1: \documentclass[preprint,twocolumn,tightenlines,aps,prb,10pt,floats,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{psfig}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \usepackage{graphicx}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}
6: \usepackage{longtable}
7:
8:
9: \def\erf{\mbox{\rm{erf}}}
10:
11: \begin{document}
12:
13: % \title{Langevin dynamics with space-dependent friction arising from
14: % a secondary stochastic force}
15: \title{Dissipating the Langevin equation in the
16: presence of an external stochastic potential}
17: \author{Jeremy M. Moix}
18: \author{Rigoberto Hernandez}
19: \thanks{Author to whom correspondence should be addressed}
20: \email{hernandez@chemistry.gatech.edu.}
21: \affiliation{Center for Computational and Molecular Science and Technology, \\
22: School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, \\
23: Georgia Institute of Technology, \\
24: Atlanta, GA 30332-0400}
25: \date{\today}
26: %
27: %
28: \begin{abstract}%
29: In the Langevin formalism,
30: the delicate balance maintained between the fluctuations
31: in the system and their corresponding dissipation may be
32: upset by the presence of a secondary, space-dependent stochastic force,
33: particularly in the low friction regime.
34: In prior work, the latter was dissipated self-consistently
35: through an additional uniform (mean-field) friction
36: [Shepherd and Hernandez, {\it J.~Chem.~Phys.},
37: {\bf 115}, 2430-2438 (2001).]
38: An alternative approach to ensure that equipartition is satisfied
39: relies on the use of a space-dependent friction while ignoring nonlocal
40: correlations.
41: The approach is evaluated with respect to its ability to
42: maintain constant temperature for two simple one-dimensional,
43: stochastic potentials of mean force wherein the friction can
44: be evaluated explicitly when there is no memory in the barriers.
45: %in the memory-less limit.
46: The use of a space-dependent friction is capable of
47: providing qualitatively similar results to those obtained previously,
48: but in extreme cases, deviations from equipartition may be observed
49: due to the neglect of the memory effects present in the stochastic potentials.
50: \end{abstract}
51:
52: \maketitle
53:
54: \section{Introduction}
55:
56: In the theory of diffusion processes over fixed barriers,
57: numerous studies have shown that the dissipative
58: term in the Langevin equation is rarely constant along the reaction
59: coordinate.\cite{carm83,sbb88,zhu88,krishnan92,bere93,straus93b,neria96,schwartz99}
60: %\marginpar{citations?}
61: A general rate theory when the friction is both
62: space- and time-dependent has been developed to account for this
63: phenomenon over the entire friction regime.\cite{haynes94,haynes93,voth92b}
64: One might na\"{i}vely expect that a space-dependent
65: component must be included in the friction kernel to capture the essential
66: dynamics of a given system.
67: However, this is not always the case.
68: Several groups have shown that the average dynamical properties
69: may still be adequately described by a
70: generalized Langevin equation with space-independent friction
71: even when the reaction
72: coordinate has a strong spatial dependence.\cite{straus93b,sbb88,hynes87,krishnan92}
73: %\marginpar{CITATIONS?}
74: An analysis by Haynes and Voth
75: concluded that the key factor is not whether
76: the friction is space-dependent, since it generally will be,
77: but rather how the friction varies
78: along the reaction coordinate.\cite{voth95}
79: In particular, they suggest that the symmetry of the space-dependent friction
80: with respect to the barrier can be used as a metric for evaluating the
81: role of the friction in the dynamics.
82: Similar product and reactant states will give
83: rise to similar (symmetric) friction
84: components about the transition state.
85: Perhaps surprisingly,
86: an antisymmetric friction does not have a significant impact on the
87: dynamics,
88: while a symmetric friction can result in large deviations from the
89: predictions of standard rate theories for processes with space-independent
90: friction.\cite{voth95,straus93b,zhu88,sbb87,krishnan92,schwartz99}
91: Thus, the Langevin model with a uniform effective friction can often
92: approximate the dynamics of projected variables even if the formal
93: projection would have required a space-dependent model.
94:
95: The central question explored in this work is whether a single
96: uniform effective friction suffices even when the Langevin system is
97: subjected to an external space-dependent stochastic potential.
98: %
99: %In the present work,
100: %the main concern is the description of the space-dependence in the
101: %friction that may arise from fluctuations in an external
102: %(but space-dependent) stochastic potential that is symmetric
103: %about a given barrier,
104: %rather than from the space-dependent coupling to the thermal bath.
105: %With periodic potentials of mean force,
106: %the friction is perfectly symmetric with respect to a given barrier,
107: %and may give rise to interesting dynamical effects according to
108: %previous studies.
109: %
110: The behavior of a Brownian particle diffusing across
111: various subsets of this class of potentials has been
112: the subject of intense research.\cite{DG92,march98,pollak93a,
113: pollak99,astumian98,VDB93,Reim95,Hang95b,lind94}
114: This activity has
115: largely been motivated by the discovery of resonant activation
116: in which the rate of transport over a stochastic barrier
117: exhibits a maximum as a function of the correlation time in
118: the fluctuations of the barrier height.\cite{DG92}
119: However,
120: until recently, simulations of these systems have not been performed in
121: the low friction regime, where deviations from
122: equipartition may occur,
123: due to an inability to adequately
124: describe the friction in the presence of an additional
125: stochastic force.\cite{hern00c,hern02c}
126: In previous work,
127: the dissipation of this excess energy
128: was achieved through a self-consistent approach in which
129: the friction constant is renormalized iteratively
130: until equipartition is satisfied.\cite{hern00c}
131: This renormalization is approximate because it does not explicitly
132: account for the correlations between the external stochastic forces
133: across space and time, but rather uses a single mean friction
134: to dissipate theses forces at times longer than their correlation times.
135: %
136: % However,
137: % an analytic form for this contribution to the friction
138: % has not yet been found.
139: % Here,
140: A possible improvement to the self-consistent approach can be obtained
141: by allowing the friction to be space-dependent while
142: explicitly ignoring the memory in the stochastic potential,
143: In the special case that the stochastic potential has no memory, then
144: this treatment is exact.
145: However, this approximation is often not justified when modeling real
146: systems and therefore, the model potentials employed are chosen to have an
147: exponentially decaying memory of their past states.
148: In the most extreme cases, these correlations can result in deviations from
149: equipartition during the course of the simulation, although the space-dependent
150: friction dissipates such fluctuations correctly in most situations.
151: The general conclusion appears to be that the more detailed space-dependent
152: approach is in qualitative agreement with the self-consistent approach
153: and hence, as in the fixed barrier case, Langevin systems with
154: stochastic forces may be dissipated by a single (though renormalized)
155: uniform friction.
156:
157: The conclusions of this work are supported by a study of two different
158: classes of one-dimensional problems in which the particle diffuses
159: across a periodic array of coherent or incoherent barriers.
160: These two cases can be specified by sinusoidal or
161: merged-harmonic-oscillator potentials, respectively.
162: For such simple forms of the stochastic potential, analytic expressions
163: for the friction as a function of the spatial coordinate can
164: readily be obtained and are presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:formalism}.
165: The resulting Langevin dynamics across these potentials
166: dissipated either uniformly or through the space-dependent
167: friction are illustrated in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}.
168:
169: \section{Langevin Model with Stochastic Potentials}\label{sec:formalism}
170:
171: An equation of motion describing the diffusion of a particle
172: influenced by a stochastic potential of
173: mean force can be adequately described by a
174: phenomenological Langevin equation of the form,
175: \begin{equation}
176: \dot{v}=-\gamma(t) v
177: +\xi(t)
178: +F(x;t)
179: \;, \label{eq:eqm}
180: \end{equation}
181: where $F(x;t) \equiv -\nabla_{x}U(x;t)$ is an external stochastic force,
182: and $\gamma(t)$ is the friction required to dissipate
183: both the thermal forces and those due to the external stochastic potential.
184: The thermal bath is described by $\xi(t)$,
185: which is a Gaussian white noise source
186: with time correlation given by the
187: fluctuation-dissipation relation (FDR),
188: \begin{equation}
189: \langle\xi(t)\xi(t^{\prime})\rangle=2k_{\rm B}T\gamma_{\rm th}
190: \delta(t-t^{\prime})
191: \;.\label{eq:xi_xi}
192: \end{equation}
193: In the limit that $F(x;t)=F(x;0)$ for all $t$, %(what if F(x;t)=F(x))
194: these equations reduce to the
195: Langevin equation with $\gamma(t)=\gamma_{\rm th}$.
196: Otherwise, the question remains as to what is the appropriate form
197: of $\gamma(t)$.
198: Two approaches for addressing this question are presented
199: in Sections~\ref{sec:uniform} and~\ref{sec:sdf},
200: after first describing the explicit forms of the stochastic
201: potentials.
202:
203: \subsection{Stochastic Potential Representation}\label{sec:pot}
204:
205: The space-dependent friction (SDF) that arises from the
206: fluctuations in $F(x;t)$ can readily be evaluated analytically for
207: two different classes of one-dimensional
208: stochastic potentials.
209: The first of these is a sinusoidal potential taking the
210: general form,
211: \begin{equation}
212: U(x;t)=\left(E_{\rm b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta(t)\right)
213: \left(\sin\left(\frac{\pi x}{2}\right)+1\right)
214: \;,\label{eq:sin}
215: \end{equation}
216: in which the barriers fluctuate {\it coherently} with each other.
217: The second is constructed using a series of merged harmonic oscillators (MHOs)
218: in which each barrier is allowed to fluctuate independently
219: ({\it incoherently}) of one another, and is specified by
220: \begin{equation}
221: U(x,t)= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
222: \frac{1}{2}k_0(x-x_m^0)^2 &\mbox{for $x_m^0 < x \le x_m^-$}\\
223: V_{m}^{\ddagger} +
224: \frac{1}{2}k_{m}^{\ddagger}(x-x_m^{\ddagger})^2
225: &\mbox{for $x_m^- < x \le x_m^+$}\\
226: \frac{1}{2}k_0(x-x_{m+1}^0)^2 &\mbox{for $x_m^+ < x \le x_{m+1}^0$}
227:
228: \end{array}\right.
229: \;,\label{eq:mho}
230: \end{equation}
231: where the $m^{th}$ well and adjacent barrier
232: are centered at $x_m^0=-\lambda/2+m\lambda$ and
233: $x_m^\ddagger=m\lambda$, respectively.
234: The connection points are chosen to ensure
235: continuity in the potential and its first derivative such that
236: $x_{m}^{\pm}=\pm{k_0\lambda}/{(2k_{0}-2k_{m}^\ddagger)}+m\lambda$.
237: As opposed to the sinusoidal potential, the width of the MHO barriers
238: varies stochastically in time according to the relation
239: $k_{m}^{\ddagger}=-(k_{0}+\eta(m,t))$,
240: which, in turn, defines the barrier height
241: $V_{m}^{\ddagger}=-k_{0}k_{m}^{\ddagger}\lambda^2/(8k_{0}-8k_{m}^{\ddagger})$.
242: The remaining parameters in the
243: potentials are chosen such that the lattice spacing is 4 and the
244: thermal energy of the particle is $1/6$ of the average value of
245: the barrier heights.
246: %average barrier height for each is $6 k_{\rm B} T$
247:
248:
249: The stochastic term,
250: $\eta(t)$, is defined as an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process governed by
251: the following differential equation,
252: \begin{equation}
253: \dot{\eta}(t)=-\frac{\eta(t)}{\tau_{\rm{c}}}+
254: \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{\tau_{\rm{c}}}}\zeta(t)
255: \;,
256: \end{equation}
257: with the probability distribution,
258: \begin{equation}
259: P\left(\eta(t)\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}\exp\left(-\frac{\eta(t)^2}
260: {2\sigma^2}\right)
261: \;,\label{eq:prob}
262: \end{equation}
263: and time correlation,
264: \begin{equation}
265: \langle\eta(t)\eta(t^{\prime})\rangle=\sigma^2\exp\left(-\frac
266: {|t-t^{\prime}|}{\tau_{\rm{c}}}\right)
267: \;.
268: \end{equation}
269: The variance of the distribution is given by $\sigma^2$, $\tau_{\rm{c}}$ is
270: the correlation time, and $\zeta(t)$ is an additional
271: white noise source.
272: The distribution of barriers heights for the sinusoidal potential
273: is given directly by the distribution of $\eta(t)$,
274: but due to the nature of the expression for the barrier heights of the MHOs,
275: the resulting distribution for this potential takes on a more complex
276: form that is sharper and slightly skewed compared with Eq.~\ref{eq:prob}.
277: As a result, a much smaller range of fluctuations is allowed for the MHO
278: than the sinusoidal potential to ensure that the distribution
279: does not become significantly non-Gaussian.
280: More details on the exact behavior of the
281: MHO barrier heights are provided in Ref.~\onlinecite{hern00c}.
282:
283: \subsection{Uniform Dissipation}\label{sec:uniform}
284:
285: In previous work,\cite{hern00c}
286: a self-consistent procedure was developed to ensure that the evolution
287: of the system using Eq.~\ref{eq:eqm} remains in thermal equilibrium.
288: This was accomplished through an iterative
289: procedure in which the friction, given by the sum of the two
290: contributions from the thermal bath and the stochastic potential, $\it{i.e.}$
291: $\gamma \equiv \gamma_{\rm th}+\gamma_{\rm F}$,
292: is renormalized according to the relation,
293: \begin{equation}
294: \gamma^{(n+1)}=\gamma^{(n)}\left(\frac{\langle v^2(t)
295: \rangle_n}{k_{\rm b}T}\right)
296: \label{eq:SCF}
297: \;.
298: \end{equation}
299: The friction for the next iteration is determined from the value of the
300: friction at the current step scaled by the magnitude of the
301: deviation from equipartition seen in the dynamics
302: until convergence is reached to within a desired accuracy.
303: The main criticism to this approach lies in the approximation
304: made in developing Eq.~\ref{eq:SCF} in which the stochastic potential
305: is treated as a local noise source,
306: $\gamma_{\rm F}$, obeying a fluctuation-dissipation relation
307: equivalent to Eq.~\ref{eq:xi_xi}.
308: However, the stochastic potentials have memory and are therefore
309: nonlocal in nature leading to non-vanishing cumulants at
310: third and higher orders.
311: These effects are included, but only in an average manner, to second order
312: in this approach.
313:
314: \subsection{Space-Dependent Dissipation}\label{sec:sdf}
315:
316: % An alternative approach that explicitly includes the spatial
317: % dependence of the friction will be described.
318:
319: An alternative approach to dissipating the external stochastic force
320: relies on replacing the space- and time-dependent friction, $\gamma(x,t)$,
321: by a space-dependent friction, $\gamma(x(t))$, satisfying a local
322: FDR.
323: Given that the size of the fluctuations in $F(x;t)$
324: depend on $x$ at a given $t$,
325: a Brownian particle moving quickly across the surface will experience
326: a series of forces whose relative magnitudes depend on the particle's velocity.
327: However when the the Brownian particle moves slowly,
328: the particle will sample only the local fluctuations of the
329: stochastic potential in the vicinity of its local position $x$.
330: In this regime, the particle arrives at a local quasi-equilibrium
331: which must necessarily satisfy the FDR locally.
332: This suggests that the dissipation should not be uniform, but rather
333: should depend on position, and therefore indirectly on time.
334: It should be noted that while the mean-field approach
335: described in the previous subsection
336: is capable of including the average of the
337: correlations between the fluctuations,
338: the approximation made here does not account for any of the memory effects.
339: However, in the limit that there is no
340: memory in the external stochastic potential,
341: %\tau_{\rm{c}}=0$,
342: the following results are exact.
343:
344: The question now arises of how to explicitly describe the friction constant in
345: the presence of an additional fluctuating force resulting from the
346: potentials of mean force given in Eqns.~\ref{eq:sin} and ~\ref{eq:mho}.
347: The friction constant must dissipate the excess energy
348: that arises from the fluctuating forces through a local
349: space-dependent FDR,
350: \begin{equation}
351: 2k_{\rm B}T\gamma_{\rm c}(x;t)=\langle\delta F_{\rm c}(x;t)^2\rangle
352: \;,\label{eq:FDT}
353: \end{equation}
354: where the cumulative force is simply the sum of the thermal Gaussian noise and
355: the stochastic force arising from the external potential,
356: $F_{\rm c}=F_{\rm th}+F_{\rm U}$.
357: Assuming the respective
358: fluctuations in the bath and the potential are uncorrelated, {\it i.e.}
359: $\langle\delta F_{\rm th} \delta F_{\rm U} \rangle=0$,
360: then Eq.~(\ref{eq:FDT}), reduces to
361: \begin{equation}
362: 2 k_{\rm B}T\gamma_{\rm c}(x;t)=\langle\xi(t)\xi(t^\prime)\rangle+
363: \langle \delta F_{\rm U}(x;t)^2 \rangle
364: \;,
365: \label{eq:fric}
366: \end{equation}
367: %where the time dependent fluctuations in
368: %the potential are implicitly contained in $\eta$. (redundant)
369: The thermal fluctuations
370: are ohmic as given in Eq.~\ref{eq:xi_xi},
371: and the relationship for the fluctuations in the force is
372: $\delta F_{\rm U}(x;t) \equiv
373: F_{\rm U}(x;t)-\langle F_{\rm U}(x;t)\rangle_{\eta}$,
374: where the average is taken with respect to the auxiliary stochastic
375: variable, $\eta$.
376: The average value of the force can be determined according
377: to the usual integrals,
378: \begin{equation}
379: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t)\rangle=
380: \frac{-\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!d\eta\, P(\eta)
381: \nabla_x U(x;t) }
382: {\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!d\eta\, P(\eta)}
383: \;,
384: \end{equation}
385: where the fluctuations in the force are governed by the stochastic
386: Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, $\eta$, whose probability distribution is
387: given by Eq.~\ref{eq:prob}.
388:
389: The remaining steps of the derivation rely
390: upon the specific form of the potential.
391: As an illustration, the SDF is evaluated explicitly below
392: for the simpler sinusoidal (coherent) stochastic potential.
393: (The results for the incoherent MHO potential can be found in the Appendix.)
394: The derivation begins by direct evaluation of Eq.~\ref{eq:fric}
395: for the specific class of potentials.
396: As remarked above, the first term reproduces
397: the FDR, Eq.~\ref{eq:xi_xi}, for the thermal forces.
398: Ignoring the correlation in the forces at different times, the second
399: reduces to:
400: \begin{eqnarray}
401: \langle \delta F_{\rm U}(x;t)^2 \rangle & = &
402: \frac{\pi^2}{4}\cos^2\left(\frac{\pi x}{2};t\right)
403: \times \nonumber \\
404: & & \int_{-\infty}^\infty\!d\eta\,
405: \left(E_{\rm b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta\right)^2P(\eta)- \nonumber\\
406: & & \left[\frac{\pi}{2}\cos\left(\frac{\pi x}{2};t\right)
407: \right.\times \nonumber \\
408: & & \left. \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,
409: \left(E_{\rm b}+\frac{1}{2}\eta\right)P(\eta)\right]^2
410: \;.
411: \end{eqnarray}
412: The Gaussian integrals are readily evaluated to yield:
413: \begin{equation}
414: \langle \delta F_{\rm U}(x;t)^2 \rangle=\frac{\sigma^2\pi^2}{16}
415: \cos^2(\frac{\pi x}{2};t)
416: \;.
417: \end{equation}
418: Upon substitution into Eq.~\ref{eq:FDT},
419: the explicit form of the SDF is
420: \begin{equation}
421: \gamma_{\rm c}(x;t)=\gamma_{\rm th}\delta(t-t^\prime)+
422: \frac{\sigma^2\pi^2}{32k_{\rm B}T}\cos^2(\frac{\pi x}{2};t)
423: \label{eq:sdfsin}
424: \;.
425: \end{equation}
426: This is the simplest possible form for this result,
427: and is due to the separability of the potential
428: into a sum of deterministic and linear stochastic terms.
429: In fact, it is easily shown that for any separable potential
430: of the form,
431: \begin{equation}
432: U(x;t)=\bar{U}(x)+\eta(t)W(x)
433: \;,\label{eq:separable}
434: \end{equation}
435: where $\bar{U}(x)$ is the deterministic
436: component of the potential of mean force,
437: then the additional friction due
438: to the stochastic potential is given by
439: \begin{equation}
440: \langle \delta F_{\rm U}(x;t)^2 \rangle=\left(\nabla_x W(x)\right)^2
441: \int\!d\eta\, (\eta^2-\eta) P(\eta)
442: \;,
443: \label{eq:MomentGen}
444: \end{equation}
445: provided the distribution is normalized.
446: The MHO does not satisfy the condition of Eq.~\ref{eq:separable}
447: and hence its friction correction can not be
448: obtained by Eq.~\ref{eq:MomentGen}.
449: The form of the friction correction for the MHO consequently
450: contains more terms, but the requisite approximation (that the
451: forces are uncorrelated at different times) enters the
452: derivation in a conceptually equivalent way.
453:
454: \subsection{Mean First-Passage Times}
455:
456: The dynamics of the system were characterized by the mean first passage
457: time (MFPT) of a particle to escape its initial minima and establish
458: a quasi-equilibrium within another well. With periodic, stochastic
459: potentials, this may be accomplished by defining a region
460: of the phase space of the particle bounded by an
461: energetic constraint.\cite{hern02b}
462: The MFPT
463: is simply the average of a sufficient number of first passage processes into
464: this region,
465: with the corresponding rate given by the inverse of the MFPT.
466: While the incorporation of a space-dependent friction in the algorithm for
467: the numerical integration of the equations of motion would seemingly result
468: in a dramatic increase in computational expense,
469: the actual effort is comparable to the previous mean-field approach because the
470: preliminary convergence procedure for the friction constant is now unnecessary.
471:
472: \section{Results and Discussion}\label{sec:results}
473:
474: The analytic and numerical space-dependent components of the friction
475: over one period of the MHO and sinusoidal potentials can be seen in the bottom
476: panel of Figs.~\ref{fig:sdfmho} and
477: ~\ref{fig:sdfsin}, respectively, with the numerical results
478: averaged over 500 representative trajectories.
479:
480: \begin{figure}[t]
481: \begin{center}
482: \includegraphics*[width=7.5cm]{./mhofluc.eps}
483: \end{center}
484: \caption{
485: Representative fluctuations over one period of the MHO
486: potential and force (top panel),
487: and the resulting space-dependent friction (bottom panel).
488: The numerical component in the bottom panel
489: is displayed as the solid black line, with
490: the analytic result, given in the Appendix, as the dotted white line.
491: The temperature is 2/3, the variance
492: is 0.22, and the thermal friction is 0.08.
493: }
494: \label{fig:sdfmho}
495: \end{figure}
496: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
497: %\newpage
498:
499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
500: \begin{figure}[t]
501: \begin{center}
502: \includegraphics*[width=7.5cm]{./sinfluc.eps}
503: \end{center}
504: \caption{
505: Representative fluctuations over one period of the sinusoidal
506: potential and force (top panel),
507: and the resulting space-dependent friction (bottom panel).
508: The numerical result is displayed as the solid black line,
509: with the analytic result, given by Eq.~\ref{eq:sdfsin}, shown as
510: the dotted white line.
511: The parameters used are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:sdfmho}.
512: }
513: \label{fig:sdfsin}
514: \end{figure}
515: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
516: %/newpage
517:
518: The top panels display the fluctuations in the potential and the resulting
519: forces that give rise to the space-dependent friction.
520: The analytic forms of the SDF, displayed as the dotted white line,
521: agree with the corresponding numerical results, and exact agreement
522: is obtained upon further averaging.
523: The fluctuations in the forces reach
524: a maximum at approximately the midpoint between the minima and maxima,
525: where deviations from the average force take on the largest values.
526: The fluctuations in the potential are largest at the barriers,
527: while the forces are zero at these locations.
528: This leads to a vanishing contribution to the total friction
529: from the space-dependent component at these points.
530: In the well region, the behavior of the SDF
531: for the sinusoidal and MHO potentials is inherently different.
532: The SDF for the MHO is zero outside of the barrier
533: region since the wells do not fluctuate by construction.
534: However, the sinusoidal potential fluctuates continuously throughout
535: leading to a friction correction along the entire reaction coordinate.
536: Consequently, the magnitude of the friction correction
537: in simulations employing the sinusoidal potential are
538: slightly larger than that in those employing the MHO.
539: But, as illustrated below,
540: this effect does not have a dramatic effect on the resulting dynamics.
541:
542: Values of the friction corrections
543: calculated from the iterative and space-dependent
544: approaches for the MHO and sinusoidal potentials are displayed
545: in Table~\ref{tb:mho} with
546: the values of the thermal friction listed in the left-most column.
547: \begin{table*}[ht]
548: \begin{center}
549: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
550: \hline \\[-9truept]
551: \hline \\[-8truept]
552: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
553: \multicolumn{3}{c}{
554: \underline{$
555: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
556: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
557: \rm{MHO}
558: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
559: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
560: $}
561: }&
562: \multicolumn{3}{c}{
563: \underline{$
564: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
565: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
566: \rm{Sin}
567: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
568: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
569: $}
570: }\\
571: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
572: % \underline{$
573: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
574: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
575: % \tau_{\rm c}=10^1
576: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
577: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
578: % $}
579: %}\\
580:
581: $\gamma_{\rm th}$ &
582:
583: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}} \rangle_{\rm{0}}
584: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
585: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
586: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
587: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
588: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
589:
590: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
591: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
592: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
593: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
594: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
595: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ \\
596:
597: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
598: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
599: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
600: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
601: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
602: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ \\
603: \hline\\[-7truept]
604:
605: $0.08$ & $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ &
606: $0.00$ & $0.03$ & $0.69$ \\
607: % $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.66$ \\
608:
609: $0.2$ & $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ &
610: $0.00$ & $0.03$ & $0.68$ \\
611: % $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ \\
612:
613: $0.4$ & $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ &
614: $0.01$ & $0.03$ & $0.67$ \\
615: % $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ \\
616:
617: \hline\\[-9truept]
618: \hline\\[-8truept]
619: \end{tabular}
620: \end{center}
621: \caption{The average of the friction corrections, $\gamma_{\rm F}$,
622: calculated by the iterative
623: self-consistent (0) and space-dependent (sdf)
624: approaches for the MHO and sinusoidal potentials.
625: The resulting temperatures are also included for
626: the space-dependent friction.
627: In all cases the temperature is 2/3
628: (in units of a standard temperature, $k_{\rm b} T_0$),
629: the variance, $\sigma^2=0.22$, and the correlation
630: time, $\tau_{\rm c}=1$.
631: }
632: \label{tb:mho}
633: \end{table*}
634:
635: The variance and correlation time
636: for both potentials is 0.22 and 1, respectively.
637: The resulting
638: temperatures, ($k_{\rm B}T\equiv \langle v^2 \rangle$), are also
639: listed for the space-dependent approach.
640: The friction correction in the self-consistent method
641: ensures equipartition by definition, and therefore, is not listed.
642: The magnitude of the SDF
643: for all values of $\tau_{\rm c}$ follow accordingly;
644: however this is the only value with respect to the given variance
645: for which any deviation from equipartition is observed.
646: As can be seen,
647: both the self-consistent and space-dependent components of the total
648: friction for each potential provide negligible contributions for this
649: variance since
650: the magnitude of the fluctuations
651: in the barrier height are relatively small.
652: Therefore the total friction is a sum of
653: a large thermal component, and a space-dependent contribution.
654: The slight differences in the magnitudes of the SDF for the
655: two potentials can be attributed to the piecewise nature of the MHO potential.
656: The particles spend most of the simulation time in the wells which
657: do not fluctuate.
658: A contribution to the total friction from the space-dependent term is
659: included only when the energetically-limited particle
660: accumulates enough energy to
661: explore the upper portion of the MHO potential.
662:
663: To further explore the accuracy of
664: the space-dependent approach, the sinusoidal
665: potential has been studied with a ten-fold increase in the variance from
666: 0.22 to 2.2.
667: %This corresponds to fluctuations in the barrier heights of
668: %approximately 25 \% around the average.
669: The values of the friction correction
670: from these simulations are listed in Table~\ref{tb:sin}.
671: %\begin{longtable}{cc}
672: \begin{table*}[t]
673: \begin{center}
674: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
675: %\begin{longtable}{ccccccccccccc}
676: \hline \\[-9truept]
677: \hline \\[-8truept]
678: \multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
679: \multicolumn{3}{c}{
680: \underline{$
681: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
682: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
683: \tau_{\rm c}=10^{-1}
684: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
685: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
686: $} }&
687: \multicolumn{3}{c}{
688: \underline{$
689: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
690: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
691: \tau_{\rm c}=10^0
692: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
693: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
694: $} }&
695: \multicolumn{3}{c}{
696: \underline{$
697: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
698: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
699: \tau_{\rm c}=10^1
700: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
701: \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
702: $} }\\
703: $\gamma_{\rm th}$ &
704: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
705: \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}} \rangle_{\rm{0}}
706: \mbox{ } \mbox{ } $ &
707: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
708: \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
709: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
710: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
711: \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
712: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
713: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
714: \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
715: \mbox{ } \mbox{ } $ &
716: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
717: \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
718: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
719: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
720: \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
721: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
722: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
723: \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
724: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
725: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
726: \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
727: \mbox{ } \mbox{ } $ &
728: $ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
729: \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
730: \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ \\
731: \hline\\[-7truept]
732: $0.08$ & $0.04$ & $0.28$ & $0.72$ &
733: $0.05$ & $0.29$ & $0.74$ &
734: $0.01$ & $0.28$ & $0.68$ \\
735: $0.2$ & $0.04$ & $0.28$ & $0.71$ &
736: $0.05$ & $0.29$ & $0.72$ &
737: $0.01$ & $0.28$ & $0.68$ \\
738: $0.4$ & $0.04$ & $0.28$ & $0.70$ &
739: $0.06$ & $0.29$ & $0.71$ &
740: $0.01$ & $0.28$ & $0.67$ \\
741: \hline\\[-9truept]
742: \hline\\[-8truept]
743: \end{tabular}
744: %end{longtable}
745: \end{center}
746: \caption{The average of the friction corrections, $\gamma_{\rm F}$,
747: calculated by the iterative self-consistent (0)
748: and space-dependent approaches (sdf) for the sinusoidal potential.
749: The resulting temperatures are also included for
750: the space-dependent friction method.
751: The temperature is 2/3 in all cases and the variance, $\sigma^2=2.2$.
752: }
753: \label{tb:sin}
754: \end{table*}
755: %\end{longtable}
756:
757: The displayed correlation times, $\tau_{\rm c}$, are those that
758: exhibit the largest resonant activation.
759: Consequently, if memory effects in the barrier heights are
760: important in determining the friction constant,
761: it should be manifested here.
762: Although not shown for brevity,
763: outside this region of the correlation time,
764: the magnitude of the deviations from equipartition
765: %for the space-dependent friction
766: decrease rapidly, but the size of the space-dependent components
767: remains roughly constant.
768: Similarly, the corresponding corrections arising in the
769: self-consistent method also approach zero.
770: As can be seen from Table~\ref{tb:sin}, the space-dependent approach
771: results in a correction that is roughly constant for all values of
772: the correlation time, while the iterative approach does exhibit some
773: variation with $\tau_{\rm c}$.
774: This is the expected result since the space-dependent
775: friction assumes the fluctuations in the potential are local
776: and therefore, ignores any correlation in
777: the barrier heights.
778: The iterative approach, however, is capable of
779: incorporating the memory of the potential into the friction correction,
780: but only in an average manner.
781: As a consequence, significant deviations from equipartition may be
782: observed when simulations are performed with a
783: space-dependent friction that ignores the correlation effects, as
784: illustrated by this extreme example.
785:
786: Figs.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.05} and ~\ref{fig:mfpt0.22} display the
787: MFPTs obtained for the MHO potential
788: with the results from the space-dependent and self-consistent
789: approaches in the top and bottom panels, respectively.
790:
791: \begin{figure}[ht]
792: \begin{center}
793: \includegraphics*[width=7.5cm]{./0.05mfpt.eps}
794: \end{center}
795: \caption{The mean first-passage times (MFPT)
796: for a particle diffusing across the MHO stochastic potential
797: are displayed for two possible scenarios of the
798: dissipative mechanism.
799: The top panel uses space-dependent friction, and the bottom
800: displays the uniform friction determined by the self-consistent method.
801: The variance for both is 0.05, and
802: the three lines correspond to values of the thermal
803: friction of 0.08 (solid curve with x symbols), 0.2 (dashed curve
804: with triangles), and 0.4 (dot-dashed curve with squares).
805: The symbols on the broken axis represent the
806: numerically calculated MFPTs at the limits of the correlation time.
807: }
808: \label{fig:mfpt0.05}
809: \end{figure}
810: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
811: %\newpage
812:
813: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
814: \begin{figure}[ht]
815: \begin{center}
816: \includegraphics*[width=7.5cm]{./0.22mfpt.eps}
817: \end{center}
818: \caption{The mean first-passage times (MFPT)
819: for a particle diffusing across the MHO stochastic potential
820: are displayed for two possible scenarios of the
821: dissipative mechanism.
822: The parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.05}, except the
823: variance is 0.22.
824: }
825: \label{fig:mfpt0.22}
826: \end{figure}
827: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
828: %\newpage
829:
830: The results in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.05} have been calculated using a variance
831: of $\sigma^2=0.05$, while those in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.22} use
832: $\sigma^2=0.22$.
833: The corresponding results for the sinusoidal potential using
834: a variance of 0.22 can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfptsin}.
835: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
836: \begin{figure}[t]
837: \begin{center}
838: \includegraphics*[width=7.5cm]{./sin.eps}
839: \end{center}
840: \caption{The mean first-passage times (MFPT)
841: for a particle diffusing across the sinusoidal stochastic potential
842: are displayed for two possible scenarios of the
843: dissipative mechanism.
844: Other than for the change from the MHO to the sinusoidal potential,
845: the parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.22}.
846: }
847: \label{fig:mfptsin}
848: \end{figure}
849: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
850: The values on the broken axis represent the numerically calculated
851: MFPTs in the limits of correlation time, $\tau_{\rm c}$.
852: In the zero-correlation time limit,
853: the fluctuations in the potential are so rapid that the
854: particle effectively experiences the average, stationary potential,
855: from which the dynamics were calculated.
856: In the limit of infinite correlations,
857: fluctuations in the potential are nonexistent,
858: and therefore the particle experiences a single realization
859: of the potential with constant barrier heights determined by the
860: initial value sampled from the distribution.
861: The MFPTs displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.22}
862: obtained with a larger variance alters
863: the magnitude of the resonant activation, but
864: influences the results for the two approaches equally.
865: The results from the simulations with a space-dependent friction
866: are systematically shifted to lower MFPTs as seen in all three figures.
867: This trend is most readily explained through by the
868: trends in Table.~\ref{tb:mho}.
869: In the low friction regime, an increase in the friction
870: increases the corresponding rate of transport.
871: The average space-dependent contribution is always larger than
872: its respective mean field counterpart,
873: and is expected to have the largest effect
874: on the results with the smallest thermal friction.
875: The fluctuations present along the entire reaction coordinate
876: of the sinusoidal potential do not appear to have a dramatic effect
877: on the dynamics.
878: The results in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfptsin} for the sinusoidal potential follow
879: the same trend as those in Figs.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.05} and \ref{fig:mfpt0.22}
880: for the MHO potential indicating that the SDF approach is capable of
881: adequately describing the fluctuations in the system.
882: Aside from the shift, the general behavior of the MFPT is adequately
883: reproduced by both methods, particularly at larger values
884: of the thermal friction when the space-dependent component becomes
885: less significant.
886: At this level of description,
887: each of the two approaches for constructing the friction
888: are capable of capturing the essential dynamics of the system.
889: However,
890: some advantage is gained by using the self-consistent
891: method because it ensures the system is kept at constant temperature
892: for all values of the correlation time throughout the simulation,
893: while the space-dependent approach may lead to deviations in extreme cases.
894: The most significant difference between the two methods can be
895: seen at intermediate correlation times, in which the resonant
896: activation observed from the iterative approach is slightly
897: more pronounced.
898: This can particularly be seen in the MFPTs
899: when the friction case takes on the smallest value of $\gamma_{\rm{th}}=0.08$.
900: Since the resonant activation arises from correlations in the barrier heights,
901: it is not surprising that simulations incorporating a friction
902: capable of accounting for this phenomenon can have a noticeable
903: impact on the dynamics,
904: even if it does so only in an average manner.
905:
906: \section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusion}
907:
908: The space-dependent friction arising from the
909: presence of a secondary (external) stochastic potential in
910: the Langevin equation has been explicitly derived for two simple classes of
911: the stochastic potentials.
912: The numerical results are
913: in excellent agreement with analytic expressions
914: describing the space-dependent friction.
915: The resulting dynamics have been compared to those obtained using
916: an alternate approach in which a uniform correction is calculated
917: self-consistently.
918: Although the latter approach does effectively include the
919: time correlation between the barrier fluctuations at long times,
920: the former does not in any sense.
921: This neglect may result in deviations from equipartition in
922: some extreme cases.
923: However, both approaches are capable of capturing
924: the essential dynamics of the system and lead
925: to the now-expected resonant activation phenomenon.
926: Consequently, the central result of this paper is that the Langevin
927: dynamics of a particle under external stochastic potentials
928: can be properly dissipated by a single uniform renormalized friction
929: without loss of qualitative (and often quantitative) accuracy.
930:
931: The role of the memory time in
932: an external stochastic potential acting on a particle
933: described by a generalized Langevin equation of motion
934: is still an open question.
935: In this limit, there would presumably be an interplay between the
936: memory time of the thermal friction and that of the stochastic potential.
937: When the latter is small compared to the former, the quasi-equilibrium
938: condition central to this work would no longer be satisfied by the particle,
939: and hence it is expected that a non-uniform (and time-dependent) friction
940: correction would then be needed.
941:
942: \section{Acknowledgments}%
943:
944: RH gratefully acknowledges Abraham Nitzan for
945: an insightful question whose answer became this paper.
946: This work has been partially supported by a National Science Foundation Grant,
947: No.~NSF 02-123320.
948: The Center for Computational Science and Technology
949: is supported through a Shared University Research (SUR)
950: grant from IBM and Georgia Tech.
951: Additionally, RH is the Goizueta Foundation Junior Professor.
952:
953: \onecolumngrid
954: \section{Appendix}%
955:
956: The piecewise nature of the MHO potential results in a
957: piecewise form for the associated SDF.
958: Although incoherent, every barrier gives rise to the same averages,
959: and hence the procedure needs to be carried out only over a
960: small region defined by the closed interval, $[x_m^0,x_m^\ddagger]$.
961: The limits of integration over this region can be
962: determined from the expression for the connection points
963: \begin{equation}
964: x_m^-=-\frac{k_0\lambda}{2k_0-2k_m^\ddagger}+m\lambda
965: \;,
966: \end{equation}
967: where $k_m^{\ddagger}=-(k_0+\eta(t))$.
968: This can equivalently be expressed as
969: \begin{equation}
970: \eta(t)=-\frac{k_0\lambda}{2(x_m^--m\lambda)}-2k_0
971: \;.
972: \end{equation}
973: At the top of the barrier, when $x_m^-=x_m^\ddagger,~
974: \mbox{$\eta(t)=\infty$}.$
975: In the intermediate region for arbitrary $x$,
976: \begin{eqnarray}
977: \eta(t) & = & -\frac{k_0\lambda}{2(x-m\lambda)}-2k_0 \nonumber \\
978: & \equiv & \eta^*
979: \;.
980: \end{eqnarray}
981: Otherwise, at the minimum when $x_m^-=x_m^0,~\mbox{$\eta(t)=-k_0$} $.
982:
983: Although it is apparent from the expression for the barrier height
984: that the corresponding distribution is non-Gaussian, the
985: resulting forces are Gaussian with the probability given by Eq.~\ref{eq:prob}.
986: The average force for a given $x$ is simply the weighted average of
987: the forces when $x$ is in the respective regions,
988: $(x_m^0,x_m^-)$ and $(x_m^-,x_m^{\ddagger})$,
989: which correspond to $\eta$ regions of
990: $(-k_0,\eta^*)$ and $(\eta^*,\infty)$.
991: The resulting integral for the average value of $F(x;t)$ is now:
992: \begin{equation}
993: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t) \rangle= \frac{\int_{-k_0}^{\eta^*}\!d\eta\, F(x)P(\eta)
994: +\int_{\eta^*}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,F(x)P(\eta)}
995: {\int_{-k_0}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,P(\eta)}
996: \;.
997: \end{equation}
998: Here, one must be careful
999: in determining which portion of the force to use in the above
1000: equation.
1001: For example, when $\eta<\eta^*$,
1002: the majority of the force is due to the barrier portion of the potential,
1003: not the well component.
1004: The average can thus be expressed as
1005: \begin{equation}
1006: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t) \rangle= -\int_{\eta^*}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,
1007: k_0(x-x_m^0)P^\prime(\eta)
1008: +\int_{-k_0}^{\eta^*}\!d\eta\,
1009: (k_0+\eta)(x-x_m^{\ddagger})P^\prime(\eta)
1010: \;,
1011: \end{equation}
1012: where $P^\prime(\eta)$ is defined through the
1013: normalization condition, $\it{i.e.}$,
1014: \begin{equation}
1015: \int_{-k_0}^{\eta^*}\!d\eta\,P^\prime(\eta)+
1016: \int_{\eta^*}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,P^\prime(\eta)\equiv 1
1017: \;,
1018: \end{equation}
1019: which leads to the probability distribution
1020: \begin{equation}
1021: P^\prime(\eta)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi\sigma^2}}
1022: \frac{\exp\left({-\frac{\eta^2}{2\sigma^2}}\right)}
1023: {1+\erf\left(\frac{k_0}{\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)}
1024: \;,
1025: \end{equation}
1026: where $\erf(x)$ is the standard error function.
1027: Use of the normalization condition reduces the
1028: average force to
1029: \begin{equation}
1030: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t) \rangle = k_0(x-x_m^\ddagger)-
1031: [k_0(x-x_m^0)+k_0(x-x_m^{\ddagger})]
1032: \int_{\eta^*}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,
1033: P^\prime(\eta) \nonumber
1034: \mbox{} + (x-x_m^{\ddagger})\int_{-k_0}^{\eta^*}
1035: \!d\eta\, \eta P^\prime(\eta)
1036: \;.
1037: \end{equation}
1038: The remaining integrals are readily computed; the explicit form of
1039: the average force is
1040: \begin{eqnarray}
1041: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t) \rangle & = & k_0(x-x_m^\ddagger)-
1042: \left( k_0 (2x-x_m^0-x_m^\ddagger)\right)
1043: \left(\frac{1-\erf\left(\frac{\eta^*}
1044: {\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)}{1
1045: +\erf\left(\frac{k_0}{\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}
1046: \right)}\right) \nonumber \\
1047: & & \mbox{}+(x-x_m^\ddagger)
1048: \sqrt{\frac{2\sigma^2}{\pi}}
1049: \left[\frac{\exp\left(-
1050: \frac{k_0^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)-
1051: \exp\left(-
1052: \frac{(\eta^*)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)}
1053: {1+\erf\left(
1054: \frac{k_0}{\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)}\right]\;.
1055: \end{eqnarray}
1056:
1057: The second quantity to be computed is the average of the
1058: square of the force, and the derivation follows that (above) of
1059: the average force.
1060: The limits of integration are the same
1061: and the Gaussian integrals can be calculated in the same manner.
1062: Again using the normalization requirement,
1063: the first integral is eliminated such that
1064: \begin{eqnarray}
1065: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t)^2 \rangle & = & k_0^2(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2 +
1066: [k_0^2(x-x_m^0)^2-
1067: k_0^2(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2]
1068: \int_{\eta^*}^{\infty}\!d\eta\,
1069: P^\prime(\eta)
1070: \nonumber \\
1071: & & \mbox{}+2k_0(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2
1072: \int_{-k_0}^{\eta^*}
1073: \!d\eta\,\eta P^\prime(\eta)+(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2
1074: \int_{-k_0}^{\eta^*}\!d\eta\,\eta^2
1075: P^\prime(\eta)
1076: \;.
1077: \end{eqnarray}
1078: The first two integrals are the same as before,
1079: and the third can be obtained with little effort.
1080: The resulting mean squared force is
1081: \begin{eqnarray}
1082: \langle F_{\rm U}(x;t)^2 \rangle & = & k_0^2(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2+\left(k_0^2
1083: (x-x_m^0)^2-k_0^2(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2\right)
1084: \left(\frac{1-\erf\left(
1085: \frac{\eta^*}{\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}
1086: \right)}{1+\erf\left(\frac{k_0}
1087: {\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)}\right)
1088: \nonumber \\
1089: & & \mbox{} +\frac{4k_0\sigma^2}{\sqrt{2
1090: \pi\sigma^2}}(x-x_m^{\ddagger})^2
1091: \left[\frac{ \exp\left(-
1092: \frac{k_0^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)-
1093: \exp\left(-\frac{(\eta^*)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)}
1094: {\left(1+\erf\left(\frac{k_0}
1095: {\sqrt{2\sigma^2}}\right)\right)}\right]
1096: \nonumber \\
1097: & & \mbox{} +\sigma^2(x-x_m^{\ddagger})^2
1098: \left[ \frac{
1099: \erf\left(\frac{\eta^*}{\sqrt{2
1100: \sigma^2}}\right)
1101: +\erf\left( \frac{k_0}{\sqrt{2
1102: \sigma^2}} \right)}
1103: {1+\erf\left(\frac{k_0}{\sqrt{2
1104: \sigma^2}}\right)}\right]\nonumber\\
1105: & & \mbox{} -\sqrt{\frac{2
1106: \sigma^2}{\pi}}(x-x_m^\ddagger)^2
1107: \left[ \frac{\eta^*\exp\left(-
1108: \frac{(\eta^*)^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)
1109: +k_0\exp\left(-\frac{k_0^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)}
1110: {1+\erf\left(\frac{k_0}{2
1111: \sigma^2}\right)}\right]
1112: \;.
1113: \end{eqnarray}
1114: The SDF for the MHO potential is then obtained by
1115: appropriate substitutions into Eq.~\ref{eq:FDT}.
1116:
1117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1118: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5%
1119: % FIGURES %
1120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1122:
1123: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1124: %%%%%%%% begin mho friction table %%%%%%%%%
1125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1126: %\newpage
1127: %\begin{table}[h]
1128: %\begin{center}
1129: %\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
1130: %\hline \\[-13truept]
1131: %\hline \\[-12truept]
1132: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1133: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
1134: % \underline{$
1135: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1136: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1137: % \rm{MHO}
1138: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1139: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1140: % $}
1141: %}&
1142: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
1143: % \underline{$
1144: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1145: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1146: % \rm{Sin}
1147: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1148: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1149: % $}
1150: %}\\
1151: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
1152: % \underline{$
1153: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1154: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1155: % \tau_{\rm c}=10^1
1156: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1157: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1158: % $}
1159: %}\\
1160:
1161: %$\gamma_{\rm th}$ &
1162:
1163: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}} \rangle_{\rm{0}}
1164: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1165: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1166: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1167: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1168: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1169:
1170: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
1171: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1172: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1173: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1174: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1175: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ \\
1176:
1177: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
1178: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1179: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1180: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1181: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ } \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1182: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ \\
1183:
1184: %\hline\\[-12truept]
1185:
1186: %$0.08$ & $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ &
1187: % $0.00$ & $0.03$ & $0.69$ \\
1188: % $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.66$ \\
1189:
1190: %$0.2$ & $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ &
1191: % $0.00$ & $0.03$ & $0.68$ \\
1192: % $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ \\
1193:
1194: %$0.4$ & $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ &
1195: % $0.01$ & $0.03$ & $0.67$ \\
1196: % $0.00$ & $0.01$ & $0.67$ \\
1197:
1198: %\hline\\[-13truept]
1199: %\hline\\[-12truept]
1200: %\end{tabular}
1201: %\end{center}
1202: %\caption{The average of the friction corrections, $\gamma_{\rm F}$,
1203: %calculated by the iterative
1204: %self-consistent (0) and space-dependent (sdf)
1205: %approaches for the MHO and sinusoidal potentials.
1206: %The resulting temperatures are also included for
1207: %the space-dependent friction.
1208: %In all cases the temperature is 2/3
1209: %(in units of a standard temperature, $k_{\rm b} T_0$),
1210: %the variance, $\sigma^2=0.22$, and the correlation
1211: %time, $\tau_{\rm c}=1$.
1212: %}
1213: %\label{tb:mho}
1214: %\end{table}
1215: %%%%%%%% end mho friction table %%%%%%%%%%%%%
1216: %\newpage
1217:
1218: %%%%%%%% begin sin friction table %%%%%%%%%%%%
1219: %\begin{table}[h]
1220: %\begin{center}
1221: %\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
1222: %\hline \\[-13truept]
1223: %\hline \\[-12truept]
1224: %\multicolumn{1}{c}{} &
1225: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
1226: % \underline{$
1227: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1228: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1229: % \tau_{\rm c}=10^{-1}
1230: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1231: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1232: % $} }&
1233: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
1234: % \underline{$
1235: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1236: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1237: % \tau_{\rm c}=10^0
1238: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1239: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1240: % $} }&
1241: %\multicolumn{3}{c}{
1242: % \underline{$
1243: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1244: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1245: % \tau_{\rm c}=10^1
1246: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1247: % \mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }
1248: % $} }\\
1249: %$\gamma_{\rm th}$ &
1250: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1251: % \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}} \rangle_{\rm{0}}
1252: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ } $ &
1253: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1254: % \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1255: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1256: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1257: % \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1258: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1259: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1260: % \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
1261: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ } $ &
1262: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1263: % \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1264: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1265: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1266: % \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1267: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1268: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1269: % \langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{0}}
1270: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ &
1271: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1272: %\langle \gamma_{\rm{F}}\rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1273: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ } $ &
1274: %$ \mbox{ } \mbox{ }
1275: % \langle v^2 \rangle_{\rm{sdf}}
1276: % \mbox{ } \mbox{ }$ \\
1277: %\hline\\[-12truept]
1278: %$0.08$ & $0.04$ & $0.28$ & $0.72$ &
1279: % $0.05$ & $0.29$ & $0.74$ &
1280: % $0.01$ & $0.28$ & $0.68$ \\
1281: %$0.2$ & $0.04$ & $0.28$ & $0.71$ &
1282: % $0.05$ & $0.29$ & $0.72$ &
1283: % $0.01$ & $0.28$ & $0.68$ \\
1284: %$0.4$ & $0.04$ & $0.28$ & $0.70$ &
1285: % $0.06$ & $0.29$ & $0.71$ &
1286: % $0.01$ & $0.28$ & $0.67$ \\
1287: %\hline\\[-13truept]
1288: %\hline\\[-12truept]
1289: %\end{tabular}
1290: %\end{center}
1291: %\caption{The average of the friction corrections, $\gamma_{\rm F}$,
1292: %calculated by the iterative self-consistent (0)
1293: %and space-dependent approaches (sdf) for the sinusoidal potential.
1294: %The resulting temperatures are also included for
1295: %the space-dependent friction method.
1296: %The temperature is 2/3 in all cases and the variance, $\sigma^2=2.2$.
1297: %}
1298: %\label{tb:sin}
1299: %\end{table}
1300: %%%%%%%% end sin friction table %%%%%%%
1301: %\newpage
1302:
1303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1304: %\begin{figure}[ht]
1305: %\begin{center}
1306: %\includegraphics*[width=15.0cm]{./figs/mhofluc.eps}
1307: %\end{center}
1308: %\caption{
1309: %Representative fluctuations over one period of the MHO
1310: %potential and force (top panel),
1311: %and the resulting space-dependent friction (bottom panel).
1312: %The numerical component in the bottom panel
1313: %is displayed as the solid black line, with
1314: %the analytic result, given in the Appendix, as the dotted white line.
1315: %The temperature is 2/3, the variance
1316: %is 0.22, and the thermal friction is 0.08.
1317: %}
1318: %\label{fig:sdfmho}
1319: %\end{figure}
1320: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1321: %\newpage
1322:
1323: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1324: %\begin{figure}[ht]
1325: %\begin{center}
1326: %\includegraphics*[width=15.0cm]{./figs/sinfluc.eps}
1327: %\end{center}
1328: %\caption{
1329: %Representative fluctuations over one period of the sinusoidal
1330: %potential and force (top panel),
1331: %and the resulting space-dependent friction (bottom panel).
1332: %The numerical result is displayed as the solid black line,
1333: %with the analytic result, given by Eq.~\ref{eq:sdfsin}, shown as
1334: %the dotted white line.
1335: %The parameters used are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:sdfmho}.
1336: %}
1337: %\label{fig:sdfsin}
1338: %\end{figure}
1339: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1340: %\newpage
1341:
1342: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1343: %\begin{figure}[ht]
1344: %\begin{center}
1345: %\includegraphics*[width=10.0cm]{./figs/0.05mfpt.eps}
1346: %\end{center}
1347: %\caption{The mean first-passage times (MFPT)
1348: %for a particle diffusing across the MHO stochastic potential
1349: %are displayed for two possible scenarios of the
1350: %dissipative mechanism.
1351: %The top panel uses space-dependent friction, and the bottom
1352: %displays the uniform friction determined by the self-consistent method.
1353: %The variance for both is 0.05, and
1354: %the three lines correspond to values of the thermal
1355: %friction of 0.08 (solid curve with x symbols), 0.2 (dashed curve
1356: %with triangles), and 0.4 (dot-dashed curve with squares).
1357: %The symbols on the broken axis represent the
1358: %numerically calculated MFPTs at the limits of the correlation time.
1359: %}
1360: %\label{fig:mfpt0.05}
1361: %\end{figure}
1362: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1363: %\newpage
1364:
1365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1366: %\begin{figure}[ht]
1367: %\begin{center}
1368: %\includegraphics*[width=10.0cm]{./figs/0.22mfpt.eps}
1369: %\end{center}
1370: %\caption{The mean first-passage times (MFPT)
1371: %for a particle diffusing across the MHO stochastic potential
1372: %are displayed for two possible scenarios of the
1373: %dissipative mechanism.
1374: %The parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.05}, except the
1375: %variance is 0.22.
1376: %}
1377: %\label{fig:mfpt0.22}
1378: %\end{figure}
1379: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1380: %\newpage
1381:
1382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1383: %\begin{figure}[ht]
1384: %\begin{center}
1385: %\includegraphics*[width=10.0cm]{./figs/sin.eps}
1386: %\end{center}
1387: %\caption{The mean first-passage times (MFPT)
1388: %for a particle diffusing across the sinusoidal stochastic potential
1389: %are displayed for two possible scenarios of the
1390: %dissipative mechanism.
1391: %Other than for the change from the MHO to the sinusoidal potential,
1392: %the parameters are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:mfpt0.22}.
1393: %}
1394: %\label{fig:mfptsin}
1395: %\end{figure}
1396: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1397: \twocolumngrid
1398: \bibliography{j,surf,tst,miller2,hern,voth,flucbar,mfpt,liquid,sdf}
1399:
1400: \end{document}
1401: