduce a new observable called imbalance to measure symmetry. Our theoretical results are verified through extensive numerical simulations.
We investigate the number V-p (n) of distinct sites visited by an n-step resetting random walker on a d-dimensional hypercubic lattice with resetting probability p. In the case p = 0, we recover the well-known result that the average number of distinct sites grows for large n as < V-0(n)> similar to n (d/2) for d < 2 and as < V-0(n)> similar to n for d > 2. For p > 0, we show that < V (p) (n)> grows extremely slowly as similar to[log(n)](d). We observe that the recurrence-transience transition at d = 2 for standard random walks (without resetting) disappears in the presence of resetting. In the limit p -> 0, we compute the exact crossover scaling function between the two regimes. In the one-dimensional case, we derive analytically the full distribution of V-p (n) in the limit of large n. Moreover, for a one-dimensional random walker, we introduce a new observable, which we call imbalance, that measures how much the visited region is symmetric around the starting position. We analytically compute the full distribution of the imbalance both for p = 0 and for p > 0. Our theoretical results are verified by extensive numerical simulations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据