1: \documentclass[prl,groupaddress,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{epsfig,amsmath,amssymb,graphics,color,calc}
3:
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
6: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}
7: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{Efficient measurement of linear susceptibilities in
12: molecular \\ simulations: Application to aging supercooled liquids}
13:
14: \author{Ludovic Berthier}
15: \affiliation{Laboratoire des Collo{\"\i}des, Verres
16: et Nanomat{\'e}riaux, UMR 5587, Universit{\'e} Montpellier II and CNRS,
17: 34095 Montpellier, France}
18:
19: \date{\today}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We propose a new method to measure time-dependent linear
23: susceptibilities in molecular simulations, which does not require the use of
24: nonequilibrium simulations, subtraction
25: techniques, or fluctuation-dissipation theorems.
26: The main idea is an exact reformulation of linearly
27: perturbed quantities in terms of observables
28: accessible in unperturbed trajectories. We have applied these ideas
29: to two supercooled liquids in their nonequilibrium aging regime.
30: We show that previous work had underestimated deviations from
31: fluctuation-dissipation relations in the case of a Lennard-Jones
32: system, while our results for silica are in
33: qualitative disagreement with earlier results.
34: \end{abstract}
35:
36: \pacs{05.10.-a, 05.20.Jj, 64.70.Pf}
37:
38: %05.10.-a Computational methods in statistical physics and nonlinear dynamics (see also 02.70.-c in mathematical methods in physics)
39: % 05.20.Jj Statistical mechanics of classical fluids
40: % 64.70.Pf Glass transitions
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: Correlation and response functions play a major role in
45: condensed matter physics as they directly probe static
46: and dynamic properties at a microscopic level~\cite{forster}.
47: At thermal equilibrium, linear response theory permits
48: the derivation of fluctuation-dissipation relations
49: between conjugated susceptibilities and correlations, so that
50: both types of measurements become equivalent~\cite{hansen}.
51: Depending on the technique used, experiments or simulations
52: access one or the other quantity. For liquids, neutron scattering
53: experiments will for instance be sensitive to spontaneous
54: fluctuations of the density, while dielectric spectroscopy
55: detects the response induced by an electric
56: field~\cite{hansen}.
57: Numerical simulations mainly focus on spontaneous fluctuations
58: and probe microscopic dynamics via
59: correlation functions~\cite{allen}.
60: However, there exist cases where the numerical
61: measurement of response functions becomes necessary, for instance
62: when correlation functions become too noisy to be detected~\cite{cross},
63: or in nonequilibrium situations, where correlation and response functions
64: contain distinct physical information because fluctuation-dissipation
65: theorems (FDT) do not hold~\cite{jorge}. Quantifying FDT ``violations''
66: from the simultaneous measurement of correlation and response functions
67: is an active field of research~\cite{reviewfdt}.
68: In this work we propose an efficient method to access
69: linear response functions in numerical simulations of
70: molecular systems. As a physically relevant
71: situation we apply this novel technique to
72: study response functions of glass-forming liquids
73: undergoing physical aging after a sudden quench to low temperature.
74:
75: Direct measurements of linear susceptibilities usually proceed as
76: follows. Consider of system of $N$ particles described by
77: coordinates, ${\vec r} \equiv \{ {\vec r}_i, i=1,\cdots,N \}$,
78: momenta, ${\vec p} \equiv \{ {\vec p}_i, i=1,\cdots,N \}$,
79: masses $m_i$, and a Hamiltonian ${\cal H}({\vec r}, {\vec p})$
80: containing a kinetic part, ${\cal K}({\vec p}) = \sum_i
81: {{\vec p}_i}^2/(2m_i)$,
82: and a potential part, ${\cal V}({\vec r})$.
83: We first consider Newtonian dynamics, as used in
84: Molecular Dynamics (MD):
85: \be
86: {\dot {\vec r}_i} =
87: \partial {\cal H}/\partial {\vec p}_i, \quad {\dot {\vec p}_i}
88: = - \partial {\cal H} / \partial {\vec q}_i.
89: \label{newton}
90: \ee
91: Physical observables, $A(t) \equiv A [{\vec p}(t), {\vec r}(t)]$,
92: can be measured at any time in a simulation, and correlation functions,
93: $C(t,t') = \langle A(t) B(t') \rangle_0$,
94: are obtained by averaging over repeated measurements.
95: The subscript ``$0$'' indicates that averages are performed
96: over unperturbed trajectories, and we suppose that
97: $\langle A(t) \rangle_0 = 0$. In systems which are
98: time-translationally invariant, two-time quantities only depend
99: on $t-t'$ but we retain the $(t,t')$ notation as we shall
100: also study non-stationary systems.
101:
102: To measure a response function, an external field of
103: constant amplitude $h$, conjugated to $B(t)$,
104: is introduced at time $t'$, such that the Hamiltonian
105: contains the additional term $\delta {\cal H} = - h B$
106: for $t>t'$. A linear susceptibility can then be defined:
107: \be
108: \chi(t,t') = \int_{t'}^t dt'' \frac{\partial \langle A(t) \rangle_h}{\partial
109: h(t'')}
110: \Bigg|_{h \to 0},
111: \label{chi}
112: \ee
113: Step responses are considered for simplicity
114: but the discussion holds more generally.
115: The average in (\ref{chi})
116: is with the field switched on,
117: the zero-field limit comes from repeated
118: measurements with fields of decreasing amplitude.
119: In practice, a compromise is sought between large fields
120: introducing unwanted non-linear effects,
121: and small fields resulting in poor signals.
122: Such a non-equilibrium technique suffers from a serious drawback.
123: Averages in (\ref{chi}) are taken over perturbed trajectories, so that
124: susceptibilities can only be measured one at a time,
125: contrary to correlation functions which can be simultaneously
126: measured and time averaged in a single unperturbed trajectory.
127:
128: An alternative would be to perform the derivative in
129: Eq.~(\ref{chi}) {\it before} taking the average. This is precisely
130: how the FDT is derived~\cite{hansen}. Averages are first
131: expressed in terms of the distribution function.
132: Its thermal equilibrium (Gibbs-Boltzmann) form
133: at temperature $T$ is then assumed,
134: and the derivative is computed analytically~\cite{hansen}:
135: \be
136: \chi(t,t') = \frac{1}{T} \left[ C(t,t) - C(t,t') \right],
137: \label{fdt}
138: \ee
139: where we have set Boltzmann's constant to unity.
140: An important and well-known feature of the FDT in Eq.~(\ref{fdt})
141: is that the right
142: hand side is evaluated using unperturbed trajectories,
143: the temperature prefactor reminding us that thermal equilibrium
144: is assumed, implying that Eq.~(\ref{fdt}) cannot be used
145: to measure $\chi(t,t')$ far from equilibrium.
146:
147: The idea introduced in this paper is to perform the derivative
148: before doing the average {\it without} assuming thermal equilibrium.
149: Similar ideas were recently discussed for discrete
150: spins~\cite{ricci}.
151: In MD simulations, the subtraction
152: technique~\cite{ciccotti} is a finite-field approximation of
153: this idea: Two simulations are run in parallel starting from the same
154: configuration at time $t'$, one with $h=0$, the other with
155: a small field, $h$. The susceptibility reads:
156: $\chi(t,t') \approx \left( \langle A(t)\rangle - \langle
157: A(t) \rangle_0 \right)/h$.
158: Non-equilibrium techniques are in fact
159: unnecessary~\cite{ciccotti}, since the $h \to 0$ limit can be taken
160: directly from (\ref{newton}) using
161: perturbation theory~\cite{hubbard} to devise
162: an unperturbed technique.
163: The quantities ${\vec \chi}_i \equiv
164: \partial {\vec r}_i/\partial h$ and
165: ${\vec \varphi}_i \equiv \partial {\vec p}_i/\partial h$
166: evolve as~\cite{hubbard}:
167: \be
168: {\dot {\vec \chi}_i} = \frac{ {\vec \varphi}_i }{m_i} -
169: \frac{\partial B({\vec r},{\vec p})}{\partial {\vec p}_i}, \quad
170: {\dot {\vec \varphi}_i} = \frac{\partial B({\vec r}, {\vec p})}{\partial
171: {\vec r}_i}
172: - \sum_{j=1}^N \frac{\partial^2 {\cal V}({\vec r})}{\partial {\vec r}_i
173: \partial {\vec r}_j} \cdot {\vec \chi}_j.
174: \label{newton2}
175: \ee
176: The susceptibility $\chi(t,t')$ can now be evaluated from
177: {\it unperturbed} trajectories:
178: \be
179: \chi(t,t') = \left\langle
180: \sum_{i=1}^N \left(
181: \frac{\partial A({\vec r},{\vec p})}{\partial {\vec r}_i} \cdot {\vec \chi}_i
182: + \frac{\partial A({\vec r},{\vec p})}{\partial
183: {\vec p}_i} \cdot {\vec \varphi}_i \right)
184: \right\rangle_0.
185: \label{toobad}
186: \ee
187:
188: To illustrate the result in Eq.~(\ref{toobad}) we have performed
189: MD simulations of a 80:20 binary Lennard-Jones (LJ)
190: system composed of $N=10^3$ particles at density $\rho=1.2$.
191: Particles interact with a LJ
192: potential with parameters that can be found in ~\cite{KA},
193: chosen to avoid crystallization at low temperature,
194: and to study the properties of glass-forming liquids.
195: Technical details of our simulations are as in the original
196: paper~\cite{KA}. When the temperature gets lower than
197: $T \approx 1$ (we use LJ units~\cite{KA}), the dynamics
198: dramatically slows down, and the system cannot be equilibrated
199: in computer simulations below $T\approx 0.43$.
200:
201: \begin{figure}
202: \psfig{file=fig1.ps,width=8.cm}
203: \caption{\label{inset}
204: Simultaneous measurement of susceptibility $\chi(t,t')$
205: and correlation $C(t,t')$ in $10^3$ independent
206: unperturbed trajectories
207: at $T=0.75$ in the LJ system
208: using Eq.~(\ref{toobad}) for MD and Eq.~(\ref{ok}) for MC.
209: For MD the noise diverges exponentially and $\chi(t,t')$ cannot
210: be evaluated for $t-t' > 10$, as indicated in the inset
211: showing $C(t,t')$ measured in MD.
212: In MC simulations $\chi(t,t')$ perfectly follows the FDT prediction
213: indicated by a full line over the whole time range.}
214: \end{figure}
215:
216: We perform equilibrium simulations where we simultaneously
217: solve (\ref{newton})
218: and (\ref{newton2}) to evaluate $\chi(t,t')$ from (\ref{toobad}), and
219: the correlation $C(t,t')$.
220: We focus on the following observables:
221: $A(t) = N^{-1} \sum_j \epsilon_j
222: \exp [i {\vec k} \cdot {\vec r}_j(t)]$
223: and $B(t) = 2 \sum_j \epsilon_j \cos [ {\vec k} \cdot {\vec r}_j(t)]$,
224: where $\epsilon_j = \pm 1$ is a bimodal random variable of
225: mean 0~\cite{hansen},
226: such that $C(t,t')$ corresponds to the
227: self-intermediate scattering function~\cite{hansen}.
228: The numerical burden is a mere factor two since one integrates
229: $12N$ instead of $6N$ equations of motion.
230: For $T=1.0$, dynamics is fast and
231: $\chi(t,t')$ can be evaluated in a few runs,
232: as can be checked using the FDT.
233: For $T=0.75$, where the relaxation time is
234: $\approx 50$ (see inset of Fig.~\ref{inset}), the fundamental
235: limitation of the technique appears.
236: In Fig.~\ref{inset} we represent $T \chi(t,t')$ evaluated
237: from $10^3$ independent runs using (\ref{toobad}),
238: as a function of $C(t,t')$. FDT predicts
239: the linear relation shown as a full line.
240: For $t-t' \lesssim 5$,
241: $\chi(t,t')$ follows the FDT. For larger $t-t'$,
242: the noise in the susceptibility diverges exponentially and no reliable
243: measurement can be performed, as in
244: subtraction techniques. Because the system
245: is chaotic, nearby trajectories diverge exponentially quickly:
246: While linear response fails at the level of trajectories~\cite{vankampen},
247: it holds at the probabilistic level~\cite{ciccotti},
248: as suggested by the FDT derivation outlined above.
249:
250: The above exercise suggests that in Monte-Carlo (MC) simulations,
251: where phase space is sampled probabilistically rather than
252: deterministically, response functions could be
253: efficiently evaluated. In a standard MC simulation~\cite{allen},
254: a configuration, ${\cal C}_{t}$, is reached at time $t$. A
255: trial configuration, ${\cal C}_t'$, is accessed with
256: acceptance rate $A_{{\cal C}_t \to {\cal C}_t'}$, generally defined
257: from the energy change between the two configurations,
258: e.g. the Metropolis rule~\cite{allen} used in the following. The transition
259: probability from ${\cal C}_t$ to ${\cal C}_{t+1}$ reads:
260: ${\cal W}_{{\cal C}_t \to {\cal C}_{t+1}} =
261: \delta_{{\cal C}_{t+1},{\cal C}_t'} A_{{\cal C}_t \to {\cal C}_t'}
262: + \delta_{{\cal C}_{t+1},{\cal C}_{t}} (1-A_{{\cal C}_t \to {\cal C}_t'})$.
263: Averages now mean sampling a large number, ${\cal N}$, of trajectories,
264: $\langle A(t) B(t') \rangle_0 = {\cal N}^{-1} \sum_{k=1}^{\cal N}
265: A_k(t) B_k(t') P_k(t' \to t)$,
266: where $A_k(t)$ is the value of
267: $A$ at time $t$ in trajectory $k$, and $P_k(t \to t')$ is the
268: probability of trajectory $k$ between times $t'$ and $t$ starting
269: from ${\cal C}_{t'}$,
270: $P_k(t' \to t) = \prod_{t''=t'}^{t-1} {\cal W}_{{\cal C}^k_{t''} \to
271: {\cal C}^k_{t''+1}}$,
272: where ${\cal C}^k_{t''}$ is the configuration visited at
273: time $t''$ in trajectory $k$.
274: The susceptibility reads $\chi(t,t') = \partial_h
275: [ {\cal N}^{-1} \sum_k A_k(t) P_k(t' \to t) ]$, and
276: can be reformulated as an {\it unperturbed} average,
277: \be
278: \chi(t,t') = \langle A(t) R(t' \to t) \rangle_0,
279: \label{ok}
280: \ee
281: where $R(t' \to t) \equiv
282: \sum_{t''} \partial_h \ln ( {\cal W}_{{\cal C}^k_{t''} \to
283: {\cal C}^k_{t''+1}})$.
284: In Fig.~\ref{inset} we report the simultaneous measurement
285: of $\chi(t,t')$, estimated via (\ref{ok}), and of $C(t,t')$
286: using $10^3$ independent MC runs of the
287: binary Lennard-Jones mixture described above for $T=0.75$.
288: (The details of the numerics appeared recently~\cite{tobepisa}.)
289: The measurement now easily extends over the whole range of timescale
290: over which
291: $C(t,t')$ changes, and FDT is perfectly obeyed.
292: Although MC trajectories are chaotic,
293: no exponential divergence of the noise
294: is observed, at variance with the MD case.
295: What Eq.~(\ref{ok})
296: in fact does is to use a {\it single} unperturbed trajectories
297: to evaluate the value the observable $A(t)$ would have taken
298: if an infinitesimal field had been applied.
299: Additionally, the evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{ok})
300: is computationally free since it only requires
301: updating one additional observable, $R (t' \to t)$,
302: during the production of unperturbed trajectories.
303: Finally, several susceptibilities and correlations
304: may now be computed during the same simulation, and time
305: averaging is easily implemented.
306: The main limitation of the method is again statistics:
307: $\chi(t,t')$ now takes the form of a multi-time correlator,
308: and its measurement becomes statistically costly as $t-t'$ gets too
309: large. We find an algebraic growth of the noise, as in spin
310: systems~\cite{ricci},
311: which is nevertheless a drastic improvement over exponential growth.
312: A second drawback is the need to replace Newtonian by Monte-Carlo
313: dynamics since the resulting {\it dynamics} are not necessarily
314: equivalent. Quantitative agreement between
315: MC and MD dynamics was recently reported for
316: the LJ system described above~\cite{tobepisa}.
317:
318: We now apply Eq.~(\ref{ok}) to measure $\chi(t,t')$
319: after a sudden quench to very low temperature.
320: Physical properties of the system now depend
321: on the time $t'$ spent since the quench, the system ``ages''~\cite{JL}.
322: Energy slowly decreases with time,
323: while dynamics gets slower~\cite{JL}.
324: The FDT in Eq.~(\ref{fdt}) no more applies, and
325: the following generalization was suggested
326: for glassy materials~\cite{teff},
327: \be
328: \frac{\partial}{\partial t'} \chi(t,t') = - \frac{X(t,t')}{T}
329: \frac{\partial}{\partial t'} C(t,t'),
330: \label{fdr}
331: \ee
332: where $X(t,t')$ is the fluctuation-dissipation ratio (FDR),
333: $X(t,t')= 1$ at equilibrium. Deviations of the FDR from unity
334: serve to quantify the distance from equilibrium~\cite{teff}.
335:
336: \begin{figure}
337: \psfig{file=fig2.ps,width=7.5cm}
338: \caption{\label{figttw}
339: Simultaneous measurement of $\chi(t,t')$ and $C(t,t')$ in aging
340: LJ ($T=0.4$, $k=6.7$) and silica ($T=2500$~K, $k=2.7$~\AA$^{-1}$).
341: Fitting the nonequilibrium part of the FD plots (dashed line)
342: for fixed-$t$ parametrizations directly yields
343: the FDRs $x=0.29$ (LJ) and $x=0.49$ (BKS).
344: Incorrectly extracting $x$ from fixed-$t'$ data
345: would yield 0.36 (LJ) and 0.63 (BKS), seriously underestimating
346: FDT deviations.}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349: Earlier attempts to measure $X(t,t')$ in molecular
350: glasses~\cite{fdrsimu,fdrbks}
351: used the following protocol:
352: quench the system at $t'=0$; apply a small
353: field and measure $\chi(t,t')$
354: for times $t \ge t'$; build a parametric ``FD plot''
355: of $\chi(t,t')$ vs $C(t,t')$.
356: Crucially, this amounts to replacing $\partial_{t'}$ by $\partial_t$
357: in (\ref{fdr}), a procedure which is correct if
358: $X(t,t')$ is not an explicit function of $t$ and
359: $t'$~\cite{foot}.
360: Unbiased FDR measurements require instead
361: the evaluation of $\chi(t,t')$ at fixed
362: time $t$ for different $t'$, so that
363: the FDR can be graphically deduced from the slope, $-X(t,t')/T$,
364: of FD plots. This is numerically too costly
365: if non-equilibrium techniques are used.
366: The difficulty is easily overcome with Eq.~(\ref{ok}),
367: and we shall therefore report the first unbiased
368: FDR measurements in aging molecular liquids.
369:
370: In Fig.~\ref{figttw} we use both time
371: parametrizations to build FD plots in two glass-formers:
372: the LJ system described above, and the BKS model for
373: silica~\cite{bkssimu}. The LJ results are qualitatively consistent
374: with earlier reports~\cite{fdrsimu}.
375: The plots consist of two distinct pieces,
376: FDT being satisfied for small $t-t'$,
377: ``violated'' for large $t-t'$.
378: Strikingly, FD plots are well-described by two straight lines, leading
379: to a sensible definition of a constant FDR, $x$, at large $t-t'$.
380: However, it is obvious in Fig.~\ref{figttw} that
381: (incorrectly) estimating $x$ from fixed-$t'$ measurements
382: yields values that seriously differ from unbiased estimates
383: from fixed-$t$ data, an
384: error made in all previous FDR measurements~\cite{fdrsimu}.
385: Both estimates only become equivalent if
386: a non-trivial limiting FD plot is found at large time~\cite{teff}.
387:
388: For silica, we find similar FD plots,
389: and similar quantitative discrepancies between both
390: time parametrizations. The disagreement with earlier
391: results is more pronounced for silica since FDR larger than unity
392: were reported~\cite{fdrbks}. We have repeated our measurements
393: at several temperatures between 500 and 2500~K,
394: several wavevectors from 0.3 to 13 \AA$^{-1}$,
395: both for Si and O atoms. We consistently find
396: FD plots as in Fig.~\ref{figttw} with $X(t,t')<1$.
397: We have numerically checked that this discrepancy cannot
398: be explained by non-linear effects potentially present in the data
399: of Ref.~\cite{fdrbks}. Using non-equilibrium techniques
400: with large fields we find that non-linear effects yield
401: even smaller apparent FDR values.
402:
403: \begin{figure}
404: \psfig{file=fig3a.ps,width=7.5cm}
405: \psfig{file=fig3b.ps,width=7.5cm}
406: \psfig{file=fig3c.ps,width=7.5cm}
407: \caption{\label{fdtT025}
408: Top: FD plots for fixed $T$ and $t$ in the LJ system
409: and different wavevectors displaying the same nonequilibrium value
410: of the FDR.
411: Middle: FD plots for Si and O (horizontally shifted by 0.2)
412: in BKS for fixed $T$, $k=2.7$\AA$^{-1}$, and various $t$. For
413: $t=4.10^4$, the FDR $x=0.51$ fits both sets of data.
414: Bottom: Temperature dependence of the FDR at a single
415: large time, $x(t=10^4)$, for LJ and BKS systems.
416: The temperature is normalized by the
417: mode-coupling temperature $T_c$. A linear behaviour
418: (dashed line) is observed at low $T$.}
419: \end{figure}
420:
421: We have used the flexibility offered by Eq.~(\ref{ok})
422: to characterize further the properties of FDRs
423: in both aging liquids in Fig.~\ref{fdtT025}.
424: The top panel presents evidence
425: that different observables share the same FDR value, obtained
426: by changing the wavevector used to evaluate dynamic functions.
427: Similar results were obtained for silica. The middle panel
428: shows that Si and O atoms in silica display
429: similar FD plots, with equal FDR values.
430: Again, we find similar results for the two types
431: of particles in the LJ mixture.
432: These results suggest that it is sensible to define,
433: for fixed $t$, a {\it unique} FDR value $x(t)$ characterizing
434: the non-equilibrium part of FD plots.
435: These findings are therefore compatible
436: with the physical idea~\cite{jorge} that slow rearrangements in aging
437: supercooled liquids behave as if they were
438: thermalized at an ``effective temperature'' defined by
439: $T_{\rm eff}(t) \equiv T / x(t)$~\cite{teff},
440: with $T_{\rm eff}(t)>T$ in the two investigated systems.
441: Our data indicate that $T_{\rm eff}(t)$ decreases very slowly with $t$.
442: Finally, the bottom panel shows the temperature dependence
443: of the FDR measured at a single large time, $x(t=10^4)$.
444: To compare both liquids we have to normalize the temperature
445: by some temperature scale. We choose the
446: ``mode-coupling'' temperature [$T_c=0.435$ (LJ)
447: and $T_c=3300$~K (BKS)] because
448: equilibration is numerically difficult below $T_c$
449: and aging effects can be detected.
450: Remarkably, we find that FDRs in the two liquids display
451: a very similar temperature dependence,
452: $x \approx 0.47 T/T_c$ at small $T$. This confirms that both
453: fragile (LJ) and strong (BKS silica) glass-formers studied in this work
454: display similar aging properties.
455:
456: We have introduced a new technique
457: to efficiently measure linear susceptibilities
458: in molecular simulations which only uses unperturbed
459: trajectories to evaluate response functions and outperforms
460: subtraction techniques in Monte-Carlo simulations.
461: Applied to aging supercooled liquids,
462: the technique allowed us to report the first unbiased
463: numerical estimates of FDRs in aging molecular liquids, and
464: to extend its determination to a wide range of times,
465: temperatures, and observables. We
466: showed that previous analysis
467: quantitatively underestimated FDT violations in
468: LJ systems, while our results for silica are in qualitative
469: disagreements with earlier results.
470:
471: I thank J.-L. Barrat who suggested to reconsider the aging regime of
472: BKS silica and followed this work, and
473: R.L. Jack and W. Kob for useful discussions and remarks on the manuscript.
474:
475: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
476:
477: \bibitem{forster} D. Forster, {\it Hydrodynamic fluctuations,
478: broken symmetry, and correlation functions} (Benjamin, Reading, MA, 1975).
479:
480: \bibitem{hansen} J.P. Hansen, I.R. Mc Donald,
481: {\it Theory of simple liquids} (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986).
482:
483: \bibitem{allen} M. Allen and D. Tildesley,
484: {\it Computer Simulation of Liquids} (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987).
485:
486: \bibitem{cross} G.V. Paolini and G. Ciccotti,
487: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 35}, 5156 (1987).
488:
489: \bibitem{jorge} J. Kurchan, Nature {\bf 433}, 222 (2005).
490:
491: \bibitem{reviewfdt} A. Crisanti and F. Ritort,
492: J. Phys. A {\bf 36}, R181 (2003).
493:
494: \bibitem{ricci} C. Chatelain, J. Stat. Mech. P06006 (2004);
495: F. Ricci-Tersenghi, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 68}, 065104 (2003).
496:
497: \bibitem{ciccotti} G. Ciccotti and G. Janucci, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 35},
498: 789 (1975).
499:
500: \bibitem{hubbard} J. Hubbard and J.L. Beeby, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys.
501: {\bf 2}, 556 (1969).
502:
503: \bibitem{KA} W. Kob and H.~C. Andersen,
504: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 1376 (1994).
505:
506: \bibitem{vankampen} N.G. van Kampen, Phys. Norv. {\bf 5}, 279 (1971).
507:
508: \bibitem{tobepisa} L. Berthier and W. Kob,
509: to be published in J. Phys.: Condens. Matter,
510: cond-mat/0610253.
511:
512: \bibitem{JL} W. Kob and J.-L. Barrat,
513: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 4581 (1997).
514:
515: \bibitem{teff} L.F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan, and L. Peliti,
516: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55}, 3898 (1997).
517:
518: \bibitem{fdrsimu}
519: G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3660 (1997);
520: J.-L. Barrat and W. Kob,
521: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 46}, 637 (1999);
522: R. Di Leonardo, L. Angelani, G. Parisi, and G. Ruocco
523: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 6054 (2000).
524:
525: \bibitem{fdrbks}
526: A. Scala, C. Valeriani, F. Sciortino, and P. Tartaglia,
527: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 115503 (2003).
528:
529: \bibitem{foot} This ambiguity is for instance absent
530: in driven fluids where stationarity is restored,
531: see L. Berthier and J.-L. Barrat, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 116}, 6228 (2002).
532:
533: \bibitem{bkssimu} We simulate the BKS model for silica
534: [B.W.H. van Beest, G.J. Kramer, and R.A. van Santen,
535: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 64}, 1955 (1990)] with
536: $N=1008$, at density $\rho=2.37$~g/cm$^3$;
537: MC simulations proceed as for the
538: LJ system~\cite{tobepisa}.
539:
540: \end{thebibliography}
541:
542: \end{document}
543: