1: \documentclass[pre,aps,superscriptaddress,floatfix,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}  

2: 

3: \usepackage{graphicx}

4: \usepackage{amsmath}

5: \voffset=1cm

6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  DEFINIZIONI DI FONT    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

9: \font\tenmib=cmmib10

10: \font\sevenmib=cmmib10 scaled 800

11: \font\titolo=cmbx12

12: \font\titolone=cmbx10 scaled\magstep 2

13: \font \titolino=cmbx10

14: \font\cs=cmcsc10

15: \font\sc=cmcsc10

16: \font\css=cmcsc8

17: \font\ss=cmss10

18: \font\sss=cmss8

19: \font\crs=cmbx8

20: \font\ninerm=cmr9

21: \font\ottorm=cmr8

22: \textfont5=\tenmib

23: \scriptfont5=\sevenmib

24: \font\euftw=eufm9 scaled\magstep1

25: \font\euftww=eufm7 scaled\magstep1

26: \font\euftwww=eufm5 scaled\magstep1

27: \font\msytw=msbm9 scaled\magstep1

28: \font\msytww=msbm7 scaled\magstep1

29: \font\msytwww=msbm5 scaled\magstep1

30: \font\msytwwww=msbm4 scaled\magstep1

31: \font\indbf=cmbx10 scaled\magstep2

32: \font\type=cmtt10

33: \def\st{\scriptstyle}

34: 

35: \font\ottorm=cmr8\font\ottoi=cmmi8\font\ottosy=cmsy8%

36: \font\ottobf=cmbx8\font\ottott=cmtt8%

37: \font\ottocss=cmcsc8%

38: \font\ottosl=cmsl8\font\ottoit=cmti8%

39: \font\sixrm=cmr6\font\sixbf=cmbx6\font\sixi=cmmi6\font\sixsy=cmsy6%

40: \font\fiverm=cmr5\font\fivesy=cmsy5

41: \font\fivei=cmmi5

42: \font\fivebf=cmbx5%

43: 

44: \def\ottopunti{\def\rm{\fam0\ottorm}%

45: \textfont0=\ottorm\scriptfont0=\sixrm\scriptscriptfont0=\fiverm%

46: \textfont1=\ottoi\scriptfont1=\sixi\scriptscriptfont1=\fivei%

47: \textfont2=\ottosy\scriptfont2=\sixsy\scriptscriptfont2=\fivesy%

48: \textfont3=\tenex\scriptfont3=\tenex\scriptscriptfont3=\tenex%

49: \textfont4=\ottocss\scriptfont4=\sc\scriptscriptfont4=\sc%

50: %\scriptfont4=\ottocss\scriptscriptfont4=\ottocss%

51: \textfont5=\tenmib\scriptfont5=\sevenmib\scriptscriptfont5=\fivei

52: \textfont\itfam=\ottoit\def\it{\fam\itfam\ottoit}%

53: \textfont\slfam=\ottosl\def\sl{\fam\slfam\ottosl}%

54: \textfont\ttfam=\ottott\def\tt{\fam\ttfam\ottott}%

55: \textfont\bffam=\ottobf\scriptfont\bffam=\sixbf%

56: \scriptscriptfont\bffam=\fivebf\def\bf{\fam\bffam\ottobf}%

57: %\tt\ttglue=.5em plus.25em minus.15em%

58: \setbox\strutbox=\hbox{\vrule height7pt depth2pt width0pt}%

59: \normalbaselineskip=9pt\let\sc=\sixrm\normalbaselines\rm}

60: \let\nota=\ottopunti%

61: 

62: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

63: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%         SIMBOLI VARI           %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

65: 

66: \let\a=\alpha \let\b=\beta  \let\g=\gamma  \let\d=\delta \let\e=\varepsilon

67: \let\z=\zeta  \let\h=\eta   \let\th=\theta \let\k=\kappa \let\l=\lambda

68: \let\m=\mu    \let\n=\nu    \let\x=\xi     \let\p=\pi    \let\r=\rho

69: \let\s=\sigma \let\t=\tau   \let\f=\varphi \let\ph=\varphi\let\c=\chi

70: \let\ps=\psi  \let\y=\upsilon \let\o=\omega\let\si=\varsigma

71: \let\G=\Gamma \let\D=\Delta  \let\Th=\Theta\let\L=\Lambda \let\X=\Xi

72: \let\P=\Pi    \let\Si=\Sigma \let\F=\Phi    \let\Ps=\Psi

73: \let\O=\Omega \let\Y=\Upsilon

74: 

75: \def\\{\hfill\break} \let\==\equiv

76: \let\txt=\textstyle\let\dis=\displaystyle

77: 

78: \let\io=\infty \def\Dpr{\V\dpr\,}

79: \def\aps{{\it a posteriori\ }}\def\ap{{\it a priori\ }}

80: \let\0=\noindent\def\pagina{{\vfill\eject}}

81: \def\bra#1{{\langle#1|}}\def\ket#1{{|#1\rangle}}

82: \def\media#1{{\langle#1\rangle}}

83: %\def\ie{\hbox{\it i.e.\ }}\def\eg{\hbox{\it e.g.\ }}

84: \def\ie{{i.e. }}\def\eg{{e.g. }}

85: \let\dpr=\partial \def\der{{\rm d}} \let\circa=\cong

86: \def\arccot{{\rm arccot}}

87: 

88: \def\tende#1{\,\vtop{\ialign{##\crcr\rightarrowfill\crcr

89:  \noalign{\kern-1pt\nointerlineskip} \hskip3.pt${\scriptstyle

90:  #1}$\hskip3.pt\crcr}}\,}

91: \def\circage{\lower2pt\hbox{$\,\buildrel > \over {\scriptstyle \sim}\,$}}

92: \def\otto{\,{\kern-1.truept\leftarrow\kern-5.truept\to\kern-1.truept}\,}

93: \def\fra#1#2{{#1\over#2}}

94: 

95: \def\PPP{{\cal P}}\def\EE{{\cal E}}\def\MM{{\cal M}} \def\VV{{\cal V}}

96: \def\CC{{\cal C}}\def\FF{{\cal F}} \def\HHH{{\cal H}}\def\WW{{\cal W}}

97: \def\TT{{\cal T}}\def\NN{{\cal N}} \def\BBB{{\cal B}}\def\II{{\cal I}}

98: \def\RR{{\cal R}}\def\LL{{\cal L}} \def\JJ{{\cal J}} \def\OO{{\cal O}}

99: \def\DD{{\cal D}}\def\AAA{{\cal A}}\def\GG{{\cal G}} \def\SS{{\cal S}}

100: \def\KK{{\cal K}}\def\UU{{\cal U}} \def\QQ{{\cal Q}} \def\XXX{{\cal X}}

101: 

102: \def\T#1{{#1_{\kern-3pt\lower7pt\hbox{$\widetilde{}$}}\kern3pt}}

103: \def\VVV#1{{\underline #1}_{\kern-3pt

104: \lower7pt\hbox{$\widetilde{}$}}\kern3pt\,}

105: \def\W#1{#1_{\kern-3pt\lower7.5pt\hbox{$\widetilde{}$}}\kern2pt\,}

106: \def\Re{{\rm Re}\,}\def\Im{{\rm Im}\,}

107: \def\lis{\overline}\def\tto{\Rightarrow}

108: \def\etc{{\it etc}} \def\acapo{\hfill\break}

109: \def\mod{{\rm mod}\,} \def\per{{\rm per}\,} \def\sign{{\rm sign}\,}

110: \def\indica{\leaders \hbox to 0.5cm{\hss.\hss}\hfill}

111: \def\guida{\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss.\hss}\hfill}

112: 

113: \def\hh{{\bf h}} \def\HH{{\bf H}} \def\AA{{\bf A}} \def\qq{{\bf q}}

114: \def\BB{{\bf B}} \def\XX{{\bf X}} \def\PP{{\bf P}} \def\pp{{\bf p}}

115: \def\vv{{\bf v}} \def\xx{{\bf x}} \def\yy{{\bf y}} \def\zz{{\bf z}}

116: \def\aaa{{\bf a}}\def\bbb{{\bf b}}\def\hhh{{\bf h}}\def\III{{\bf I}}

117: 

118: \def\ul{\underline}

119: \def\olu{{\overline{u}}}

120: 

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%    LETTERE GRECHE E LATINE IN NERETTO     %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

124: 

125: % lettere greche e latine in neretto italico - pag.430 del manuale

126: \mathchardef\aa   = "050B

127: \mathchardef\bb   = "050C

128: \mathchardef\ggg  = "050D

129: \mathchardef\xxx  = "0518

130: %\mathchardef\hhh = "0511

131: \mathchardef\zzzzz= "0510

132: \mathchardef\oo   = "0521

133: \mathchardef\lll  = "0515

134: \mathchardef\mm   = "0516

135: \mathchardef\Dp   = "0540

136: \mathchardef\H    = "0548

137: \mathchardef\FFF  = "0546

138: \mathchardef\ppp  = "0570

139: \mathchardef\nn   = "0517

140: \mathchardef\ff   = "0527

141: \mathchardef\pps  = "0520

142: %\mathchardef\XXX = "0504

143: \mathchardef\FFF  = "0508

144: \mathchardef\nnnnn= "056E

145: 

146: \def\ol#1{{\overline #1}}

147: 

148: \def\to{\rightarrow}

149: \def\la{\left\langle}

150: \def\ra{\right\rangle}

151: 

152: \def\Overline#1{{\bar#1}}

153: \let\ciao=\bye

154: \def\qed{\raise1pt\hbox{\vrule height5pt width5pt depth0pt}}

155: \def\hf#1{{\hat \f_{#1}}}

156: \def\barf#1{{\tilde \f_{#1}}} \def\tg#1{{\tilde g_{#1}}}

157: \def\bq{{\bar q}}

158: %\def\Val{{\bf Val}}

159: \def\Val{{\rm Val}}

160: \def\indic{\hbox{\raise-2pt \hbox{\indbf 1}}}

161: 

162: \def\RRR{\hbox{\msytw R}} \def\rrrr{\hbox{\msytww R}}

163: \def\rrr{\hbox{\msytwww R}} \def\CCC{\hbox{\msytw C}}

164: \def\cccc{\hbox{\msytww C}} \def\ccc{\hbox{\msytwww C}}

165: \def\NNN{\hbox{\msytw N}} \def\nnnn{\hbox{\msytww N}}

166: \def\nnn{\hbox{\msytwww N}} \def\ZZZ{\hbox{\msytw Z}}

167: \def\zzzz{\hbox{\msytww Z}} \def\zzz{\hbox{\msytwww Z}}

168: \def\TTT{\hbox{\msytw T}} \def\tttt{\hbox{\msytww T}}

169: \def\ttt{\hbox{\msytwww T}}

170: \def\QQQ{\hbox{\msytw Q}} \def\qqqq{\hbox{\msytww Q}}

171: \def\qqq{\hbox{\msytwww Q}}

172: 

173: \def\vvv{\hbox{\euftw v}}    \def\vvvv{\hbox{\euftww v}}

174: \def\vvvvv{\hbox{\euftwww v}}\def\www{\hbox{\euftw w}}

175: \def\wwww{\hbox{\euftww w}}  \def\wwwww{\hbox{\euftwww w}}

176: \def\vvr{\hbox{\euftw r}}    \def\vvvr{\hbox{\euftww r}}

177: 

178: \def\ul#1{{\underline#1}}

179: \def\Sqrt#1{{\sqrt{#1}}}

180: %\def\Sqrt#1{{{#1}^{\fra{1}{2}}}}

181: \def\V0{{\bf 0}}

182: \def\defi{\,{\buildrel def\over=}\,}

183: \def\lhs{{\it l.h.s.}\ }

184: \def\rhs{{\it r.h.s.}\ }

185: \def\defin{{\buildrel def\over=}}

186: \def\V#1{{\underline#1}}

187: \def\Prob{{\rm Prob}}

188: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

189: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

190: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}

191: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}

192: 

193: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

194: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

195: 

196: \begin{document}

197: 

198: \title{

199: Fluctuation Relation

200: beyond Linear Response Theory

201: }

202: \author{

203: A.~Giuliani\footnote{e-mail: alessandro.giuliani@roma1.infn.it}

204: }

205: \affiliation{

206:   Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma

207:   {\em La Sapienza}, P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy

208: }

209: \affiliation{

210:          INFN, Universit\`a di Roma

211:          {\em La Sapienza}, P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy

212:         }

213: \author{

214: F.~Zamponi\footnote{e-mail: francesco.zamponi@phys.uniroma1.it}

215: }

216: \affiliation{

217:   Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma

218:   {\em La Sapienza}, P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy

219: }

220: \affiliation{

221:          INFM -- CRS Soft, Universit\`a di Roma

222:          {\em La Sapienza}, P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy

223:         }

224: \author{

225: G.~Gallavotti\footnote{e-mail: giovanni.gallavotti@roma1.infn.it}

226: }

227: \affiliation{

228:   Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit\`a di Roma

229:   {\em La Sapienza}, P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy

230: }

231: \affiliation{

232:          INFN, Universit\`a di Roma

233:          {\em La Sapienza}, P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy

234:         }

235: \date{\today}

236: \begin{abstract}

237: The Fluctuation Relation (FR) is an asymptotic result on the distribution of

238: certain observables averaged over time intervals $\t$ as $\t\to\io$

239: and it is a generalization of the fluctuation--dissipation 

240: theorem to far from equilibrium systems in a steady state which

241: reduces to the usual Green--Kubo (GK) relation in the limit of small

242: external non conservative forces. FR is a theorem

243: for smooth uniformly hyperbolic systems, and it is assumed to be true

244: in all dissipative ``chaotic enough'' systems in a steady state. 

245: In this paper we develop a theory of finite time

246: corrections to FR, needed to compare the asymptotic prediction

247: of FR with numerical observations, which necessarily involve 

248: fluctuations 

249: of observables averaged over finite time intervals $\t$.

250: We perform

251: a numerical test of FR in two cases in which non Gaussian fluctuations are 

252: observable while GK does not apply and we get a non trivial verification of 

253: FR that is 

254: {\it independent of} and {\it different from} linear response theory. 

255: Our results are compatible with the theory

256: of finite time corrections to FR, while FR would be {\it observably

257: violated}, well within the precision of our experiments, if such

258: corrections were neglected. 

259: \end{abstract}

260: \pacs{05.40.-a,05.45.-a,05.45.Pq}

261: \maketitle

262: 

263: 

264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%  TEXT  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

265: 

266: Keywords: entropy production rate, fluctuation theorem,

267: non-Gaussian fluctuations, Green-Kubo relations

268: 

269: \section{Introduction}

270: 

271: \noindent

272: {\it Anosov systems and the fluctuation theorem} - 

273: The fluctuation theorem concerns fluctuations of phase space

274: contraction in reversible hyperbolic (Anosov) systems. If time evolution is

275: described by a differential equation on phase space $M$: $\dot

276: x=X(x),\, x\in M$,

277: or by a map $S: x\rightarrow S(x)$ of $M$ one defines the {\it phase space

278: contraction} as, respectively, $\sigma(x)=-{\rm \,div\,} X(x)$ or

279: $\sigma(x)=-\log |\det\partial_x S(x)|$. Reversibility means that there is a

280: metric--preserving map $I$ of $M$ such that $IS=S^{-1}I$ if $S$ is the

281: time evolution over a certain time $t$ ({\it e.g.} $t=1$).

282: {\it If the system is Anosov}, that is if $M$ is compact and $S$ is smooth

283: and uniformly hyperbolic, see \cite{Ga99,GC95a,GC95b,Ga95c,Ru99}, 

284: the points $x$ will have a well defined

285: SRB distribution $\mu_{srb}$, \cite{Ru99}, {\it i.e.} almost all points 

286: w.r.t. the volume measure will evolve

287: so that {\it all smooth observables} will have a well defined average

288: equal to the integral over the SRB distribution. Hence, in particular,

289: the time average of the function $\sigma(x)$ 

290: will be asymptotically given by the spatial average w.r.t. 

291: the SRB distribution. In the case of discrete time maps:

292: \beq

293: \label{1}

294: \sigma_+\defin\lim_{\t\to\io} \frac1\t \sum_{j=0}^{\tau-1} \sigma(S^j(x))

295: =\int_M \sigma\;d\mu_{srb} \defin \langle\; \sigma \;\rangle_{srb}\eeq

296: If $\sigma_+ > 0$, let:

297: \beq

298: \label{2}

299: p(x)=\frac{1}{\tau \sigma_+} \sum_{j=0}^{\tau-1} \sigma(S^j(x))

300: \eeq

301: Analogous definitions are given 

302: in the continuous time case.

303: The function $p(x)$ will have average $\langle\; p\;\rangle_{srb} = 1$

304: and distribution $\pi_\tau(dp)$ such that

305: \beq

306: \label{3}

307: \pi_\tau(\{p\in \Delta\})= e^{\tau \max_{p\in\Delta}\zeta_\infty(p)+ o(\t)}\;,

308: \eeq

309: where the correction at the exponent is $o(\t)$ w.r.t. $\t$ as $\t\to\io$.

310: The following {\it Fluctuation Relation}, discovered 

311: in a numerical simulation

312: in \cite{ECM93} and formulated as a theorem for Anosov systems in

313: \cite{GC95a}, holds:

314: \beq

315: \label{4}

316: \zeta_\infty(p)=\zeta_\infty(-p)+p \sigma_+ \qquad{\rm for\ all}\ |p|<p^*

317: \eeq

318: where $\infty> p^*\ge1$ is a suitable (model dependent) constant that, in

319: general, is {\it different} from the maximum over $\tau$ and $x$ of

320: $p(x)$; note also that Eq.~\ref{4} is 

321: (strictly speaking) meaningless in the {\it equilibrium

322: cases} in which the system is Hamiltonian and reversibility is the

323: usual velocity sign change: because of the division by $\sigma_+=0$ in 

324: Eq.~\ref{2}.

325: 

326: \vskip10pt

327: 

328: \noindent

329: {\it The chaotic hypothesis} - Hyperbolicity is a paradigm 

330: for disordered systems similar to the

331: small oscillations paradigm used for ordered motions: it does not

332: hold exactly in essentially all the physically interesting

333: systems. The {\it Chaotic Hypothesis} \cite{Ga99,GC95a,GC95b,Ga04,Ru04}

334: is that nevertheless

335: one can assume that chaotic motions 

336: (in the sense of motions with at least one positive Lyapunov exponent) 

337: exhibit some average properties of truly

338: hyperbolic motions. This hypothesis is a natural generalization of 

339: the ergodic hypothesis,

340: \ie of the assumption that systems of many particles at equilibrium

341: are well 

342: described on average by the microcanonical (or by the Gibbs) 

343: distribution, even if they are not

344: really (or they are not proven to be) ergodic.

345: A consequence of the Chaotic Hypothesis is that

346: (dissipative) deterministic chaotic reversible motions

347: should have fluctuations of phase space contraction satisfying Eq.~\ref{4}.

348: 

349: One interesting example of such motions is given by a system of 

350: $N$ interacting particles

351: in $d$ dimensions subjected to nonconservative forces and kept in a

352: stationary state by a {\it reversible mechanical thermostat}.

353: It will be defined by a differential equation $\dot x=X_E(x)$ where 

354: $x=(\dot{\ul q},\ul q) \in R^{2dN} \equiv M$ ({\it phase space})

355: and

356: \beq

357: \label{INTRO1}

358: m \ddot{\ul q} = \ul f(\ul q) + \ul g_E (\ul q) - \ul 

359: \theta_E (\dot{\ul q},\ul q)

360: \eeq

361: where $m$ is the mass of the particles, $\ul f(\ul q)$ describes 

362: the internal (conservative)

363: forces between the particles and $\ul g_E (\ul q)$ represents 

364: the nonconservative

365: ``external'' force acting on the system. Finally, 

366: $\ul \theta_E (\dot{\ul q},\ul q)$ is a

367: mechanical force that prevents the system from acquiring energy indefinitely: 

368: this is why we shall

369: call it a {\it mechanical thermostat}.

370: Systems belonging to this class are frequently 

371: used as microscopic models to describe

372: nonequilibrium stationary states induced by the application of a driving force

373: (temperature or velocity gradients, electric fields, etc.) on a

374: fluid system in contact with a thermal bath, \cite{EM90,Ru04}. 

375: In this context, the phase space contraction

376: rate $\sigma(x)$ has been identified (setting $k_B=1$) 

377: with the {\it entropy production rate} \cite{ECM93,Ga99,Ga04,Ru04}, 

378: the variable $p(x)$ is defined as

379: \beq

380: \label{pdix}

381: p(x) = \frac{1}{\tau \sigma_+} \int_0^\tau dt \ \sigma(S_t x) 

382: \eeq

383: (where $x(t) \equiv S_t x$ is the solution of Eq.~\ref{INTRO1} 

384: with initial datum $x(0)=x$)

385: and the fluctuation relation has been successfully tested in 

386: several numerical simulations

387: \cite{ECM93,BGG97,BCL98,BPV98,GP99,GRS04,ZRA04}.

388: Having defined the notion of entropy production rate one can 

389: define a ``duality'' between 

390: fluxes $\ul J$ and forces $\ul E$ using $\sigma(x)$ as a 

391: ``Lagrangian'' \cite{Ga04}:

392: \beq

393: \label{Jdef}

394: \ul J(\ul E,x) = \frac{\partial \sigma(x)}{\partial \ul E}

395: \eeq

396: In the limit $\ul E \rightarrow \ul 0$, {\it i.e.} close to equilibrium, 

397: the fluctuation relation

398: leads to Onsager's reciprocity and to Green-Kubo's formulas for 

399: transport coefficients

400: \cite{GR97,Ga96}:

401: \beq

402: \label{GK}

403: \mu_{ij} \equiv \lim_{\ul E \rightarrow \ul 0} \frac{\langle J_i 

404: \rangle_{\ul E}}{E_j} = 

405: \int_0^\infty dt \ \langle J_i(t) J_j(0) \rangle_{\ul E=\ul 0}

406: \eeq

407: 

408: \vskip10pt

409: \noindent

410: {\it Gaussian distributions} - 

411: If the distribution $\pi_\tau(p)$ is Gaussian,

412: $\pi_\tau(p) \propto \exp \left[ -\tau \frac{(p-1)^2}{2 \delta_\tau^2}\right]$,

413: from the fluctuation relation one can derive an {\it extension} 

414: of the Green-Kubo relation, i.e. of 

415: Eq.~\ref{GK}, to finite forces.

416: 

417: Indeed, the fluctuation relation for a Gaussian distribution implies

418: that the dispersion $\d_\io^2$ of $p$ around its average (equal to $1$) is 

419: $\delta_\infty^2 = 2/\s_+$ which is, in such case, an extension of a

420: Green--Kubo formula to non zero fields. One sees this by considering, for

421: instance, cases in which $\sigma(x)$ is linear in $E$ (as it will be in

422: the cases that we study numerically below).

423: Using time-translation invariance one can show that

424: \beq

425: \label{deltainfinito}

426: \delta^2_\infty = \frac{2}{\sigma_+^2}\int_0^\infty dt \

427: \langle (\sigma(t)-\sigma_+)(\sigma(0)-\sigma_+) \rangle_{E}

428: \eeq

429: and from the fluctuation relation $\delta_\infty^2 \sigma_+ = 2$

430: \beq

431: \sigma_+ = \int_0^\infty dt \

432: \langle (\sigma(t)-\sigma_+)(\sigma(0)-\sigma_+) \rangle_{E}

433: \eeq

434: Substituting $\sigma(t)=E J(t)$ in the latter expression, one

435: obtains the relation

436: \beq

437: \label{GKestesa}

438: \frac{\langle J \rangle_E}{E} = \int_0^\infty dt \

439: [\langle J(t) J(0) \rangle_E - \langle J \rangle_E^2]

440: \eeq

441: valid, {\it subject to the Gaussian assumption}, 

442: also for $E\ne0$.

443: 

444: The leading order in $E$ of the latter relation 

445: ({\it linear response}) is the Green-Kubo formula

446: for the equilibrium transport coefficient, Eq.~\ref{GK}.

447: 

448: \vskip10pt

449: \noindent

450: {\it Numerical verification of the chaotic hypothesis} -

451: The simplest check of the applicability of the Chaotic Hypothesis

452: is a check of the fluctuation relation: of course even if the

453: check has a positive result this will not ``prove'' the hypothesis but

454: it will at least add confidence to it. A rather stringent test of the

455: fluctuation relation would be a check which

456: {\it cannot be reduced to a kind of Green-Kubo relation}; this  requires

457: at least one of the two following conditions to be satisfied:

458: \begin{enumerate}

459: \item the distribution $\pi_\tau(p)$ is distinguishable from a Gaussian, or

460: \item deviations from the leading order in $E$ in Eq.~\ref{GKestesa}, 

461: {\it i.e.}, 

462: deviations from the Green-Kubo relation, are observed.

463: \end{enumerate}

464: This is very hard to obtain in numerical simulations of 

465: Eq.~\ref{INTRO1} for the following

466: reasons:

467: \begin{enumerate}

468: \item to observe deviations from linearity in Eq.~\ref{GKestesa} one has to

469: apply very large forces $E$, then $\sigma_+$ is very large and 

470: it becomes very difficult

471: to observe the negative values of $p(x)$ that are needed to 

472: compute $\zeta_\infty(-p)$ in Eq.~\ref{4};

473: \item deviations from Gaussianity in $\pi_\tau(p)$ 

474: are observed only for values of $p$ that

475: differ significantly (of the order of $2 \delta_\io$) from $1$ and,

476: again, it is very difficult

477: to observe such values of $p$.

478: \end{enumerate}

479: Due to the limited computational resources available in the past decade,

480: all numerical computations that can be found in the literature

481: on systems described by Eq.~\ref{INTRO1} found that the measured

482: distribution $\pi_\tau(p)$ could not be 

483: distinguished from a Gaussian distribution

484: in the interval of $p$ accessible to the numerical experiment 

485: \cite{ECM93,BGG97,BCL98,ZRA04}. 

486: 

487: \vskip10pt

488: 

489: The purpose of the present paper is to test the fluctuation relation, 

490: in a numerical simulation

491: of a system described by Eq.~\ref{INTRO1}, for large 

492: applied force when deviations from linearity can be observed, and

493: the distribution $\pi_\tau(p)$ is appreciably non-Gaussian.

494: This has become possible

495: thanks to the fast increase of computational power in the last decade. However,

496: it is still very difficult to reach values of $\tau$ which

497: can be confidently regarded as ``close'' to the asymptotic limit 

498: $\tau \rightarrow \infty$;

499: thus to interpret our results we develop a theory of the $o(1)$ 

500: corrections to the function

501: $\zeta_\infty(p)$ in order to extract the limiting function 

502: $\zeta_\infty(p)$ from the

503: numerical data. Taking into account the latter finite time corrections, 

504: we successfully test the fluctuation relation for 

505: non--Gaussian distributions and beyond the

506: linear response theory.

507: 

508: The paper is organized as follows: section II is devoted to the theory 

509: of finite $\tau$

510: corrections to the large deviation function 

511: $\zeta_\infty(p)$ that is needed in the analysis of

512: the data; in section III we present the model and the details of the numerical

513: simulation; in section IV we present the details of the data analysis; finally,

514: in section V and VI we report the result of our simulations.

515: 

516: \section{Finite time corrections to the Fluctuation Relation}

517: \label{sec:II}

518: 

519: In the present section we 

520: describe a strategy to study (in principle constructively) 

521: the $O(1)$ corrections

522: in the exponent of Eq.~\ref{3}. The theory we propose will

523: hold {\it assuming that the time evolution is hyperbolic} 

524: so that it can be applied to

525: physical systems only if the chaotic hypothesis is accepted. For

526: simplicity we consider only the case of discrete time evolution via a

527: map $S$.

528: 

529: \subsection{SRB measure, symbolic dynamics and statistical mechanics}

530: 

531: We study the distribution of $p$ at fixed $\tau$ via its Laplace

532: transform ({\it characteristic function}) $z_\tau(\lambda)$:

533: \beq

534: \label{FTC2.1}

535: z_\tau(\lambda) = -\frac{1}{\tau} \log 

536: \langle e^{-\lambda \sum_{j=0}^{\tau-1}\sigma(S^jx)}\rangle_{srb}

537: \eeq

538: The main consequence of the hyperbolicity is, 

539: \cite{Si68,Si77,Ga95c,GC95a,GC95b,Ga96},

540: that one can find a symbolic

541: representation of the points of $M$ in terms of sequences

542: $\underline{\varepsilon}=(\varepsilon_i)_{i=-\infty}^\infty$ of 

543: finitely many digits $\varepsilon=1,\ldots,k$

544: subject only to a simple {\it hard core} restriction, namely

545: $T_{\varepsilon_j,\varepsilon_{j+1}}\equiv 1$ 

546: if $T$ is a matrix ({\it compatibility matrix})

547: with entries $0$ or $1$ and such that 

548: $T^N_{\varepsilon,\varepsilon'}>0$ for some $N>0$

549: and all $\varepsilon,\varepsilon'$ ({\it mixing} condition). Moreover in such 

550: a representation the dynamics becomes simply the left

551: shift, {\it i.e.} if $\underline{\varepsilon}(x)$ 

552: represents $x$ then $S(x)$ is represented by

553: the sequence $\underline{\varepsilon}$ shifted to the left by one unit.

554: 

555: The key remarks are

556: \begin{enumerate}

557: \item Smooth observables on phase space can be

558: represented by {\it short range potentials}: in the case of the

559: observable $\sigma(x)$ this means that there are functions 

560: $s_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)$

561: defined for all intervals $X=(a,\ldots,a+2n+1)$ and

562: $\underline{\varepsilon}_X=(\varepsilon_{a},

563: \ldots,\varepsilon_{a+2n+1})$, {\it translationally invariant}

564: $s_X=s_{X+b}$ and {\it exponentially decaying} 

565: on time scale $\kappa^{-1}$ ({\it i.e.} 

566: $|s_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)|< C e^{-\kappa

567: n}$ for some $C,\kappa>0$), such that 

568: \beq

569: \label{FTC2.2}

570: \sigma(x)= s(\underline{\varepsilon}(x)),\qquad s(\underline{\varepsilon})=

571: \sum_{X\circ\, 0}

572: s_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)

573: \eeq

574: where the sum is over the intervals $X$ centered at the origin

575: (noted by $X\circ 0$). 

576: Another important smooth observable is the {\it

577: expansion rate} $L(x)$ defined as the logarithm of the determinant

578: of the linearization matrix $\partial S(x)$ ({\it i.e.} the Jacobian

579: matrix of the map) restricted  

580: to the unstable manifold: $L(x)=\log \det\partial S(x)_{u}$. This is also

581: expressible via an exponentially decaying potential $\Phi$:

582: \beq

583: \label{expansionrate}

584: L(x)=\ell(\underline{\varepsilon}(x)),\qquad

585: \ell(\underline{\varepsilon})=\sum_{X\circ\,0}

586: \Phi_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)

587: \eeq

588: \item The SRB distribution, represented as a distribution over

589: the (compatible) symbolic sequences $\underline{\varepsilon}$, is a

590: Gibbs state for the short

591: range potential $\Phi=(\Phi_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X))$ defined in

592: Eq.~\ref{expansionrate}, {\it i.e.}

593: \beq

594: \label{15}

595: \langle F \rangle_{srb}=

596: \lim_{R\rightarrow\infty} 

597: \frac{\sum_{\underline{\varepsilon}}e^{-\sum_{X\subset

598: \Lambda_R}\Phi_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)} F(\underline{\varepsilon}')}

599: {\sum_{\underline{\varepsilon}}e^{-\sum_{X\subset

600: \Lambda_R}\Phi_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)}}

601: \eeq

602: where $\Lambda_R=(-R,\ldots,R)\subset \ZZZ$, the sums extend over

603: compatible configurations $\underline{\varepsilon}=

604: (\varepsilon_{-R},\ldots,\varepsilon_R)$ 

605: ({\it i.e.} with

606: $T_{\varepsilon_j,\varepsilon_{j+1}}=1$ for $j=-R,\ldots,R-1$), and

607: $F(\underline{\varepsilon}')$ is an

608: arbitrary smooth observable defined on phase space regarded as a

609: function on the symbolic sequences and evaluated at a sequence

610: $\underline{\varepsilon}'$  which

611: extends (rather arbitrarily) $\underline{\varepsilon}$ to an infinite 

612: compatible sequence by continuing $\V\e$ to the right with a sequence

613: $\V\e_{>}$

614: and to the left with a sequence

615: $\V\e_{<}$

616: into $\V\e'=(\V\e_{<},\V\e,\V\e_{>})$ 

617: so that $\V\e_{<}$ depends only on the symbol $\e_{-R}$ and

618: $\V\e_{>}$ depends only on the symbol $\e_{R}$: see

619: \cite{Si68,Ga02,GBG04}.

620: \end{enumerate}

621: The surprising reduction of the problem of studying the SRB

622: distribution to that of a {\it Gibbs distribution} for a one

623: dimensional chain with short range interaction (this is the physical

624: interpretation of Eq.~\ref{15}) generated the possibility of studying

625: more quantitatively at least some of the problems of nonequilibrium

626: statistical mechanics outside the domain of ``nonequilibrium

627: thermodynamics'', \cite{DGM}. 

628: 

629: \subsection{Finite time corrections to the characteristic function}

630: 

631: The characteristic function $z_\tau(\lambda)$

632: of $p$, see Eq.~\ref{FTC2.1}, can therefore be

633: computed as 

634: \beq

635: \label{4.1}

636: e^{-\tau z_\tau(\lambda)}=\lim_{R\rightarrow\infty} 

637: \frac{\sum_{\underline{\varepsilon}}

638: e^{-\sum_{X\subset \Lambda_R}\Phi_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)

639: -\lambda \,\sum_{X\circ\, [0,\tau-1]}s_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X) }}

640: {\sum_{\underline{\varepsilon}}

641: e^{-\sum_{X\subset\Lambda_R}\Phi_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)}}

642: \eeq

643: This means that it is the (limit as $R\rightarrow\infty$ of the) ratio between

644: the partition functions $Z_R(\Phi)$ of a Gibbs distribution in $\Lambda_R$

645: with potential $\Phi$

646: (the denominator) 

647: and the partition function $Z_R(\Phi,\lambda s)$ with the same potential

648: {\it modified} in the {\it finite} region $[0,\tau-1]\subset\ZZZ$ by

649: the addition of a

650: potential $\lambda s_X(\underline{\varepsilon}_X)$.

651: 

652: The one dimensional systems are very well understood and the above is a

653: well studied problem in statistical mechanics, known as {\it a

654: finite size corrections} calculation.  For instance it can be attacked

655: by {\it cluster expansion}, \cite{GBG04}; this is a technique

656: to deal with the average of the exponential of a 

657: spin Hamiltonian which is defined in terms of potentials $\phi_X$

658: exponentially decaying

659: with rate $\k$, such as those appearing in the numerator 

660: and in the denominator of Eq.~\ref{4.1}. It allows us to represent

661: them as:

662: \beq \label{cluster}\sum_\ul\e e^{-\sum_{X\subset\L_R}\phi_X(\ul\e_X)}=

663: e^{-\sum_{X\subset\L_R}\wt\phi_X}\;,\eeq

664: where $\wt\phi_X$ are new {\it

665: effective} potentials, explicitly computable in terms of suitable averages 

666: of products of $\phi_X(\ul\e_X)$'s, and which can be proven to be still 

667: exponentially decaying with the diameter of $X$ with a rate $0<\k'\le\k$. 

668: 

669: In particular, a representation like Eq.~\ref{cluster} 

670: allows us to rewrite the

671: partition function in the denominator of Eq.~\ref{4.1} as:

672: \beq

673: \label{4.2}

674: Z_R(\Phi)=\exp \left[ (2R+1) f_\infty(\Phi) - c_\infty(\Phi)+ 

675: O(e^{-\kappa'R}) \right]

676: \eeq

677: and the one in the numerator as

678: \beq

679: \begin{split}

680: \label{19}

681: &Z_R(\Phi,\lambda s)=\exp \Big[ (2R+1-\tau) f_\infty(\Phi)+

682: \tau f_\infty(\Phi+\lambda s) \\ 

683: &- c_\infty(\Phi)- g_\infty(\lambda)+ O(e^{-\kappa'R}+

684: e^{-\kappa'\tau}) \Big]

685: \end{split}

686: \eeq

687: Therefore

688: \beq

689: \begin{split}

690: \label{20}

691: z_\tau(\lambda)&=

692: f_\infty(\Phi)-f_\infty(\Phi+\lambda s)+

693: \frac{g_\infty(\lambda)}{\tau}+O(e^{-\kappa'\tau}) \\

694: &\defin z_\infty(\lambda) 

695: +\frac{g_\infty(\lambda)}{\tau}+O(e^{-\kappa'\tau})

696: \end{split}

697: \eeq 

698: 

699: The function $z_\infty(\l)$ is

700: convex in $\l$ and the functions $g_\infty(\lambda)$ and

701: $z_\tau(\lambda)$ are analytic in $\lambda$ (a consequence of

702: the $1$-dimensionality and of the short range nature of the SRB

703: distribution): namely

704: $g_\infty(\lambda)=g^{(1)}_\infty \lambda

705: +\frac12g^{(2)}_\infty\lambda^2+\ldots$ and

706: $z_\tau(\lambda)=z^{(1)}_\tau\lambda

707: +\frac12z^{(2)}_\tau\lambda^2+\ldots$ and the coefficients of

708: their expansion in a power series of $\lambda$ can be expressed in

709: terms of correlation functions of $\sigma(x)$. For instance, from

710: Eq.~\ref{FTC2.1} and using the translational invariance of the SRB

711: measure, \beq\label{zio}

712: \begin{split}

713: z^{(1)}_\tau &= \tau^{-1} \langle \sum_{j=0}^{\tau-1}

714: \sigma(S^jx)\rangle_{srb} = 

715: \sigma_+ \\

716: z^{(2)}_\tau &= \tau^{-1} \left[

717: \langle \sum_{j=0}^{\tau-1}\sigma(S^jx)\rangle_{srb}^2-

718:  \langle  \sum_{j=0}^{\tau-1} \sigma(S^jx) 

719: \sum_{k=0}^{\tau-1}\sigma(S^kx) \rangle_{srb}

720: \right] \\

721: &=- \sum_{k=-\tau+1}^{\tau-1} \left[1-\frac{|k|}{\tau} \right] 

722: \langle \sigma(S^kx) \sigma(x) \rangle_{c} 

723: \end{split}

724: \eeq

725: where

726: $\langle \sigma(S^kx) \sigma(x) \rangle_{c} =

727: \langle \sigma(S^kx) \sigma(x) \rangle_{srb} - \sigma_+^2$.

728: Using Eq.~\ref{20}, 

729: $g_\infty(\lambda)=\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty} 

730: \tau [ z_\tau(\lambda)-

731: z_\infty(\lambda) ]$, and the analyticity of

732: $z_\tau(\lambda)$, we have

733: $g^{(j)}_\infty=\lim_{\tau \rightarrow \infty} 

734: \tau [ z^{(j)}_\tau - z^{(j)}_\infty ]$.

735: Since the connected correlation function 

736: $\langle \sigma(S^kx) \sigma(x) \rangle_{c}$ {\it decays exponentially}

737: for $k \rightarrow \infty$, we obtain

738: \beq

739: \label{22}

740: \begin{split}

741: &g^{(1)}_\infty = 0 \\

742: &g^{(2)}_\infty = \sum_{k=-\infty}^\infty |k| 

743: \langle \sigma(S^kx) \sigma(x) \rangle_{c}

744: \end{split}

745: \eeq

746: 

747: \subsection{Finite time corrections to $\zeta_\infty(p)$}

748: \label{sec:IIC}

749: 

750: A direct measurement of $z_\tau(\lambda)$ from

751: the numerical data is difficult. What is really accessible to 

752: numerical observation are the quantities

753: $\frac1\tau\log \pi_\tau(\{p\in\Delta\})$ in Eq.~\ref{3} because the

754: measured values of $p$ are used to build an histogram obtained by

755: dividing the $p$--axis into sufficiently small

756: bins $\D$ and counting how many values of

757: $p$ fall in the various bins. 

758: Let us choose the size of the bins $\D$ as 

759: $|\D|=O(\e_\t/\t)$, with 

760: $\e_\t$ a small parameter which will be eventually chosen $\e_\t=o(1)$,

761: see Appendix~\ref{app:A} for a discussion of this point.

762: Let also $p_\D$ be the center of 

763: the bin $\D$. An application of a local form of central limit theorem,

764: discussed in Appendix~\ref{app:A}, shows that

765: the following asymptotic 

766: representation of $\pi_\tau(\{p\in\Delta\})$ holds:

767: %

768: \beq\label{24}

769: \pi_\tau(\{p\in\Delta\})=e^{\t\z_\t(p_\D)}\Big(1+o(1)\Big)\eeq

770: % 

771: where $\z_\t(p_\D)$ can be interpolated by an analytic 

772: function of $p$, satisfying the equation 

773: %

774: \beq\label{23}\z_\t(p)=-z_\t(\l_p)+\l_p p\s_+-\frac{1}{2\t}

775: \log\left[\frac{2\p}{\t}\Big(-\frac{z_\t''(\l_p)}{\s_+^2}\Big)\right]\eeq

776: %

777: and $\l_p$ is the inverse of $p(\l)=z_\t'(\l)/\s_+$. 

778: 

779: Using the previous equations, we now compute the 

780: lowest order finite time correction to $\z_\io(p)$ around the maximum. 

781: 

782: We rewrite $\z_\t(p)$ as $\z_\t(p)=\z_\io(p)+\frac{\g_\io(p)}{\t}+O(\frac{1}

783: {\t^2})$. 

784: By the analyticity of $\z_\t(p)$, we can 

785: write $\z_\io(p),\g_\io(p)$ around $p=1$ in the form:

786: $\zeta_\infty(p) = \frac12\zeta_\infty^{(2)} (p-1)^2 + 

787: \frac1{3!} \zeta_\io^{(3)} (p-1)^3 + 

788: \ldots$ and 

789: $\gamma_\infty(p) = \gamma_\infty^{(0)} + \gamma_\infty^{(1)} (p-1) +

790: \ldots$.

791: 

792: Up to terms of order $(p-1)^2$ and 

793: higher in the series for $\g_\io(p)$ we can rewrite:

794: %

795: \beq 

796: \label{25}

797: \begin{split}

798: &\z_\t(p)=\\

799: &=\z_\io(p)+\frac{\g_\io^{(0)}}\t+

800: \frac{\g_\io^{(1)}}{\t}(p-1)

801: +O\left(

802: \frac{(p-1)^2}{\t}\right)+o\left(\frac1\t\right)=\\

803: &=\z_\io\left(p+

804: \frac{\g_\io^{(1)}}{\t\z^{(2)}_\io}\right)

805: +\frac{\g_\io^{(0)}}\t

806: +O\left(\frac{(p-1)^2}\t\right)+o\left(\frac1\t\right)\;.

807: \end{split}

808: \eeq

809: %

810: Thus, the finite time corrections

811: to $\z_\io(p)$ around its maximum begin with a shift of the maximum 

812: at 

813: %

814: \beq

815: \label{26}

816: p_0 = 1 - \frac{\gamma^{(1)}_\infty}{\tau \zeta^{(2)}_\infty} + 

817: o\left(\frac1\tau\right)

818: \eeq

819: %

820: To apply the latter result we need to compute $\gamma^{(1)}_\infty$ in

821: terms of observable quantities. And, in order to compute $\gamma^{(1)}_\infty$

822: we apply Eq.~\ref{23}. First of all, we note that $\l_p$ is determined

823: by the condition

824: %

825: \beq \label{27} p\s_+=z'_\t(\l_p)=\s_++z_\t''(0)\l_p+O(\l_p^2)\eeq

826: %

827: where we used Eq.~\ref{zio} and Eq.~\ref{22}. Then, 

828: $\l_p=\frac{\s_+(p-1)}{z_\t''(0)}+O\big((p-1)^2\big)$. 

829: Substituting this result into Eq.~\ref{23} and equating the

830: terms of order $O(\frac{p-1}{\t})$ at both sides we find:

831: %

832: \beq \label{28}\g_\io^{(1)}=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{z_\io^{(3)}\s_+}{(z_\io^{(2)})^2}\;.

833: \eeq

834: %

835: The last equation can also be rewritten 

836: as:

837: %

838: \beq\label{28a}

839: \gamma_\io^{(1)} = \frac{\zeta_\io^{(3)}}{2 \zeta_\io^{(2)}}

840: \eeq

841: %

842: This can be proven recalling that $\z_\io^{(2)}$ and 

843: $\z_\io^{(3)}$

844: are derivatives of $\z_\io(p)$ in $p=1$, that 

845: can be obtained by differentiating w.r.t. $\l$ (two or three times, respectively) 

846: the definition

847: $\z_\io\big(z_\io'(\l)/\s_+\big)=-z_\io(\l)+\l z_\io'(\l)$ and computing the 

848: derivatives in $\l=0$ recalling that $z_\io'(0)/\s_+=1$.

849: Plugging Eq.~\ref{28a} into Eq.~\ref{26} we finally get

850: %

851: \beq \label{wttau}p_0 = 1 - \frac{\z^{(3)}_\infty}{2\tau 

852: (\zeta^{(2)}_\infty)^2} + 

853: o\left(\frac1\tau\right)

854: \eeq

855: %

856: that is the main result of this section.

857: The key point is that

858: the moments $\z_\io^{(2)}$ and $\z_\io^{(3)}$ in Eq.~\ref{wttau} are quantities that 

859: can be measured 

860: from our empirical data (within an $O(\t^{-1})$ error). 

861: We then have a verifiable prediction on the expected shift of the maximum

862: at finite $\t$. Our data agree very well with this prediction, 

863: see Fig.~\ref{fig_2}

864: and corresponding discussion in sec.~\ref{sec:IV} below. 

865: 

866: Substituting Eq.~\ref{wttau} in Eq.~\ref{25},

867: we finally find:

868: %

869: \beq \label{oohh}

870: \z_\io(p)=

871: \h_\t(p)+O\Big(\frac{(p-1)^2}{\t}\Big)+o(\t^{-1})\;,\eeq

872: %

873: where $\h_\t(p)$ is defined as

874: %

875: \beq \label{etatau}

876: \h_\t(p)\defin =-\frac{\g^{(0)}_\io}{\t}+\z_\t\left(p-\frac{\z_\io^{(3)}}{

877: 2\t(\z_\io^{(2)})^2}\right)\;.\eeq

878: %

879: The key point of the above discussion was the validity of 

880: Eq.~\ref{24}--\ref{23}; see Appendix~\ref{app:A} for their derivation. 

881: 

882: \subsection{Remarks}

883: \label{sec:IID}

884: 

885: {\it (1)} The shift away from $1$ 

886: of the maximum of the function $\zeta_\tau(p)$ at

887: finite $\tau$, expressed by the second term in Eq.~\ref{etatau},

888: is due to the asymmetry of the distribution $\pi_\tau(p)$

889: around the average value $p=1$; consequently, it is proportional, at

890: leading order in $\tau^{-1}$, to $\zeta_\io^{(3)}$ which is 

891: indeed a measure of the asymmetry of $\zeta_\io(p)$ around $p=1$.

892: This shift would be absent in the case of a symmetric distribution

893: ({\it e.g.}, a Gaussian) and for this reason it was not observed in 

894: previous experiments \cite{ECM93,BGG97,BCL98,ZRA04}.

895: 

896: {\it (2)} The error term in the r.h.s. of Eq.~\ref{24} is $o(1)$

897: w.r.t. $\t$ and it does not affect the computation of 

898: $\g_\io(p)$. It is then clear that with a calculation similar to that 

899: we performed, one can get equations for the coefficients $O(\l^k)$ in the 

900: exponents of Eq.~\ref{24}; in this way 

901: one can iteratively construct the whole sequence of coefficients 

902: $\g_\io^{(k)}$ defining the power series expansion of $\g_\io(p)$.

903: 

904: {\it (3)} In models with continuous time evolution the quantity $\sigma_+$ is

905: not dimensionless but it has dimensions of inverse time: in such cases

906: one can imagine that one is still studying a map which maps a system

907: configuration at a time when some prefixed event happens in the system

908: (typically a ``collision'') into the next one in which a similar event

909: takes place. If $\tau_0$ is the average time interval between such events

910: then $\tau_0\sigma_+$ will play the role played by $\sigma_+$ in the 

911: discrete time case: it will be the adimensional parameter entering 

912: the estimates of the error terms. 

913: 

914: Note that the coefficients 

915: $g_\io^{(k)}$ are of order $\s_+^k$, and their

916: size is necessarily estimated by (the adimensional) entropy production to

917: the $k$--th power. Then, in the continuous time case, the choice 

918: of $\t_0$ affects the estimates of the remainders, because it

919: affects the size of the adimensional parameter $\t_0\s_+$; 

920: and the size of the mixing time (that is connected with the estimated range of 

921: decay of the potentials, see \cite{GBG04}). The natural (and physical) 

922: choice for $\t_0$ is the mixing time. Consistently with this remark,

923: at the moment of constructing numerically the 

924: distribution function for the entropy

925: production rate averaged over a time $\t$, we will always

926: consider time intervals of the form

927: $\t=\t_0 n$, $n\ge 1$, see section~\ref{sec:IIIC} below. 

928: 

929: \section{The model}

930: \label{sec:III}

931: 

932: We consider a system of $N$ classical particles of equal mass $m$ 

933: in dimension $d$; they are described by their position $q_i$ and momenta 

934: $p_i = m \dot q_i$,

935: $(p_i,q_i) \in R^{2d}, \ i=1, \ldots, N$.

936: The particles are confined in a cubic box of side $L$ with periodic

937: boundary conditions.

938: Each particle is subject to a {\it conservative force}, 

939: $f_i(\ul q) = - \partial_{q_i} V(\ul q)$, and to a

940: {\it nonconservative force} $E_i$ that does not depend on

941: the phase space variables. The force $E_i$ is locally conservative

942: but not globally such due to periodic boundary conditions.

943: The {\it mechanical thermostat} is a Gaussian thermostat \cite{EM90},

944: $\theta_i (\ul p,\ul q) = -\alpha(\ul p, \ul q) \, p_i$, and the

945: function $\alpha(\ul p, \ul q)$ is defined by the condition that the

946: total kinetic energy 

947: $K(\ul p) \equiv \frac1{2m} |\ul p|^2 = \frac1{2m} \sum_i p^2_i$ 

948: should be a constant

949: ({\it isokinetic ensemble}).

950: The equations of motion are:

951: \beq

952: \label{eqofmotion}

953: \begin{cases}

954: &\dot{q}_i = \frac{p_i}{m} \ , \\

955: &\dot{p}_i = f_i(\ul q) + E_i - \alpha(\ul p,\ul q) \ p_i \ ,

956: \end{cases}

957: \eeq

958: From the constraint $\frac{dK}{dt} = 0$ one obtains

959: \beq

960: \label{alphadef}

961: \alpha(\ul p,\ul q)=\frac{\sum_i E_i \ p_i + 

962: \sum_i f_i(\ul q) \ p_i}{\sum_i p^2_i} \ .

963: \eeq

964: 

965: \subsection{Entropy production rate}

966: 

967: The total phase space volume contraction rate for this system is given by:

968: \beq

969: \begin{split}

970: &\sigma(\ul p,\ul q)=-\sum_i \left( \frac{\partial \dot{q}_i}{\partial q_i}

971: +\frac{\partial \dot{p}_i}{\partial p_i} \right) \\

972: &=  dN\alpha(\ul p,\ul q) + \sum_i \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial p_i} p_i

973: = (dN-1) \ \alpha(\ul p,\ul q) \ .

974: \end{split}

975: \eeq

976: Defining the {\it kinetic temperature}, $T \equiv 2 K(\ul p)/(dN-1)$,

977: \cite{EM90}, the phase space contraction rate can be rewritten

978: as

979: \beq\label{36zz}

980: \sigma(\ul p, \ul q) = 

981: \frac{\sum_i E_i \ \dot q_i - \dot V}{T} \ .

982: \eeq

983: The first term is the power dissipated by 

984: the external force divided by the kinetic

985: temperature, and can be identified with the entropy production rate 

986: \cite{EM90,ECM93,Ga04}. 

987: The second term is the total derivative w.r.t. time of the potential energy

988: divided by the temperature: this term does not affect the validity of the 

989: Fluctuation Relation in the asymptotic limit $\t\to\io$, as total derivatives

990: give a contribution $O(\tau^{-1})$ in $p(x)$ \cite{Ga04,Ru00}, hence

991: they do not contribute to $\zeta_\io$; however it has effect on the 

992: distribution of fluctuations over a finite time $\t$ and 

993: its influence on the 

994: numerical computations has been recently discussed in detail \cite{ZRA04}.

995: The most convenient thing to do, in order to have a finite time

996: distribution that 

997: approximates in the best possible way the asymptotic distribution 

998: of fluctuations,

999: is to study the distribution of fluctuations for 

1000: the {\it entropy production rate} $\dot s$, where $\dot s$ is identified with

1001: $\s$ {\it minus} the total derivative term $-\dot V/T$ in Eq.~\ref{36zz}:

1002: %

1003: \beq \label{epr}\dot s(\ul p, \ul q) = 

1004: \frac{\sum_i E_i \ \dot q_i}{T}

1005: \eeq

1006: %

1007: From now on we will call $\z_\io(p)$ and $\z_\t(p)$ the distributions

1008: for the fluctuations of the entropy production rate $\dot s$ averaged

1009: over infinite or finite time, respectively. These will be the 

1010: objects we will measure and use from now on.

1011: 

1012: In order to define the {\it current} $J(x,E)$, 

1013: let us rewrite $E_i = E \, u_i$, where $u_i$

1014: is a (constant) unit vector that specifies 

1015: the direction of the force acting on the $i$-th particle.

1016: Then, according to Eq.~\ref{Jdef},

1017: \beq

1018: \label{Jcolor}

1019: J(\ul p, \ul q) = 

1020: \frac{\partial \sigma}{\partial E} = \frac{\sum_i u_i \, \dot q_i}{T}

1021: \eeq

1022:  

1023: \subsection{Discretization of the equations of motion}

1024: 

1025: To perform the numerical simulation, one has to write the

1026: equations of motion in a discrete form.

1027: One possibility is to use the {\it Verlet algorithm} \cite{AT87};

1028: for Hamiltonian equations of motion ({\it i.e.}, $\ul E=\ul 0$ and $\alpha=0$)

1029: \beq

1030: \label{simpleeqofmotion}

1031: \begin{cases}

1032: &\dot{q}_i = \frac{p_i}{m} \ , \\

1033: &\dot{p}_i = f_i(\ul q) \ ,

1034: \end{cases}

1035: \eeq

1036: the Verlet discretization has the form

1037: \beq

1038: \begin{cases}

1039: &q_i(t+dt) = q_i(t) + \frac{p_i(t)}{m} dt + \frac12 f_i(t) dt^2 \ , \\

1040: &p_i(t+dt) = p_i(t) + \frac12 \big[ f_i(t) + f_i(t+dt) \big] dt \ ,

1041: \end{cases}

1042: \eeq 

1043: where $dt$ is the {\it time step size}. This discretization ensures that

1044: the error is $O(dt^4)$ on the positions $q_i(t)$ in a single time step.

1045: The implementation of this algorithm on a computer is discussed in

1046: detail in \cite{AT87}.

1047: 

1048: However, this method requires the forces $f_i(t)$ to depend only on the 

1049: positions and not on the velocities: hence, it has to be adapted 

1050: to Eq.s~\ref{eqofmotion}.

1051: This has been done in the following way.

1052: We write the discretized equations as

1053: \beq

1054: \label{eqdiscrete}

1055: \begin{cases}

1056: q_i(t+dt) &= q_i(t) + \frac{p_i(t)}{m} dt \\

1057: &+ \frac12 \big[ f_i(t) + E_i - \alpha(t) p_i(t) \big] dt^2 \ , \\

1058: p_i(t+dt) &= p_i(t) + E_i +\frac12 \big[ f_i(t) + f_i(t+dt) \\ 

1059: &- \alpha(t) p_i(t) - \alpha(t+dt) p_i(t+dt) \big] dt \ ,

1060: \end{cases}

1061: \eeq 

1062: with the same error as in the standard Verlet discretization.

1063: We store in the computer, at time $t$,

1064: the positions $q_i(t)$, the momenta $p_i(t)$,

1065: the forces $f_i(t)$, and the Gaussian multiplier $\alpha(t)$.

1066: Then, we perform the following operations: 

1067: \begin{enumerate}

1068: \item we calculate the new positions $q_i(t+dt)$ using the first equation;

1069: \item using the new positions we calculate the new forces $f_i(t+dt)$ (the

1070: conservative forces depend only on the positions);

1071: \item we calculate the quantity

1072: $\xi_i = p_i(t) +  E_i +\frac12 \big[ f_i(t) + f_i(t+dt) 

1073: - \alpha(t) p_i(t) \big] dt$ and we observe that 

1074: $p_i(t+dt)$ can be expressed in terms of the (known) $\x_i$ and the (unknown)

1075: $\a(t+dt)$ as

1076: \beq

1077: \label{DISCRE1}

1078: p_i(t+dt)=\frac{\xi_i}{1 - \alpha(t+dt) dt/2} \ ;

1079: \eeq

1080: 

1081: \item substituting Eq.~\ref{DISCRE1} in the definition of $\alpha(t+dt)$, 

1082: Eq.~\ref{alphadef},

1083: we get a self-consistency equation for $\alpha(t+dt)$, whose solution is

1084: \beq

1085: \label{selfconsist}

1086: \begin{split}

1087: &\alpha(t+dt) = \frac{\alpha_0}{1-\alpha_0 dt /2} \ , \\

1088: &\alpha_0 = \frac{ \sum_i E_i \ \xi_i + \sum_i f_i(t+dt) 

1089: \ \xi_i }{\sum_i \xi_i^2} \ ;

1090: \end{split}

1091: \eeq

1092: \item substituting Eq.~\ref{selfconsist} in Eq.~\ref{DISCRE1} 

1093: we calculate $p_i(t+dt)$.

1094: \end{enumerate}

1095: This procedure allows us to calculate the new positions, 

1096: momenta, forces, and $\alpha$,

1097: at time $t+dt$ according to Eq.s~\ref{eqdiscrete} 

1098: {\it without approximations}, 

1099: defining a map $S$ such that $(\ul p(t+dt),\ul q(t+dt))= S(\ul p(t),\ul q(t))$.

1100: 

1101: Our ({\it discrete}) dynamical system

1102: will be defined by the map $S(\ul p,\ul q)$

1103: and will approximate the differential equations of motion, 

1104: Eq.~\ref{eqofmotion}, with error $O(dt^4)$ 

1105: for the positions and $O(dt^3)$ for the velocities. \\

1106: The map $S$ satisfies the following properties:

1107: \begin{enumerate}

1108: \item it is {\it reversible}, {\it i.e.} it 

1109: exists a map $I(\ul p, \ul q)$ (simply

1110: defined by $I(\ul p, \ul q)=(-\ul p, \ul q)$)

1111: such that $I S = S^{-1} I$;

1112: \item in the {\it Hamiltonian} case ($\ul E=\ul 0$ and $\alpha=0$, 

1113: Eq.s~\ref{simpleeqofmotion}) it is {\it volume preserving}.

1114: \end{enumerate}

1115: The first property ensures that {\it assuming 

1116: the Chaotic Hypothesis} the Fluctuation Relation holds for the map $S$.

1117: The second property ensures that at equilibrium the discretization 

1118: algorithm conserves the phase space volume.

1119: 

1120: \subsection{Details of the simulation}

1121: \label{sec:IIIC}

1122: 

1123: In the simulation, we chose the external force of the form 

1124: $E_i = E \, u_i$, where

1125: the unit vectors $u_i$ were parallel to the $x$

1126: direction but with different orientation: half of them were oriented in 

1127: the positive

1128: direction, and half in the negative direction, {\it i.e.} $u_i = (-1)^i \wh x$,

1129: in order to keep the center of mass fixed.

1130: We considered two different systems, selecting interaction potentials

1131: widely used in numerical simulations (for the purpose

1132: of making easier possible future independent checks and rederivations of our

1133: results):

1134: \begin{enumerate}

1135: \item ({\it model I}) the first investigated system is made by $N=8$ 

1136: particles of equal mass $m$ in $d=2$.

1137: The interaction potential is a sum of pair interactions,

1138: $V(\ul q)= \sum_{i < j} v(|q_i - q_j|)$, 

1139: and the pair interaction is represented by a

1140: WCA potential, {\it i.e.} a 

1141: Lennard-Jones potential truncated at the minimum:

1142: \beq

1143: \nonumber

1144: v(r) =

1145: \begin{cases}

1146: & 4 \epsilon \left[ \left(\frac\sigma r \right)^{12} - 

1147: \left(\frac\sigma r \right)^6 \right] + \epsilon \ ,

1148: \hspace{10pt} r \leq \sqrt[6]{2}\sigma \ ; \\

1149: & 0 \ , \hspace{100pt} r > \sqrt[6]{2}\sigma \ .

1150: \end{cases}

1151: \eeq

1152: The reduced density was $\rho=N\sigma^2/L^2=0.95$

1153: (that determines $L$),

1154: the kinetic temperature was fixed to $T=4\epsilon$

1155: and the {\it time step} to $dt=0.001 t_0$, where 

1156: $t_0 = \sqrt{m\sigma^2/\epsilon}$.

1157: In the following, all the quantities will be 

1158: reported in units of $m$, $\epsilon$

1159: and $\sigma$ ({\it LJ units}). 

1160: This system was already studied in the literature, 

1161: see {\it e.g.} \cite{ECM93,SEC98}.

1162: We investigated different values of the external force $E$ ranging from

1163: $E=0$ to $E=25$.

1164: \item ({\it model II})

1165: the second system is a binary mixture of $N$=20 particles (16 of type A and

1166: 4 of type B), of equal mass

1167: $m$, in $d=3$, interacting via the same WCA potential of model I; the pair 

1168: potential is

1169: \beq

1170: \nonumber

1171: v_{\alpha\beta}(r) =

1172: \begin{cases}

1173: & 4 \epsilon_{\alpha\beta} \left[ 

1174: \left(\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}} r \right)^{12}

1175: -  \left(\frac{\sigma_{\alpha\beta}} r \right)^{6} \right] 

1176: + \epsilon_{\alpha\beta} \ ,\\

1177: & \hspace{100pt} r \leq \sqrt[6]{2}\sigma_{\alpha\beta} \ ; \\

1178: & 0 \ , \hspace{88pt} r > \sqrt[6]{2}\sigma_{\alpha\beta} \ ;

1179: \end{cases}

1180: \eeq

1181: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are indexes that specify the particle species

1182: ($\alpha,\beta \in \{A,B\}$).

1183: The parameters entering the potential are the following: 

1184: $\sigma_{AB}=0.8 \sigma_{AA}$;

1185: $\sigma_{BB}=0.88 \sigma_{AA}$;

1186: $\epsilon_{AB}=1.5 \epsilon_{AA}$;

1187: $\epsilon_{BB}=0.5 \epsilon_{AA}$.

1188: Similar potentials have been studied, \cite{KA94,DmSC04},

1189: as models for liquids in the

1190: supercooled regime ({\it i.e.}, below the melting

1191: temperature).

1192: For this system the {\it LJ units} are

1193: $m$, $\epsilon_{AA}$, and $\sigma_{AA}$; the unit of time

1194: is then $t_0 = \sqrt{ m\sigma_{AA}^2/\epsilon_{AA}}$.

1195: The reduced density was $\rho = N \sigma_{AA}^3 / L^3 = 1.2$ 

1196: and the integration step was $dt=0.001 t_0$.

1197: The unit vectors $u_i$ are chosen such that half of the $A$ 

1198: particles and half of the

1199: $B$ particles have positive force in the $x$ direction, 

1200: and the remaining particles 

1201: have negative force in the $x$ direction.

1202: For this system we investigated different values of external 

1203: force $E \in [0,10]$ and temperature $T \in [0.5,3]$.

1204: \end{enumerate}

1205: 

1206: For each system and for each chosen value of $T$ and $E$, we simulated a very

1207: long trajectory ($\sim 2 \cdot 10^9 dt$) 

1208: starting from a random initial data; we recall that in both

1209: systems we chose $dt=

1210: 0.001 t_0$, $t_0$ being the natural unit time introduced in items (1)

1211: and (2) above. After a 

1212: short transient ($\sim 10^3 dt$), still much bigger than the 

1213: decay time $\t_0$ of self-correlations (that 

1214: appears to be $\t_0= 10^2 dt$),

1215: the system reached stationarity, in the sense that the instantaneous

1216: values of observables (\eg potential energy, Lyapunov exponents)

1217: agree with the corresponding asymptotic values within the statistical error

1218: of the asymptotic values themselves.

1219: After this transient we started recording

1220: values $p_i$, $i=1,\ldots,{\cal N}$, 

1221: of the variable $p(x)$ (defined in Eq.~\ref{pdix}),  

1222: integrating the entropy production rate (Eq.~\ref{epr}) 

1223: on adjacent segments of trajectory of length $\tau_0 = 100 dt = 0.1 t_0$.

1224: Note that the length of the time interval over which we averaged the entropy

1225: production rate was chosen as equal to the mixing time, consistently

1226: with the discussion in Remark~(4) of sec.~\ref{sec:IID}.

1227: 

1228: In conclusion, from each simulation run at fixed $T$ and $E$

1229: we obtain ${\cal N} \sim 10^7$ values $p_i$ of $p(x)$ which are

1230: the starting point of our data analysis.

1231: The value of $\sigma_+$ is estimated by 

1232: averaging the entropy production rate over the whole trajectory.

1233: 

1234: From a shorter simulation run we measured also the Lyapunov exponents

1235: of the map $S$ using the standard algorithm of Benettin {\it et al.} 

1236: \cite{SEC98,BGS76}.

1237: 

1238: \subsection{Remarks}

1239: 

1240: To conclude this section, we note that the WCA potential has a discontinuity in

1241: the second derivative. Thus, one should be concerned with the possibility

1242: that the error of our discretization is not $O(dt^4)$ over the $q_i$'s 

1243: on a single time step, as it should be for potentials $V \in C^4$.

1244: To check that this is not the case (or that 

1245: at least this does not affect our results) we made two independent tests:

1246: \begin{enumerate}

1247: \item we simulated a system similar to model I but with a potential $V \in C^4$

1248: and we obtained qualitatively the same results;

1249: \item we simulated model I using an 

1250: {\it adaptive step size} algorithm \cite{AT87}; 

1251: this kind of algorithms adapt the step size $dt$ during the simulation

1252: in order to keep constant the difference 

1253: between a single step of size $dt$ and two

1254: steps of size $dt/2$. If the precision of our 

1255: discretization changed at the singular

1256: points of the potential, the time step should change 

1257: abruptly during the simulation,

1258: while we observed a practically constant time step during the simulation.

1259: \end{enumerate}

1260: Hence, we have evidence of the fact that the (isolated) singularities 

1261: of the potentials do not produce

1262: relevant effects on our observations;

1263: this is probably due to the fact that the set of singular points of the total 

1264: potential energy $V(\ul q)$ has zero measure w.r.t. the SRB measure.

1265: 

1266: \section{Data analysis}

1267: \label{sec:IV}

1268: 

1269: \begin{figure}[t]

1270: \centering

1271: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG1.eps}

1272: \caption{Model I at $E=5$: the function 

1273: $\eta_\tau(p)=\zeta_\infty(p)+O((p-1)^2/\tau)$ 

1274: for different

1275: values of $\tau$.}

1276: \label{fig_1}

1277: \end{figure}

1278: 

1279: In this section we will discuss in detail the procedure we followed to

1280: analyze the numerical data. As an example, we will discuss the 

1281: data obtained from the simulation of model I at $E=5$. As discussed in the

1282: previous section, from the simulation run we obtain a set 

1283: ${\cal P}_0 = \{ p_i \}_{i=1\ldots{\cal N}}$ of values of the variable $p(x)$ 

1284: that correspond to $\tau= \tau_0$ and are 

1285: measured on adjacent segments of trajectory.

1286: We recall again that $\tau_0 = 0.1 = 100 dt$ is of the order 

1287: of the {\it mixing time}, {\it i.e.} 

1288: the time scale over which the correlation functions 

1289: ({\it e.g.} of density fluctuations) decay to zero.

1290: 

1291: \vskip10pt

1292: 

1293: \noindent

1294: {\it Probability distribution function} -

1295: From the dataset ${\cal P}_0$ we construct the histograms 

1296: $\pi_\tau(p)$ for different values of $\tau = n \tau_0$ as follows: 

1297: the values of $p(x)$ for $\tau = n\tau_0$ are obtained by averaging 

1298: $n$ subsequent entries of the dataset ${\cal P}_0$; we obtain a new dataset

1299: ${\cal P}_n = \{ p^{(n)}_j \}_{j=1\ldots{\cal N}/n}$ such that 

1300: $p^{(n)}_j= n^{-1} \sum_{i=nj+1}^{n(j+1)} p_i$.

1301: Finally, from the dataset ${\cal P}_n$ the histogram of $\pi_{\tau}(p)$ is

1302: constructed for $\tau=n\tau_0$; 

1303: the errors are estimated as the square roots of the number of counts

1304: in each bin.

1305: The function $\zeta_{\tau}(p)$ is then defined as

1306: $\zeta_\t(p)=\t^{-1} \log \pi_\t(p)$.

1307: 

1308: \begin{figure}[t]

1309: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG2.eps}

1310: \caption{Model I at $E=5$: the maximum $\widetilde p_\tau$ of $\zeta_\tau(p)$ 

1311: as a function of $1/\tau$.

1312: The full line is the prediction of Eq.~\ref{wttau}, 

1313: $\widetilde p = 1 - \zeta_\io^{(3)}/\big[2\tau 

1314: \big(\zeta_\io^{(2)}\big)^2\big]$.}

1315: \label{fig_2}

1316: \end{figure}

1317: 

1318: \vskip10pt

1319: 

1320: \noindent

1321: {\it Shifting of the maximum} -

1322: By fitting the function $\zeta_{\tau}(p)$ in $p\in[-1,3]$ 

1323: with a sixth-order polynomial we determine the position of the maximum

1324: $\widetilde p_\tau$ within an error that, since $\d p$ is the length of a bin,

1325: we estimate to be $\d p/2$.

1326: Then, we construct the function 

1327: $\eta_{\tau}(p) = \zeta_\tau(p-1+\widetilde p_\tau)$ 

1328: (see Eq.~\ref{etatau}) which

1329: is expected to approximate the limiting function $\zeta_\io(p)$ with error

1330: $O((p-1)^2/\tau)$.

1331: The functions $\eta_\tau(p)$ are reported 

1332: in Fig.~\ref{fig_1} for different

1333: values of $\tau$. 

1334: We observe a very good convergence for $\tau \gtrsim 5.0 = 50\tau_0$.

1335: 

1336: By a fourth-order fit of the so-obtained limiting function $\zeta_\io(p)$ 

1337: around $p=1$ we extract the coefficients $\zeta_\io^{(2)}=-0.287$ and 

1338: $\zeta_\io^{(3)}=0.149$ in order to test the correctness of 

1339: Eq.~\ref{wttau}.

1340: In Fig.~\ref{fig_2} we report $\widetilde p_\tau$. 

1341: The full line is the prediction of 

1342: Eq.~\ref{wttau}, that is indeed verified for $\tau \gtrsim 10$.

1343: This result confirms the analysis of section~\ref{sec:II}.

1344: 

1345: \begin{figure}[t]

1346: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG3.eps}

1347: \caption{Model I at $E=5$: 

1348: the estimate of the function $\zeta_\io(p)$ (open circles). 

1349: In the same

1350: plot $\zeta_\io(-p) + p\sigma_+$ (filled squares) 

1351: is reported. In the inset, the

1352: interval $p\in[-2,2]$ where the data overlap 

1353: is magnified. The full

1354: line is the Gaussian approximation, 

1355: $\frac12\zeta_\io^{(2)}(p-1)^2$.

1356: The plot shows that the Gaussian is not a good approximation

1357: in the interval $[-2,2]$. The validity of the Fluctuation Relation

1358: in the same interval is shown by the overlap of the open circles and 

1359: filled squares.}

1360: \label{fig_3}

1361: \end{figure}

1362: 

1363: \vskip10pt

1364: 

1365: \noindent

1366: {\it Graphical verification of the fluctuation relation} - 

1367: From the previous analysis we can conclude that the function $\eta_\tau(p)$ 

1368: for $\tau = 5.0$ provides a good estimate 

1369: of the function $\zeta_\io(p)$ for $p\in[-2,4]$

1370: (see Fig.~\ref{fig_1});

1371: thus, we can use this function to test the 

1372: fluctuation relation, Eq.~\ref{4},

1373: in this range of $p$. In Fig.~\ref{fig_3} we report the estimated functions

1374: $\zeta_\io(p)$ and $\zeta_\io(-p)+p\sigma_+$. An excellent agreement between 

1375: the two functions is observed in the interval $p\in[-2,2]$ where our data 

1376: allows the computation of both $\zeta_\io(p)$ and $\zeta_\io(-p)$.

1377: Note that in this range of $p$ the function $\zeta_\io(p)$ is not Gaussian, see

1378: the inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_3}.

1379: 

1380: \vskip10pt

1381: \noindent

1382: {\it Quantitative verification of the fluctuation relation} - 

1383: The translation of the function $\zeta_\tau(p)$ is crucial to obtain a

1384: correct estimate of the limit $\zeta_\infty(p)$ and to verify the fluctuation

1385: relation. 

1386: In this section we will try to quantify this observation; 

1387: as the discussion will

1388: be very technical, the reader who is satisfied with Fig.~\ref{fig_3} should 

1389: skip to next section.

1390: 

1391: The histogram $\pi_{n\tau_0}(p)$ derived from the 

1392: dataset ${\cal P}_n$ is constructed

1393: assigning the number of counts $\pi_\alpha$ in the 

1394: $\alpha$-th bin to the middle

1395: of the binning interval, that we call $p_\alpha$ 

1396: (the latter will be an {\it increasing} function of $\alpha$).

1397: The statistical error 

1398: $\delta \pi_\alpha$ on the number of counts is $\sqrt{\pi_\alpha}$. 

1399: Our histograms are constructed

1400: in such a way that if $p_\alpha$ is the center 

1401: of a bin, also $-p_\alpha$ is the center

1402: of a bin; we call $\overline\alpha$ the bin 

1403: such that $p_{\overline\alpha}=-p_\alpha$.

1404: There exists a value $p_m$ such that for $p_\alpha < p_m$ the

1405: number of counts in the bin $\alpha$ is smaller than $m$ (we choose $m=4$).

1406: Let us indicate by $p_{\alpha_m}$ the smallest value of $p_\alpha > p_m$. 

1407: Hence, the histogram is characterized by:

1408: \begin{enumerate}

1409: \item a {\it bin size} $\delta p$;

1410: \item

1411: the bin $\alpha_m$ corresponding to the minimum value of $p_\alpha$ such 

1412: that the number of counts in the bin is at least $m$;

1413: \item the total number $M$ of bins such that 

1414: $\alpha \in [\alpha_m,\overline\alpha_m]$; for these values of $p_\alpha$,

1415: both $\pi_\tau(p)$ and $\pi_\tau(-p)$ 

1416: can be computed and they can be used to verify

1417: the fluctuation relation.

1418: \end{enumerate}

1419: The function $\zeta_{\tau}(p)$, derived from the histogram, is specified by

1420: a set of values $(p_\alpha,\zeta_\alpha,\delta \zeta_\alpha)$ 

1421: for each bin $\alpha$,

1422: where $\zeta_\alpha=\tau^{-1} \log \pi_\alpha$ and 

1423: the error $\delta\zeta_\alpha$ has been defined by

1424: \beq

1425: \delta \zeta_\alpha = \frac1\tau \frac{\delta \pi_\alpha}{\pi_\alpha}=

1426: \frac1{\tau \sqrt{\pi_\alpha}} \ .

1427: \eeq

1428: A quantitative verification of Eq.~\ref{4} 

1429: is possible defining the following

1430: $\chi^2$ function:

1431: \beq

1432: \chi^2 \equiv \frac1M \sum_{\alpha=\alpha_m}^{\overline\alpha_m} 

1433: \frac{(\zeta_\alpha - \zeta_{\overline\alpha} - p_\alpha \sigma_+)^2}

1434: {(\delta \zeta_\alpha)^2 + (\delta \zeta_{\overline\alpha})^2}

1435: \eeq

1436: The value of $\chi$ is the average difference between $\zeta_\tau(p)$ and

1437: $\zeta_\tau(-p)+p\sigma_+$ in units of the statistical error.

1438: Translating $p$ of a quantity $a \delta p/2$, $a\in \ZZZ$,

1439: corresponds to shifting the histogram, {\it i.e.} to

1440: consider a new histogram $(p_\alpha + a \delta p/2,\zeta_\alpha,

1441: \delta\zeta_\alpha)$.

1442: This preserves the property that if $p_\alpha$ is the center of a bin, also

1443: $-p_\alpha$ is the center of a bin; we

1444: call $\overline\alpha(a)$ the new value of $\alpha$

1445: such that $p_{\overline\alpha(a)}+a \delta p/2=

1446: -(p_\alpha + a \delta p/2)$. Also, the number $M_a$ of bins such that

1447: $\alpha(a) \in [\alpha_m, \overline\alpha_m(a)]$ depends on $a$.

1448: We define

1449: \beq

1450: \label{chia}

1451: \chi^2(a) \equiv \frac1{M_a} \sum_{\alpha=\alpha_m}^{\overline\alpha_m(a)} 

1452: \frac{\big(\zeta_\alpha - \zeta_{\overline\alpha(a)} - 

1453: (p_\alpha + a\delta p/2) \sigma_+\big)^2}

1454: {(\delta \zeta_\alpha)^2 + (\delta \zeta_{\overline\alpha(a)})^2}

1455: \eeq

1456: We shall use the criterion that 

1457: the fluctuation relation is satisfied if $\chi \leq 3$, which means that

1458: $\zeta_\io(p)$ and $\zeta_\io(-p)+p \sigma_+$

1459: differ, {\it on average}, by less than $3$ times the statistical error 

1460: $\sqrt{ \big( \delta \zeta(p)\big)^2 +\big( \delta \zeta(-p)\big)^2}$.

1461: The function $\chi(a)$ for the case of model I at $E=5$ 

1462: is reported in Fig.~\ref{fig_4}. 

1463: 

1464: \begin{figure}[t]

1465: \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG4.eps}

1466: \caption{Model I at $E=5$: 

1467: the function $\chi(a)$. The full line corresponds to $\chi=3$.

1468: The arrow indicates the interval $\d_0\pm\d p/2$

1469: (note that its length is 2 in units of $a$)

1470: into which the minimum of $\chi$ can be located 

1471: within the accuracy of the histogram.}

1472: \label{fig_4}

1473: \end{figure}

1474: 

1475: The minimum of $\chi$

1476: is assumed between $a^*=1$ and $a^*+1=2$ and an upper limit for the value of 

1477: $\chi$ at the minimum is $\chi(1)=3.5$.

1478: We estimate the translation that minimizes $\chi$ as 

1479: $\delta_0 = (a^*+0.5) \delta p/2 = 1.5 \cdot 0.093 = 0.140$, 

1480: and to this estimate

1481: we attribute an error $\pm\d p/2$, where $\delta p = 

1482: 0.186$ is the size of a bin. 

1483: On the other hand, we have seen above that,

1484: in order to shift the maximum of $\zeta_\tau(p)$ 

1485: in $p=1$, one has to translate $p$ by a 

1486: quantity $\delta \equiv 1 - \widetilde p = 0.215$. 

1487: The consistency of our analysis

1488: requires that $\delta$ and $\d_0$ coincide within their errors, \ie 

1489: that the intervals $\d\pm\d p/2$ and $\d_0\pm\d p/2$ overlap, or in other

1490: words $|\d-\d_0|<\d p$. In the present case $0.075=|\d-\d_0|<\d p=0.186$,

1491: then $\d$ and $\d_0$ coincide within the errors. This means that

1492: the translation of $p$ 

1493: brings the maximum of $\zeta_\tau(p)$ in

1494: $p=1$ and, {\it at the same time}, minimizes the difference between

1495: $\h_\tau(p)$ and $\h_\tau(-p)+p \sigma_+$, where $\h_\t$ is our

1496: finite time estimate of $\z_\io(p)$. 

1497: The value $\chi(a^*)$ quantifies

1498: this difference and is a first estimate of the precision of our analysis.

1499: 

1500: \begin{figure}[t]

1501: \includegraphics[width=.33\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG5.eps}

1502: \caption{Model I at $E=5$: the function $\overline X(a)$. 

1503: The horizontal arrow marks the interval where 

1504: the minimum of $\chi$ is located, see

1505: Fig.~\ref{fig_4}.

1506: The vertical arrow indicates the error 

1507: $\delta X$ on the value $X=1$ which is estimated

1508: as $\delta X=2(\overline X(2)-\overline X(1))$. 

1509: The optimal slope of the fluctuation relation without

1510: the translation would have been $\overline X(a=0) \sim 0.85$.}

1511: \label{fig_5}

1512: \end{figure}

1513: 

1514: Another estimate of the precision of our analysis can be obtained as follows. 

1515: We define a parameter $X$ as the slope of $\zeta_\io(p)-\zeta_\io(-p)$ as a

1516: function of $p\sigma_+$:

1517: \beq

1518: \zeta_\io(p)= \zeta_\io(-p)+Xp\sigma_+

1519: \eeq

1520: The fluctuation theorem predicts $X=1$, but other values of $X$ are possible 

1521: under different hypothesis, see \cite{BG97,BGG97,Ga04,Ga99b}.

1522: We define a function $\chi^2(a,X)$ as

1523: \beq

1524: \label{chiaX}

1525: \chi^2(a,X) \equiv \frac1{M_a} 

1526: \sum_{\alpha=\alpha_m}^{\overline\alpha_m(a)} 

1527: \frac{\big(\zeta_\alpha - \zeta_{\overline\alpha(a)} - 

1528: X (p_\alpha+a \delta p /2) \sigma_+\big)^2}

1529: {(\delta \zeta_\alpha)^2 + (\delta \zeta_{\overline\alpha(a)})^2}

1530: \eeq

1531: and for each value of $a$ we calculate the optimal value of 

1532: $X$, $\overline X(a)$,

1533: by minimizing $\chi^2(a,X)$. The function $\overline X(a)$ is reported in 

1534: Fig.~\ref{fig_5}. As the shift of the maximum $\delta$ is between $a=1$ and

1535: $a=2$, we see that the slope $X$ is compatible with one. Moreover, as the

1536: natural error on $p$ is the size of a bin $\delta p$, we assign to the

1537: value $X=1$ a statistical error 

1538: $\delta X= 2 ( \overline X(2)-\overline X(1) ) = 0.22$.

1539: Note again that without the translation of $p$ the optimal slope would be

1540: $X \sim 0.85$, incompatible with Eq.~\ref{4}.

1541: 

1542: \vskip10pt

1543: \noindent

1544: {\it Discussion} - From the present analysis, we can conclude that:

1545: \begin{enumerate}

1546: \item the translation shifting the maximum of 

1547: $\z_\t(p)$ to $p=1$ at the same time

1548: minimizes the difference between $\h_\tau(p)$ and $\h_\tau(-p)+p \sigma_+$, 

1549: where $\h_\t$ is our

1550: finite time estimate of $\z_\io$; this proves the consistency of our

1551: theory of finite time corrections;

1552: \item without the translation of $p$ (that corresponds to $a=0$), 

1553: the function $\zeta_\tau(p)$ for $\tau \sim 5.0$

1554: {\it do not satisfy the fluctuation relation}, as $\chi(a=0) = 11$ 

1555: and $\overline X(a=0)=0.85$;

1556: \item the function $\eta_\tau(p)=\zeta_\tau(p-\delta)$ 

1557: satisfies the fluctuation relation

1558: with $\chi \sim 3$ and an error of about $20\%$ on the slope $X$: 

1559: both quantities measure

1560: the accuracy of our analysis.

1561: \end{enumerate}

1562: Thus, the check of the fluctuation relation relies 

1563: crucially on the translation

1564: of the function $\zeta_\tau(p)$ that has been discussed 

1565: in section~\ref{sec:II}.

1566: By considering larger values of $\tau$ one could avoid this problem 

1567: (as $\delta \sim \tau^{-1}$); however, 

1568: as one can see from Fig.~\ref{fig_1}, for $\tau > 5.0$

1569: the negative tails of $\zeta_\tau(p)$ are not accessible to our computational

1570: resources. The computation of the finite time corrections 

1571: is mandatory if one aims to test

1572: the fluctuation relation at high values of the external driving force.

1573: 

1574: \vskip10pt

1575: \noindent

1576: {\it Summary of the data analysis} - To conclude, we summarize the procedure

1577: we follow to analyze the data of a given simulation run:

1578: \begin{enumerate}

1579: \item we determine a value of $\tau$ such that $\zeta_\tau(p)$ appear to

1580: be close to the asymptotic

1581: limit $\zeta_\infty(p)$;

1582: \item we determine the maximum $\widetilde p$ of $\zeta_\tau(p)$ 

1583: by a sixth-order polynomial fit around $p=1$, in an

1584: interval as big as possible compatibly with the request

1585: that the $\c^2$ from the fit is less than $\sim 10$;

1586: \item we shift the histogram of an integer multiple $a$ of the half 

1587: bin size $\delta p/2$ and

1588: compute the function $\chi(a)$ according to Eq.~\ref{chia}. 

1589: We determine the value $a^*$ 

1590: such that the minimum of $\chi(a)$ is

1591: assumed in the interval $[a^*,a^*+1]$: 

1592: the consistency of our analysis requires that

1593: $\delta = 1 - \widetilde p$ and $\d_0=(a^*+0.5)\d p/2$ 

1594: coincide within their errors

1595: (\ie $|\d-\d_0|<\d p$);

1596: \item The value $\chi^* = \min [\chi(a^*),\chi(a^*+1)]$ is an

1597: upper limit for the value of $\chi$ at the minimum.

1598: The number of bins $\min\{M_{a^*},M_{a^*+1}\}$ involved in 

1599: this estimate will be called $M^*$; 

1600: \item we compute the error $\delta X = 2( \overline X(a^*+1) - 

1601: \overline X(a^*))$.

1602: \end{enumerate}

1603: The relevant quantities $\tau$, $\delta$, $\d_0$, $|\d-\d_0|$, $\d p$, 

1604: $M^*$, $\chi^*$ and $\delta X$ 

1605: for model I are

1606: reported in table~\ref{tab:I} for different values of the external force $E$.

1607: 

1608: \section{Numerical simulation of model I}

1609: 

1610: \begin{figure}[t]

1611: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG6.eps}

1612: \caption{Model I: mobility $\mu$ as a function of the driving force $E$. 

1613: The full line is the

1614: equilibrium diffusion coefficient $D$ divided by the temperature. 

1615: Deviations from the

1616: linear response are observed around $E=5$. 

1617: The error bars are of the order of the

1618: dimension of the symbols. Studying $\m(E)$ 

1619: for values of $E$ bigger than those shown in the figure,

1620: one can verify that

1621: the mobility increases

1622: up to a value $\m_{max}$, reached in correspondence of

1623: $E\sim 45$. For values of $E$ bigger than $E\sim 45$, the mobility

1624: begins to decrease essentially following the limiting curve 

1625: $T J_T/(NE)$, where $J_T=\sqrt{T(d-1/N)}N/T$

1626: is the maximum allowed value of the current (saturation value).}

1627: \label{fig_6}

1628: \end{figure}

1629: 

1630: \begin{table}[b]

1631: \begin{tabular}{r|ccccccccc}

1632: \hline

1633: $E$ & $\tau$  & $\sigma_+$ & $\delta$ & $\d_0$ & $|\d-\d_0|$ & 

1634: $\d p$ & $M^*$ & $\chi^*$ & $\delta X$ \\

1635: \hline

1636: 2.5 & 5.0 & 0.194 & 0.272 & 0.183 & 0.089 & 0.244 & 43 & 2.2 & 0.24 \\

1637: 5.0 & 5.0 & 0.810 & 0.215 & 0.139 & 0.076 & 0.187 & 20 & 3.5 & 0.22 \\

1638: 7.5 & 4.0 & 1.945 & 0.197 & 0.116 & 0.081 & 0.116 & 18 & 2.8 & 0.18 \\

1639: 10.0 & 2.5 & 4.044 & 0.262 & 0.151 & 0.111 & 0.122 & 17 & 4.4 & 0.20 \\

1640: 12.5 & 2.5 & 7.090 & 0.257 & 0.137 & 0.120 & 0.111 & 8 & 3.5 & 0.28 \\

1641: \hline

1642: \end{tabular}

1643: \caption{Model I: results of the data analysis 

1644: for some selected values of $E$. 

1645: All the quantities are defined in section~\ref{sec:IV}. 

1646: For $E > 12.5$ the negative tails of the distribution 

1647: are not accessible to our numerical simulation.}

1648: \label{tab:I}

1649: \end{table}

1650: 

1651: We will now discuss systematically the numerical data 

1652: obtained from the simulation

1653: of model I (defined in section~\ref{sec:III}) 

1654: at different values of the driving

1655: force $E$. In Fig.~\ref{fig_6} we report the {\it mobility}

1656: $\mu(E) = T \langle J \rangle_E / (N E)$, {\it i.e.} 

1657: the l.h.s. of Eq.~\ref{GKestesa} times $T/N$, as 

1658: a function of $E$. The current $J(\ul p,\ul q)$ has 

1659: been defined in Eq.~\ref{Jcolor}.

1660: From the Green-Kubo relation, Eq.~\ref{GK},

1661: we have \cite{EM90}

1662: \beq

1663: \lim_{E \rightarrow 0} \mu(E) = \frac{D}{T} \ ,

1664: \eeq

1665: where $D$ is the equilibrium diffusion coefficient,

1666: \beq

1667: D= \lim_{t\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{2Nd} \sum_i 

1668: \langle |q_i(t)-q_i(0)|^2 \rangle_{E=0}

1669: \eeq

1670: Deviations from the linear response are observed and 

1671: $\mu(E) \sim D/T + O(E^2)$ above $E=5$.

1672: 

1673: \begin{figure}[t]

1674: \includegraphics[width=.40\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG7.eps}

1675: \caption{Model I: Lyapunov exponents for $E=5$ (top) and for $E=25$ (bottom).

1676: For each panel, the upper and lower dots are the two paired 

1677: exponents $\lambda^{(+)}_j$

1678: and $\lambda^{(-)}_j$, and the

1679: middle dot is their average $(\lambda^{(+)}_j+\lambda^{(-)}_j)/2$.

1680: The full line is $\sigma_+/2Nd$, the dashed line is at $\lambda=0$.

1681: }

1682: \label{fig_7}

1683: \end{figure}

1684: 

1685: In table~\ref{tab:I} we report the main parameters 

1686: that result from the data analysis

1687: (as discussed in the previous section) for some selected values of $E$.

1688: The value $|\d-\d_0|$ is always less than $\d p$, consistently with our

1689: discussion above, except for $E=12.5$ where, however, the relative difference 

1690: between the two quantities is small ($\sim 9\%$). 

1691: It can be noted that

1692: $\d$ is systematically bigger than $\d_0$. 

1693: This could be due to the fact that  

1694: the error terms $O((p-1)^2/\t)$ or $o(1/\t)$ that we are discarding

1695: likely produce a systematic shift in $\d$ or in $\d_0$; or that

1696: the velocity of convergence of $\z_\t(p)$ is not the same on the negative or 

1697: on the positive side (because numerically is much more difficult to

1698: observe big negative fluctuations of $\s$ than the positive ones -- 

1699: and the Fluctuation Relation provides a quantitative estimate

1700: of the relative probabilities). 

1701: At the moment, because of the level of precision of our

1702: simulations, we are not able to investigate this problem in more 

1703: detail, see also Remark (3) in section~\ref{sec:IID}.

1704: On increasing the value of $E$, we are forced to decrease 

1705: the value of $\tau$ we use for

1706: the analysis as, for longer $\tau$, 

1707: the negative tail of the distribution $\zeta_\tau(p)$

1708: becomes unobservable. This can be seen as the number 

1709: $M^*$ of bins used for the computation of

1710: $\chi$ decrease on increasing $E$; 

1711: above $E=12.5$ it is impossible to find a value of

1712: $\tau$ such that $\zeta_\tau(p)$ 

1713: is close to the asymptotic limit and the negative tail

1714: is observable. Thus, the fluctuation relation 

1715: cannot be tested above $E=12.5$ with

1716: our computational power. However, we are able to 

1717: check the fluctuation relation in

1718: the region $E > 5$ where deviations from the 

1719: linear response are observed. Moreover,

1720: the estimated distributions $\zeta_\io(p)$ are very similar to the one reported

1721: in Fig.~\ref{fig_3}: in particular, they are not Gaussian 

1722: in the investigated

1723: interval of $p$ (also for $E < 5$, in the linear response regime).

1724: 

1725: Finally, in Fig.~\ref{fig_7} 

1726: we report the measured Lyapunov exponents of the model for $E=5$ 

1727: and $E=25$. For this system, the Lyapunov exponents are 

1728: known to be paired \cite{SEC98,SEI98,DM96}

1729: like in Hamiltonian systems

1730: and the average of each pair is a constant equal to $\sigma_+/2Nd$.

1731: For $E=5$, each pair is composed of a negative and a positive exponent.

1732: This means that the attractive set is dense in phase space \cite{BGG97,Ga99b}

1733: and the chaotic hypothesis is expected to apply to the system yielding a slope

1734: $X=1$ in the fluctuation relation, as confirmed by our numerical data. The same

1735: happens up to $E \sim 20$. 

1736: Above $E=20$, there is a number $D$ of pairs composed by two negative exponents

1737: (for $E=25$ we get $D=4$, see Fig.~\ref{fig_7}).

1738: In this situation, the slope $X$ in the fluctuation relation is expected to be

1739: given by $X = 1 - D/Nd$ \cite{BG97,Ga99b}. 

1740: Thus, for $E=25$ one expects $X \sim 0.75$. Unfortunately,

1741: as discussed above, above $E=12.5$ we did not observe negative fluctuations

1742: of the entropy production, and this prediction could not be tested in

1743: our simulation.

1744: 

1745: 

1746: \section{Numerical simulation of model II}

1747: 

1748: \begin{figure}[t]

1749: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG8.eps}

1750: \caption{Mobility as a function of the temperature $T$ and of the 

1751: driving force $E$ for model II. The circles correspond to the

1752: equilibrium diffusion coefficient divided by the temperature.

1753: Deviations from the linear response are observed for $E \geq 3$;

1754: they become larger on lowering the temperature, 

1755: as $D \rightarrow 0$.

1756: }

1757: \label{fig_8}

1758: \end{figure}

1759: 

1760: \begin{figure}[t]

1761: \includegraphics[width=.50\textwidth,angle=0]{FIG9.eps}

1762: \caption{The estimate of the function $\zeta_\io(p)$ (open circles) for

1763: model II with $T=1.1$ and $E=3$. In the same

1764: plot $\zeta_\io(-p) + p\sigma_+$ (filled squares) is reported. 

1765: In the inset, the

1766: interval $p\in[-1.5,1.5]$ where the data overlap is magnified. The full

1767: line is the Gaussian approximation, $\zeta_\io(p) = 

1768: \frac12\zeta_\io^{(2)}(p-1)^2$.

1769: The data have been obtained from the histogram of $\pi_\tau(p)$ with $\tau=2.5$

1770: (see table~\ref{tab:II}).

1771: }

1772: \label{fig_9}

1773: \end{figure}

1774: 

1775: \begin{table}[b]

1776: \begin{tabular}{rr|ccccccccc}

1777: \hline

1778: $T$ & $E$ & $\tau$  & $\sigma_+$ & $\delta$ & $\d_0$ & $|\d-\d_0|$ &

1779: $\d p$ & $M^*$ & $\chi^*$ & $\delta X$ \\

1780: \hline

1781: 0.9 & 1 & 3.0 & 0.209 & 0.453 & 0.334 & 0.119 & 0.223 & 68 & 1.9 & 0.19 \\

1782: 0.9 & 3 & 3.0 & 2.615 & 0.286 & 0.264 & 0.024 & 0.132 & 15 & 1.0 & 0.23 \\

1783: \hline

1784: 1.1 & 1 & 4.0 & 0.233 & 0.231 & 0.126 & 0.105 & 0.126 & 79 & 1.7 & 0.24 \\

1785: 1.1 & 3 & 2.5 & 2.493 & 0.217 & 0.238 & 0.021 & 0.087 & 30 & 1.0 & 0.12 \\

1786: 1.1 & 6 & 1.5 & 13.32 & 0.113 & 0.230 & 0.117 & 0.092 & 7 & 1.1 & 0.21 \\

1787: \hline

1788: 1.5 & 1 & 3.0 & 0.230 & 0.179 & 0.140 & 0.039 & 0.140 & 86 & 0.9 & 0.13 \\

1789: 1.5 & 3 & 2.5 & 2.227 & 0.145 & 0.123 & 0.022 & 0.082 & 33 & 4.7 & 0.18 \\

1790: 1.5 & 6 & 0.5 & 52.14 & 0.074 & 0.130 & 0.056 & 0.052 & 11 & 0.6 & 0.10 \\

1791: \hline

1792: 1.7 & 1 & 3.0 & 0.221 & 0.127 & 0.141 & 0.014 & 0.283 & 49 & 1.0 & 0.26 \\

1793: \hline

1794: 1.9 & 3 & 2.5 & 1.981 & 0.106 & 0.122 & 0.016 & 0.122 & 26 & 0.8 & 0.12 \\

1795: 1.9 & 6 & 0.4 & 43.52 & 0.078 & 0.126 & 0.048 & 0.085 & 14 & 1.7 & 0.11 \\

1796: 1.9 & 10 & 0.2 & 139.0 & 0.079 & 0.135 & 0.056 & 0.039 & 7 & 0.8 & 0.10 \\

1797: \hline

1798: 2.1 & 6 & 0.4 & 40.48 & 0.074 & 0.110 & 0.036 & 0.110 & 11 & 1.0 & 0.15 \\

1799: \hline

1800: \end{tabular}

1801: \caption{Model II: results of the data analysis 

1802: for some selected values of $T$ and $E$. 

1803: All the quantities are defined in section~\ref{sec:IV}.

1804: }

1805: \label{tab:II}

1806: \end{table}

1807: 

1808: Model II differs from model I in the dimension $d=3$, in the larger

1809: number of particles $N=20$, and because it is a binary mixture of

1810: two types of particles.

1811: Binary mixtures are frequently used as models for numerical simulations 

1812: of supercooled liquids as they avoid crystallization also 

1813: at very low temperature on the "physical" time scales (\ie on the time scales

1814: of numerical experiments); for these systems, at low temperature 

1815: deviations from the linear response are observed

1816: also for very low values of the external driving force.

1817: 

1818: In Fig.~\ref{fig_8} we report the equilibrium diffusion coefficient

1819: $D$ (divided by the temperature $T$) and the mobility (for different

1820: values of $E$) as functions of the temperature.

1821: Even though the number of particles is very small, on lowering the 

1822: temperature the systems approaches the supercooled

1823: state and $D$ becomes very small around $T \sim 0.5$.

1824: Slightly above this temperature, \ie around $T=1$, 

1825: strong deviations from the linear response are

1826: observed for $E \geq 3$, where the entropy production $\sigma_+$ is still

1827: close to $0$. Some values of $\sigma_+$ are reported in table~\ref{tab:II}; 

1828: to compare these values with those obtained for model I one should note

1829: that $\sigma_+$ is an {\it extensive} quantity. Thus, the entropy production

1830: {\it per degree of freedom}, $\sigma_+/2Nd$, is much smaller in model II

1831: than in model I. 

1832: 

1833: In table~\ref{tab:II} the results of the data analysis outlined in 

1834: section~\ref{sec:IV} are reported. For $E \leq 6$ we obtain a very good 

1835: agreement of the data with the predictions of the fluctuation relation 

1836: and with the  theory of finite time 

1837: corrections discussed in section~\ref{sec:II}.

1838: For $E=10$ it is very difficult to observe negative fluctuations of $p$

1839: with our computational power; see {\it e.g.} the result of the 

1840: analysis for $E=10$ and

1841: $T=1.9$, where only $M^*=7$ bins where available and we were forced to use

1842: $\tau=0.2$, of the order of the mixing time $\tau_0$.

1843: In Fig.~\ref{fig_9} we report the estimated function $\zeta_\io(p)$ obtained

1844: for $T=1.1$ and $E=3$ from the data with $\tau=2.5$. Strong deviations from

1845: the Gaussian behavior are observed in the accessible range of $p$ (see the

1846: inset of Fig.~\ref{fig_9}). A similar behavior

1847: of $\z_\io(p)$ is observed in correspondence of all the values

1848: of $E$ and $T$ we investigated (those listed in Table II):

1849: in particular in all these cases highly non Gaussian behaviors

1850: are observed in the accessible range of $p$. 

1851: 

1852: The Lyapunov spectrum for this system is very similar to the one reported

1853: in the upper panel of Fig~\ref{fig_7}. Pairs of two negative exponents were

1854: observed only for $E=10$ at $T \leq 1.3$, where, as in the case of model I,

1855: $\sigma_+$ is too large to allow for a 

1856: verification of the modified fluctuation relation expected in this case,

1857: see the discussion at the end of section V.

1858: 

1859: \section{Conclusions}

1860: 

1861: We tested the fluctuation relation, in our opinion quite successfully, 

1862: in a numerical simulation of

1863: two models of interacting particles subjected to an external nonconservative

1864: force and to a reversible mechanical thermostat. 

1865: Our data satisfy the fluctuation relation with a $\chi \leq 3$

1866: and an accuracy of the order of $20 \%$ also for very large values of the

1867: driving force, where strong deviations from the linear response are observed, 

1868: and where the large deviation function is strongly non-Gaussian.

1869: The comparison of our numerical data with the predictions of the 

1870: fluctuation relation is done by taking into account the 

1871: (lowest order) finite time

1872: corrections to the distribution function for the fluctuations of

1873: the phase space contraction rate. This is crucial: if we did not 

1874: take into account such corrections the fluctuation relation would

1875: be violated within the precision of our experiment.

1876: 

1877: In order to compute the finite time corrections, 

1878: we proposed an algorithm which allows to reconstruct the asymptotic 

1879: distribution function from measurable quantities at finite time, within

1880: a given precision. Our theory of the corrections relies on the 

1881: symbolic representation of the chaotic dynamics, therefore it is 

1882: applicable if one accepts the Chaotic Hypothesis.

1883: 

1884: Our interpretation of the numerical results is that the 

1885: {\it chaotic hypothesis} can be applied to these

1886: systems, also very far from equilibrium, and in particular

1887: the fluctuation relation is 

1888: satisfied even in regions where its predictions measurably differ 

1889: from those of linear response theory.

1890: 

1891: Our theory of finite time corrections for the analysis of our

1892: numerical data could in principle be of interest for real experimental

1893: settings where non Gaussian fluctuations for the entropy production

1894: rate are observed, see \cite{FM04,CL98}.

1895: 

1896: However it should be stressed that in a real experiment there are some

1897: technical differences with respect to our numerical simulation which

1898: could in some cases make 

1899: inapplicable 

1900: our analysis, namely:

1901: \\ 

1902: {\it (i)} usually the noise in the large deviation function for the

1903: entropy production rate in a real experiment is much bigger than in a

1904: numerical experiment, and it is likely that the translation in 

1905: Eq.~\ref{etatau} computed as the ratio $\z^{(3)}/(\z^{(2)})^2$ is not

1906: measurable within an error of some percent;

1907: \\

1908: {\it (ii)} usually in a real experiment the accessible time scales

1909: are naturally much bigger than the microscopic ones so that, if the

1910: negative fluctuations of the entropy production rate are observable at all,

1911: one is automatically in the asymptotic regime, where the finite time

1912: corrections should be negligible;

1913: \\

1914: {\it (iii)} a usual problem in a realistic setting is that there is no

1915: clear connection between the ``natural'' thermodynamic entropy

1916: production rate $\dot s=W/T$ ($W$ is the work of the dissipative

1917: external forces and $T$ is the temperature) and the microscopic phase

1918: space contraction rate, for which a slope $X=1$ in the fluctuation

1919: relation $\z(p)-\z(-p)=X\sigma_+p$ is expected; 

1920: so, often one measures an $X\neq 1$ and correspondingly one {\it

1921: defines} an effective temperature $T_{eff}=T/X$ giving a natural

1922: connection between the effective thermodynamic entropy production rate

1923: $\dot s_{eff}=W/T_{eff}$ and the phase space contraction rate, see

1924: \cite{CL98,FM04,Ga04};

1925: in such a situation (where an adjustable parameter $X$ appears) it makes 

1926: no sense to apply our analysis, which is sensible only if one wants to compare

1927: the experimental data with a sharp prediction about the slope $X$ in the

1928: fluctuation relation.

1929: 

1930: A big open problem we are left with is trying to understand 

1931: how the fluctuation relation is modified for values

1932: of the driving force so high that the attractive set is no longer dense in phase

1933: space. It is expected, \cite{BG97},

1934: that in such a case 

1935: $\z_\io(p)-\z_\io(-p)$ is still linear, but the slope is $X\s_+$, with 

1936: $X$ given by the ratio of the dimension of the attractive set and

1937: of that of the whole phase space. An estimate of such quantity can be given 

1938: via the number of negative pairs of exponents in the Lyapunov spectrum 

1939: \cite{BG97,Ga99b}.

1940: Unfortunately negative pairs begin to appear in the Lyapunov spectrum

1941: only for values of the external force so high that no negative fluctuations

1942: are observable anymore.

1943: We hope that future work will address this point.

1944: 

1945: \appendix

1946: \section{A Limit Theorem}

1947: \label{app:A}

1948: 

1949: In this section we prove Eq.~\ref{24}--\ref{23}. 

1950: We reproduce in detail the proof 

1951: in the case $p$ is the average 

1952: of independently distributed discrete variables $\s_i^\e$, assuming

1953: values in $\e\ZZZ$, for some small mesh parameter $\e$; then we discuss

1954: how this can be applied and adapted to the situation

1955: considered in section IIC and subsequent sections.

1956: 

1957: Let us introduce some definitions. Let $\s_i$, $i\in\NNN$, 

1958: be independent continuous random variables with identical 

1959: distributions $\p(d\s_i)$ with positive variance $\d\s^2>0$, supported

1960: on the finite interval $[s_-,s_+]$. Let us assume that $\p(d\s_i)$

1961: gives positive probability to any finite interval contained in $[s_-,s_+]$.

1962: Let $\p_\l(d\s)$ be the weighted distribution 

1963: $\p_\l(d\s)=e^{-\l\s}\p(d\s)/\int e^{-\l\s}\p(d\s)$ and let us define

1964: $z_\io(\l)=-\log\int e^{-\l\s}\p(d\s)$ and $\s_+=z_\io'(0)$.

1965: Note that the assumption 

1966: that $\p(d\s_i)$ gives positive probability to an interval of $\s$

1967: in $[s_-,s_+]$ implies that for any finite

1968: $\l$ also $\p_\l(d\s)$ has positive variance $-z_\io''(\l)>0$. 

1969: 

1970: Also, given $\e>0$ (with the property that $s_+-s_-=N_\e\e$ for some integer 

1971: $N_\e$), 

1972: let us consider the discretization of 

1973: $\s_i$ on scale $\e$, call it $\s_i^\e$: $\s_i^\e$ will be a discrete variable 

1974: assuming the values 

1975: $s_k^\e\defin s_-+(k-\frac{1}{2})\e$, $k=1,\ldots,N_{\e}$, 

1976: with probabilities $\p^\e(s_k^\e)=

1977: \Prob(\s_i^\e=s_k^\e)=\int_{s_k^\e\pm\frac{\e}{2}}

1978: \p(d\s)$. The assumption that $\p(d\s_i)$

1979: gives positive probability to any finite interval contained 

1980: in $[s_-,s_+]$ implies that $\p^\e(s_k^\e)>0$ for any $\e$ and $k$.

1981: Let also $z_\e(\l)=-\log\sum_{k=1}^{N_\e}e^{-\l s_k^\e}\p^\e

1982: (s_k^\e)$ and $\p^\e_\l(s_k^\e)=\p^\e(s_k^\e)e^{-\l s_k^\e+z_\e(\l)}$.

1983: Note that, since $\p^\e(s_k^\e)>0$ for any $k$, for any finite $\l$ one has

1984: $-z_\e''(\l)>0$.

1985: 

1986: If $p_\t^\e=\frac{1}{\t\s_+}\sum_{i=1}^\t\s_i^\e$ and $\P_\t(\e;I)$ is the 

1987: probability 

1988: that $p_\t^\e$ belongs 

1989: to the finite interval $I$, the following theorem holds.\\

1990: \\

1991: {\bf Theorem:} 

1992: {\it Given a finite interval $I\subset (s_-,s_+)$, let $\s_i^\e$, $\p^\e$ and 

1993: $\P_\t(\e;I)$ be defined as above. Then, for a sufficiently small $\e>0$,

1994: there exists an analytic "rate function" $\widetilde\z_\t(p)$ such that

1995: %

1996: \beq\label{A1.1}

1997: \lim_{\t\to\io}\frac

1998: {\P_\t(\e;I)} 

1999: {\int_{I} dp e^{\t\wt\z_\t(p)}}

2000: =1\;.\eeq

2001: %

2002: $\widetilde\z_\t(p)$ is defined by:

2003: %

2004: \beq\label{A1.2}\begin{split}

2005: &\wt\z_\t(p)+\frac{1}{\t}\log\Big[\frac{\sinh[\e\l_p^\e/(2\s_+)]}

2006: {\e\l_p^\e/(2\s_+)}

2007: \Big]=\z_\t^\e(p)\\

2008: &\z_\t^\e(p)=-z_\e(\l_p^\e)+\l_p^\e p\s_+-\frac{1}{2\t}

2009: \log[\frac{2\p}{\t}\Big(-\frac{z_\e''(\l_p^\e)}{\s_+^2}\Big)]\end{split}

2010: \eeq

2011: %

2012: and $\l_p^\e$ is the inverse of $p(\l)=z_\e'(\l)/\s_+$. 

2013: The function $\z_\t^\e(p)$ has the 

2014: following property: if $\D\subset I$ is an interval of 

2015: size $\frac{\e}{\t\s_+}$ around

2016: a point $p_\D$, then:

2017: %

2018: \beq\label{A1.1a}

2019: \lim_{\t\to\io}\frac

2020: {\P_\t(\e;\D)}{|\D|e^{\t\z_\t^\e(p_\D)}}=1\eeq

2021: %

2022: }

2023: \\

2024: {\bf Proof}

2025: %Given $I$, let $J$ be the image of $I$ through $\l=\l_p$ (that is well 

2026: %defined if $\e$ is chosen small enough).

2027: Let us introduce the 

2028: auxiliary variable $q={1\over\t\s_+}\sum_{i=1}^\t\h_i$,

2029: where $\h_i$ are i.i.d. discrete random variables, with distribution 

2030: $\p_\l^\e(s_k^\e)$. Let us call $\P_\t^\l(\e;q_0)$ the probability that 

2031: $q$ assumes the value $q_0\in I$, with $q_0\s_+=s_k^\e/\t$ for some $k\in\NNN$,

2032: and note that

2033: $\P_\t^0(\e;q_0)$ is identical to the probability that $p_\t=q_0$.

2034: By definition $\P_\t^\l(q_0)$ and $\P_\t^0(q_0)$ are related by:

2035: %

2036: \beq\label{A1.5}

2037: \P_\t^\l(\e;q_0)={e^{-\l q_0\s_+\t}\P_\t^0(\e;q_0)\over 

2038: \big[\sum_k e^{-\l s_k^\e} \p^\e(s_k^\e)\big]^\t}

2039: \eeq

2040: %

2041: Now, a local form of central limit theorem 

2042: (Gnedenko's theorem, see pag. 211 of \cite{Fi63}) tells us that, 

2043: if $q$ is localized near its mean value, that is if 

2044: $|q\s_+-z_\e'(\l)|\le \frac{M\e}{\t}$

2045: for some finite $M$, then $\P_\t^\l(\e;q_0)$ is asymptotically equivalent

2046: to the Gaussian with mean $z_\e'(\l)$ and variance 

2047: $-z_\e''(\l)$, in the sense that

2048: %

2049: \beq\label{A1.6}\P_\t^\l(q_0)=\frac{\e}{\sqrt{2\p\t(-z_\e''(\l))}}e^{-

2050: \frac{(q_0\s_+-z'_\e(\l))^2}{2(-z_\e''(\l))}\t}(1+o(1))\;,\eeq

2051: %

2052: for any $q_0$ s.t. $|q\s_+-z_\e'(\l)|\le \frac{M\e}{\t}$

2053: \footnote{\label{central} Note that Gnedenko's Theorem is {\it different}

2054: from the usual central limit theorem, stating instead that for 

2055: $|q\s_+-z_\e'(\l)|\le \frac{C}{\sqrt\t}$ ($C$ big) the sums of 

2056: $\P_\t^\l(\e;q)$ over intervals of amplitude $\frac{1}{\sqrt\t}$ contained in 

2057: $|q\s_+-z_\e'(\l)|\le \frac{C}{\sqrt\t}$

2058: are asymptotically equal to the integrals of the Gaussian 

2059: over the same intervals. 

2060: That is, usual central limit theorem gives informations on the distribution

2061: in a bigger interval around the maximum, but on a rougher scale.}.

2062: 

2063: So, given $\l_{q_0}^\e$ s.t. $z_\e'(\l_{q_0}^\e)=q_0\s_+$ (such $\l_{q_0}^\e$ 

2064: exists, is unique

2065: and is an analytic function of $q_0$, by the remark that $-z_\e''(\l)>0$ for

2066: any finite $\l$ and

2067: $z_\e(\l)$ is an analytic function of $\l$), using

2068: Eq.~\ref{A1.6} we see that 

2069: Eq.~\ref{A1.5} can be restated as:

2070: %

2071: \beq\label{A1.7}\P_\t^0(\e;q_0)=\frac{\e}{\sqrt{2\p\t(-z_\e''(\l_{q_0}^\e))}}

2072: e^{\l_{q_0}^\e q_0\s_+\t-z_\e(\l_{q_0}^\e)}(1+o(1))\eeq

2073: %

2074: Now, by the definition of $\z_\t^\e(p)$ in Eq.~\ref{A1.2}, we see that 

2075: the r.h.s. of the last equation is equal to 

2076: $\frac{\e}{\t\s_+}e^{\t\z_\t^\e(q_0)}(1+o(1))$.

2077: Finally, the statement of the Theorem follows by the remark that 

2078: %

2079: \beq\label{A1.8}

2080: \frac{\e}{\t\s_+}e^{\t\z_\t^\e(p_0)}=\int_{p_0-\frac{\e}{2\t\s_+}}^{p_0+\frac{\e}

2081: {2\t\s_+}}dp e^{\t\tilde\z_\t(p)}\Big(1+o(1)\Big)\;.\eeq	

2082: %

2083: In fact the integral in the r.h.s. of the last equation is given by

2084: %

2085: \beq \label{A1.9}\begin{split}

2086: &e^{\t\tilde\z_\t(p_0)} \int_{p_0-\frac{\e}{2\t\s_+}}^{p_0+\frac{\e}

2087: {2\t\s_+}}dp e^{\t\tilde\z_\t'(p_0)(p-p_0)}\Big(1+O(\frac{\wt\z_\t''(p_0)\e^2}{\t})

2088: \Big)=\\

2089: &=e^{\t\tilde\z_\t(p_0)} \frac{2\sinh[\tilde\z_\t'(p_0)\e/(2\s_+)]}

2090: {\t\tilde\z_\t'(p_0)}

2091: \Big(1+O(\frac{\wt\z_\t''(p_0)\e^2}{\t})\Big)\end{split}\eeq

2092: %

2093: and in the last expression one has to note that $\wt\z_\t'(p_0)=[\z_\t^\e]'(p_0)+

2094: O(\frac{1}{\t})=\l_{p_0}^\e+O(\frac{1}{\t}).\ $ \qed

2095: \\

2096: \\

2097: A first Remark to be done about the Theorem above is that, in order

2098: to define a ``universal'' rate function in terms of quantities 

2099: depending only on 

2100: $z_\io(\l)$ (instead of quantities depending 

2101: on the ``non universal'' function $z_\e(\l)$, 

2102: which explicitly depends on the discretization step $\e$), it would

2103: desirable to perform (in a sense to be precised) 

2104: the continuum limit $\e\to 0$. To this regard, we can note that 

2105: the only point where in the proof above we really used the fact that 

2106: $\e$ is a constant (\ie is independent of $\t$) was in using Gnedenko's 

2107: Theorem, see \cite{Fi63}. However, by a critical analysis of the proof 

2108: of Gnedenko's Theorem, one can realize that it is even possible to 

2109: let $\e=\e_\t$ go to $0$ with $\t$; 

2110: the velocity with which $\e_\t$ is allowed to go to $0$ depends on the 

2111: details of the distribution $\p(d\s)$. 

2112: So we can even study the probability distribution of $p_\t$ on a scale

2113: $\sim \e_\t/\t$: if we introduce bins $\D_\t$ of size $O(\e_\t/\t)$

2114: and we define $\P_\t(\D_\t)$ to be the probability that $p_\t={1\over \t\s_+}

2115: \sum_i\s_i$ belongs to the bin $\D_\t$ centered in $p_0$, we can 

2116: repeat the proof above to conclude that

2117: %

2118: \beq\label{A1.9a}

2119: \lim_{\t\to\io}\frac

2120: {\P_\t(\D_\t)}{|\D_\t|e^{\t\z_\t(p_0)}}=1\eeq

2121: % 

2122: where $\z_\t$ satisfies the equation:

2123: %

2124: \beq\z_\t(p)=-z_\io(\l_p)+\l_p p\s_+-\frac{1}{2\t}

2125: \log[\frac{2\p}{\t}\Big(-\frac{z_\io''(\l_p)}{\s_+^2}\Big)]\eeq

2126: %

2127: and $\l_p$ is the inverse of $p(\l)=z_\io'(\l)/\s_+$. \\

2128:  

2129: Another point to be discussed is that in the Theorem above we assumed 

2130: the $\s_i$ to be independent. 

2131: This is not the case for the variables $\s(S^i\cdot)$ of sec.~\ref{sec:II}. 

2132: However, if, as discussed in Remark (3) of sec.~\ref{sec:IID},

2133: we choose the time unit to be of the order of the mixing time, the variables 

2134: $\s(S^i\cdot)$ have (by construction) a decorrelation time equal to $1$, and the 

2135: analysis of previous theorem can be repeated step by step

2136: in order to construct the probability distribution of 

2137: $p=\frac{1}{\t\s_+}\sum_{i}\s(S^i\cdot)$. The only differences

2138: are that: (1) $\t z_\io(\l)$ should be replaced by $\t z_\t(\l)

2139: =-\log\int 

2140: e^{-\l p\s_+\t}\P_\t(dp)$ throughout the discussion; (2) instead of Gnedenko's

2141: theorem one has to apply a generalization of Gnedenko's to short ranged

2142: Gibbs processes, to be proven via standard cluster expansion

2143: techniques (see for instance \cite{Ga72} for a proof of a generalization

2144: of Gnedenko's theorem to a short ranged Gibbs process

2145: in the context of non critical fluctuations 

2146: of the phase separation line in the 2D Ising model). \\

2147: 

2148: The conclusion is that, if the bins $\D$ 

2149: in sec.~\ref{sec:IIC} are chosen of size $\e_\t/\t$, the probability of the bin $\D$

2150: centered in $p_\D$ is asymptotically given by $\p(p\in\D)\simeq e^{\t\z_\t(p_\D)}$

2151: (in the sense of Eq.~\ref{24}) and  $\z_\t(p_\D)$ can be interpolated by

2152: an analytic function of $p$ that in fact satisfies Eq.~\ref{23}.

2153: 

2154: \acknowledgments

2155: 

2156: We would like to thank Prof.~Joel~L.~Lebowitz for his interest

2157: on this work and for a valuable discussion. Some of this work was

2158: completed while two of us (A.G. and G.G.) were visiting Rutgers University 

2159: under invitation of Prof.~Lebowitz. A.G. was partially supported by 

2160: the NSF grant 4-23421 DMR 01-279-26.

2161: 

2162: We thank F.~Bonetto for a useful discussion and his suggestions about

2163: the implementation of the numerical algorithm.

2164: 

2165: F.Z. wish to thank G.~Ruocco and L.~Angelani for many useful 

2166: discussions.

2167: 

2168: The computations have been performed on the FDT cluster of the INFM-SOFT center

2169: in Rome. We thank S.~Erriu for technical assistance in operating the cluster.

2170: The sources of the program we used for the simulations

2171: can be downloaded from {\it http://glass.phys.uniroma1.it/zamponi}.

2172: 

2173: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2174: %                             REFERENCES

2175: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2176: 

2177: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2178: 

2179: \bibitem{Ga99} G.~Gallavotti, {\it Statistical mechanics. A short treatise}

2180: (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1999).

2181: 

2182: \bibitem{GC95a} G.~Gallavotti and E.G.D.~Cohen,

2183: {\it Dynamical ensembles in nonequilibrium statistical mechanics},

2184: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 74}, 2694--2697 (1995).

2185: 

2186: \bibitem{GC95b} G.~Gallavotti, E.~G.~D.~Cohen, {\it Dynamical

2187: ensembles in stationary states}, J.~Stat.~Phys. {\bf 80}, 931--970 (1995).

2188: 

2189: \bibitem{Ga95c} G.~Gallavotti, {\it Reversible Anosov maps and large 

2190: deviations},

2191: Mathematical Physics Electronic Journal, MPEJ, {\bf 1}, 1--12 (1995).

2192: 

2193: \bibitem{Ru99} D.~Ruelle, 

2194: {\it Smooth dynamics and new theoretical ideas 

2195: in non-equilibrium statistical mechanics}, 

2196: J.~Stat.~Phys. {\bf 95}, 393--468 (1999).

2197: 

2198: \bibitem{ECM93} D.~J.~Evans, E.~G.~D.~Cohen, and G.~P.~Morriss,

2199: {\it Probability of second law violations in shearing steady states},

2200: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 71}, 2401--2404 (1993).

2201: 

2202: \bibitem{Ga04} G.~Gallavotti, {\it Entropy production in

2203:   nonequilibrium stationary states: a point of view},

2204: Chaos, {\bf 14}, 680--690, (2004).

2205: 

2206: \bibitem{Ru04} D.~Ruelle, {\it Conversations on nonequilibriun physics with an 

2207: extraterrestrial}, Physics Today, May, 48--53 (2004).

2208: 

2209: \bibitem{EM90} D.J.~Evans and G.P.~Morris, {\it Statistical Mechanics of

2210: Nonequilibrium Liquids} (Academic Press, London, 1990).

2211: 

2212: \bibitem{BGG97} F.~Bonetto, G.~Gallavotti, and P.~L.~Garrido, 

2213: {\it Chaotic principle: an experimental test},

2214: Physica D {\bf 105}, 226--252 (1997).

2215: 

2216: \bibitem{BCL98} F.~Bonetto, N.~I.~Chernov, J.~L.~Lebowitz,

2217: {\it (Global and local) fluctuations of phase-space contraction

2218: in deterministic stationary non-equilibrium},

2219: Chaos {\bf 8}, 823--833 (1998).

2220: 

2221: \bibitem{BPV98} L.~Biferale, D.~Pierotti, and A.~Vulpiani,

2222: {\it Time-reversible dynamical systems for turbulence},

2223: J.~Phys.~A:~Math.~Gen. {\bf 31}, 21--32 (1998).

2224: 

2225: \bibitem{GP99} G.~Gallavotti, F.~Perroni,

2226: {\it An experimental test of the local fluctuation theorem in chains of

2227: weakly interacting Anosov systems},

2228: {\it preprint} chao-dyn/9909007.

2229: 

2230: \bibitem{GRS04} G.~Gallavotti, L.~Rondoni, and E.~Segre,

2231: {\it Lyapunov spectra and nonequilibrium ensembles equivalence in 2D 

2232: fluid mechanics},

2233: Physica D {\bf 187}, 338--357 (2004).

2234: 

2235: \bibitem{ZRA04} F.~Zamponi, G.~Ruocco, L.~Angelani,

2236: {\it Fluctuations of entropy production in the isokinetic ensemble},

2237: J.~Stat.~Phys. {\bf 115}, 1655--1668 (2004).

2238: 

2239: \bibitem{GR97} G.~Gallavotti, D.~Ruelle, {\it SRB states and nonequilibrium 

2240: statistical

2241: mechanics close to equilibrium}, Comm.~Math.~Phys. {\bf 190}, 279--285 (1997).

2242: 

2243: \bibitem{Ga96} G.~Gallavotti, 

2244: {\it Extension of Onsager's reciprocity to large fields and 

2245: the chaotic hypothesis},

2246: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 77}, 4334--4337 (1996);

2247: G.~Gallavotti,

2248: {\it Chaotic hypothesis: Onsager reciprocity and 

2249: fluctuation-dissipation theorem},

2250: J.~Stat.~Phys. {\bf 84}, 899 (1996).

2251: 

2252: \bibitem{Si68} Y.~G.~Sinai, {\it Markov partitions and $C$-diffeomorphisms},

2253: Functional Analysis and Applications, {\bf 2}, n.1, 64--89 (1968);

2254: {\it Construction of Markov partitions}, Functional analysis and

2255: Applications, {\bf 2}, n.2, 70--80, (1968).

2256: 

2257: \bibitem{Si77} Y.~G.~Sinai, {\it Lectures in ergodic theory}, Lecture notes

2258: in Mathematics, Prin\-ce\-ton U. Press, Princeton, 1977.

2259: 

2260: \bibitem{Ga02} G.~Gallavotti,

2261: {\it Fluid mechanics. Foundations},

2262: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002.

2263: 

2264: \bibitem{GBG04} G.~Gallavotti, F.~Bonetto, G.~Gentile,

2265: {\it Aspects of the ergodic, qualitative and statistical properties

2266: of motion}, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2004.

2267: 

2268: \bibitem{DGM} S.~de~Groot, P.~Mazur: {\it Non equilibrium

2269: thermodynamics}, Dover, 1984, (reprinted).

2270: 

2271: \bibitem{Ru00} D.~Ruelle, {\it A remark on the equivalence of isokinetic

2272: and isoenergetic thermostats in the thermodynamic limit}, 

2273: J.~Stat.~Phys. {\bf 100}, 757--763 (2000).

2274: 

2275: \bibitem{AT87} M.~P.~Allen and D.~J.~Tildesley, {\it Computer simulation of

2276: liquids} (Oxford Science Publications, 1987).

2277: 

2278: \bibitem{SEC98} S.~S.~Sarman, D.~J.~Evans, P.~T.~Cumming, 

2279: {\it Recent developments in non-Newtonian molecular dynamics}, 

2280: Phys.~Rep. {\bf 305}, 1--92 (1998).

2281: 

2282: \bibitem{KA94} W.~Kob and C.~H.~Andersen,

2283: {\it Scaling behavior in the $\beta$-relaxation regime of a 

2284: supercooled Lennard-Jones mixture},

2285: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 73}, 1376--1379 (1994).

2286: 

2287: \bibitem{DmSC04} C.~De Michele, F.~Sciortino, A.~Coniglio, 

2288: {\it Scaling in soft spheres: fragility invariance on the 

2289: repulsive potential softness},

2290: J.~Phys.:~Condens.~Matter {\bf 16}, L489--L494 (2004).

2291: 

2292: \bibitem{BGS76} G.~Benettin, L.~Galgani, J.-M.~Strelcyn, 

2293: {\it Kolmogorov entropy and numerical experiments},

2294: Phys.~Rev.~A {\bf 14}, 2338--2345 (1976).

2295: 

2296: \bibitem{BG97} F.~Bonetto, G.~Gallavotti,

2297: {\it Reversibility, coarse graining and the chaoticity principle},

2298: Communications in Mathematical Physics, {\bf 189}, 263--276, (1997).

2299: 

2300: \bibitem{Ga99b} G.~Gallavotti, 

2301: {\it New methods in nonequilibrium gases and fluids},

2302: Open Systems and Information Dynamics {\bf 6}, 101--136 (1999).

2303: 

2304: \bibitem{SEI98} D.~J.~Searles, D.~J.~Evans, D.~J.~Isbister,

2305: {\it The conjugate-pairing rule for non-Hamiltonian system}, Chaos {\bf 8},

2306: 337--349 (1998).

2307: 

2308: \bibitem{DM96} C.~P.~Dettmann and G.~P.~Morriss,

2309: {\it Proof of Lyapunov exponent pairing for systems at 

2310: constant kinetic energy},

2311: Phys.~Rev.~E {\bf 53}, R5545--R5548 (1996).

2312: 

2313: \bibitem{Fi63} M.~Fisz, {\it Probability theory and mathematical

2314: statistics}, Wiley, New York, 1963.

2315: 

2316: \bibitem{Ga72} G.~Gallavotti, {\it Phase separation line in the two--dimensional

2317: Ising model}, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 27}, 103--136 (1972).

2318: 

2319: \bibitem{CL98} S.~Ciliberto and C.~Laroche, 

2320: {\it An experimental test of the Gallavotti-Cohen fluctuation theorem}, 

2321: J.~Phys.~IV {\bf 8}, Pr6-215 (1998).

2322: 

2323: \bibitem{FM04}  K.~Feitosa and N.~Menon, 

2324: {\it Fluidized Granular Medium as an Instance of the Fluctuation Theorem}, 

2325: Phys.~Rev.~Lett. {\bf 92}, 164301 (2004).

2326: 

2327: 

2328: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2329: 

2330: \end{thebibliography}

2331: 

2332: \end{document}

2333: 

2334: