1: \documentclass[aps,pre,twocolumn,groupedaddress,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{isolatin1}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5: \newcommand{\ud}{\mathrm{d} }
6: \newcommand{\sgn}{\mathrm{sgn} }
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \title{Effects of additive noise on vibrational resonance in a bistable
10: system} \author{J. Casado-Pascual} \email{jcasado@us.es}
11: \affiliation{Universidad de Sevilla, F\'{\i}sica Te\'orica. Apartado de
12: Correos 1065, Sevilla 41080, Spain} \author{J. P. Baltan\'as} \email{
13: baltanas@escet.urjc.es} \affiliation{Departamento de Matem\'aticas y
14: F\'{\i}sica Aplicadas y Ciencias de la
15: Naturaleza, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Tulip\'an s/n, M\'ostoles
16: 28933, Madrid, Spain}
17:
18: \begin{abstract}
19: We study the overdamped motion of a particle in a bistable potential
20: subject to the action of a bichromatic force and additive noise, within
21: the context of the vibrational resonance phenomenon. Under appropriate
22: conditions, we obtain analytical expressions for the relevant
23: observables which quantifies this phenomenon. The theoretical results
24: are compared with those obtained by the numerical solution of the
25: stochastic differential equation which describes the dynamics of the
26: system. The limits of validity of the theoretical approach are also
27: discussed.
28: \end{abstract}
29:
30: \pacs{05.90.+m, 05.40.-a, 05.45.-a}
31:
32: \maketitle
33:
34: \section{Introduction}
35:
36: During the last three decades, a large amount of work has been devoted
37: to the study of nonlinear systems subject to noise and time-dependent
38: forces. In the course of these studies it has become clear that, by
39: contrast to the role played by stochastic forces in linear systems,
40: noise can drastically alter the response of nonlinear dynamical systems
41: to the external forcing under some particular circumstances. A
42: particularly interesting example of the effects of noise within the
43: framework of signal processing by nonlinear systems is Stochastic
44: Resonance (SR), i.e., the amplification of a weak input signal by the
45: concerted actions of noise and the nonlinearity of the system. Although
46: discussed initially within the context of dynamical systems with
47: bistable potentials \cite{Benzi1981_jpa}, the phenomenon of SR has also
48: been found in other dynamical systems
49: \cite{Gammaitoni1998_rmp,Anishchenko1999_pu}, including systems of
50: biological interest (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{Hanggi2002_chphch} and
51: references therein). Many authors have studied the occurrence of SR not
52: only in the processing of harmonic signals but also of aperiodic signals
53: \cite{Collins1995_pre,Collins1996_nature,Chow1998_chaos,Barbay2000_prl},
54: and in the presence of both white and colored noise
55: \cite{Neiman1994_prl,Neiman1996_pla,Nozaki1999_prl}. Furthermore,
56: similar effects have been also found when a chaotic signal is used
57: instead of noise \cite{Sinha1999_physa}.
58:
59: The paradigmatic model in the study of SR is the overdamped motion of a
60: particle in a symmetric double well potential driven by a periodic
61: signal and noise. Its dynamics is described by the stochastic
62: differential equation (SDE)
63: \begin{equation}
64: \label{lang_sr}
65: \dot{x}(t)=-U^{\prime}[x(t)]+F(t)+\xi(t),
66: \end{equation}
67: where $U'(x)$ is the derivative with respect to $x$ of the symmetric
68: double well potential $U(x)$, $F(t)$ represents the periodic forcing,
69: and $\xi(t)$ is a zero average Gaussian white noise with autocorrelation
70: function $\langle\xi(t)\xi(s)\rangle=2D\delta (t-s)$. SR in this model
71: can be understood in terms of the synchronization of two time scales:
72: the Kramers time, characterizing the noise induced interwell
73: transitions, and the time scale associated to the external driving.
74: Roughly speaking, when Kramers' time matches half the period of the
75: external driving for a given noise strength $D$, the amplification of
76: the weak signal $F(t)$ is optimal.
77:
78: Recently, an analogous phenomenon named vibrational resonance (VR) has
79: been shown to occur when the noise is replaced by a high-frequency
80: periodic force of varying amplitude. Originally described by Landa and
81: McClintock \cite{Landa2000_jpa}, its study has been also addressed by
82: other authors and, from different points of view, in excitable
83: \cite{Ullner2003_pla}, spatially extended \cite{Zaikin2002_pre}, and
84: bistable systems \cite{Blekhman2004_ijnm,Baltanas2003_pre}. In
85: Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}, a brief numerical study of the effects of
86: additive noise on VR has been presented, but a more detailed
87: investigation of this topic is still lacking. In this paper, we
88: undertake an analytical study of the problem that will provide explicit
89: expressions for the relevant observables. Our analytical results are
90: compared with numerical simulations performed on the model described in
91: Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}.
92:
93: \section{Description of the model and characterization of VR}
94:
95: \label{desc-mod}
96:
97: We consider a system described by the SDE (\ref{lang_sr}), with $U(x)$
98: being the symmetric quartic potential in dimensionless form
99: \begin{equation}
100: \label{orig_pot}
101: U(x)=\frac{x^{4}}{4}-\frac{x^{2}}{2},
102: \end{equation}
103: and $F(t)$ the bichromatic force
104: \begin{equation}
105: \label{bic_force}
106: F(t)=A \cos(\Omega \,t)+ N \,\Omega \, r \cos(N \,\Omega \,t+\varphi).
107: \end{equation}
108: Here, for reasons that will become clear in the next section, we have
109: introduced in the second monochromatic force an arbitrary initial
110: dephasing, $\varphi$. The parameter $N$ is chosen to be a positive
111: integer, so that $F(t)$ is periodic with the same period $T=2
112: \pi/\Omega$ as the first monochromatic force. By $r$ we have denoted the
113: ratio of the amplitude of the second force to its frequency. This ratio
114: $r$ is assumed to be of the same order as the parameters characterizing
115: the potential $U(x)$. We are interested in situations in which the
116: parameters $N \,\Omega \,r $ and $N\,\Omega$ appearing in the second
117: monochromatic force are much larger than the rest of the parameters in
118: the problem. In this sense, we will say that $N \,\Omega \, r
119: \cos(N\,\Omega \,t +\varphi)$ is a strong, high-frequency monochromatic
120: force. This situation can be formally achieved by taking the limit
121: $N\rightarrow \infty$, with the ratio $r$ kept fixed.
122:
123: The corresponding Fokker-Planck equation (FPE) for the probability
124: density $P(x,t)$ reads
125: \begin{equation}
126: \label{FPE1}
127: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}P(x,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\Bigg[D
128: \frac{\partial}{\partial x}+ U'(x)-F(t)\Bigg] P(x,t).
129: \end{equation}
130: The analysis of this equation is simplified by making use of two
131: important theorems: the H-theorem, which ensures the existence of a
132: unique long time distribution function $P_{\infty}(x,t)$
133: \cite{Lebowitz,Risken}, and the Floquet theorem, which guarantees that
134: $P_{\infty}(x,t)$ is periodic in time with the same period, $T$, as the
135: external force \cite{Jung-Hanggi1}. Henceforth, we will assume that the
136: relaxation transient stage has ended and, consequently, the long time
137: distribution, $P_{\infty}(x,t)$, has been reached.
138:
139: The first moment of the probability distribution can be used to
140: characterize the system response to the external driving. As a
141: consequence of the above mentioned theorems, its long time limit,
142: $\langle x(t) \rangle_{\infty}$, is a periodic function of time with
143: period $T$ and, therefore, it can be expanded in Fourier series as
144: follows
145: \begin{eqnarray}
146: \label{Fourierseries}
147: \langle x(t)\rangle_{\infty}&=&\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} X_{n}\,
148: e^{i \,n \,\Omega \,t}\nonumber \\ &=&
149: X_0+2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}|X_{n}| \cos\left(n \,\Omega\,
150: t-\phi_{n}\right),
151: \end{eqnarray}
152: where
153: \begin{equation}
154: \label{Fouriercoeff}
155: X_{n}=\frac{1}{T} \int_{0}^{T} \ud t\,\langle x(t)\rangle_{\infty}\,
156: e^{-i\, n \,\Omega \,t},
157: \end{equation}
158: and the phases $\phi_{n}$ have been chosen so that
159: \begin{eqnarray}
160: \label{phases}
161: \cos \phi_{n}&=&\mathrm{Re}\left(\frac{ X_{n}}{| X_{n}|}\right), \\ \sin
162: \phi_{n} &=&-\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{ X_{n}}{|X_{n}|}\right).
163: \end{eqnarray}
164:
165: The observable that has been usually considered to quantify the VR
166: phenomenon is the parameter
167: \begin{equation}
168: \label{response}
169: Q=2\frac{|X_1|}{A}.
170: \end{equation}
171: This parameter represents the ratio of the amplitude associated to the
172: first harmonic to $A$, and it is directly related to the spectral
173: amplification $\eta$ through the expression $Q=\sqrt{\eta}$ (see
174: Ref.~\cite{Gammaitoni1998_rmp}). Notice that the above definition of the
175: parameter $Q$ differs by a factor $2$ from the definition used in the
176: theoretical approach in Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}, and by a factor
177: $A^{-1}$ from the one used in the numerical results appearing in the
178: same reference. In the deterministic case, $D=0$, it has been shown that
179: $Q$ goes through a maximum as the intensity of the high-frequency force
180: is increased. This maximum is approximately localized around the value
181: $r=\sqrt{2/3}$ of the ratio of the amplitude of the second force to its
182: frequency \cite{Blekhman2004_ijnm,Baltanas2003_pre}. This behavior
183: resembles that of SR, with the noise strength $D$ playing the role of
184: the intensity of the high-frequency force.
185:
186: When white noise is added, the situation is different. More precisely,
187: the two main effects of increasing the value of the noise strength $D$
188: are that the value at the maximum of the resonance curve decreases and,
189: at the same time, its location is shifted towards lower values of the
190: high-frequency amplitude. Even more, for large enough values of $D$, the
191: VR phenomenon completely disappears \cite{Baltanas2003_pre}. These
192: effects can be qualitatively understood as a consequence of the fact
193: that the white noise provides an input to the system with contributions
194: to all the frequencies. On the one hand, the fraction corresponding to
195: the high-frequency region advances the appearance of the maximum. On the
196: other hand, the remaining contribution masks the high-frequency force,
197: decreasing its relative importance \cite{Baltanas2003_pre}. To shed some
198: more light on this question, an extension of the theoretical approach
199: put forward in Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre} to the case in which white
200: noise is present would be desirable. This is the main aim of the next
201: section.
202:
203:
204: \section{Theoretical approach}
205:
206: In this section, we will obtain analytical expressions for the parameter
207: $Q$ based on three approximations of different nature. The first two
208: ones are simply generalizations to the noisy problem of those carried
209: out in the theoretical approach developed in the absence of noise
210: \cite{Baltanas2003_pre}. The third approximation is specific to the
211: noisy problem. For clarity in the exposition, as well as in the
212: discussion of their validity conditions, we will present them
213: separately.
214:
215:
216: \subsection{Derivation of the effective dynamics}
217: \label{EffDyn}
218: As a consequence of Eqs.~(\ref{bic_force}) and (\ref{FPE1}), the time
219: derivative of the probability density $P(x,t)$ diverges as $N$ in the
220: limit $N\rightarrow \infty$. To avoid this divergence, it is convenient
221: to extract the {\it fast} dependence from $x(t)$, and define the new
222: stochastic process
223: \begin{equation}
224: \label{slow_var}
225: y(t)=x(t)-r \sin\left(N\,\Omega \,t+\varphi\right).
226: \end{equation}
227: The Fourier components of $\langle x(t) \rangle_{\infty}$
228: and $\langle y(t) \rangle_{\infty}$ are related according to
229: \begin{equation}
230: \label{relFoucoeff}
231: Y_n=X_n+\frac{i r}{2}\left(e^{i \varphi} \delta_{n,N}- e^{-i \varphi}
232: \delta_{n,-N}\right),
233: \end{equation}
234: where $Y_n$ is defined from Eq.~(\ref{Fouriercoeff}), by replacing
235: $\langle x(t) \rangle_{\infty}$ by $\langle y(t)
236: \rangle_{\infty}$. Therefore, as $N\neq\pm 1$, we can substitute the
237: coefficient $X_1$ by $Y_1$ in the definition of the parameter $Q$ [see
238: Eq.~(\ref{response})].
239:
240: The advantage of using the process $y(t)$ instead of $x(t)$ becomes
241: clear after writing the FPE for its probability density, which reads
242: \begin{eqnarray}
243: \label{FPE2}
244: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\mathcal P}(y,t,\varphi)&=&
245: \frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Bigg[D \frac{\partial}{\partial y}+
246: {\mathcal U}'\left(y,t,\varphi\right) \nonumber \\ &-&A \cos(\Omega\,
247: t)\Bigg]{\mathcal P}(y,t,\varphi).
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: Here, we have introduced the new potential ${\mathcal
250: U}(y,t,\varphi):=U[y+r \sin(N\,\Omega\,t+\varphi)]$, and the dependence
251: of the functions on the phase $\varphi$ has been written
252: explicitely. From Eq.~(\ref{FPE2}) and the definition of ${\mathcal
253: U}(y,t,\varphi)$ it follows that the time derivative of ${\mathcal
254: P}(y,t,\varphi)$ is at most of order $1$ as $N\rightarrow
255: \infty$. Therefore, a large number of oscillations of the function $r
256: \sin(N\,\Omega\,t+\varphi)$ appearing in the definition of ${\mathcal
257: U}(y,t,\varphi)$ take place before a significant change in ${\mathcal
258: P}(y,t,\varphi)$ occurs. As a consequence, it is to be expected that,
259: for $N\gg 1$, ${\mathcal P}(y,t,\varphi)$ is almost independent of the
260: phase $\varphi$. If we define the phase average of an arbitrary
261: function $f(y,t,\varphi)$ as
262: \begin{equation}
263: \label{defvar}
264: \overline{f} (y,t)=\overline{f (y,t,\varphi)}:=\frac{1}{2\pi}
265: \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \ud \varphi \;f(y,t,\varphi),
266: \end{equation}
267: then, for $N \gg 1$ and any value of $\varphi\in [0,2\pi ]$, one can
268: approximate $\mathcal{P}(y,t,\varphi)\approx \overline{{\cal
269: P}}(y,t)$. Furthermore, the decoupling approximation
270: $\overline{f(y,t,\varphi) {\cal P}(y,t,\varphi)}\approx
271: \overline{f}(y,t) \;\overline{{\cal P}}(y,t)$ also holds. Carrying out
272: the phase average in Eq.~(\ref{FPE2}) and using the decoupling
273: approximation, one obtains
274: \begin{equation}
275: \label{FPE3}
276: \frac{\partial}{\partial t}{\overline {\cal
277: P}}(y,t)=\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\Bigg[D \frac{\partial}{\partial y}+
278: U'_{eff}(y)\nonumber -A \cos(\Omega \,t)\Bigg]{\overline {\cal P}}(y,t),
279: \end{equation}
280: where we have introduced the effective potential
281: $U_{eff}(y):=\overline{{\mathcal U}(y,t,\varphi)}$, which is clearly
282: time independent. This averaging procedure has been previously used in
283: the study of thermal activation in bistable systems under the influence
284: of a periodic force with moderate to large frequency \cite{Jung89}. It
285: has also been used in the explanation of the enhancement observed in the
286: tunnel splitting of a quantum bistable system when a very high frequency
287: driving is applied \cite{Grossmann}.
288:
289: It also follows from the above considerations that, for $N\gg 1$,
290: $\langle y(t) \rangle_{\infty}\approx\langle y(t)
291: \rangle_{\infty}^{(eff)} :=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \ud y \, y
292: \,{\overline {\cal P}}_{\infty}(y,t)$, where ${\overline {\cal
293: P}}_{\infty}(y,t)$ is the long time distribution corresponding to the
294: FPE (\ref{FPE3}). In particular, within this approximation, the
295: parameter $Q$ is given by
296: \begin{equation}
297: \label{Qapp1}
298: Q=2\frac{\big|Y_{1}^{(eff)}\big|}{A},
299: \end{equation}
300: where $Y_{1}^{(eff)}$ is obtained from Eq.~(\ref{Fouriercoeff}) with
301: $n=1$, by replacing $\langle x(t) \rangle_{\infty}$ by $\langle y(t)
302: \rangle_{\infty}^{(eff)}$.
303:
304: The explicit calculation of $U_{eff}(y)$ for the potential in
305: Eq.~(\ref{orig_pot}) leads to
306: \begin{equation}
307: \label{U_eff}
308: U_{eff}(y)=\frac{y^{4}}{4}- a(r)\frac{y^{2}}{2},
309: \end{equation}
310: where we have dropped an irrelevant constant and have introduced the
311: quantity $a(r)=1-3 r^2/2$. From this result, it is clear that the
312: stability of this effective potential depends on the ratio $r$. More
313: precisely, if $r<\sqrt{2/3}$ the potential is bistable, whereas if
314: $r\geq\sqrt{2/3}$ it is monostable. Thus, an increase in $r$ leads to a
315: decrease in the effective barrier height and, eventually, to its
316: disappearance.
317:
318: In summary, we have shown that, for $N\gg 1$, the time evolution of the
319: original stochastic process $x(t)$ can be approximately described in
320: terms of the dynamics of a Brownian particle moving in the effective
321: potential $U_{eff}(y)$ and in the presence of noise and the
322: monochromatic force $A\cos(\Omega\,t)$.
323:
324:
325:
326: \subsection{Linear Response Theory}
327:
328: Henceforth, following the approach in Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}, we
329: will assume that the amplitude $A$ is small enough, so that Linear
330: Response Theory (LRT) provides a good description of the effective
331: dynamics obtained in the previous subsection. An extensive study of the
332: validity conditions of LRT can be found in
333: Refs.~\cite{jcasado1,jcasado2,jcasado3}. Within LRT the parameter $Q$ in
334: Eq.~(\ref{Qapp1}) is given by \cite{Gammaitoni1998_rmp}
335: \begin{equation}
336: \label{QLRT}
337: Q=\left|{\widehat\chi}_{eff}(\Omega)\right|,
338: \end{equation}
339: where
340: \begin{equation}
341: \label{FT}
342: {\widehat\chi}_{eff}(\Omega)=\int_{0}^{\infty} \ud t\,\chi_{eff}(t)\,
343: e^{-i\Omega\, t}
344: \end{equation}
345: is the value at $\omega=\Omega$ of the Fourier transform of the
346: response function, $\chi_{eff}(t)$, corresponding to an overdamped
347: Brownian particle moving in the effective potential $U_{eff}(y)$. This
348: response function obeys the well-known Fluctuation-Dissipation Theorem
349: (FDT) \cite{Kubo1,Kubo2,Thomas}
350: \begin{equation}
351: \label{FDT}
352: \chi_{eff}(t)=-\frac{\eta(t)}{D}\frac{\ud}{\ud t}K_{eff}(t),
353: \end{equation}
354: where $\eta(t)$ is the Heaviside step function, and $K_{eff}(t)=\langle
355: y(t) y(0)\rangle_{eq}^{(eff)}$ is the equilibrium autocorrelation
356: function of the effective system described by the FPE (\ref{FPE3}) in
357: the absence of external driving. Thus, the stochastic process $y(t)$
358: appearing in the definition of $K_{eff}(t)$ is a solution of the SDE
359: \begin{equation}
360: \label{SDEy}
361: \dot{y}(t)=-U_{eff}^{\prime}[y(t)]+\xi(t).
362: \end{equation}
363: Use of Eq.~(\ref{FDT}) in Eq.~(\ref{FT}) yields
364: \begin{eqnarray}
365: \label{Rechi}
366: \mathrm{Re}\left[{\widehat\chi}_{eff}(\Omega)\right]
367: &=&-\frac{\Omega}{D}\Bigg[\int_0^{\infty} \ud t \, K_{eff}(t) \sin
368: \left(\Omega\, t \right)\nonumber \\
369: &&-\frac{K_{eff}(0)}{\Omega}\Bigg],\\
370: \label{Imchi}
371: \mathrm{Im}\left[{\widehat \chi}_{eff}(\Omega)\right]
372: &=&-\frac{\Omega}{D} \int_0^{\infty} \ud t \, K_{eff}(t) \cos
373: \left(\Omega\, t \right).
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: These two equations, together with Eq.~(\ref{QLRT}), allow us to express
376: $Q^{(LRT)}$ in terms of the equilibrium autocorrelation function
377: $K_{eff}(t)$.
378:
379: For the nonlinear potential in Eq.~(\ref{U_eff}), explicit expressions
380: for $K_{eff}(t)$ are unknown, so that this correlation function must be
381: evaluated either numerically or by resorting to suitable
382: approximations. Before applying to our problem approximate techniques
383: discussed in the literature, it is convenient to reduce the SDE
384: (\ref{SDEy}) to a more standard form. In order to do so, let us rescale
385: the coordinate and time, and define the new stochastic process
386: $\tilde{y}\big(\tilde{t}\big)=|a(r)|^{-1/2} y\big(|a(r)|^{-1} {\tilde
387: t}\big)$ (for $r\neq\sqrt{2/3}$). Then, from Eq.~(\ref{SDEy}), it is
388: easy to verify that $\tilde{y}\left(\tilde{t}\right)$ fulfills the SDE
389: \begin{equation}
390: \label{SDEytilde0}
391: \dot{{\tilde y}}({\tilde t})=-{\widetilde U}^{\prime}[{\tilde y}({\tilde
392: t})]+{\tilde \xi}({\tilde t}),
393: \end{equation}
394: where we have introduced the rescaled potential
395: \begin{equation}
396: \label{rescaledU}
397: {\widetilde U}\big({\tilde y}\big)=\frac{{\tilde y}^4}{4}
398: +\sgn\big[a(r)\big]\frac{{\tilde y}^2}{2},
399: \end{equation}
400: and the rescaled Gaussian white noise ${\tilde \xi}\big({\tilde t}\big)$
401: with zero average and autocorrelation function $\langle {\tilde
402: \xi}\big({\tilde t}\big){\tilde \xi}\big({\tilde
403: t^{\prime}}\big)\rangle=2\, |a(r)|^{-2}\, D \,\delta\big({\tilde
404: t}-{\tilde t}^{\prime}\big)$. From these considerations, it is
405: straightforward to prove that the equilibrium autocorrelation function
406: of the original process, $K_{eff}(t,D)$, and that of the rescaled one,
407: ${\widetilde K}({\tilde t},{\widetilde D})$, are related by
408: \begin{equation}
409: \label{krelation}
410: K_{eff}(t,D)=|a(r)| {\widetilde K}\left(|a(r)| t,\frac{D}{|a(r)|^{2}}
411: \right).
412: \end{equation}
413: Analogously, Eqs.~(\ref{Rechi}), (\ref{Imchi}) and (\ref{krelation})
414: lead to the following relation between the Fourier transform of the
415: response function of the original process, $\big|{\widehat
416: \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\big|$, and that of the rescaled one,
417: $\big|{\widehat{\widetilde \chi}}({\widetilde \Omega},{\widetilde
418: D})\big|$,
419: \begin{equation}
420: \label{chirelation}
421: \left|{\widehat \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\right|=\frac{1}{|a(r)|}
422: \left|\widehat{{\widetilde
423: \chi}}\left(\frac{\Omega}{|a(r)|},\frac{D}{|a(r)|^{2}} \right)\right|.
424: \end{equation}
425:
426: \subsection{Weak Noise Approximation}
427: \label{WNA}
428: The expressions (\ref{krelation}) and (\ref{chirelation}) allow us to
429: evaluate $K_{eff}(t,D)$ and $\big|{\widehat \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\big|$
430: from the rescaled functions ${\widetilde K}\big({\tilde t},{\widetilde
431: D}\big)$ and $\big|\widehat{{\widetilde \chi}}\big({\widetilde
432: \Omega},{\widetilde D}\big)\big|$. The asymptotic behaviors of these
433: rescaled functions for small values of the noise strength ${\widetilde
434: D}$ have been widely studied in the literature. To summarize the
435: results, we will consider separately two cases.
436:
437: Firstly, if $r<\sqrt{2/3}$, then ${\widetilde U}({\tilde y})={\tilde
438: y}^4/4-{\tilde y}^2/2$ is the archetypal symmetric quartic double-well
439: potential expressed in dimensionless form. For this bistable potential,
440: we can use the two-mode approximation \cite{Jung-Hanggi2}. This
441: approximation is based on the existence of a clear-cut separation
442: between the time scales associated to inter-well and intra-well motions,
443: and it is expected to be valid for small values of the noise strength
444: ${\widetilde D}$. Within this approximation, ${\widetilde K}\big({\tilde
445: t},{\widetilde D}\big)$ and $\big|\widehat{{\widetilde
446: \chi}}\big({\widetilde \Omega},{\widetilde D}\big)\big|$ are given by
447: \begin{equation}
448: \label{ACF1}
449: {\widetilde K}\big({\tilde t},{\widetilde D}\big)=g_1\big({\widetilde
450: D}\big) \exp\big[- \lambda_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)\,{\tilde
451: t}\big]+g_2\big({\widetilde D}\big) \exp\big[-\alpha \,{\tilde t}\big],
452: \end{equation}
453: and
454: \begin{eqnarray}
455: \label{chi1}
456: \big|\widehat{{\widetilde \chi}}\big({\widetilde \Omega},{\widetilde
457: D}\big)\big|\!\!&=&\!\!\frac{1}{{\widetilde D}}\Bigg\{\frac{2 \alpha
458: g_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)g_2\big({\widetilde D}\big)
459: \lambda_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)\big[\alpha \lambda_1\big({\widetilde
460: D}\big)+{\widetilde \Omega}^2 \big] }{\big[\lambda_1^{2}\big({\widetilde
461: D}\big)+{\widetilde \Omega}^2\big]\big(\alpha^2+{\widetilde
462: \Omega}^2\big)} \nonumber\\ &&\!\!+\frac{g_1^{2}\big({\widetilde
463: D}\big)\lambda_1^{2}\big({\widetilde
464: D}\big)}{\lambda_1^{2}\big({\widetilde D}\big)+{\widetilde \Omega}^2}
465: +\frac{g_2^{2}\big({\widetilde D}\big)\alpha^2}{\alpha^2+{\widetilde
466: \Omega}^2}\Bigg\}^{1/2}.
467: \end{eqnarray}
468: In the above expressions, the parameter $\alpha={\widetilde U}^{\prime
469: \prime}\big(\pm 1\big)=2$ is the curvature at the minima of the
470: potential ${\widetilde U}\big({\tilde y}\big)$, and
471: $\lambda_1({\widetilde D})$ is the the smallest non-vanishing eigenvalue
472: of the Fokker-Planck operator corresponding to the SDE
473: (\ref{SDEytilde0}). In the steepest-descent approximation, this
474: eigenvalue is given to leading order in ${\widetilde D}$ by
475: \begin{equation}
476: \label{lamb1}
477: \lambda_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)\approx\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi}
478: \exp\left(-\frac{1}{4{\widetilde D}} \right).
479: \end{equation}
480: The weights $g_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)$ and $g_2\big({\widetilde
481: D}\big)$ read
482: \begin{equation}
483: \label{g2}
484: g_2\big({\widetilde D}\big)=\frac{\big[\lambda_1\big({\widetilde
485: D}\big)+1\big] m_2\big({\widetilde D}\big)-m_4\big({\widetilde
486: D}\big)}{\lambda_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)-\alpha},
487: \end{equation}
488: \begin{equation}
489: \label{g1}
490: g_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)=m_2\big({\widetilde
491: D}\big)-g_2\big({\widetilde D}\big),
492: \end{equation}
493: where
494: \begin{eqnarray}
495: \label{moments}
496: m_{2 n}\big({\widetilde D}\big)&=&\frac{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \ud
497: {\tilde y}\, {\tilde y}^{2 n}\,e^{-{\widetilde U}\big({\tilde
498: y}\big)/\widetilde D}}{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \ud {\tilde y}\,
499: e^{-{\widetilde U}\big({\tilde y}\big)/{\widetilde D}}}\nonumber \\
500: &=&\big(2{\widetilde D}\big)^{n/2} \,\frac{\Gamma(n+1/2)
501: D_{-n-1/2}\big[-\big(2{\widetilde D} \big)^{1/2}\big]}{\Gamma(1/2)
502: D_{-1/2}\big[-\big(2{\widetilde D} \big)^{1/2}\big]}\nonumber \\
503: \end{eqnarray}
504: are the nonvanishing moments of the equilibrium distribution. Using the
505: asymptotic expansion of the parabolic cylinder functions for small
506: values of ${\widetilde D}$, these weights can be approximated by
507: $g_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)\approx 1-\left(\alpha+1\right){\widetilde
508: D}/\alpha$ and $g_2\big({\widetilde D}\big)\approx {\widetilde
509: D}/\alpha$ to first order in ${\widetilde D}$.
510:
511: Secondly, if $r>\sqrt{2/3}$, then ${\widetilde U}({\tilde y})={\tilde
512: y}^4/4+{\tilde y}^2/2$ is a monostable potential. In this case, for
513: small values of ${\widetilde D}$, the autocorrelation function
514: ${\widetilde K}\big({\tilde t},{\widetilde D}\big)$ is given by
515: \cite{Gardiner}
516: \begin{equation}
517: \label{ACF2}
518: {\widetilde K}\big({\tilde t},{\widetilde D}\big)={\widetilde D} \,\exp
519: \big[-\big|\Lambda_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)\big|\,{\tilde t} \big],
520: \end{equation}
521: with
522: \begin{equation}
523: \label{lamb1new}
524: \Lambda_1\big({\widetilde D}\big)=-2+\big(1-6 {\widetilde D}\big)^{1/2}.
525: \end{equation}
526: Consequently, the Fourier transform of the response function reads
527: \begin{equation}
528: \label{chi2}
529: \big|\widehat{{\widetilde \chi}}\big({\widetilde \Omega},{\widetilde
530: D}\big)\big|=\frac{\big| \Lambda_1\big({\widetilde
531: D}\big)\big|}{\big[\Lambda_1^2\big({\widetilde D}\big)+{\widetilde
532: \Omega}^2\big]^{1/2}}.
533: \end{equation}
534: To evaluate $K_{eff}(t,D)$ and $\big|{\widehat
535: \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\big|$ one simply introduces either the expressions
536: (\ref{ACF1}) and (\ref{chi1}) or (\ref{ACF2}) and (\ref{chi2}) into
537: Eqs.~(\ref{krelation}) and (\ref{chirelation}). Finally, within this
538: approximation, the parameter $Q$ will be evaluated by replacing in
539: Eq.~(\ref{QLRT}) the result obtained for $\big|{\widehat
540: \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\big|$. It is important to emphasize that the
541: approximate expressions (\ref{ACF1}), (\ref{chi1}), (\ref{ACF2}) and
542: (\ref{chi2}) have been obtained under the assumption that ${\widetilde
543: D}$ is a small parameter. Therefore, the resulting expressions for
544: $K_{eff}(t,D)$, $\big|{\widehat \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\big|$ and $Q$ are
545: expected to be valid only for small values of $D\,|a(r)|^{-2}$. Taking
546: into account that, for $D\neq 0$, the parameter $D\,|a(r)|^{-2}$
547: diverges at $r= \sqrt{2/3}$, then it is clear that, even for $D\ll
548: 1$, there exists a region around $r= \sqrt{2/3}$ in which the resulting
549: expressions for $K_{eff}(t,D)$, $\big|{\widehat
550: \chi}_{eff}(\Omega,D)\big|$ and $Q$ are not applicable. In particular,
551: the expression for $Q$ is expected to provide a successful explanation
552: of the VR phenomenon whenever its maximum takes place at a value of $r$
553: outside the above mentioned region.
554:
555: From the above considerations, it is also possible to obtain an
556: expression for the location of the maximum characterizing the VR
557: phenomenon in the presence of white noise. According to the numerical
558: results put forward in Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}, this maximum is
559: located at a value $r_M$ such that $r_M<\sqrt{2/3}$. Then, to evaluate
560: the parameter $Q$ in the neighborhood of $r_M$, one has to consider
561: Eq.~(\ref{chi1}) and follow the procedure described in the above
562: paragraph. As the expression thus obtained is rather cumbersome, it is
563: convenient to introduce a further approximation. More precisely, we will
564: assume that, around $r_M$, the contribution due to the intrawell motion
565: is negligible, so that just the second term in Eq.~(\ref{chi1}) with
566: $g_1({\widetilde D})=1$ is present. Therefore, the parameter $Q$ as a
567: function of $r$ obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{QLRT}) and (\ref{chirelation})
568: is given by
569: \begin{equation}
570: \label{withointrwell}
571: Q(r)=\frac{a(r)}{D}
572: \frac{\lambda_1\left[D/a^{2}(r)\right]}{\left\{\lambda_1^2
573: \left[D/a^{2}(r)\right]+\left[\Omega/a(r)\right]^2
574: \right\}^{1/2}},
575: \end{equation}
576: for $r<\sqrt{2/3}$. The location of the maximum, $r_M$, is
577: readily determined from the equation $Q^{\prime}(r_M)=0$, where
578: $Q^{\prime}(r)$ represents the derivative of $Q(r)$ with respect to
579: $r$. Consequently, from Eq.~(\ref{withointrwell}) it follows that $r_M$
580: obeys the transcendental equation
581: \begin{equation}
582: \label{transceq}
583: \lambda_1^2\left[\frac{D}{a^2(r_M)}\right]=2 \left[\frac{\Omega}{a(r_M)}
584: \right]^2 \left[\frac{a^2(r_M)}{4 D}-1\right].
585: \end{equation}
586: After making the replacements $D/a^2(r_M) \rightarrow D$ and
587: $\Omega/a(r_M) \rightarrow \Omega$ in the above equation, the resulting
588: expression resembles, except for a factor of $2$, the transcendental
589: equation obtained within the two-state model to determine the noise
590: intensity that maximizes the spectral amplification (see, e.g.,
591: Ref.~\cite{Gammaitoni1998_rmp} and references therein). The difference
592: in the factor of $2$ is due to the fact that, in that case, only the
593: noise intensity is varied, whereas in our case, by varying $r$, we are
594: simultaneously modifying the frequency and the noise intensity.
595:
596:
597: The transcendental equation (\ref{transceq}) provides an explanation for
598: the numerically observed behavior of the location of the maximum as a
599: function of $D$ (see Sec.~\ref{desc-mod}). For a fixed value of $D$, the
600: function $\lambda_1^2\left[D/a^2(r)\right]$ is a monotonously increasing
601: function of $r$ in the interval $[0,\sqrt{2/3})$. Also, for fixed values
602: of $D$ and $\Omega$, $2 \left[\Omega/a(r) \right]^2 \left[a^2(r)/(4
603: D)-1\right]$ is a monotonously decreasing function of $r$ in the same
604: interval. Thus, the existence of a solution of Eq.~(\ref{transceq}) in
605: the interval $(0,\sqrt{2/3})$ requires the inequality
606: $\lambda_1^2\left[D/a^2(0)\right]=\lambda_1^2\left(D\right)<2
607: \left[\Omega/a(0) \right]^2 \left[a^2(0)/(4
608: D)-1\right]=2\,\Omega^2\left[1/(4 D)-1\right]$. Therefore, the same
609: inequality is required for the existence of VR. If we now keep fixed $r$
610: and $\Omega$ and look at both sides of Eq.~(\ref{transceq}) as a
611: function of $D$, we notice that $2 \left[\Omega/a(r) \right]^2
612: \left[a^2(r)/(4 D)-1\right]$ is a monotonously decreasing function of
613: $D$, whereas $\lambda_1^2\left[D/a^2(r)\right]$ is a monotonously
614: increasing function of $D$. We then conclude that the abscissa at the
615: intersection point between these two functions, $r_M$, is shifted
616: towards the left as $D$ increases. This is exactly the behavior observed
617: numerically in Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}. Obviously, VR disappears
618: for values of $D$ greater than the critical value $D_c$ for which
619: $r_M=0$. This critical value fulfills the transcendental equation
620: \begin{equation}
621: \label{D_c}
622: \lambda_1^2\left(D_c\right)=2 \,\Omega^2 \left[\frac{1}{4 D_c}-1\right].
623: \end{equation}
624:
625:
626: \section{Comparison with the numerical solution}
627: In this section, we compare the results obtained for the parameter $Q$
628: by means of the numerical solution of the SDE (\ref{lang_sr}), with the
629: analytical expressions obtained in the previous section. In order to
630: evaluate numerically the parameter $Q$, a large enough number of
631: stochastic trajectories, $x^{(k)}(t)$, have been generated by
632: integrating the SDE (\ref{lang_sr}) for every realization of the white
633: noise $\xi(t)$, starting from a given initial condition $x_0$. The
634: numerical solution of the SDE (\ref{lang_sr}) has been carried out by
635: using the algorithm put forward in Ref.~\cite{Greenside} (see also the
636: Appendix in Ref.~\cite{jcasado3}). After allowing for a relaxation
637: transient stage, we evaluate the long time average by
638: \begin{equation}
639: \label{numerical}
640: \langle x(t)\rangle_{\infty}=\frac{1}{M} \sum_{k=1}^{M} x^{(k)}(t),
641: \end{equation}
642: where $M$ is the number of stochastic trajectories considered. Then, the
643: parameter $Q$ is obtained from Eqs.~(\ref{response}) and
644: (\ref{Fouriercoeff}), with $n=1$, by numerical quadrature.
645:
646:
647: In Fig.~\ref{comparison}, we depict the dependence of $Q$ {\it vs}. $r$.
648: The following set of parameter values has been considered: $N=50$,
649: $\varphi=0$, $\Omega=3.4\times 10^{-2}$, $A=1.1\times 10^{-2}$,
650: $D=1.34\times 10^{-2}$ in panel (a), $D=6.72 \times10^{-2}$ in panel
651: (b), $D=1.34 \times10^{-1}$ in panel (c), and $D=4.03\times10^{-1}$ in
652: panel (d). They correspond to four representative cases appearing in
653: Fig.~6 in Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}. Notice that the parameter values
654: appearing in that reference must be rescaled in order to reduce the
655: bistable potential used there to the standard dimesionless form in
656: Eq.~(\ref{orig_pot}). With circles we have plotted the results obtained
657: from the numerical solution of the SDE (\ref{lang_sr}) together with
658: Eqs.~(\ref{orig_pot}) and (\ref{bic_force}). With solid lines we have
659: depicted the analytical values of $Q$ provided by Eqs.~(\ref{QLRT}),
660: (\ref{chirelation}) and either Eqs.~(\ref{chi1})-(\ref{moments}), for
661: $r<\sqrt{2/3}$, or Eqs.~(\ref{chi2}) and (\ref{lamb1new}), for
662: $r>\sqrt{2/3}$. The location of the critical value $r=\sqrt{2/3}$ is
663: indicated by the vertical dotted lines. In addition, in panels (a) and
664: (b), we have depicted with vertical dashed lines the locations of the
665: maxima predicted by Eq.~(\ref{transceq}). The critical value of the
666: noise strength at which the VR phenomenon disappears, obtained from
667: Eq.~(\ref{D_c}), is $D_c=1.154\times 10^{-1}$. The noise strength values
668: in panels (c) and (d) are greater than $D_c$, so it is to be expected
669: that the VR phenomenon is not present in these cases, as it is confirmed
670: numerically.
671:
672: A glance to Fig.~1 reveals that the analytical expressions provide a
673: good description of the main features of the VR phenomenon in the
674: presence of white noise, at least if the ratio $r$ is far enough away
675: from the critical value $r=\sqrt{2/3}$. In particular, the analytical
676: results describe correctly the shift of the location of the maximum
677: towards lower values of $r$, as well as the decrease of the value of $Q$
678: at the maximum, as the noise strength increases. It is important to
679: emphasize that, as we mentioned in Sec.~\ref{WNA}, the analytical
680: results are not applicable in a neighborhood of the critical value
681: $r=\sqrt{2/3}$, as a consequence of the divergence of the effective
682: noise strength $D/[a(r)]^2$. The appearance of the vertical asymptote at
683: this critical value makes this failure evident. Notice that, in panel
684: (a), the agreement between the numerical and analytical results around
685: the maximum gets worse. This is due to the proximity of the location of
686: this maximum to the critical value $r=\sqrt{2/3}$.
687:
688: \begin{figure}
689: \begin{center}
690: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics{Fig.eps}}
691: \end{center}
692: \caption{
693: \label{comparison}
694: Dependence of the parameter $Q$ {\it vs}. $r$ corresponding to the noise
695: strength values $D=1.34\times 10^{-2}$ [panel (a)], $D=6.72 \times
696: 10^{-2}$ [panel (b)], $D=1.34 \times 10^{-1}$ [panel (c)], and
697: $D=4.03\times10^{-1}$ [panel (d)]. The rest of the parameter values are:
698: $N=50$, $\varphi=0$, $\Omega=3.4\times 10^{-2}$, $A=1.1\times
699: 10^{-2}$. With circles we have plotted the results obtained from the
700: numerical solution of the SDE (\ref{lang_sr}) together with
701: Eqs.~(\ref{orig_pot}) and (\ref{bic_force}). With solid lines we have
702: depicted the analytical values of $Q$ provided by Eqs.~(\ref{QLRT}),
703: (\ref{chirelation}) and either Eqs.~(\ref{chi1})-(\ref{moments}), for
704: $r<\sqrt{2/3}$, or Eqs.~(\ref{chi2}) and (\ref{lamb1new}), for
705: $r>\sqrt{2/3}$. The dotted lines indicate the location of the critical
706: value $r=\sqrt{2/3}$, and the dashed lines the location of the maximum
707: predicted by Eq.~(\ref{transceq}).}
708: \end{figure}
709:
710:
711: \section{Conclusions}
712:
713: We have studied the motion of a particle in a bistable potential in the
714: presence of white noise and an external bichromatic force, within the
715: context of the VR phenomenon. Analytical expressions for the parameter
716: $Q$ which quantifies this phenomenon have been obtained based on three
717: simplifying approximations of different nature. Firstly, the exact
718: dynamics of the system has been reduced to that of a Brownian particle
719: moving in an effective potential and under the influence of white noise
720: and one of the monochromatic forces. In order to make this
721: approximation, we have assumed that the other monochromatic force is a
722: strong, high-frequency field. Secondly, we have applied LRT to
723: express the parameter $Q$ in terms of the equilibrium autocorrelation
724: function associated to the effective dynamics in the absence of the
725: external driving. Finally, we have obtained analytical expressions for
726: $Q$ within the weak noise approximation. To do so, it has been necessary
727: to consider two disjoint regions of values of the ratio $r$ separated by
728: the critical value $r=\sqrt{2/3}$. We have also obtained a
729: transcendental equation for the location of the maximum of $Q(r)$ which
730: characterizes the VR phenomenon, as well as for the condition under
731: which this phenomenon dissapears. Comparison with the numerical solution
732: of the original SDE shows that these analytical expressions provide a
733: good quantitative description of the VR phenomenon, at least if it takes
734: place outside a critical region around $r=\sqrt{2/3}$. With this work,
735: we have attempted to provide a theoretical complement to the numerical
736: study of the influence of additive noise on VR carried out in
737: Ref.~\cite{Baltanas2003_pre}.
738:
739: \begin{acknowledgments}
740: We acknowledge the support of the Dirección General de Enseñanza
741: Superior of Spain by the projects BFM2002-03822 (J. C.-P.) and
742: BFM2000-0967 (J. P. B.). We also want to thank Prof. M. Morillo for his
743: critical reading of the manuscript and fruitful discussions.
744: \end{acknowledgments}
745:
746: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
747: \bibitem{Benzi1981_jpa} R. Benzi, A. Sutera, and A. Vulpiani,
748: J. Phys. A {\bf 14}, L453 (1981).
749: \bibitem{Gammaitoni1998_rmp} L. Gammaitoni, P. H\"{a}nggi, P. Jung,
750: and F. Marchesoni, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 70}, 223 (1998).
751: \bibitem{Anishchenko1999_pu} V. Anishchenko, A. Neiman, F. Moss, and
752: L. Schimansky-Geier, Phys. Usp. {\bf 42}, 7 (1999).
753: \bibitem{Hanggi2002_chphch} P. H\"{a}nggi, ChemPhysChem. {\bf 3}, 285 (2002).
754: \bibitem{Collins1995_pre} J. J. Collins, C. C. Chow, and T. T. Imhoff,
755: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52}, 3321 (1995).
756: \bibitem{Collins1996_nature} J. J. Collins, C. C. Chow, A. C. Capella,
757: and T. T. Imhoff, Nature (London) {\bf 383}, 770 (1996).
758: \bibitem{Chow1998_chaos} C. C. Chow, T. T. Imhoff, and J. J. Collins,
759: Chaos {\bf 8}, 616 (1998).
760: \bibitem{Barbay2000_prl} S. Barbay, G. Giacomelli, and F. Marin,
761: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 4652 (2000).
762: \bibitem{Neiman1994_prl} A. Neiman and L. Schimansky-Geier,
763: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 2988 (1994).
764: \bibitem{Neiman1996_pla} A. Neiman and W. Sung, Phys. Lett. A {\bf
765: 223}, 341 (1996).
766: \bibitem{Nozaki1999_prl} D. Nozaki, D. J. Mar, P. Grigg, and
767: J. J. Collins, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 2402 (1999).
768: \bibitem{Sinha1999_physa} S. Sinha, Physica A {\bf 270}, 204 (1999).
769: \bibitem{Landa2000_jpa} P. S. Landa and P. V. E. McClintock,
770: J. Phys. A {\bf 33}, L433 (2000).
771: \bibitem{Ullner2003_pla} E. Ullner, A. Zaikin, R. Bascones,
772: J. Garc\'{\i}a-Ojalvo, and J. Kurths, Phys. Lett. A {\bf 312}, 348
773: (2003).
774: \bibitem{Zaikin2002_pre} A. A. Zaikin, L. L\'opez, J. P. Baltan\'as,
775: J. Kurths, and M. A. F. Sanju\'an, Phys. Rev E {\bf 66}, 011106
776: (2002).
777: \bibitem{Blekhman2004_ijnm} I. I. Blekhman and P. S. Landa, Int. J. of
778: Non-Linear Mech. {\bf 39}, 421 (2004) (to appear).
779: \bibitem{Baltanas2003_pre} J. P. Baltan\'as, L. L\'opez,
780: I. I. Blekhman, P. S. Landa, A. Zaikin, J. Kurths, and
781: M. A. F. Sanju\'an, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 066119 (2003).
782: \bibitem{Lebowitz} J. L. Lebowitz and P. G. Bergmann, {\it Irreversible
783: Gibbsian Ensembles}, Ann. Phys. (New york) {\bf 1}, 1 (1957).
784: \bibitem{Risken} H. Risken, {\it The Fokker-Planck Equation}
785: (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984).
786: \bibitem{Jung-Hanggi1} P. Jung and P. H\"anggi, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 44},
787: 8032 (1991).
788: \bibitem{Jung89} P. Jung, Z. Phys. B {\bf 76}, 521 (1989).
789: \bibitem{Grossmann} F. Grossmann, P. Jung, T. Dittrich, and P. H\"anggi,
790: Z. Phys. B {\bf 84}, 315 (1991).
791: \bibitem{jcasado1} J. Casado-Pascual, J. G\'omez-Ord\'o\~nez,
792: M. Morillo, and P. H\"anggi, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 58}, 342 (2002).
793: \bibitem{jcasado2} J. Casado-Pascual, J. G\'omez-Ord\'o\~nez,
794: M. Morillo, and P. H\"anggi, Fluct. Noise Lett. {\bf 2}, L127 (2002).
795: \bibitem{jcasado3} J. Casado-Pascual, C. Denk, J. G\'omez-Ord\'o\~nez,
796: M. Morillo, and P. H\"anggi, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 67}, 0361091 (2003).
797: \bibitem{Kubo1} R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 12}, 570 (1957).
798: \bibitem{Kubo2} R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. {\bf 29}, 255 (1966).
799: \bibitem{Thomas} P. H\"anggi and H. Thomas, Phys. Rep. {\bf 88}, 207
800: (1982).
801: \bibitem{Jung-Hanggi2} P. Jung and P. H\"anggi, Z. Phys. B {\bf 90},
802: 255 (1993).
803: \bibitem{Gardiner} C.W. Gardiner, {\it Handbook of Stochastic Methods},
804: 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985)
805: \bibitem{Greenside} H. S. Greenside and E. Helfand, Bell
806: Sys. Tech. J. {\bf 60}, 1927 (1981).
807: \end{thebibliography}
808:
809: \end{document}
810:
811: