1: \documentstyle[twoside,multicol,aps,epsf]{revtex}

2: \topmargin -30pt \headsep 0.0in

3: \textwidth=18.2cm

4: \textheight=58\baselineskip   

5: \evensidemargin = -.35in

6: \oddsidemargin = -.3in

7: \begin{document}

8: \author{J. P. Neirotti \\

9: and\\

10: David L. Freeman \\ Department of Chemistry, University of Rhode

11: Island\\

12: 51 Lower College Road, Kingston, RI 02881-0809\\

13: and\\

14: J. D. Doll\\

15: Department of Chemistry, Brown University\\

16: Providence, RI 02912}

17: \title{The Approach to Ergodicity in Monte Carlo Simulations}

18: \date{\today}

19: \maketitle

20: 

21: \makeatletter

22: \global\@specialpagefalse

23: \def\@evenfoot{\thepage\hfill{\small\sf The Approach to Ergodicity in Monte Carlo Simulations}} 

24: \def\@oddfoot{

25: \ifnum\c@page>1

26:   {\small\sf J. P. Neirotti, D. L. Freeman. and J. D. Doll}\hfill\thepage

27: \fi

28: \ifnum\c@page=1

29:   \hfill\thepage\hfill\llap{\protect{PREPRINT}}

30: \fi

31: } 

32: \makeatother

33: \vspace{.5cm}

34: \begin{center}

35: {\bf Abstract}

36: \end{center}

37: 

38: \begin{abstract}

39: The approach to the ergodic limit in Monte Carlo simulations is

40: studied using both analytic and numerical methods.

41: With the help of a stochastic model, a metric is defined that enables the

42: examination of a simulation in both the ergodic and non-ergodic regimes.  

43: In the non-ergodic regime, the model implies how the simulation is expected

44: to approach ergodic behavior analytically, and the analytically inferred

45: decay law of the metric

46: allows the monitoring of the onset of ergodic behavior. The

47: metric is related to previously defined measures developed for molecular

48: dynamics simulations, and the metric

49: enables the comparison of the relative efficiencies of different

50: Monte Carlo schemes.

51: Applications to Lennard-Jones 13-particle clusters are shown

52: to match the model for

53: Metropolis, J-walking and parallel tempering based approaches.  The

54: relative efficiencies of these three Monte Carlo approaches are

55: compared, and the decay law is shown to be useful

56: in determining needed high temperature parameters in parallel tempering

57: and J-walking studies of atomic clusters.

58: 

59: 

60: \noindent{\bf PACS} numbers: 05.10.Ln, 02.70.Lq

61: \end{abstract}

62: 

63: \begin{multicols}{2}

64: 

65: \section{Introduction}

66: 

67: A goal of Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in statistical 

68: mechanics \cite{valleau} is the calculation of ensemble mean values of 

69: thermodynamic quantities. Ensemble mean values are multidimensional 

70: integrals over configuration space

71: 

72: \begin{equation}

73: \label{eq0}

74: \langle U\rangle = \int\!\!d{\bf x}\,P({\bf x})\,U({\bf x})\,\,,

75: \end{equation}

76: 

77: \noindent where $P({\bf x})$ is the probability of finding a system 

78: in the state defined by ${\bf x}$, and the functional form 

79: of $P({\bf x})$ depends on 

80: the ensemble investigated. MC simulations usually generate a sampling 

81: of configuration space $\left\{{\bf x}_k\right\}_{k=1}^K$ by the use of 

82: a stochastic process with stationary probability $P({\bf x}_k)$. The 

83: quantity $U$ evaluated at ${\bf x}_k$ is the output of the simulation 

84: $U({\bf x}_k)=U_k$, and its arithmetic mean value $\overline{U}$, 

85: in principle, must approach the ensemble mean value.\cite{valleau} 

86: In this paper we refer to the set of configurations generated in a Monte

87: Carlo simulation as a time sequence, and

88: we study the behavior of these temporal sequences $\left\{U_k\right\}$ and 

89: their arithmetic mean, to understand better how MC simulations approach 

90: ergodic behavior.  It

91: is important to emphasize that there are two time variables to consider.

92: The time variable $k$ labels the separate configurations generated in a

93: Monte Carlo walk.  Variations of properties with $k$ provide information

94: about the short-time behavior of a MC simulation.  The time

95: variable $K$ labels the total length of the MC walk, and variations of

96: computed properties with $K$ provide information about the convergence

97: of the simulation on a long time scale.

98: 

99: Given an infinite time, the stochastic walker in a MC simulation visits 

100: every allowed point in configuration space.\cite{wood} Ergodic behavior is reached 

101: when the length of the walk is sufficiently long to sample configuration 

102: space appropriately.\cite{thiru1} In practice, this does not mean that 

103: the space has been densely covered but that every region with non-negligible 

104: probability has been reached. In such a case

105: we can say that the simulation is effectively 

106: ergodic or that it has reached the ergodic limit.

107: 

108: For a finite walk, in the event of broken ergodicity \cite{palmer}, 

109: phase space is effectively disconnected. The different disconnected 

110: regions (called components) are separated by barriers of zero

111: effective probability. If a stochastic walker starts its walk in one 

112: of these regions, it may not cross the barriers within the time of the 

113: simulation. If the simulation length is increased, some barriers may become 

114: accessible for the walker and phase space is better sampled. We can 

115: conclude that a time $\tau$ exists such that, for simulation lengths shorter 

116: than $\tau$, the walker becomes trapped in one of the phase space components. 

117: For simulation lengths much larger than $\tau$, phase space is effectively 

118: covered by the walker.

119: 

120: In this study we imagine a system having more than one time scale

121: $\tau_1\ll\tau_2\ll\dots\ll\tau_{\Lambda}$. In a Monte Carlo simulation

122: each scale comes

123: from stochastic processes with different correlation times.\cite{gardiner}

124: A precise definition of the correlation times for Monte Carlo

125: processes is given in Section III, but for the moment we can think of

126: these correlation times as identical to physical time scales of the system

127: under study.  To

128: understand these time scales more fully,

129: it is useful to focus on an example.

130: Prototypical of systems having such disparate time scales are

131: atomic and molecular clusters.  Typical cluster potential surfaces have

132: many local minima separated by significant energy barriers. 

133: \cite{freeman1,wales1,wales2}

134: The local

135: minima can be grouped into basins of similar energies, with each basin

136: separated from other basins again by energy barriers.

137: At short

138: Monte Carlo times a cluster system executes small amplitude oscillations

139: about one of its potential minima.  We can think of these vibrational

140: time scales as the shortest time scales that define a cluster system. 

141: As the simulation time is extended the system eventually hops between different

142: local minima within the same basin.  

143: The time scale for the first hops between local minima

144: can be considered the next shortest time scale for the simulation.  At

145: still longer Monte Carlo times, the system hops between different energy

146: basins defining yet another time scale for the simulation.  This

147: grouping of time scales continues until the longest time scale for a

148: given system is reached.  At Monte Carlo times that are long compared to

149: this longest time scale, the simulation is ergodic.

150: 

151: Consider a system with several time scales as mentioned above. 

152: If the length of the simulation is smaller than the smallest correlation 

153: time, the walker may become trapped in an effectively disconnected region 

154: and the sampling of phase space is incomplete. By increasing the time, 

155: the memory of the initial condition in the sampling decreases as 

156: the walker crosses to other previously unreachable regions. These oscillations

157: and hoppings can be modeled by a superposition of stochastic processes with 

158: different correlation

159: times. These processes with non-zero correlation times are known as {\em 

160: colored noise} processes (as opposed to zero correlation time {\em white 

161: noise} processes). \cite{gardiner} From the study of the autocorrelation 

162: functions of a stochastic model defined using these colored noise processes, 

163: we can verify that, at a fixed run length $K$, there exist two different 

164: groups of processes; those that contribute to the autocorrelation function with

165: terms that decay like

166: $1/k$ (called {\em diffusive} processes), and those that contribute to the 

167: autocorrelation function with terms that decay slower than $1/k$ (called {\em 

168: non-diffusive} processes). When the time of the simulation is increased, some

169: non-diffusive processes at shorter run lengths, start to contribute to the

170: autocorrelation function like diffusive processes. After the walk length reaches

171: the largest correlation time $\tau_{\Lambda}$, all processes contribute to the

172: autocorrelation function with terms that decay like $1/k$. At this point, the

173: simulation is at the diffusive regime and effective ergodicity has been reached.

174: A principal

175: goal of this work is 

176: to investigate the way in which the MC output $\left\{U_k\right\}$ reaches 

177: the diffusive limit (i.e. the ergodic limit) by studying the properties 

178: of autocorrelation functions under changes of scale in time, 

179: $K\to bK$ with $b>1$. 

180: By time scaling 

181: it is possible to infer the decay law of the non-diffusive contributions

182: with respect to the total simulation

183: time $K$.  The functional dependence of the non-diffusive contributions

184: on the parameter $b$ that is used to scale $K$ is determined empirically.

185: We have found the decay law so determined 

186: to be a particularly valuable method of concluding when a simulation

187: can be considered ergodic.  Unlike previous studies

188: \cite{thiru1,thiru2,thiru3,thiru4}

189: that only have

190: investigated the behavior of certain autocorrelation functions in the

191: ergodic regime, by focusing on the approach to ergodic behavior we have

192: a more careful monitor of the onset of ergodicity.

193: Once the non-diffusive 

194: contributions have decayed to a point where they are too small to be

195: distinguished from zero to within the fluctuations of the calculation,

196: we can say that the ergodic limit has been reached. 

197: 

198: The autocorrelation functions we use to measure the approach to the ergodic

199: limit are based on

200: one of the probes of ergodicity developed by Thirumalai and 

201: co-workers \cite{thiru1,thiru2,thiru3,thiru4}, 

202: and is often called the {\em energy metric}. 

203: The energy metric has been proposed as an alternative to other 

204: techniques \cite{thiru1} 

205: (like the study of the Lyapunov exponents \cite{lieberman}) for the study 

206: of ergodic properties in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations.  The

207: metric has been used to study the relative efficiency of MC simulation

208: methods as well. \cite{straub}

209: The MC metric as used in the current work 

210: can easily be extended from the energy to

211: other scalar observables of the system. 

212: 

213: We present two key issues in this paper. First, from the knowledge of the 

214: decay law of the non-diffusive contributions to the MC metric, we infer how 

215: long a simulation must be to be considered effectively ergodic. Second, once 

216: the ergodic limit is reached, we 

217: can compare the results from different numerical algorithms 

218: to measure relative efficiencies. Because the outcomes of MC simulations are 

219: noisy, we have found it useful to separate diffusive and 

220: non-diffusive terms in the MC metric with a Fourier analysis so that we

221: can neglect

222: the high frequency components of the noise.

223: This technique has given reproducible

224: results.

225: 

226: To test the match between the stochastic model and actual Monte Carlo

227: simulations, we examine the approach to ergodic behavior in simulations of

228: Lennard-Jones clusters.  Recently

229: \cite{juan1,juan2}

230: we have studied the thermodynamic

231: properties of Lennard-Jones clusters as a function of temperature using

232: both J-walking 

233: \cite{frantz}

234: and parallel tempering methods.  

235: \cite{p1,p2,p3}

236: Both simulation

237: techniques require an initial high temperature that must be ergodic when

238: Metropolis Monte Carlo methods 

239: \cite{metropolis}

240: are used.  If the Metropolis method does

241: not give ergodic results at the initial high temperature, systematic

242: errors propagate to the lower temperatures in J-walking and parallel

243: tempering simulations, and the results can be flawed or meaningless.  In

244: most Monte Carlo simulations of clusters at finite temperatures, 

245: \cite{lee,labastie}

246: the

247: clusters are defined by enclosing the atoms within a constraining

248: potential about the center of mass of the system.  The constraining

249: potential is necessary because clusters at finite temperatures have

250: finite vapor pressures, and the association of any one atom with the

251: cluster can be ill-defined.  From experience 

252: \cite{juan1,juan2,juan3}

253: we have found that if the

254: radius of the constraining potential and the initial high temperature

255: are not both carefully chosen,

256: it can be difficult to

257: attain ergodicity with Metropolis methods.  A key concern then is the

258: choice of constraining radius and the choice of initial temperature.  We

259: verify the stochastic model by investigating Monte Carlo simulation

260: results as a function of the temperature and the size of the

261: constraining potential.

262: 

263: The contents of the remainder of this paper are as follows.  In Section

264: II we motivate the studies that follow by examining numerally the

265: behavior of a set of Monte Carlo simulations of a 13-particle

266: Lennard-Jones cluster.  This cluster system is used to illustrate the

267: results throughout this paper.

268: In Section

269: III we introduce the stochastic model based on a continuous time

270: sequence.  In Section IV we extend the model to discrete time sequences

271: characteristic of actual Monte Carlo simulations.  In Section V we test

272: the discrete stochastic model with applications to Lennard-Jones

273: clusters and in Section VI we summarize our conclusions.  Many of the key

274: derivations needed for the developments are found in two appendices.

275: 

276: 

277: \section{An Example Calculation}

278: 

279: Before discussing the major developments of this work, it is useful to

280: understand the nature of the problem we are attempting to solve by

281: examining some numerical results on a prototypical system.  We take the

282: 13-particle Lennard-Jones cluster defined by the potential function

283: 

284: \begin{equation}

285: V({\bf x}) = 4\varepsilon 

286: \sum_{i=2}^N\sum_{j=1}^{i-1}\left[\left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{12} - 

287: \left(\frac{\sigma}{r_{ij}}\right)^{6}\right]

288: + \sum_{i=1}^NV_C( \vec{x}_i,R_c)

289: \label{pot}

290: \end{equation}

291: 

292: 

293: \noindent where $\varepsilon$ and $\sigma$ 

294: are the standard Lennard-Jones energy and length parameters,

295: $N$ is the number of particles in the cluster (13 in the present case), 

296: $r_{ij}$ is the distance 

297: between particles $i$ and $j$

298: 

299: \begin{equation}

300: \label{rij}

301: r_{ij} = |\vec{x}_i-\vec{x}_j|,

302: \end{equation}

303: 

304: \noindent and $V_C$ is the constraining potential discussed in Sec. I

305: 

306: \begin{equation}

307: \label{cp}

308: V_C(\vec{x}_i,R_c) = \left\{

309: \begin{array}{ll}

310: 0&\left|\vec{x}_i-\vec{X}_c\right| < R_c\\

311: \infty&R_c<\left|\vec{x}_i-\vec{X}_c\right|  

312: \end{array}

313: \right.\,\,,

314: \end{equation}

315: 

316: \noindent where $\vec{X}_c$ is the coordinate of the 

317: center of mass of the cluster and

318: $R_c$ is the radius of the constraining sphere. 

319: The 13-particle Lennard-Jones cluster has a complex

320: potential surface with many minima separated by significant energy

321: barriers, 

322: \cite{freeman1,wales1,wales2}

323: and ergodicity problems associated with the simulation of

324: properties of this system are well-known.

325: \cite{frantz}

326: We now consider a Metropolis

327: MC simulation of the average potential energy of the system in the

328: canonical ensemble at temperature $k_BT/\varepsilon=0.393$($k_B$ is the 

329: Boltzmann constant).  This average

330: potential energy $\overline{V}_k$ is defined by

331: \begin{equation}

332: \overline{V}_k=\frac{1}{k} \sum_{k'=1}^k V_{k'}

333: \end{equation}

334: 

335: \noindent and is displayed in the upper panel of Fig. 1 as a function

336: of the walk length $k$ for 20 independent simulations each

337: initialized from a random configuration.  Over the maximum time scale 

338: $K$ of the

339: walks, it apparent that the potential energy averaged over each

340: independent walk has not converged to the same result.  Such

341: unreproducible behavior is symptomatic of a simulation not yet at the

342: ergodic limit.

343: 

344: \begin{figure}

345: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

346: \epsfbox{f1.ps}

347: \end{figure}

348: 

349: {\footnotesize

350: {\bf Fig. 1:} The upper panel shows the ``time evolution" of 

351: $\overline{V}_k$ (in units of $\varepsilon$) 

352: for $M=20$ independent experiments. The lower panel 

353: shows $d_k$ (in units of $\varepsilon^2$) vs. $k$ for the experiments of the 

354: upper panel. 

355: $R_c$ has been set to $4\sigma$ and  $k_BT/\varepsilon=0.393$. At least 

356: two basins with different energies are present. Clearly, 

357: $d_k$ goes to a constant when $k$ is increased within the total time

358: scale of the simulation.}

359: \vspace{.5cm}

360: 

361: At the ergodic limit (i.e. for the maximum walk length $K$ greater than

362: that included in Fig. 1) the averages displayed in the upper panel of Fig. 1

363: must approach the same value for each walker.  Using related ideas

364: developed elsewhere,

365: \cite{thiru1,thiru2,thiru3}

366: the extent to which the walks approach the same limit can be measured in

367: terms of a metric $d_k$ defined by

368: 

369: \begin{equation}

370: \label{omega1}

371: d_k = \frac2{M(M-1)} \sum_{i=2}^M \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} 

372: \left[\,\overline{V}^{(i)}_k - \overline{V}^{(j)}_k\right]^2\,\,,

373: \end{equation}

374: 

375: \noindent In Eq. (\ref{omega1}) $M$ represents the number of independent walks, 

376: and

377: $\overline{V}^{(i)}_k$ is the 

378: average potential energy computed in walk $i$ at MC 

379: time $k$.  The metric measures the energy fluctuations in the walk as a

380: function of the walk length.  For an ergodic simulation, the metric must

381: decay to zero.

382: For the 20 simulations of the 13-particle

383: Lennard-Jones cluster, the metric as a function of $k$ is plotted in the

384: lower panel of Fig. 1.  Rather than asymptotically approaching zero, over

385: the short length of the walk displayed here, $d_k$ has decayed to a

386: constant, and as discussed later in this paper, over the time scale of

387: this simulation, $d_k$ can be qualitatively represented by the function

388: 

389: \begin{equation}

390: d_k=\frac{A_K}{k}+B_K

391: \end{equation}

392: 

393: \noindent where $A_K$ and $B_K$ are coefficients that are dependent

394: on the total walk

395: length $K$. As $K$ is increased to a time

396: where the walk is ergodic,

397: $B_K$ must decay to zero.  Major goals of this work are to understand

398: how $B_K$ decays and to use the discovered decay law to determine the

399: onset of ergodic behavior.

400: Our approach is to introduce first a continuous

401: stochastic model of a simulation followed by a discrete model more

402: clearly linked to actual MC studies.

403: 

404: \section{Stochastic Model}

405: 

406: We have discussed in the introduction how the output of MC simulations can be 

407: considered to be 

408: a combination of stochastic processes with different time scales, 

409: and how the contributions to autocorrelation function from these

410: processes can vary when the length of the 

411: simulation is enlarged. Here we present a continuous time model for the 

412: stochastic processes that occur in a simulation. Even though a MC simulation 

413: occurs 

414: in a discrete time (each MC point represents a time unit), we find that the 

415: continuous model helps to understand better the ideas used in the 

416: modeling of the MC output.

417: 

418: In this section the ensemble mean value is used to find the expression 

419: for the autocorrelation functions of the model. Although in actual numerical 

420: calculations the ensemble mean is replaced by a mean over a finite number of 

421: independent experiments, the results obtained here give information about the 

422: limit of an infinite sample.

423: 

424: The stationary process used to sample space is a stochastic 

425: process. We assume the output of the MC simulation can be modeled by a linear 

426: superposition of stochastic processes with different 

427: correlation times  $\tau_{\ell}\ge 0$, 

428: 

429: \begin{equation}

430: \label{eq:2}

431: U(t) = U_c +  \sqrt{\Gamma_0} \,\xi(t)

432:         + \sum_{\ell=1}^{\Lambda} 

433: \sqrt{\Gamma_{\ell}}\,g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,\,,

434: \end{equation}

435: 

436: \noindent where $U_c$ is a constant,

437: the random variable $\xi(t)$ represents

438: white noise processes with

439: zero correlation time ($\tau_0=0$), and the $\{g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\}$ 

440: are stochastic processes 

441: with correlation times $\tau_{\ell}>0$. 

442: $\xi(t)$ and $g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})$ 

443: have 

444: units of the square root of time, and $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_{\ell}$ are constants

445: with units of $U^2/t$. If $U$ is chosen to be the the $x$-coordinate

446: of a particle, $\Gamma_0$ and $\Gamma_{\ell}$ have units of a

447: diffusion constant.  Consequently we refer to these constants as

448: generalized diffusion coefficients.  The white noise process has the following 

449: properties \cite{gardiner}

450: 

451: \begin{eqnarray}

452: \langle \xi(t) \rangle &=& 0 \label{noise1}\\

453: \langle \xi(t)\, \xi(t') \rangle &=& \delta(t-t')\label{noise2}\,\,,

454: \end{eqnarray}

455: 

456: \noindent and the remaining colored noise processes are assumed to satisfy

457: 

458: \begin{eqnarray}

459: \langle g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell}) \rangle &=& 0 \label{g1}\\

460: \langle g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\, g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell}) 

461: \rangle &=&  \frac1{\tau_{\ell}}\label{g2}\,f_{\ell}

462: \left(\frac{|t-t'|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

463: \label{ggg}

464: \end{eqnarray}

465: 

466: \noindent so that they represent processes with a memory $f_{\ell}$. 

467: Even though correlations between processes with different 

468: correlation times may be non-zero, 

469: we assume the processes to be independent, i.e.

470: 

471: \begin{eqnarray}

472: \langle g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,g_{\ell'}(t'/\tau_{\ell'})\rangle

473: &=&\langle g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\rangle\langle g_{\ell'}(t'/\tau_{\ell'})

474: \rangle\nonumber\\

475: &=&0\,\,\,\,\forall\,\ell\neq\ell'

476: \label{a1}\\

477: \langle \xi(t)\, g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})\rangle&=&\langle \xi(t)

478: \rangle\langle  g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})\rangle\nonumber\\

479: &=&0\,\,\,\,\forall\,\,t\,{\rm and}\,t'

480: \label{a2}\,\,.

481: \end{eqnarray}

482: 

483: \noindent The memory function is assumed to be a continuous function 

484: that depends only on the distance between $t$ and $t'$ disregarding 

485: the time origin (stationary condition). The memory function represents 

486: the correlation between two times of the process $g_{\ell}$. In our model 

487: we impose the condition

488: 

489: \begin{equation}

490: \frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}\left( \frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

491: <\int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,\frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}\left( \frac{t'}

492: {\tau_{\ell}}\right)<\infty\label{F}\,\,.

493: \end{equation}

494: 

495: \noindent The scope and implications

496: of the leftmost inequality are explored in Appendix A. In 

497: Appendix A we also examine the conditions $f_{\ell}$ must satisfy in order to 

498: yield contributions to autocorrelation function that decay more weakly

499: than $1/t$.

500: We now assume that this inequality can be taken as a bound to possible 

501: maxima of $f_{\ell}$ appearing at $t>0$. The rightmost inequality enables 

502: us to assume $f_{\ell}$ is normalized

503: 

504: \begin{equation}

505: \label{norm}

506: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!dt\,\,\frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}

507: \left( \frac{|t|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)=1\,\,.

508: \end{equation}

509: 

510: \noindent We have identified here the time scale $\tau_{\ell}$ with the 

511: correlation time of the stochastic process $g_{\ell}$. This identification is 

512: valid if

513: 

514: \begin{equation}

515: \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\!\!dt\,\,\frac{|t|}{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}

516: \left( \frac{|t|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)= \tau_{\ell},

517: \end{equation}

518: 

519: \noindent which implies that the behavior of $f_{\ell}$ at large $t$ must be

520: ${\cal O}\left(t^{-(2+\epsilon)}\right)$, or smaller.

521: 

522: In addition, by the properties of the ensemble mean value, 

523: we have that for all real $\lambda$

524: 

525: \begin{eqnarray}

526: 0&\leq& \left\langle \left[ g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,+\,\lambda\, g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})\right]^2\right\rangle \nonumber\\

527: &\leq& 

528: \left\langle g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})^2\right\rangle + 2\lambda\,\left\langle g_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\, g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell}) \right\rangle

529: + \lambda^2\left\langle g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})^2\right\rangle

530: \nonumber\\

531: &\leq& \frac1{\tau_{\ell}}\left\{ f_{\ell}(0) + 2\lambda\, f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t-t'|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) + \lambda^2\, f_{\ell}(0) \right\}

532: \label{a3}\,\,.

533: \end{eqnarray}

534: 

535: \noindent Equation (\ref{a3}) must be true for all $\lambda$. 

536: Therefore, the discriminant of the polynomial in $\lambda$ must be 

537: non-positive

538: 

539: \begin{equation}

540: \label{schwartz}

541: 4\,\left[f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t-t'|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) - 

542: \, f_{\ell}(0)\right]

543: \left[f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t-t'|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) + 

544: \, f_{\ell}(0)\right]\leq0\,\,.

545: \end{equation}

546: 

547: \noindent Consequently, $f_{\ell}(0)=\max\{f_{\ell}(x)\,\forall\,x\geq0\}$. 

548: Other properties of $f_{\ell}$ are studied in Appendix A.

549: 

550: The ensemble mean value $\langle U\rangle$ is time independent. The ensemble

551: mean value of

552: the noise processes is zero. Therefore, $U_c$ must be equal

553: to $\langle U\rangle$.

554: Processes defined by Eq. (\ref{eq:2}) have 

555: two different components, uncorrelated white noise and correlated processes 

556: with correlation time $\tau_{\ell}$.

557: Because the goal of the simulation is the calculation of the ensemble 

558: mean $\langle U \rangle$ by the analysis of the time series, we study the 

559: behavior of the temporal mean $\overline{U}(t)$

560: 

561: \begin{eqnarray}

562: \overline{U}(t) &=& \frac1t \int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,U(t')\nonumber\\

563: &=& \langle U\rangle + \frac1t \sqrt{\Gamma_0} \,W(t) +

564: \frac1t \sum_{\ell=1}^{\Lambda} 

565: \sqrt{\Gamma_{\ell}}\,G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,\,,

566: \label{eq:3}

567: \end{eqnarray}

568: 

569: \noindent where $W(t)$ is a Wiener process, \cite{gardiner}

570: 

571: \begin{eqnarray}

572: W(t)&=&\int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,\xi(t')\\

573: \langle W(t)\rangle &=& 0 \label{wiener1}\\

574: \langle W(t)\,W(t')\rangle &=& t_<\,\,,\label{wiener2}

575: \end{eqnarray}

576: 

577: \noindent with $t_<=\min(t,t')$, and 

578: $G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})=\int_0^t\!dt'\,\, g_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})$. 

579: 

580: Equation (\ref{eq:3}) implies that the evolution of the temporal 

581: mean $\overline{U}(t)$ has the same structure as $U$, with an uncorrelated 

582: term and terms with tailed correlation functions. 

583: 

584: The autocorrelation function of the process $\overline{U}$ at 

585: times $t$ and $t'$ is defined by

586: 

587: \end{multicols}

588: 

589: \begin{eqnarray}

590: \kappa(t,t')&=&\left\langle\left(\overline{U}(t)-\langle U\rangle\right)

591: \left(\overline{U}(t')-\langle U\rangle\right)

592: \right\rangle \nonumber\\

593: &=& \frac{\Gamma_0}{tt'}\,\left\langle W(t)\,W(t')\right\rangle +

594: \frac1{tt'}\sum_{\ell=1}^{\Lambda}\Gamma_{\ell}\,\left\langle 

595: G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,G_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})\right\rangle\,\,,

596: \label{c1}

597: \end{eqnarray}

598: 

599: \noindent where we have used Eqs. (\ref{a1}) and (\ref{a2}) to 

600: neglect terms involving processes with different correlation times.

601: 

602: Because we have assumed $f_{\ell}$ is a continuous function, 

603: $f_{\ell}$ reaches its maximum and minimum value within any closed 

604: interval considered. The $\ell$th non-diffusive contribution 

605: to $\kappa(t,t')$

606:  

607: \begin{equation}

608: \frac1{tt'}\,\langle G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,G_{\ell}

609: (t'/\tau_{\ell})\rangle =\frac1{tt'}\int_0^t\!\! dt_1

610: \int_0^{t'}\!\! dt_2 \,\,\frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}

611: \left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\,\,,

612: \end{equation}

613: 

614: \noindent is bounded

615: 

616: \begin{eqnarray}

617: \frac1{t_<t_>}\int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt_1\,\,\int_0^{t_>}\!\!dt_2\,

618: \,\frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}\left( \frac{t_{min}}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

619: \leq \frac1{tt'}&\langle G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,G_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})

620: \rangle\;&\leq 

621: \frac1{t_<t_>}\int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt_1\,\,\int_0^{t_>}\!\!dt_2\,\,

622: \frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}(0)

623: \nonumber\\

624: \frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_{min}}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

625: \leq

626: \frac1{tt'}&\langle G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,G_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})

627: \rangle\;&\leq 

628: \frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}(0)\label{bb}\,\,,

629: \end{eqnarray}

630: 

631: \begin{multicols}{2}

632: 

633: \noindent where $t_>=\max(t,t')$, and $t_{min}$ is the time at which 

634: $f_{\ell}$ reaches its minimum value in the closed interval $[0,t_>]$. 

635: There exists a  $t^*_{\ell}(t_>)\in[0,t_{min}]$ \cite{spivak} such that,

636: 

637: \begin{equation}

638: \frac1{tt'}\,\langle G_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})\,G_{\ell}(t'/\tau_{\ell})\rangle 

639: = \frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_{\ell}^*(t_>)}{\tau_{\ell}}

640: \right)\,\,.

641: \label{tl}

642: \end{equation}

643: 

644: \noindent

645: Using Eqs. (\ref{wiener2}) and (\ref{tl}) in (\ref{c1}), we find that

646: 

647: \begin{equation}

648: \label{correl}

649: \kappa(t,t')= \frac{\Gamma_0}{t_>} + \sum_{\ell=1}^{\Lambda}

650: \frac{\Gamma_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}} \, 

651: f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_{\ell}^*(t_>)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\,\,.

652: \end{equation}

653: 

654: \noindent For all times shorter than $\tau_1$ the autocorrelation function 

655: is the sum of {\em diffusive contributions} (proportional to $1/t$) plus 

656: {\em non-diffusive contributions}. These contributions implicitly depend on 

657: $t_>$ through $t^*_{\ell}(t_>)$. We assume that $f_{\ell}$ satisfies the 

658: conditions stated in Appendix A, so that the

659: dependence of $f_{\ell}$ on $t$ is {\em weaker than} $1/t$ 

660: (for total time scales shorter than $\tau_{\ell}$;  see Appendix A).

661: 

662: We next consider the behavior of Eq. (\ref{correl}) for time scales

663: greater than $\tau_1$.

664: Under the scale change $t \to bt$ such that $\tau_1\ll bt_{>} \ll \tau_2$, 

665: the contributions to the correlation function from the process with 

666: correlation time $\tau_1$ can be considered diffusive [in other words, 

667: by virtue of Eqs. (\ref{noise2}) and (\ref{ggg}), $f_1/\tau_1$ has become a 

668: delta function]. With $bt_{>} \ll \tau_2$, the other processes preserve 

669: their old properties. Then, the autocorrelation function can be expressed

670: 

671: \begin{equation}

672: \label{urenor}

673: \kappa(bt,bt') =

674: \frac{\Gamma_0+\Gamma_1}{bt_>}+\sum_{\ell=2}^{\Lambda}

675: \frac{\Gamma_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}} \, f_{\ell}

676: \left(\frac{t_{b\ell}^*(t_>)}{\tau_{b\ell}}\right)\,\,.

677: \end{equation}

678: 

679: \noindent The complete derivation of Eq. (\ref{urenor}) can be found in 

680: Appendix B.

681: For a times larger than the correlation time $\tau_{\Lambda}$, all contributions

682: to the autocorrelation function are diffusive,

683: the simulation can be considered ergodic, the sampling complete, 

684: and the temporal mean is equal to the ensemble mean within ${\cal O}(1/t)$ 

685: mean square fluctuations.

686: 

687: \section{Discrete time sequences and the MC metric}

688: 

689: Monte Carlo simulations generate discrete sequences $U_k$ of values of the 

690: quantity under study. Additionally,

691: in actual calculations the ensemble of sequences is represented by a

692: finite rather than an infinite set.  In this section, the model developed in 

693: the previous section is extended to finite sets of discrete sequences. 

694: We express the

695: $M$ sequences $\,\left\{U_k^{(m)}\right\}_{k=1}^K\,$, where the label $(m)$ 

696: ranges

697: from 1 to $M$. The exact ensemble mean value $\langle U\rangle$ can 

698: be obtained

699: in the limit that $M$ becomes infinite.  In analogy with the model developed 

700: in Section III, each output is assumed to have the form

701: 

702: \begin{equation}

703: \label{seq}

704: U_k^{(m)} = \langle U\rangle + \sqrt{\Gamma_0}\,\xi_k^{(m)} + \sum_{\ell=1}^

705: {\Lambda}\sqrt{\Gamma_{\ell}}\,g_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(m)}\,\,,

706: \end{equation}

707: 

708: \noindent where

709: 

710: \begin{eqnarray}

711: \langle \xi_k^{(m)}\rangle&=&0\\

712: \langle \xi_k^{(m)}\,\,\xi_{k'}^{(n)}\rangle&=&\delta_{m,n}\,\delta_{k,k'}\\

713: \langle g_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(m)}\rangle&=&0\\

714: \langle g_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(m)}\,\,

715: g_{\ell';\,k'/\tau_{\ell'}}^{(n)}\rangle&=&

716: \delta_{m,n}\,\delta_{\ell,\ell'}\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|k-k'|}{\tau_{\ell}}

717: \right)\,\,.

718: \end{eqnarray}

719: 

720: \noindent The true ensemble

721: average $\langle U\rangle$

722: does not depend on the index $m$. 

723: 

724: In the discrete case we define a metric

725: 

726: \begin{equation}

727: \label{omega}

728: d_k = \frac2{M(M-1)} \sum_{i=2}^M \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} 

729: \left[\,\overline{U}^{(i)}_k - \overline{U}^{(j)}_k\right]^2\,\,,

730: \end{equation}

731: 

732: \noindent where the bars represent the temporal mean value

733: 

734: \begin{eqnarray}

735: \overline{U}^{(m)}_k &=& \frac1k \sum_{k'=1}^k U^{(m)}_{k'}\nonumber\\

736: &=&\langle U\rangle + \frac{\sqrt{\Gamma_0}}k\,W_k^{(m)}+ \sum_{\ell=1}^{\Lambda}\frac{\sqrt{\Gamma_{\ell}}}k\,G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}

737: ^{(m)} \,\,,

738: \end{eqnarray}

739: 

740: \noindent with

741: 

742: \begin{eqnarray}

743: W_k^{(m)} &=& \sum_{k'=1}^k \xi_{k'}^{(m)}\\

744: G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(m)} &=& 

745: \sum_{k'=1}^k g_{\ell;\,k'/\tau_{\ell}}^{(m)}\,\,.

746: \end{eqnarray}

747: 

748: \noindent Observe that in the present case, our finite sample 

749: of the infinite ensemble is the set of outcomes from $M$ independent 

750: numerical experiments. The metric we have defined in Eq. (\ref{omega})

751: can be contrasted with alternative metrics 

752: \cite{thiru1,thiru2,thiru3}

753: previously defined for molecular dynamics simulations.

754: These alternative metrics examine

755: the fluctuations of two simulations initialized from different components

756: of configuration space averaged with respect to all the

757: particles in the system.  The metric we use in this work is determined

758: using an

759: average with respect to $M$ independent 

760: simulations that represent a subset of the full

761: ensemble.

762: 

763: Using the model presented in Eq. (\ref{seq}), we now develop 

764: a way

765: to predict the behavior of the MC simulation in the 

766: non-ergodic and the ergodic regimes.

767: We first consider the case that the total simulation time 

768: $K$ is larger than the first 

769: correlation time $\tau_1$ but shorter than $\tau_2$, i.e. 

770: $\tau_1\ll K\ll\tau_2$. The expression for 

771: $d_k$ is given by

772: 

773: \end{multicols}

774: 

775: \begin{eqnarray}

776: d_k &=& \frac2{M(M-1)} \sum_{i=2}^M \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} 

777: \left[ \left(\overline{U}^{(i)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right) - 

778: \left(\overline{U}^{(j)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right)\right]^2\nonumber\\

779: &=& \frac2M \sum_{i=1}^M\left(\overline{U}^{(i)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right)^2 - 

780: \frac4{M(M-1)} \sum_{i=2}^M \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} 

781: \left(\overline{U}^{(i)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right) \, 

782: \left(\overline{U}^{(j)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right)\nonumber\\

783: &=& 2\,\Gamma_0 \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

784: \left(\frac{W_k^{(i)}}k\right)^2 + 

785: 2\,\Gamma_1 \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

786: \left(\frac{G_{1;\,k/\tau_1}^{(i)}}k\right)^2 +

787: 2\,\sum_{\ell=2}^{\Lambda}\Gamma_{\ell} \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

788: \left(\frac{G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(i)}}k\right)^2 \nonumber\\

789: &&+ \,4\,\sum_{\ell=1}^{\Lambda}\sqrt{\Gamma_0 

790: \Gamma_{\ell}} \,\,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M\frac{W_k^{(i)}

791: \,G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}} ^{(i)}}{k^2}

792:  + \,4\,\sum_{\ell=2}^{\Lambda}\sum_{\ell'=1}^{\ell-1}\sqrt{\Gamma_{\ell} 

793: \Gamma_{\ell'}} \,\,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M\frac{G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(i)}

794: \,G_{\ell';\,k/\tau_{\ell'}} ^{(i)}}{k^2} \nonumber\\

795: &&- \frac4{M(M-1)} \sum_{i=2}^M 

796: \sum_{j=1}^{i-1} \left(\overline{U}^{(i)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right) \, 

797: \left(\overline{U}^{(j)}_k-\langle U\rangle\right)\,\,.  

798: \end{eqnarray}

799: 

800: \noindent If the number of experiments $M$ is sufficiently large, 

801: we can neglect terms involving processes with different correlation times, 

802: and products of sequences belonging to different experiments. 

803: Under these assumptions we obtain

804: 

805: \begin{equation}

806: \label{om}

807: d_k = 2\,\frac{\Gamma_0}k \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

808: \frac{{W_k^{(i)}}^2}k +

809: 2\,\frac{\Gamma_1}k \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

810: \frac{{G_{1;\,k/\tau_1}^{(i)}}^2}k +

811:     2\,\sum_{\ell=2}^{\Lambda}\Gamma_{\ell} \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

812: \left(\frac{G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(i)}}k\right)^2\,.

813: \end{equation}

814: 

815: \begin{multicols}{2}

816: 

817: \noindent Equation (\ref{om}) preserves the form of Eq. (\ref{correl}). 

818: To make this statement explicit, let us rewrite Eq. (\ref{om}) as

819: 

820: \begin{equation}

821: d_k = 2\,\frac{\Gamma_k}k + 2\,\Upsilon_k\,\,,

822: \end{equation}

823: 

824: \noindent where

825: 

826: \begin{eqnarray}

827: \Gamma_k   &=& \Gamma_0\,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

828: \frac{{W_k^{(i)}}^2}k +

829: \Gamma_1\,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

830: \frac{{G_{1;\,k/\tau_1}^{(i)}}^2}k\label{g} \label{eq:gmmg} \\

831: \Upsilon_k &=& \sum_{\ell=2}^{\Lambda}\Gamma_{\ell} \,\frac1M \sum_{i=1}^M

832: \left(\frac{G_{\ell;\,k/\tau_{\ell}}^{(i)}}k\right)^2\,\,.

833: \label{ups}

834: \end{eqnarray}

835: 

836: \noindent In Appendix B we present a study of the way non-diffusive contribution become diffusive under time scale 

837: changes. If $M$ is sufficiently large and $\tau_1\ll K \ll \tau_2$, 

838: by virtue of Appendix 

839: B, $\Gamma_k$ must roughly be a constant.

840: By {\em roughly a constant} we mean a 

841: constant $C$ plus some rapidly fluctuating function $\zeta_k$, with the 

842: following properties: a) $\langle\zeta_k\rangle=0$ and b) 

843: $|C|\gg\max_{k=1,2,\dots,K}(|\zeta_k|)$. Then

844: 

845: \begin{equation}

846: \label{gz}

847: \Gamma_k \simeq \Gamma_K + \zeta_k

848: \end{equation}

849:  

850: \noindent If $K$ is enlarged, we expect to 

851: have a larger 

852: value of $\Gamma_K$. 

853: $\Upsilon_k$ is a quantity related to the memory functions 

854: $f_{\ell}$ with 

855: correlation times $\tau_{\ell}\gg K$. In the continuous 

856: time model, the colored noise 

857: processes contribute to the autocorrelation function 

858: with terms proportional to $f_{\ell}(t^*_{\ell}(t_>)/\tau_{\ell})$, which are 

859: weakly dependent on $t$ (see Appendix A). 

860: We can expect $\Upsilon_k$ to be

861: weakly dependent on $k$, and for sequences of length $K$ and for $M$ 

862: sufficiently large, we consider this quantity roughly to be a constant

863: 

864: \begin{equation}

865: \label{uz} 

866: \Upsilon_k\simeq\Upsilon_K+\beta_k\,\,.

867: \end{equation}

868: 

869: \noindent where $\beta_k$ represents additional random noise.

870: Then, for a given length 

871: $k\leq K$, the MC metric $d_k$ can be approximated by 

872: 

873: \begin{equation}

874: \label{d}

875: d_k = 2\,\frac{\Gamma_K}k + 2\,\Upsilon_K+\gamma_k\,\,,

876: \end{equation}

877: 

878: \noindent where $\gamma_k=2(\zeta_k/k+\beta_k)$ represents remaining stochastic noise 

879: from

880: both contributions.  In  

881: this approximation, $\Gamma_K$ and $\Upsilon_K$ are the quantities 

882: that 

883: carry the long time dependence. Short time features appear in the $1/k$ 

884: dependence and in the remaining noise $\gamma_k$. If the sequences considered 

885: are increased in size by a factor of $b$, such that 

886: $\tau_{\lambda-1}\ll K\ll\tau_{\lambda}\ll bK$ for a given 

887: $1\leq\lambda\leq\Lambda$, $\Gamma_K$ ($\Upsilon_K$) is 

888: increased (decreased) (see Appendix B). Then,

889: 

890: \begin{equation}

891: \label{di}

892: d_{bk} = 2\,\frac{\Gamma_{bK}}{bk} + 2\,\Upsilon_{bK}+\gamma_{bk}\,\,,

893: \end{equation}

894: 

895: \noindent where $\Upsilon_{bK}$ must go to zero and 

896: $\Gamma_{bK}$ must approach a constant when $b$ is increased. 

897: By virtue of the expected behavior of the non-diffusive contributions (see 

898: Appendix A), we propose the following expression for $\Upsilon_{bK}$

899: 

900: \begin{equation}

901: \label{upa}

902: \Upsilon_{bK}=\Upsilon_K\,\phi(b)\,\,,

903: \end{equation}

904: 

905: \noindent where $\phi(b)$ is a decreasing function of $b$. Moreover, 

906: $\Upsilon_{bK}$ is a sum of non-diffusive contributions. As presented in 

907: Appendix A, each non-diffusive 

908: contribution to the autocorrelation function has a relative variation smaller 

909: than the relative variation of the diffusive contribution, namely $1-1/b$. If 

910: this inequality

911: is applicable to the sum of non-diffusive contributions, we have that

912: 

913: \begin{eqnarray}

914: 1-\frac1b &>& 1-\frac{\Upsilon_{bK}}{\Upsilon_K}\\

915: 1-\frac1b &>& 1-\phi(b)\\

916: 1&<&b\,\phi(b)\label{bphi}\,\,,

917: \end{eqnarray}

918: 

919: \noindent for all $b>1$. Then, $\phi$ must be either

920: 

921: \begin{equation}

922: \phi(b)=b^{-\upsilon}\label{upa1}

923: \end{equation}

924: 

925: \noindent or

926: 

927: \begin{equation}

928: \phi(b)=\frac1{\eta\,\ln(b)+1}\label{upa2}\,\,,

929: \end{equation}

930: 

931: \noindent with $0<\upsilon<1$ and $0<\eta \le 1$. Equation (\ref{upa2}) can be 

932: thought as the limit

933: of Eq. (\ref{upa1}) when the exponent goes to zero. We know of no 

934: {\em a priori}

935: argument to 

936: justify Eq. (\ref{upa}). However, as is discussed in Section V, 

937: our numerical experience has shown Eq. (\ref{upa}) to be obeyed in all

938: cases we have examined.

939: 

940: Our goal is to develop a criterion to decide when the 

941: simulation can be 

942: considered ergodic. From the previous considerations it is clear that the 

943: ergodic limit is reached when $\Upsilon_K$ is indistinguishable from zero. 

944: The output from a MC simulation is usually noisy. Therefore, $\gamma_k$ 

945: can not 

946:  be neglected. A useful way to separate diffusive 

947: and non-diffusive 

948: contributions and to eliminate the stochastic noise from Eq. (\ref{d}), is to 

949: perform a Fourier analysis of the function $kd_k$. Let us define the 

950: frequencies $\omega_n=(2\pi/K)\,n$, with $n=0,1,\dots,K-1$. The discrete 

951: Fourier transform of the function $kd_k$ is the signal $Y_K(\omega_n)$

952: 

953: \end{multicols}

954: 

955: \begin{eqnarray}

956: Y_K(\omega_n)&=&\widehat{kd_k}(\omega_n)=\frac1K\sum_{k=1}^K 

957: \exp(-i\omega_nk)\,kd_k \label{eq:ft}\\

958: &=& \frac2K\sum_{k=1}^K \exp(-i\omega_nk) \,\,\Gamma_K\,+\,

959: \frac2K\sum_{k=1}^K k\,\exp(-i\omega_nk) \,\,\Upsilon_K+

960: \widehat{k\gamma_k}(\omega_n)\nonumber\\

961: &=& 2\,\delta_{n,0}\,\Gamma_K + \left\{\delta_{n,0} (K+1) + 

962: \left(1-\delta_{n,0}\right)\left(1+i\,\cot(\omega_n/2)\right)\right\}

963: \Upsilon_K

964: +\widehat{k\gamma_k}(\omega_n)\nonumber\\

965: &=& 2\,\delta_{n,0}\,\Gamma_K + \left(K\,\delta_{n,0}+1\right)\,

966: \Upsilon_K

967: + i\,\left(1-\delta_{n,0}\right)\,\cot(\omega_n/2)\,\Upsilon_K+

968: \widehat{k\gamma_k}(\omega_n)

969: \label{fs}

970: \end{eqnarray}

971: 

972: \begin{multicols}{2}

973: 

974: \noindent In general, $\widehat{k\gamma_k}(\omega_n)$ 

975: is negligible except at high 

976: frequencies. For small positive values of the frequency we can make 

977: the approximation $\cot(\omega_n/2)\simeq 2/\omega_n$.  From this

978: approximation we have

979: 

980: \begin{equation}

981: \label{eq:10}

982: {\rm Im}\left(Y_K(\omega_n)\right)\simeq \frac2{\omega_n}\, 

983: \Upsilon_K\,\,.

984: \end{equation}

985: 

986: \noindent The real part of Eq. (\ref{fs}) for positive frequencies is

987: 

988: \begin{equation}

989: \label{ns}

990: {\rm Re}\left(Y_K(\omega_n)\right)=\Upsilon_K\,\,.

991: \end{equation}

992: 

993: \noindent Even though simpler than Eq. (\ref{eq:10}), we have

994: found Eq. (\ref{ns}) is more

995: sensitive to the deviations of $d_k$ from the approximation Eq. (\ref{d}).

996: Therefore, the data obtained from the real part is of poorer quality than

997: the data obtained from the imaginary part.

998: 

999: Equation (\ref{eq:10}) implies that for a given simulation 

1000: length $K$, the contributions to the MC metric from the non-diffusive 

1001: process can be determined from a simple relationship involving the 

1002: Fourier transform of the function $kd_k$ at low frequencies. By increasing 

1003: the length of the run $K$ by a factor of $b$, it is possible to observe the 

1004: dependence of $\Upsilon_{bK}$ on $bK$. 

1005: 

1006: \section{Applications}

1007: 

1008: The concepts developed in the previous sections are sufficiently 

1009: general to be applied to any kind of MC simulation.

1010: We devote the present section to the application of the developments of

1011: this paper

1012: to the study of the Lennard-Jones 

1013: 13-particle cluster in the canonical

1014: ensemble. This system has been introduced previously in Sec. II.

1015: 

1016: Some thermodynamic properties of clusters as a function of temperature

1017: exhibit rapid changes that are reminiscent of similar changes that occur

1018: for the same properties in bulk systems at phase transitions.  In a bulk

1019: system a phase transition occurs at a single temperature.  For clusters

1020: the rapid changes in thermodynamic properties occur over a finite

1021: temperature interval.  To distinguish the temperature range where

1022: thermodynamic properties change rapidly in clusters from a true phase

1023: transition,  we follow Berry {\em et al.} 

1024: \cite{berry}

1025: and refer to such changes in

1026: physical properties as associated with a phase change.  A common

1027: property that has been found to be useful in monitoring these phase

1028: change intervals of temperature is the heat capacity at constant 

1029: volume \cite{clusters}

1030: 

1031: \begin{equation}

1032: \label{cv}

1033: C_V(T) = \frac1{k_BT^2}\,\left\langle(V-\langle V\rangle_T)^2

1034: \right\rangle_T + \frac32Nk_B\,\,,

1035: \end{equation}

1036: 

1037: \noindent where

1038: $\langle\cdot\rangle_T$ represents the classical canonical mean value.

1039: 

1040: In this work we consider the bare Metropolis (Met), 

1041: \cite{metropolis}

1042: J-walking (Jw), \cite{frantz} and

1043: parallel tempering (PT) \cite{p1,p2,p3} approaches to Monte Carlo simulations.

1044: The free variable of all these methods is the reduced temperature 

1045: $k_BT/\varepsilon$. In PT and Jw simulations, the highest temperature 

1046: used ($T_h$) must be sufficiently large to ensure that Met is 

1047: ergodic.\cite{frantz} 

1048: From experience simulating a variety of systems, we have found

1049: that $T_h$ must also be lower than a temperature $T_b$ where cluster

1050: evaporation events become frequent.  It is useful to think of $T_b$ as

1051: the cluster analogue of a boiling temperature.  We have found that Met

1052: is unable to sample the boiling phase change region for clusters

1053: ergodically, using total time scales accessible to current simulations.

1054: 

1055: For the results that follow, $U_k^{(m)}$ is chosen to be represented by

1056: the potential energy of the system.  

1057: In general $U_k^{(m)}$ can be any scalar property of the system.

1058: We define a pass to

1059: represent a set of single particle MC moves taken sequentially over the 13

1060: particles in the cluster. We take $U_k^{(m)}$ to be the

1061: potential energy at the $k'$th pass, in the $m'$th experiment. Using 

1062: Eq. (\ref{fs}) we can write

1063: 

1064: \begin{equation}

1065: \label{o1}

1066: Y_K(0) = 2\,\Gamma_K+(K+1)\,\Upsilon_K\,\,.

1067: \end{equation}

1068: 

1069: \noindent In the non-ergodic regime, $Y_K(0)$ grows 

1070: with $K$, while in the ergodic regime, the signal $Y_K(0)$ 

1071: approaches a constant. 

1072: 

1073: We begin by displaying results obtained for a calculation that has not

1074: attained ergodicity over the time scale of the simulation.  We examine

1075: the 13-particle Lennard-Jones cluster with the Met algorithm setting

1076: $R_c=4\sigma$ at a temperature of $k_BT_h/\varepsilon=0.393$.  The

1077: temperature is chosen to be that typically used as the initial high

1078: temperature in Jw and PT studies of LJ$_{13}$.  By choosing a large

1079: constraining radius, the evaporation events are so frequent at the

1080: chosen temperature that attaining ergodicity proves to be quite

1081: difficult.  We demonstrate the effect of reducing the constraining

1082: radius shortly.  

1083: 

1084: \begin{figure}

1085: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

1086: \epsfbox{f2.ps}

1087: \end{figure}

1088: 

1089: {\footnotesize

1090: {\bf Fig. 2:} The upper panel is the signal $Y_K(0)$ (in units

1091: of $\varepsilon^2$) vs. $K$ for 

1092: $R_c=4\sigma$ at $k_BT_h/\varepsilon=0.393$. from $M=40$ independent 

1093: experiments, of LJ$_{13}$. The length of the simulation is $10^4$ 

1094: MC passes. The lower panel shows the ``time evolution" of $\overline{U}_K$ 

1095: (in units of $\varepsilon$) for 15 independent experiments. At 

1096: least three basins with different energies are present. Clearly, the 

1097: simulation at this scale of time, is not ergodic.}

1098: \vspace{.5cm}

1099: 

1100: \noindent The 

1101: number of replicas used in the calculation is $M=40$, and $K=10^4$. 

1102: The upper panel of Fig. 2

1103: shows the signal $Y_K(0)$ [evaluated using Eq. (\ref{eq:ft})], 

1104: which grows along the entire

1105: simulation. This is the behavior expected in the non-ergodic regime. In the 

1106: lower panel we can see 

1107: the ``time evolution" of the temporal mean values of 15 experiments. 

1108: 

1109: \begin{figure}

1110: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

1111: \epsfbox{f3.ps}

1112: \end{figure}

1113: 

1114: {\footnotesize

1115: {\bf Fig. 3:} Upper panel: $\Upsilon_{bK}$ (in units

1116: of $\varepsilon^2$) as a 

1117: function of $\log_2(b)$ for $R_c=4\sigma$, $3\sigma$, $2.5\sigma$, and 

1118: $2\sigma$. For the

1119: two larger radii the full line is the best fit to the data points, 

1120: according

1121: to Eq. (\ref{upa}) with $\phi$ defined in Eq. (\ref{upa2}).

1122: The lower panel shows the linear behavior of 

1123: $\Upsilon_K/\Upsilon_{bK}$ vs. $\log_2(b)$, for 

1124: $R_c=4\sigma$ and $3\sigma$. $K$ has been set to $10^4$.}

1125: \vspace{.5cm}

1126: 

1127: \noindent There are three sets of curves, each of which is indicative of 

1128: sampling of at least 

1129: three different energy basins. At low values of $K$ the curves in the

1130: lower panel differ significantly.

1131: At $K\simeq4\,000$ the high energy basin curves begin to decrease

1132: in energy. For a value of $K$ larger than the data displayed in Fig. 2,

1133: the curves can be expected to coalesce with

1134: the low energy basin curves. It is clear that for $K\leq10\,000$, the 

1135: simulation is not ergodic.

1136: 

1137: In PT and Jw studies it is essential that the initial high temperature

1138: walk be ergodic.  Ergodicity can be attained for LJ$_{13}$ by reducing

1139: the radius of the constraining potential so that evaporation events are

1140: rare.  We now present a study of $\Upsilon_K$ as a function of $K$ for

1141: several values of $R_c$.

1142: To determine $\Upsilon_K$, we have calculated the

1143: Fourier transform function $Y_K(\omega_n)$ using Eq. (\ref{eq:ft}) 

1144: at a

1145: series of frequencies $\omega_n=2\pi n/K$ where $n$ has ranged from 1 to

1146: $\min(\sqrt{12}bK/20\pi,100)$.  This range of frequencies ensures the linear

1147: approximation used in Eq. (\ref{fs}) is valid while including sufficient

1148: numbers of points for accuracy.\cite{citfreq}

1149: Using Eq. (\ref{eq:10}), we have 

1150: calculated the slope of the imaginary part of 

1151: $1/Y_K(\omega_n)$ as a function of $\omega_n$, for 

1152: these frequencies. The data points appearing in Fig. 3 are 

1153: the mean value over twenty independent calculations of the slope of 

1154: $1/Y_K(\omega_n)$.

1155: 

1156: \begin{figure}

1157: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

1158: \epsfbox{f4.ps}

1159: \end{figure}

1160: 

1161: {\footnotesize

1162: {\bf Fig. 4:} $\Upsilon_{bK}$ (in units

1163: of $\varepsilon^2$) and its error vs. $\log_2(b)$ for 

1164: $R_c=2.5\sigma$ and $2\sigma$, with $K=10^4$. When $\Upsilon_{bK}$ is on 

1165: the order of its 

1166: own error, the simulation can be 

1167: considered ergodic. For $R_c = 2\sigma$ the simulation becomes ergodic at 

1168: $\log_2(b)\simeq4$ ($bK\simeq16\times 10^4$). For $R_c=2.5\sigma$ a longer 

1169: simulation is needed to reach ergodicity.}

1170: \vspace{.5cm}

1171: 

1172: Starting from random configurations, we have performed $5\times10^4$ 

1173: Met passes at $k_BT_h/\varepsilon=0.393$. After this warmup process, we 

1174: have created sequences of sizes $bK=10^4$, $2\times10^4$, $4\times10^4$,

1175: $\dots$, $64\times10^4$. 

1176: The results are presented in Fig. 3 for $R_c=4\sigma$, $3\sigma$, 

1177: $2.5\sigma$, and $2\sigma$.

1178: The upper panel shows $\Upsilon_{bK}$ as a function 

1179: of $\log_2(b)$, for fixed $K=10^4$. We have chosen to present the data

1180: using base 2 logarithms for clarity (each increase by 1 unit of $\log_2(b)$

1181: represents a factor of 2 scale increase).

1182: All the data decrease with increasing

1183: $b$, but only $R_c=2 \sigma$ and $R_c=2.5 \sigma$ appear to vanish

1184: to within the error bars over the time scale of the current simulation.

1185: In the lower panel we present

1186: $\Upsilon_K/\Upsilon_{bK}$ as a function of

1187: $\log_2(b)$ for $R_c=4$ and $3\sigma$. 

1188: The decay law suggested in Eq. (\ref{upa}) with $\phi$ 

1189: given by Eq. (\ref{upa2}) is satisfied for both radii.

1190: 

1191: \begin{figure}

1192: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

1193: \epsfbox{f5.ps}

1194: \end{figure}

1195: 

1196: {\footnotesize

1197: {\bf Fig. 5:} The upper panel shows the decay behavior of $\Upsilon_{bK}$

1198: (in units of $\varepsilon^2$)

1199: as a function of $\log_2(b)$ for PT and Met, at the temperature of the 

1200: melting peak

1201: of the heat capacity, $k_BT_m/\varepsilon=0.282$. From Eq. (\ref{upa1}), we 

1202: plot $\log_2{(\Upsilon_{K}/\Upsilon_{bK})}$ vs. $\log_2{(b)}$, to extract the 

1203: value of the exponent $\upsilon$ (the slope of the linear fit). We have 

1204: found $\upsilon=0.93\pm0.03$ for PT, and $\upsilon=0.94\pm0.02$ for Met. 

1205: The straight lines are the best linear fits of the data points.}

1206: \vspace{.5cm}

1207: 

1208: We have stated that the simulation can be considered effectively 

1209: ergodic when $\Upsilon_K$ is indistinguishable from zero. 

1210: In Fig. 4 we have plotted $\Upsilon_{bK}$ and its statistical 

1211: error as a function

1212: of

1213: $\log_2(b)$ for $R_c=2.5$ and $2\sigma$. For $R_c=2\sigma$ the 

1214: crossing point of $\Upsilon_{bK}$ and its error is at $bK\simeq16\times10^4$. 

1215: For $R_c=2.5\sigma$ the crossing point is at a $bK>64\times10^4$. We can 

1216: conclude that for $k_BT_h/\varepsilon=0.393$ and $R_c=2\sigma$ the 

1217: simulation can be considered effectively ergodic after $16\times10^4$ Met 

1218: passes.

1219: 

1220: Once a constraining radius is chosen, PT and Jw simulations require the

1221: highest temperature $T_h$ be chosen so that Met is ergodic.  For a given

1222: $R_c$, the extent of ergodicity can be tested using the same metric that

1223: has been used for determining the optimum value of $R_c$, but by varying

1224: the temperature.

1225: For the parameters $k_BT_h/\varepsilon=0.393$ and $R_c=2\sigma$ the simulation 

1226: is ergodic even at very short sequence lengths.  We have 

1227: found that for $k_BT_h/\varepsilon<0.393$ the simulations are not ergodic. 

1228: To be sure that the parameters are appropriate, we have performed a short PT 

1229: simulation ($10^4$ passes, ten PT passes consists of nine Met passes

1230: plus an exchange attempt) with 40 equally spaced temperatures in the 

1231: range $k_BT/\varepsilon=$[0.028,0.393] in order to obtain a first estimate of the position of the 

1232: melting and boiling temperature regions. The boiling peak in the specific 

1233: heat appears to be located at a higher temperature than $k_BT/\varepsilon=$

1234: 0.393. Moreover, 

1235: the value of $C_V$ at $k_BT/\varepsilon=0.393$ is about one-half the value of $C_V$ at 

1236: the temperature of the melting peak $k_BT_m/\varepsilon=0.282$. From 

1237: these results we

1238: feel it is safe to choose $R_c=2\sigma$ and $k_BT_h/\varepsilon=0.393$ for

1239: the calculations that follow.

1240: 

1241: We now illustrate the convergence characteristics of $\Upsilon_K$

1242: when we increase the total time scale of the calculation by a

1243: factor $b$.  We illustrate this behavior using a PT simulation of

1244: LJ$_{13}$, and we focus on results at the temperature of the melting

1245: peak in the heat capacity ($k_BT_m/\varepsilon=0.282$).  

1246: We choose this temperature, because from

1247: experience 

1248: \cite{juan1,juan2,juan3}

1249: we know the statistical fluctuations are large at the melting

1250: heat capacity maximum.  The large statistical fluctuations make it

1251: possible to emphasize the behavior of $\Upsilon_K$.

1252: We have run the PT simulation at 40 equally spaced temperatures in the 

1253: range $k_BT/\varepsilon=$ [0.028,0.393]. The initial warmup time has been 

1254: set to $10^4$ 

1255: Met passes, followed by $2\times10^4$ PT passes. Following the warm-up

1256: period, we perform 

1257: simulations of $10^5$, $2\times10^5$, $4\times10^5$, $8\times10^5$, 

1258: $16\times10^5$, and $32\times10^5$ PT passes.  In each case the initial 

1259: configuration has been taken to be the last configuration of the previous run.

1260: The 

1261: output of the simulation are sequences of the potential energy. 

1262: $\Upsilon_K$ has been determined in the same way

1263: as in the calculation of the high temperature parameters (presented in

1264: Fig. 3 and Fig. 4). The data points appearing in the upper panel of Fig. 5 are 

1265: the mean value over twenty independent calculations of the slope of 

1266: $1/Y_K(\omega_n)$. In the lower panel of Fig. 5 we have plotted 

1267: $\log_2{(\Upsilon_{K}/\Upsilon_{bK})}$ as a function of 

1268: $\log_2{(b)}$, where $K=10^4$ 

1269: and $b=1,2,4,\dots,32$. The slope of the linear fit is the exponent 

1270: $\upsilon$, according to Eq. (\ref{upa1}). At the temperature of the 

1271: melting peak, $\upsilon=0.93\pm0.03$. 

1272: 

1273: It is of interest to perform a similar study of the behavior of

1274: $\Upsilon_K$ as a function of the time scaling for an Met calculation. 

1275: We have taken the final configuration of the PT simulation at

1276: $k_BT_m/\varepsilon=0.282$ as an initial configuration, and we have 

1277: performed a simple Met simulation at that melting temperature.  

1278: A graph of $\Upsilon_{bK}$ and $\log_2{(\Upsilon_{K}/\Upsilon_{bK})}$ 

1279: as a function of $\log_2{(b)}$ for Met is also presented in Fig. 5. 

1280: From the upper panel of Fig. 5, it is evident that Met results are not

1281: ergodic within the same scaled time as the PT results.  It is also

1282: evident that the power law exponent for both Met and PT 

1283: are not distinguishable. 

1284: Similar studies of the power law using the Jw method also give the same

1285: exponent.  Neither an increase in the number of temperatures nor

1286: changing the distribution of temperatures in both Jw and PT simulations

1287: has any effect on the calculated exponent.

1288: 

1289: \begin{figure}

1290: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

1291: \epsfbox{f6.ps}

1292: \end{figure}

1293: 

1294: {\footnotesize

1295: {\bf Fig. 6:} Comparison of the Met and Jw diffusion coefficients

1296: with the PT diffusion coefficient as a function of the reduced temperature. 

1297: The dashed line represents equivalence between methods.}

1298: \vspace{.5cm}

1299: 

1300: By using the results to compare the relative

1301: efficiencies of Met, Jw and PT simulations for the LJ$_{13}$ system.

1302: We have found that

1303: PT and Jw simulations can be considered ergodic if the run length is on the 

1304: order of $2\times10^5$ passes, while Met simulations that are initialized 

1305: from configurations

1306: generated from an ergodic PT study are ergodic when the total run length

1307: consists of $2\times10^6$ passes or more.

1308: 

1309: In order to compare approaches, 

1310: we have calculated $\Gamma$ as a function of the reduced temperature, 

1311: for the three methods. The comparison of diffusion coefficients from different

1312: algorithms has also been used by Andricioaei and

1313: Straub

1314: \cite{straub}.

1315: The comparison of Jw and Met 

1316: with PT is presented in Fig. 6. The Jw and PT simulations are found

1317: to have comparable efficiencies using $\Gamma$ as a measure for all

1318: calculated temperatures.  At intermediate temperatures, Met is

1319: significantly less efficient.  We have chosen to truncate the Jw study

1320: at $k_BT/\varepsilon=0.12$.  For temperatures below $k_BT/\varepsilon=0.12$,

1321: Jw simulations require significant effort, because a large set of

1322: external distributions must be generated.  Because at temperatures below

1323: $k_BT/\varepsilon=0.12$ LJ$_{13}$ is dominated by structures close to the

1324: lowest energy icosahedral isomer, we expect the Jw and PT methods to

1325: have similar efficiencies (as measured by $\Gamma$) for all

1326: temperatures.

1327: 

1328: \section{Conclusions}

1329: 

1330: In this paper we have presented a study of the approach to

1331: the ergodic limit in MC simulations. In all the cases examined, 

1332: the behavior of the MC metric $d_k$ can be approximated by Eq. (\ref{d}), 

1333: and the behavior of $\Upsilon_{bK}$ satisfies Eq. (\ref{upa}). Because the 

1334: exponent $\upsilon$ is smaller than one for all the cases studied, the 

1335: dependence of the non-diffusive contributions on $d_k$ is 

1336: weaker (in the sense of Appendix A) than the diffusive contributions. 

1337: The assumption on which we have built the stochastic model 

1338: have been verified numerically for a system having a sufficiently

1339: complex potential surface to be viewed as prototypical of a large set of

1340: many-particle systems.

1341: 

1342: The MC metric used in this work appears to be a valuable tool to 

1343: study the ergodicity properties of MC simulations. The non-ergodic components

1344: of the MC metric enable the prediction of the minimum length 

1345: a MC simulation must have in order to be considered ergodic. 

1346: The comparison of $\Gamma$ from 

1347: different algorithms gives a reasonable estimate of their relative

1348: efficiencies.

1349: 

1350: From the study of the melting region of 13 particle clusters, we have 

1351: found that the exponent $\upsilon$ depends both on the method used and the 

1352: nature of the potential energy function. We have performed calculations,

1353: not discussed in this work, where the functional form of the potential

1354: energy is modified.  These studies have shown $\upsilon$ to be dependent

1355: on the details of the potential. We have not found the exponent $\upsilon$ 

1356: to be a strong function of method.  Although PT and Met have

1357: significantly different efficiencies as measured by their relative

1358: diffusion coefficients, $\upsilon$ is nearly the same in the two

1359: methods.  The difference in the decay of $\Upsilon_K$ appears to be

1360: dominated by the coefficient in Eqs.(\ref{upa}) and (\ref{upa1})

1361: rather than the exponent.

1362: 

1363: 

1364: As discussed in the text, parallel tempering and J-walking studies of

1365: many-particle systems must have an initial high temperature 

1366: component that is chosen so that a Met simulation is known to be ergodic.

1367: For cluster simulations that require an external constraining potential

1368: to define the cluster, the radius of the constraining potential must be

1369: carefully chosen in order to achieve ergodic results.  We have found the

1370: metric and associated decay laws developed in this work to be a

1371: particularly valuable method of choosing these initial parameters in

1372: both parallel tempering and J-walking simulations.

1373: 

1374: We also remark that the metric introduced here may be a more

1375: sensitive probe of ergodicity than may be required in some applications. 

1376: For example in previous J-walking studies\cite{clusters} of 

1377: the 13-particle Lennard-Jones cluster,

1378: the heat capacity curve determined with a constraining radius of 4$\sigma$

1379: is nearly indistinguishable from the curve obtained with a constraining

1380: radius of 2$\sigma$.  From the results of this work, we know the initial

1381: high temperature walk is not ergodic when a constraining 

1382: radius of 4$\sigma$ is used.  It is striking that the non-ergodicity as

1383: measured by the energy metric is not apparent in the heat capacity

1384: curve.

1385: 

1386: We have constructed a metric based on an ensemble of MC trajectories. 

1387: By using an ensemble we attempt to cover sufficient portions of space

1388: so that all components are accessible.  In practice only a finite subset of

1389: a full ensemble can be included, and it is always possible that

1390: components of space are missed.  In such a case $\Upsilon_K$ may decay

1391: to zero numerically within the subspace, and the behavior may give

1392: misleading evidence that the simulation is ergodic.  Because 

1393: components of space may be missed in any finite simulation, it is impossible to

1394: guarantee ergodicity.  It is hoped by using a sufficiently large 

1395: ensemble of trajectories to define the metric, the possibility of

1396: missing components is minimized.

1397: 

1398: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1399: 

1400: We would like to thank Dr. O. Osenda for helpful comments.

1401: This work has been supported in part by the National Science Foundation under

1402: grant numbers CHE-9714970 and CDA-9724347.

1403: This research has 

1404: been supported in

1405: part by the Phillips Laboratory, Air Force Material Command, USAF,

1406: through the use of the MHPCC under cooperative agreement number

1407: F29601-93-0001.  The views and conclusions contained in this document

1408: are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily

1409: representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or

1410: implied, of Phillips Laboratory or the U.S. Government.

1411: 

1412: 

1413: \appendix

1414: \section{Weak dependence of the non-diffusive contributions}

1415: 

1416: We have considered two overall time scales for a MC simulation. 

1417: Properties calculated at short times (labeled $k$ in the discrete case)

1418: provide information about each step of the MC process, and properties

1419: averaged over the total simulation time (labeled $K$ in the discrete

1420: case) give information about the approach to ergodic behavior.  When $K$

1421: is sufficiently short we have

1422: both diffusive and non-diffusive contributions as a function of $k$.

1423: In this Appendix we explain the relative time dependence of the diffusive and 

1424: non-diffusive contributions to the autocorrelation function.

1425: 

1426: It has been assumed that the autocorrelation function 

1427: Eq. (\ref{correl}) can be expressed as the sum of diffusive terms plus 

1428: non-diffusive terms, i.e.

1429: 

1430: \begin{equation}

1431: \label{h1}

1432: \kappa(t,t')= \kappa_d(t,t') + \sum_{\ell=\lambda+1}^{\Lambda}\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')\,\,,

1433: \end{equation}

1434: 

1435: \noindent where

1436: 

1437: \begin{eqnarray}

1438: \kappa_d(t,t')&=&\frac{\Gamma_0+\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2+\ldots+\Gamma_{\lambda

1439: }}

1440: {t_>}\label{h2}\\

1441: \kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')&=& \frac{\Gamma_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}} \, f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_{\ell}^*}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\label{h3}\,\,.

1442: \end{eqnarray}

1443: 

1444: Increasing the time variables by a factor $b>1$, such that 

1445: $\tau_{\lambda}\ll bt_>\ll\tau_{\lambda+1}$, with $\lambda\geq1$, 

1446: we can study the relative variations of each contribution to the correlation 

1447: function, diffusive and non-diffusive (labeled by $\ell>\lambda$).  In this

1448: Appendix we only consider values of $b$ such that

1449: the transformation $t\to bt$ does not increase the time scale beyond the

1450: local correlation time.  In Appendix B values of $b$ are considered that

1451: do cross such time scales.

1452: 

1453: By relative variations we mean

1454: 

1455: \begin{eqnarray}

1456: \Delta_d(t,t';b) &=&\left|  \frac{\kappa_d(bt,bt')-\kappa_d(t,t')}

1457: {\kappa_d(t,t')}\right|\label{h4}\\

1458: \Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b) &=&\left|  \frac{\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(bt,bt')

1459: -\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')}{\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')}

1460: \right|\label{h5}\,\,.

1461: \end{eqnarray}

1462: 

1463: \noindent The relative variation of each non-diffusive contribution is

1464: 

1465: \begin{equation}

1466: \label{h7}

1467: \Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b) = \left|1-\frac1{b^2} \frac{\int_0^{bt}\! dt_1

1468: \int_0^{bt'}\! dt_2 \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)}{\int_0^t\! dt_1

1469: \int_0^{t'}\! dt_2 \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)}\right|\,.

1470: \end{equation}

1471: 

1472: \noindent whereas the relative variation of the diffusive contribution is

1473: 

1474: \begin{equation}

1475: \label{h6}

1476: \Delta_d(t,t';b) = 1-\frac1b\,\,,

1477: \end{equation}

1478: 

1479: \noindent If $\Delta_d(t,t';b)>\Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b)$ for 

1480: all pair of times $t$ and $t'$ and for all $b>1$ such that 

1481: $bt_>\ll\tau_{\ell}$, we say that the  non-diffusive contributions are weaker 

1482: than the diffusive contribution in their dependence on $t$. We explore, 

1483: in the remainder of this appendix, the properties $f_{\ell}$ must have in 

1484: order that the inequality 

1485: $\Delta_d(t,t';b)>\Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b)$

1486: is satisfied.

1487: 

1488: \vspace{.5cm}

1489: {\bf Lemma:} If the function $H_{\ell}(t;\tau)$

1490: 

1491: \begin{equation}

1492: \label{lemma1}

1493: H_{\ell}(t;\tau) = \int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}

1494: \left(\frac{t'}{\tau}\right)>0\,\,

1495: \end{equation}

1496: 

1497: \noindent satisfies the inequality

1498: 

1499: \begin{equation}

1500: \label{lemma2}

1501: H_{\ell}(t;\tau) >t\,f_{\ell} \left(\frac{t}{\tau}\right)\,\,\forall\,\,t\,

1502: {\rm and}\,\tau\,\,,

1503: \end{equation}

1504: 

1505: \noindent then, $H_{\ell}(t;\tau)$ is an increasing function of $\tau$.

1506: 

1507: \vspace{.5cm}

1508: {\bf Demonstration:} For $\ell$ and $t$ fixed, the function $H_{\ell}(t,\tau)$ 

1509: evaluated in $\tau'$ is

1510: 

1511: \begin{eqnarray}

1512: H_{\ell}(t;\tau')&=&\int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau'}

1513: \right)\\

1514: &=&\int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{\tau t'}{\tau'\tau}\right)\\

1515: &=&\frac{\tau'}{\tau} \int_0^{\tau t/\tau'}\!\!du\,\,f_{\ell}

1516: \left(\frac{u}{\tau}\right)\\

1517: &=&\frac{\tau'}{\tau} H_{\ell}(\tau t/\tau';\tau) \label{n0}\,\,,

1518: \end{eqnarray}

1519: 

1520: \noindent then, for $\Delta\tau>0$

1521: 

1522: \end{multicols}

1523: \renewcommand{\thesection}{\Alph{section}}

1524: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection\arabic{equation}}

1525: 

1526: \begin{eqnarray}

1527: \frac{H_{\ell}(t;\tau+\Delta\tau)-H_{\ell}(t;\tau)}{\Delta\tau}&=& 

1528: \frac1{\Delta\tau} \left\{\frac{\tau+\Delta\tau}{\tau} \int_0^

1529: {\tau t/(\tau+\Delta\tau)}\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau}\right) -

1530: \int_0^t\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau}\right)\right\}\\

1531: &=&\frac1{\Delta\tau} \left\{

1532: \frac{\Delta\tau}{\tau}\,\int_0^{\tau t/(\tau+\Delta\tau)}

1533: \!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau}\right) -

1534: \int_{\tau t/(\tau+\Delta\tau)}^t\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}

1535: {\tau}\right)

1536: \right\}\\

1537: &=&\frac1{\Delta\tau} \left\{

1538: \frac{\Delta\tau}{\tau}\,\int_0^{\tau t/(\tau+\Delta\tau)}\!

1539: \!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau}\right) -

1540: \frac{t\Delta\tau}{\tau+\Delta\tau}\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t^*}{\tau}\right) 

1541: \right\}\label{app1}\,\,,

1542: \end{eqnarray}

1543: 

1544: \begin{multicols}{2}

1545: 

1546: \noindent where $t^*\in[t\tau/(\tau+\Delta\tau),t]$. In the limit 

1547: $\Delta\tau\to0$, and by virtue of the continuity of $f_{\ell}$, 

1548: the derivative takes the form

1549: 

1550: \begin{equation}

1551: \label{derivada}

1552: \frac{\partial H_{\ell}(t;\tau)}{\partial\tau}=\frac1{\tau}

1553: \left\{H_{\ell}(t;\tau)-tf_{\ell} \left(\frac t{\tau}\right)\right\}

1554: \label{der}\,\,.

1555: \end{equation}

1556: 

1557: \noindent Then, $\partial H_{\ell}(t;\tau)/\partial\tau>0$, and 

1558: $H_{\ell}(t;\tau)$ is an increasing function of $\tau.\;\;\Box$ 

1559: 

1560: Here we have presented the two first conditions 

1561: $f_{\ell}$ must have, namely Eqs. (\ref{lemma1}) and (\ref{lemma2}). 

1562: From Eq. (\ref{schwartz}) $f_{\ell}(0)$ is a global maximum, and

1563: the memory functions must have a positive peak at zero. The area below that 

1564: peak must be sufficiently large to satisfy Eq. (\ref{lemma1}). 

1565: Moreover, $f_{\ell}(0)$ must be sufficiently large to 

1566: satisfy Eq. (\ref{lemma2}), even at points where

1567: $f_{\ell}(t/\tau)$ is a local maximum. Then, to satisfy this Lemma, 

1568: we need a memory function with a sufficiently large global maximum at $t=0$.

1569: 

1570: \vspace{.5cm}

1571: {\bf Corollary:} Suppose $H_{\ell}(t;\tau_{\ell})>tf_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})$. If $b>1$, then $0<\Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b)<1$ for all pair of times $t$ and $t'$.

1572: \vspace{.5cm}

1573: 

1574: {\bf Demonstration:} Under the change of scale in time $t\to bt$, 

1575: $\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')$ can be written

1576: 

1577: \end{multicols}

1578: 

1579: \begin{eqnarray}

1580: \kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(bt,bt')&=&\frac1{b^2tt'}\int_0^{bt}\!\! dt_1

1581: \int_0^{bt'}\!\! dt_2 \,\,\frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}

1582: \left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\\

1583: &=&\frac1{tt'}\int_0^t\!\! dt_1

1584: \int_0^{t'}\!\! dt_2 \,\,\frac1{\tau_{\ell}}f_{\ell}

1585: \left(\frac{b|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\,\,,

1586: \end{eqnarray}

1587: 

1588: \noindent then, the quotient 

1589: $\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(bt,bt')/\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')$ is

1590: 

1591: \begin{eqnarray}

1592: \frac{\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(bt,bt')}{\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')} &=& 

1593: \frac{\int_0^t\!\! dt_1\left\{

1594: \int_0^{t_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}/b}\right)

1595: + \int_0^{t_>-t_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}/b}\right)

1596: \right\}} {\int_0^t\!\! dt_1

1597: \left\{

1598: \int_0^{t_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)+

1599: \int_0^{t_>-t_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

1600: \right\}}\\

1601: &=&\frac{\int_0^t\!\! dt_1\left\{H_{\ell}(t_1;\tau_{\ell}/b)

1602: +H_{\ell}(t_>-t_1;\tau_{\ell}/b)\right\}}

1603: {\int_0^t\!\! dt_1\left\{H_{\ell}(t_1;\tau_{\ell})

1604: +H_{\ell}(t_>-t_1;\tau_{\ell})\right\}}\,\,.

1605: \label{n1}

1606: \end{eqnarray}

1607: 

1608: \begin{multicols}{2}

1609: 

1610: \noindent By Eq. (\ref{lemma1}), $H_{\ell}(t;\tau)>0\,\,\forall$ $t$ and 

1611: $\tau$. By the {\bf Lemma} the numerator is smaller than the denominator. 

1612: Then $0<\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(bt,bt')/\kappa_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t')<1$ and 

1613: then, $0<\Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b)<1.\;\;\Box$

1614: 

1615: \vspace{.5cm}

1616: {\bf Theorem:} Suppose that $b>1$ is such that 

1617: $\tau_{\ell-1}\ll bt_>\ll\tau_{\ell}$, 

1618:  $H_{\ell}(t;\tau_{\ell})>tf_{\ell}(t/\tau_{\ell})$, and

1619: all $f_{\ell}$ satisfy the Lipschitz condition 

1620: \cite{fomin}

1621: (for all

1622: closed interval ${\cal A}$ exists a real positive number $C_{\ell}$ such that

1623: 

1624: \begin{equation}

1625: \left|f_{\ell}(x) - f_{\ell}(y)\right|\leq C_{\ell}\,\left|x-y\right|

1626: \label{lipschitz}

1627: \end{equation}

1628: 

1629: for all $x$ and $y$ in ${\cal A}$). 

1630: Then $\Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b)<\Delta_d(t,t';b)$ 

1631: if and only if $f_{\ell}$ is non-negative in the interval $[0,t_>)$.

1632: 

1633: \vspace{.5cm}

1634: {\bf Demonstration:} If $\Delta_{nd\,,\,\ell}(t,t';b)<\Delta_d(t,t';b)$,

1635: then

1636: 

1637: \begin{eqnarray}

1638: 1-\frac1b &>& 1-\frac1{b^2} \frac{\int_0^{bt}\! dt_1

1639: \int_0^{bt'}\! dt_2 \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)}

1640: {\int_0^t\! dt_1

1641: \int_0^{t'}\! dt_2 \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)}\\

1642: 1&<&\frac1b \frac{\int_0^{bt}\! dt_1

1643: \int_0^{bt'}\! dt_2 \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)}

1644: {\int_0^t\! dt_1

1645: \int_0^{t'}\! dt_2 \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)}

1646: \label{ineq}

1647: \end{eqnarray}

1648: 

1649: \noindent where the operations to reach Eq. (\ref{ineq}) are valid by 

1650: using {\bf Corollary}. Then

1651: 

1652: \end{multicols}

1653: 

1654: \begin{eqnarray}

1655: 0&<& \int_0^{bt}\!\! dt_1

1656: \int_0^{bt'}\!\! dt_2\,\, \frac1b\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}

1657: \right)-

1658: \int_0^{t}\!\! dt_1

1659: \int_0^{t'}\!\! dt_2 \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\\

1660: 0&<& \int_0^{t}\!\! dt_1

1661: \int_0^{t'}\!\! dt_2 \left\{b\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{b\,|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}

1662: \right)-

1663: \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right\}\\

1664: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1\left\{  

1665: \int_0^{t_1}\!\! dt_2 \left[b\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{b\,(t_1-t_2)}{\tau_{\ell}}

1666: \right)-

1667: \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_1-t_2}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]+

1668: \int^{t_>}_{t_1}\!\! dt_2 \left[b\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{b\,(t_2-t_1)}

1669: {\tau_{\ell}}\right)-

1670: \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_2-t_1}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]

1671: \right\}\\

1672: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1\left\{  

1673: \int_0^{t_1}\!\! dt \left[b\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{bt}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)-

1674: \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]

1675: +

1676: \int_0^{t_>-t_1}\!\! dt \left[b\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{bt}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)-

1677: \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]

1678: \right\}\\

1679: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1\left\{  

1680: \int_0^{bt_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)-

1681: \int_0^{t_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

1682: +

1683: \int_0^{b(t_>-t_1)}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)-

1684: \int_0^{t_>-t_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

1685: \right\}\\

1686: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1\left\{  

1687: \int_{t_1}^{bt_1}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

1688: +

1689: \int_{t_>-t_1}^{b(t_>-t_1)}\!\! dt \,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}

1690: \right)\right\}\,\,.\label{k1}

1691: \end{eqnarray}

1692: 

1693: \noindent Using the intermediate 

1694: value theorem, \cite{spivak} we have

1695: 

1696: \begin{eqnarray}

1697: \int_t^{bt}\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau_{\ell}}

1698: \right)&=&(b-1)\,t \,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t^*(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\\

1699: &=&(b-1)\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) + (b-1)\,t\,

1700: \left[f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t^*(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) - 

1701: f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]\label{propx}\,\,,

1702: \end{eqnarray}

1703: 

1704: \noindent where $t^*(t)\in[t,bt]$. Let be $t^*_{\alpha}(t)$ and

1705: $t^*_{\beta}(t)$ the values at 

1706: which the intermediate value theorem is satisfied, in the intervals $[t,bt]$ 

1707: and $[t_>-t,b(t_>-t)]$ respectively

1708: 

1709: \begin{eqnarray}

1710: (b-1)\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t^*_{\alpha}(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) &=&

1711: \int_t^{bt}\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\\

1712: (b-1)\,(t_>-t)\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t^*_{\beta}(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) 

1713: &=&

1714: \int_{t_>-t}^{b(t_>-t)}\!\!dt'\,\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}

1715: {\tau_{\ell}}\right)\,\,,

1716: \end{eqnarray}

1717: 

1718: \noindent then, the remainder can be written as

1719: 

1720: \begin{equation}

1721: \label{rem}

1722: R_{\ell}(t_<,t_>;b) = \int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt\,\,\left\{t\,\left[f_{\ell}

1723: \left(\frac{t^*_{\alpha}(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) 

1724: - f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]+(t_>-t)\,\left[f_{\ell}

1725: \left(\frac{t^*_{\beta}(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) 

1726: - f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_>-t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right]\right\}\,\,.

1727: \end{equation}

1728: 

1729: \noindent By the Lipschitz condition, we have that

1730: 

1731: \begin{eqnarray}

1732: R_{\ell}(t_<,t_>;b) &\leq& \int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt\,\,\left\{t\,\left|f_{\ell}

1733: \left(\frac{t^*_{\alpha}(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) 

1734: - f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right|+(t_>-t)\,\left|f_{\ell}

1735: \left(\frac{t^*_{\beta}(t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) 

1736: - f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_>-t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right|\right\}\\

1737: &<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt\,\,\left\{t\,C_{\ell}\,\left|

1738: \frac{t^*_{\alpha}(t)-t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right|+(t_>-t)\,C_{\ell}\,\left|

1739: \frac{t^*_{\beta}(t)-(t_>-t)}{\tau_{\ell}}\right|\right\}\\

1740: &<& \frac{C_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}}\,\int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt\,\,\left\{t\,\left|

1741: bt-t\right|+(t_>-t)\,\left|

1742: b(t_>-t)-(t_>-t)\right|\right\}\\

1743: &<& \frac{C_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}}\,(b-1)\,\int_0^{t_<}\!\!dt\,\,\left[t^2

1744: +(t_>-t)^2\right]\\

1745: &<& \frac{C_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}}\,(b-1)\,\left(\frac23\,t_<^3+t_<t_>\,

1746: (t_>-t_<)\right)\\

1747: &<& \frac23\,t_>^3\,\frac{C_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}}\,(b-1)\label{cota}\,\,,

1748: \end{eqnarray}

1749: 

1750: \noindent where $C_{\ell}$ is a suitable positive real constant. Using Eqs. 

1751: (\ref{propx}) and (\ref{rem}) in Eq. (\ref{k1}) we have

1752: 

1753: \begin{eqnarray}

1754: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt\,\,(b-1)\,\left\{ t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}

1755: {\tau_{\ell}}\right) + (t_>-t)\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_>-t}{\tau_{\ell}}

1756: \right)\right\}+(b-1)\,R_{\ell}(t_<,t_>;b) \\

1757: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) +

1758: \int_{t_>-t_<}^{t_>}\!\! dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)+

1759: R_{\ell}(t_<,t_>;b)\\

1760: 0&<& \int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) +

1761: \int_0^{t_>}\!\! dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)-

1762: \int_0^{t_>-t_<}\!\! dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)

1763: +R_{\ell}(t_<,t_>;b)\\

1764: 0&<& F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)+

1765: \frac23\,t_>^3\,\frac{C_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}}\,(b-1)

1766: \label{xx}\,\,,

1767: \end{eqnarray}

1768: 

1769: \noindent where

1770: 

1771: \begin{equation}

1772: F_{\ell}(t) = \int_0^t\!\! dt'\,\,t'\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t'}{\tau_{\ell}}

1773: \right)\,\,,

1774: \end{equation}

1775: 

1776: \noindent is a continuous and differentiable function of $t$. 

1777: The inequality (\ref{xx}) holds for any $b>1$. Suppose that 

1778: $F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)<0$. Then, if

1779: $b$ is such that

1780: 

1781: \begin{equation}

1782: b = 1 + \frac3{2L}\,\frac{\tau_{\ell}}{t_>^3\,C_{\ell}}\,

1783: \left|F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)\right|\,\,,

1784: \end{equation}

1785: 

1786: \noindent where $L>2$, we have that

1787: 

1788: \begin{eqnarray}

1789: 0&<& F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)+

1790: \frac1L\,\left|F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)\right|\\

1791: 0&<&\frac{L-1}L\,\left[F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)\right]

1792: \end{eqnarray}

1793: 

1794: \noindent in contradiction with the hypothesis that 

1795: $F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)$ is negative. Then

1796: 

1797: \begin{equation}

1798: 0\leq F_{\ell}(t_<) + F_{\ell}(t_>) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t_<)\label{xxx}\,\,.

1799: \end{equation}

1800: 

1801: Let us define the function 

1802: 

1803: \begin{equation}

1804: \Delta F_{\ell}(t) = F_{\ell}(t) - F_{\ell}(t_> - t)\,\,,

1805: \end{equation}

1806: 

1807: \noindent where $t\in(0,t_>)$. The right derivative at $t=0$ of 

1808: $\Delta F_{\ell}(t)$ is

1809: 

1810: \begin{eqnarray}

1811: \lim_{\Delta t\to0^+}\frac{\Delta F_{\ell}(\Delta t) - \Delta F_{\ell}(0)}

1812: {\Delta t}&=&\lim_{\Delta t\to0^+}\frac{F_{\ell}(\Delta t)-F_{\ell}(0)

1813: +F_{\ell}(t_>)-F_{\ell}(t_>-\Delta t)}{\Delta t}\\

1814: &=&

1815: \lim_{\Delta t\to0^+}\frac1{\Delta t}

1816: \left\{\int_0^{\Delta t}\!\!dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}{\tau_{\ell}}

1817: \right)+\int^{t_>}_{t_>-\Delta t}\!\!dt\,\,t\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t}

1818: {\tau_{\ell}}\right)

1819: \right\}\\

1820: &=&\lim_{\Delta t\to0^+}\frac1{\Delta t}

1821: \left\{\Delta t \,\,t_1^* f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_1^*}{\tau_{\ell}}\right) 

1822: + \Delta t \,\,t_2^* f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_2^*}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\right\}

1823: \label{n3}

1824: \end{eqnarray}

1825: 

1826: \begin{multicols}{2}

1827: 

1828: \noindent where $t_1^*\in[0,\Delta t]$ and $t_2^*\in[t_>-\Delta t,t_>]$. Thus

1829: 

1830: \begin{equation}

1831: \label{n5}

1832: \left.\frac{\partial\Delta F_{\ell}(t)}{\partial t}\right|_{t\to 0^+}

1833: = t_>\,f_{\ell}\left(\frac{t_>}{\tau_{\ell}}\right)\,\,.

1834: \end{equation}

1835: 

1836: \noindent If the right derivative at 0 of $\Delta F_{\ell}(t)$ is 

1837: negative, $\Delta F_{\ell}(t)$ approaches $-F_{\ell}(t_>)$ from below, 

1838: when $t\to0$. There exists a time $0<\tilde{t}<t_>$, such that 

1839: $0> F_{\ell}(t_>) + \Delta F_{\ell}(\tilde{t})$, in contradiction with 

1840: Eq. (\ref{xxx}). Then, $f_{\ell}$ must be non-negative for $t\in(0,t_>)$. 

1841: By the property Eq. (\ref{schwartz}) $f_{\ell}(0)$ must be positive.

1842: This proves that $\Delta_{nd\,,\,1}(t,t';b) < \Delta_d(t,t';b) 

1843: \Rightarrow f_{\ell}(t)\geq0$ for $0 \le t < t_{>}$.

1844: To demonstrate that if $f_{\ell}$ is positive yields 

1845: $\Delta_{nd\,,\,1}(t,t';b)<\Delta_d(t,t';b)$ (i.e. the converse), 

1846: follow the argument 

1847: backwards, from Eq. (\ref{k1}). $\Box$

1848: 

1849: In conclusion, if the memory functions are positive, 

1850: satisfy the Lipschitz condition, and satisfy the 

1851: condition Eqs. (\ref{lemma1}) and (\ref{lemma2}), 

1852: the non-diffusive 

1853: contributions are more weakly dependent on time than $1/t$. 

1854: 

1855: The results of the present appendix are valid in the 

1856: limit of a complete 

1857: ensemble. In our numerical experiments only partial samples of the ensemble can

1858: be considered. The memory functions that appear in our numerical calculations 

1859: come from partial mean values of the 

1860: product of discontinuous

1861: functions (every noise process is a discontinuous function). These

1862: memory functions are discontinuous. The behavior of the 

1863: non-diffusive contributions observed in our

1864: numerical experiments is in agreement with these analytic 

1865: (infinite ensemble limit) results. We can infer that there might be

1866: a version of the theorem applied to discontinuous memory functions, but

1867: we have been unable to develop such a theorem.

1868: 

1869: \section{Consequences of the time scale change in the non-diffusive 

1870: contributions}

1871: 

1872: In this appendix we show the behavior of the function $f_1$ when its 

1873: correlation time is changed according to $\tau_1\to\tau_{b1}=\tau_1/b$, 

1874: with $b\gg1$; i.e. when the total simulation time is scaled to exceed

1875: the correlation time of the first colored noise process.

1876: 

1877: We multiply the time variables by a number $b$, such that 

1878: $\tau_1\ll bt_> \ll \tau_2$. We have that the $g_1$ 

1879: process contributes to the autocorrelation function with

1880: 

1881: \end{multicols}

1882: 

1883: \begin{eqnarray}

1884: \frac1{b^2tt'}\langle G_1(bt/\tau_{\ell})\,G_1(bt'/\tau_{\ell})

1885: \rangle &=&\frac1{b^2tt'}\, \int_0^{bt_<}\!\! dt_1\int_0^{bt_>}\!\! 

1886: dt_2\,\,\frac1{\tau_1}f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_1}\right)\\

1887: &=& \frac1{btt'}\,\int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1'\int_0^{t_>}\!\! dt_2'\,\,

1888: \frac1{\tau_{b1}}f_1\left(\frac{|t_1'-t_2'|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) \label{eq:6}

1889: \end{eqnarray}

1890: 

1891: \noindent where $t'=t/b$ and $\tau_{b1}=\tau_1/b$. We want to 

1892: compute this contribution both within the neighborhood $t_1=t_2$ as well

1893: as outside

1894: such a region. To do so, we can split the integral in Eq. (\ref{eq:6}) 

1895: in three parts

1896: 

1897: \begin{equation}

1898: \frac1{b^2tt'}\langle G_1(bt/\tau_{\ell})\,G_1(bt'/\tau_{\ell})\rangle = 

1899: I_1+I_2+I_3

1900: \end{equation}

1901: 

1902: \noindent where

1903: 

1904: \begin{eqnarray}

1905: I_1 &=& \frac1{btt'}\,\int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1

1906: \int_0^{\max(0,t_1-\epsilon/2)}\!\! dt_2\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}}f_1

1907: \left(\frac{t_1-t_2}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\label{i1}\\

1908: I_2 &=& \frac1{btt'}\,\int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1

1909: \int_{\max(0,t_1-\epsilon/2)}^{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}\!\! dt_2\,\,

1910: \frac1{\tau_{b1}}f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\label{i2}\\

1911: I_3 &=& \frac1{btt'}\,\int_0^{t_<}\!\! dt_1

1912: \int_{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}^{t_>}\!\! dt_2\,\,

1913: \frac1{\tau_{b1}}f_1\left(\frac{t_2-t_1}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\label{i3}

1914: \end{eqnarray}

1915: 

1916: \noindent with $t_<>\epsilon>0$ 

1917: (observe that the only integral involving $t_1=t_2$ is $I_2$). 

1918: Consider $I_1$. If $t_1<\epsilon/2$ the inner integral is zero. 

1919: Therefore, $t_1$ must be bigger than $\epsilon/2$ and

1920: 

1921: \begin{equation}

1922: I_1 = \frac1{bt_<t_>}\,\int_{\epsilon/2}^{t_<}\!\! dt_1

1923: \int_0^{t_1-\epsilon/2}\!\! dt_2\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}}f_1

1924: \left(\frac{t_1-t_2}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\,\,,

1925: \end{equation}

1926: 

1927: \noindent which, by virtue of the continuity of $f_1$, can be bounded as

1928: follows

1929: 

1930: \begin{eqnarray}

1931: \frac1{bt_<t_>}\,\int_{\epsilon/2}^{t_<}\!\! dt_1\,\,

1932: \frac b{\tau_1}\,\left(t_1-\frac{\epsilon}2\right)f_1

1933: \left(\frac{bt_{min}}{\tau_1}\right)

1934: \leq &I_1&\leq \frac1{bt_<t_>}\,\int_{\epsilon/2}^{t_<}\!\! dt_1\,\,

1935: \frac b{\tau_1}\,\left(t_1-\frac{\epsilon}2\right)f_1\left(\frac{bt_{max}}

1936: {\tau_1}\right)\nonumber\\

1937: \frac12\,\frac{(t_<-\epsilon/2)^2}{t_<t_>}\,\frac1{\tau_1}\,f_1

1938: \left( \frac{bt_{min}}{\tau_1}\right)\leq&I_1&\leq

1939: \frac12\,\frac{(t_<-\epsilon/2)^2}{t_<t_>}\,\frac1{\tau_1}\,f_1

1940: \left( \frac{bt_{max}}{\tau_1}\right)

1941: \label{i111}

1942: \end{eqnarray}

1943: 

1944: \noindent where $t_{max}$ ($t_{min}$) is the time in the interval 

1945: $[\epsilon/2,t_<]$ at which the function $f_1$ 

1946: reaches its maximum (minimum) value. Because $f_1$ is continuous, 

1947: there exists $t_1^*\in[t_{min},t_{max}]$ at which

1948: 

1949: \begin{equation}

1950: \label{i11}

1951: I_1=

1952: \frac12\,\frac{(t_<-\epsilon/2)^2}{t_<t_>}\,\frac1{\tau_1}\,f_1

1953: \left( \frac{bt_1^*}{\tau_1}\right)\,\,.

1954: \end{equation}

1955: 

1956: Consider now $I_3$. If $t_1+\epsilon/2>t_>$, the inner integral is zero. 

1957: Therefore, $0<t_1<\min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)$ and

1958: 

1959: \begin{eqnarray}

1960: I_3&=& \frac1{btt'}\,\int_0^{\min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)}\!\! dt_1

1961: \int_{t_1+\epsilon/2}^{t_>}\!\! dt_2\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}}f_1

1962: \left(\frac{t_2-t_1}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\nonumber\\

1963: &=& \frac{\min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)}{t_<t_>}\left[t_>-\frac{\epsilon}2

1964: -\frac12 \min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2) \right]\,\frac1{\tau_1}\,f_1\left( 

1965: \frac{bt_3^*}{\tau_1}\right)\,\,,

1966: \label{i33}

1967: \end{eqnarray}

1968: 

1969: \noindent where $t^*_3\in[t_{min},t_{max}]$, and now $t_{max}$ ($t_{min}$) 

1970: is the time in $[\epsilon/2,t_>]$ at which the function $f_1$ reaches its 

1971: maximum (minimum) value.

1972: 

1973: \begin{figure}

1974: \epsfxsize=.48\textwidth

1975: \epsfbox{f7.ps}

1976: \end{figure}

1977: 

1978: {\footnotesize

1979: {\bf Fig. 7:} The area under the curve represents the 

1980: first integral in Eq. (\ref{f1}). The darker piece is 

1981: half of the integral in the interval $[-t_1,t_1]$, the lighter is 

1982: half of the integral in $[-\epsilon/2,\epsilon/2]$.}

1983: \vspace{.5cm}

1984: 

1985: Let us consider now $I_2$. First observe that for the integral in $t_1$, 

1986: if $0\leq t_1\leq\epsilon/2$, $\max(0,t_1-\epsilon/2)=0$ 

1987: and $\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)=t_1+\epsilon/2$. 

1988: If $\epsilon/2\leq t_1\leq t_<$ then $\max(0,t_1-\epsilon/2)=

1989: t_1-\epsilon/2$. Then

1990: 

1991: \begin{equation}

1992: I_2 = \frac1{bt_<t_>}\,\left\{ \int_0^{\epsilon/2}\!\!dt_1 

1993: \int_{0}^{t_1+\epsilon/2}\!\!dt_2\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1

1994: \left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) +

1995: \int_{\epsilon/2}^{t_<}\!\!dt_1 

1996: \int_{t_1-\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}\!\!dt_2\,\,

1997: \frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\right\}

1998: \label{f1}\,\,.

1999: \end{equation}

2000: 

2001: \noindent The integral in $t_2$ between 0 and $t_1+\epsilon/2$ can be 

2002: evaluated with the help of Fig. 7

2003: 

2004: \begin{equation}

2005: \int_{0}^{t_1+\epsilon/2}\!\!dt_2\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1

2006: \left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right)=\frac12 \,\,

2007: \int_{-\epsilon/2}^{\epsilon/2}\!\!dt\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} 

2008: f_1\left(\frac{|t|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) + \frac12 \,\,

2009: \int_{-t_1}^{t_1}\!\!dt\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t|}

2010: {\tau_{b1}}\right)\,\,.

2011: \label{int1}

2012: \end{equation}

2013: 

2014: The second integral in $t_1$ can be separated in two parts; the first for 

2015: $\epsilon /2 \leq t_1 \leq \min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)$ and the 

2016: second for $\min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)\leq t_1 \leq t_<$. If 

2017: $t_>-t_<<\epsilon/2$ the second term is zero. Then

2018: 

2019: \begin{eqnarray}

2020: \int_{\epsilon/2}^{t_<}\!\!dt_1 

2021: \int_{t_1-\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}&&\!\!dt_2\,\,

2022: \frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) = 

2023: \int_{\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)}\!\!dt_1 

2024: \int_{t_1-\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}\!\!dt_2\,\,

2025: \frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) + 

2026: \nonumber\\ 

2027: &&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;

2028: \Theta\left(\frac{\epsilon}2+t_<-t_>\right)\,\,

2029: \int_{t_>-\epsilon/2} ^{t_<}\!\!dt_1

2030: \int_{t_1-\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}\!\!dt_2\,\,

2031: \frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right)\,\,,

2032: \label{int2}

2033: \end{eqnarray}

2034: 

2035: \noindent where $\Theta$ is the step function. If 

2036: $t_1\leq\min(t_<,t_> -\epsilon/2)$ then $\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)=

2037: t_1+\epsilon/2$. The last integral in 

2038: $t_2$ can be rearranged in the same way as 

2039: Eq. (\ref{int1}). Then

2040: 

2041: \begin{eqnarray}

2042: \int_{\epsilon/2}^{t_<}\!\!dt_1&& 

2043: \int_{t_1-\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_>,t_1+\epsilon/2)}\!\!dt_2\,\,

2044: \frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t_1-t_2|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) = 

2045: \int_{\epsilon/2}^{\min(t_<,t_>-\epsilon/2)}\!\!dt_1 

2046: \int_{-\epsilon/2}^{\epsilon/2}\!\!dt\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} 

2047: f_1\left(\frac{|t|}{\tau_{b1}}\right) + \nonumber\\ 

2048: &&\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\frac12\,

2049: \Theta\left(\frac{\epsilon}2+t_<-t_>\right)\,\,

2050: \int_{t_>-\epsilon/2} ^{t_<}\!\!dt_1\left[

2051: \int_{-\epsilon/2}^{\epsilon/2}\!\!dt\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} 

2052: f_1\left(\frac{|t|}{\tau_{b1}}\right)+

2053: %\right.\\&&\left. 

2054: \int_{t_1-t_>}^{t_>-t_1}\!\!dt\,\,\frac1{\tau_{b1}} f_1\left(\frac{|t|}

2055: {\tau_{b1}}\right)\right]\,\,,

2056: \label{int3}

2057: \end{eqnarray}

2058: 

2059: We can observe that the correlation time $\tau_{b1}$ goes to zero when 

2060: $b$ is increased. The function $(1/\tau_1)\,f_1(bt/\tau_{1})$ 

2061: becomes negligible outside a neighborhood of $t=0$ [observe Eqs. (\ref{i11}) 

2062: and (\ref{i33})]. Equation (\ref{norm}) holds, then, if $b$ is sufficiently 

2063: large, $(1/\tau_{b1})\,f_1(t/\tau_{b1})$ can be considered a delta function. 

2064: The integrals $I_1$ and $I_3$ become zero, and the integrals involving $t=0$ 

2065: in the expression of $I_2$ converge to one. $I_2$ becomes

2066: 

2067: \begin{equation}

2068: I_2 = \frac1{bt_<t_>} \,\,\left\{ \min\left(t_<,t_>-\frac{\epsilon}2\right) + \Theta\left

2069: (\frac{\epsilon}2+t_<-t_>\right)\, \left(\frac{\epsilon}2+t_<-t_> \right) \right\}=\frac1{bt_>}\,\,,

2070: \label{i22}

2071: \end{equation}

2072: 

2073: \begin{multicols}{2}

2074: 

2075: \noindent which is a diffusive contribution to the autocorrelation function. 

2076: The autocorrelation function becomes then

2077: 

2078: \begin{equation}

2079: \kappa(bt,bt') =

2080: \frac{\Gamma_0+\Gamma_1}{bt_>}+\sum_{\ell=2}^{\Lambda}

2081: \frac{\Gamma_{\ell}}{\tau_{\ell}} \, f_{\ell}

2082: \left(\frac{t_{b\ell}^*(t_>)}{\tau_{b\ell}}\right)\,\,.

2083: \end{equation}

2084: 

2085: The same argument can be used when $b$ is such that $\tau_2\ll bt_>\ll\tau_3$. After such changes in the time scale, the diffusion coefficient $\Gamma=\Gamma_0+\Gamma_1$ is enlarged, and the non-diffusive contributions are reduced. There is an ultimate scale change, such that $\tau_{\Lambda}\ll bt_>$.

2086: Beyond this maximum time scale the process can be considered diffusive.

2087: 

2088: \begin{references}

2089: 

2090: \bibitem{valleau} J. P. Valleau and S. G. Whittington, A guide to Monte Carlo

2091: for Statistical Mechanics: 1 Highways, in {\em Statistical Mechanics, Part A:

2092: Equilibrium Techniques}, Modern Theoretical Chemistry Series, Vol. 5, Chap. 4,

2093: B. Berne Ed. (Plenum, New York, 1976).

2094: 

2095: \bibitem{wood} W. W. Wood and F. R. Parker, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf27}, 720 (1957).

2096: 

2097: \bibitem{thiru1} D. Thirumalai, R. D. Mountain, and T. R. Kirpatrick, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 39}, 3563 (1989).

2098: 

2099: \bibitem{palmer} R. G. Palmer, Adv. Phys. {\bf 31}, 669 (1982).

2100: 

2101: \bibitem{gardiner} C. W. Gardiner, Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences (Springer-Verlag. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Tokyo, 1983).

2102: 

2103: \bibitem{freeman1} D. L. Freeman and J. D. Doll, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. {\bf47},

2104: 43 (1996).

2105: 

2106: \bibitem{wales1} R. M. Lynden-Bell and D. J. Wales, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 101}, 1460 (1994).

2107: 

2108: \bibitem{wales2} J. P. K. Doye, D. J. Wales, and M. A. Miller, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 109}, 8143 (1998).

2109: 

2110: \bibitem{thiru2} R. D. Mountain and D. Thirumalai, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 93}, 6975 (1989).

2111: 

2112: \bibitem{thiru3} D. Thirumalai and R. D. Mountain, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 42}, 4574 (1990).

2113: 

2114: \bibitem{thiru4} J. E. Straub and D. Thirumalai, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA {\bf 90}, 809 (1993).

2115: 

2116: \bibitem{lieberman} A. J. Lichtenberg and M. A. Lieberman, {\em Regular and 

2117: Stochastic Motion} (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1983).

2118: 

2119: \bibitem{straub} I. Andricioaei and J. E. Straub, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf107},

2120: 9117 (1997).

2121: 

2122: \bibitem{juan1} J. P. Neirotti, F. Calvo, D. L. Freeman and J. D. Doll, J. Chem.

2123: Phys. {\bf112}, 10340 (2000).

2124: 

2125: \bibitem{juan2} F. Calvo, J. P. Neirotti, D. L. Freeman and J. D. Doll, J. Chem.

2126: Phys. {\bf112}, 10350 (2000).

2127: 

2128: 

2129: \bibitem{frantz} D. D. Frantz, D. L. Freeman, and J. D. Doll, J. Chem. Phys. 

2130: {\bf93}, 2769 (1990).

2131: 

2132: \bibitem{p1} E. Marinari and G. Parissi, Europhys. Lett. {\bf19}, 451 (1992).

2133: 

2134: \bibitem{p2} C. J. Geyer and E. A. Thompson, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. {\bf90},

2135: 909 (1995).

2136: 

2137: \bibitem{p3} M. Falcioni and M. W. Deem, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf110}, 1754 (1999).

2138: 

2139: \bibitem{metropolis} N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. 

2140: Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf21}, 1087 (1953).

2141: 

2142: \bibitem{lee} J. K. Lee, J. A. Barker, and F. F. Abraham, J. Chem. Phys. 

2143: {\bf58}, 3166 (1973).

2144: 

2145: \bibitem{labastie} P. Labastie and R. L. Whetten, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf65}, 1567

2146: (1990).

2147: 

2148: \bibitem{juan3} J. P. Neirotti, D. L. Freeman, and J. D. Doll, J. Chem. Phys. 

2149: {\bf112}, 3990 (2000).

2150: 

2151: \bibitem{spivak} M. Spivak, Calculus (Publish or Perish, 3ed.,

2152: 1994).

2153: 

2154: \bibitem{berry} R. S. Berry, T. L. Beck, H. L. Davis, and J. Jellinek, Adv. 

2155: Chem. Phys. {\bf 70B}, 75 (1988).

2156: 

2157: \bibitem{clusters} D. D. Frantz, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf102}, 3747 (1995).

2158: 

2159: \bibitem{citfreq}Assuming the tolerable error to be on the order of 1\%,

2160: we set $0.01 \simeq |[\cot(\omega_n/2)-2/\omega_n]/(2/\omega_n)| =

2161: \omega_n^2/12+{\cal O}(\omega_n^4)$.  Then $n_{max}=bK\sqrt{12}/20\pi$.

2162: 

2163: \bibitem{fomin} A. N. Kolmogorov and S. V. Fomin, {\em Introductory Real 

2164: Analysis} (Dover, New York, 1970).

2165: 

2166: \end{references}

2167: 

2168: \end{multicols}

2169: 

2170: \end{document}

2171: 

2172: