a fundamental purpose of molecular simulation is the computation of macroscopic quantities , typically through averages of functions of the variables of the system with respect to a given probability measure  @xmath0 , which defines the macroscopic state of the system . in the most common
setting , the probability measure  @xmath0 with respect to which averages are computed corresponds to the canonical ensemble ( see for instance @xcite ) .
its distribution is defined by the boltzmann - gibbs density , which models the configurations of a conservative system in contact with a heat bath at fixed temperature .
numerically , high - dimensional averages with respect to  @xmath0 are often approximated as ergodic averages over realizations of appropriate stochastic differential equations ( sdes ) : @xmath1 a typical dynamics to this end is the langevin dynamics @xmath2 where @xmath3 is a standard wiener process , @xmath4 the potential energy function , @xmath5 a friction coefficient , @xmath6 the mass matrix of the system , and @xmath7 is proportional to the inverse temperature ( see section  [ section modified langevin dynamics ] for more precise definitions ) . for references on the ergodicity of langevin dynamics
, we refer the reader to  @xcite and @xcite , for instance .
there are two main sources of error in the computation of average properties such as @xmath8 through time averages as in  : ( i ) a systematic bias ( or _ perfect sampling bias _ ) related to the use of a discretization method for the sdes ( and usually proportional to a power of the integration step size @xmath9 ) , and ( ii ) statistical errors , due to the finite lengths of the sampling paths involved and the underlying variance of the random variables .
the first point was studied in  @xcite for standard langevin dynamics .
our focus in this work is on the statistical error .
statistical errors may be large when the dynamics is metastable , _
i.e. _ when the system remains trapped for a very long time in some region of the configuration space ( called a metastable region ) before hopping to another metastable region .
metastability implies that the convergence of averages over trajectories is very slow , and that transitions between metastable regions ( which are typically the events of interest at the macroscopic level ) are very rare .
in fact , metastability arises from the multi - modality of the probability measure sampled by the dynamics .
we refer for instance to  @xcite for a review on ways to quantify the metastability of sampling dynamics .
there are various strategies to reduce the variance of time averages by reducing the metastability .
the most famous one is importance sampling : the potential energy function  @xmath4 is modified by an additional term  @xmath10 so that the langevin dynamics associated with @xmath11 is less metastable . an automatic way of doing so is to consider a so - called reaction coordinate , and define @xmath10 as the opposite of the associated free energy ( see @xcite for further precisions ) .
we explore here an alternative path , which consists in modifying the kinetic energy rather than the potential energy .
indeed , recall that the difficult part in sampling the canonical measure is in sampling positions ( see section  [ section modified langevin dynamics ] for a more precise discussion of this point ) .
there is therefore some freedom in the choice of the kinetic energy if the goal is to compute average properties .
previous works in this direction focused on changing the mass matrix in order to increase the time steps used in the simulation ( see _ e.g. _
@xcite ) . the mathematical analysis we provide
is inspired by a recent work by  @xcite where the kinetic energy of each particle is more drastically modified : it is set to  0 when the particle s momenta are small , while it remains unchanged for larger momenta . in such _
adaptively restrained _ ( ar ) simulations , particles may become temporarily _ frozen _ , while their momenta may continue to evolve . since , in many cases , inter - particle forces only depend on relative particle positions , and hence do not have to be updated when particles are frozen , adaptively restrained particle simulations may yield a significant algorithmic speed - up  @xmath12 when a sufficiently large number of particles are frozen at each time step ( or , more generally , when inter - particle distances remain constant and particle forces are expressed in local reference frames ) . this has been demonstrated in several contexts , _
e.g. _ for modeling hydrocarbon systems ( @xcite ) , proteins ( @xcite ) , and for electronic structure calculations ( @xcite ) .
unfortunately , freezing particles even temporarily may make iterates more correlated , which may translate into an increase of the statistical error  @xmath13 observed for modified langevin dynamics , compared to the statistical error  @xmath14 observed for standard langevin dynamics .
the actual speed - up of the method , in terms of the total wall - clock time needed to achieve a given precision in the estimation of an observable , should therefore be expressed as : @xmath15 our aim here is thus to quantify the increase in the variance as a function of the parameters of the modified kinetic energy .
in fact , a first task is to prove that the langevin dynamics with modified kinetic energy is indeed ergodic , and that the variance is well defined .
this is unclear at first sight since the modified dynamics fails to be hypoelliptic ( see the discussion in section  [ sec : cv_ergo_avg ] ) .
this article is organized as follows . in section  [ section modified langevin dynamics ]
, we introduce the modified langevin dynamics we consider , and present the particular case of the ar - langevin dynamic .
the ergodicity of these dynamics is proved in section  [ section ergodicity ] , both in terms of almost - sure convergence of time averages along a single realization , and in terms of the law of the process .
we also provide a result on the regularity of the evolution semi - group , adapted from similar estimates for standard langevin dynamics in  @xcite .
such estimates allow us to analyze the statistical error in section  [ section analysis of statistical error ] .
we state in particular a central limit theorem for  @xmath16 , and perform a perturbative study of the asymptotic variance of the ar - langevin dynamics in some limiting regime .
our theoretical findings are illustrated by numerical simulations in section  [ sec : numerics ] , both in a simple one - dimensional case where the variance can be accurately computed using an appropriate galerkin approximation , as well as for a more realistic system for which we resort to monte - carlo simulations .
the proofs of our results are gathered in section  [ section proofs ] .
we consider a system of @xmath17 particles in spatial dimension  @xmath18 , so that the total dimension of the system is @xmath19 .
the vectors of positions and momenta are denoted respectively by @xmath20 and @xmath21 .
periodic boundary conditions are used for positions , so that the phase - space of admissible configurations is @xmath22 with @xmath23 , @xmath24 being the one - dimensional unit torus and @xmath25 the size of the simulation box .
in order to possibly increase the rate of convergence of the ergodic averages  , we modify the langevin dynamics   by changing the kinetic energy . more precisely , instead of the standard quadratic kinetic energy @xmath26 we introduce a general kinetic energy function @xmath27 .
the total energy of the system is then characterized by the hamiltonian @xmath28 in order to ensure that the measure @xmath29 can be normalized , and in order to simplify the mathematical analysis , we make in the sequel the following assumption .
[ assumption potential ] the potential energy function @xmath4 belongs to @xmath30 , and @xmath31 grows sufficiently fast at infinity in order to ensure that @xmath32 .
the langevin dynamics associated with a general hamiltonian reads @xmath33 where @xmath3 is a standard @xmath34-dimensional wiener process and @xmath35 is the friction constant . for the separable hamiltonian  , the general langevin dynamics simplifies as @xmath36 the generator of the process ( [ modified langevin ] ) reads @xmath37 a simple computation shows that the canonical distribution @xmath38 is invariant under the dynamics  , _
i.e. _ for all @xmath39 functions @xmath40 with compact support , @xmath41    note that , in view of the separability of the hamiltonian , the marginal of the distribution @xmath0 in the position variables is , for any kinetic energy  @xmath42 , @xmath43 in particular , this marginal distribution therefore coincides with the one of the standard langevin dynamics  .
this allows to straightforwardly estimate canonical averages of observables depending only on the positions with the modified langevin dynamics  .
in fact , there is no restriction in generality in considering observables depending only on the positions , since general observables @xmath44 depending both on momenta and positions can be reduced to functions of the positions only by a partial integration in the momenta variables .
this partial integration is often very easy to perform since momenta are independent gaussian random variables under the canonical measure associated with the standard kinetic energy .
a concrete example for the choice of the kinetic energy function @xmath42 in ( [ eq : modified hamiltonian ] ) is the one proposed for the adaptively restrained langevin dynamics in  @xcite .
it is parameterized by two constants @xmath45 . in this model ,
the kinetic energy is a sum of individual contributions @xmath46 for large values of momenta , the modified individual kinetic energies are equal to the standard kinetic energy of one particle , but they vanish for small momenta : @xmath47 an appropriate function allows to smoothly interpolate between these two limiting regimes ( see definition  [ definition arps langevin ] for the precise expression ) .
a possible choice of an individual kinetic energy  @xmath48 , as well as the associated canonical distribution of momenta @xmath49 are depicted in figure  [ figure 1 left ] and figure  [ figure 1 right ] when @xmath50 .
( solid lines ) , and an example of an ar kinetic energy function  @xmath48 with parameters @xmath51 and @xmath52 ( dashed line).,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    .,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    the interest of ar - langevin dynamics is that , when their individual kinetic energies are sufficiently small , particles do not move . when two particles are frozen in this way , their pairwise interactions need not be updated .
this allows decreasing the computational complexity of the force computation , which is typically the most time - consuming part of a molecular dynamics solver .
note that this can be generalized to higher - order interactions ( such as three - body interactions based on bending angles for instance ) .
[ remark individual parameters ] note that , due to the additive structure of the kinetic energy , the momenta  @xmath53 are independent and identically distributed ( i.i.d . ) under the canonical measure .
it is however possible to choose different parameters @xmath54 and @xmath55 for different particles , for example to focus calculations on a specific part of the particle system , in which case the momenta are still independent but not longer identically distributed .
such a situation is considered in the numerical example presented in section  [ subsection a more realistic system : second order discretization ] .
there are several notions of ergodicity for stochastic processes .
we focus here on two of them : the convergence of ergodic averages over a single trajectory , and the convergence of the law of the process .
the convergence of ergodic averages over one trajectory is automatically ensured by the existence of an invariant probability measure and the irreducibility of the dynamics ( see for instance  @xcite for early results on such convergences for possibly degenerate diffusions ) . since , by construction , an invariant probability measure is known ( namely the canonical measure  ) , it suffices to show that the process generated by the modified langevin equation is irreducible to conclude to the convergence of ergodic averages .    as reviewed in  @xcite , the most standard argument to prove the irreducibility of degenerate diffusions is to prove the controllability of the dynamics relying on the stroock - varadhan support theorem , and the regularity of the transition kernel thanks to some hypoellipticity property .
these conditions are satisfied for standard langevin dynamics ( see for instance  @xcite ) , but not for the modified langevin dynamics we consider , since the hessian of the kinetic energy function may not be invertible on an open set .
this is the case for the ar kinetic energy function presented in section  [ sec : arps_presentation ] .    to illustrate this point ,
let us show for instance how the standard way of proving hypoellipticity fails ( the proof of the controllability faces similar issues ) .
the first task is to rewrite the generator   of the process as @xmath56 where @xmath57 and @xmath58 is the adjoint of @xmath59 on the flat space @xmath60 .
we next compute , for @xmath61 , the commutators @xmath62 = x_0x_j - x_j x_0 = \sqrt{\frac{\gamma}{\beta}}\,{\nabla}\left({\partial}_{p_j } u\right)\cdot \left({\nabla}_q-\gamma { \nabla}_p\right ) . \ ] ] when @xmath63 is invertible , it is possible to recover the full algebra of derivatives by an appropriate combination of @xmath64 and @xmath65,\dots,[x_0,x_d]$ ] . here , we consider a situation when this is not the case and , even more dramatically , where the hessian may vanish on an open set .
in this situation , @xmath66=0 $ ] on the same open set , and in fact all iterated commutators @xmath67]$ ] also vanish .
we solve this problem by a direct constructive approach , where we see the modified dynamics as a perturbation of the standard langevin dynamics .
we rely on the following assumption :    the kinetic energy function @xmath68 of the modified langevin dynamics is such that @xmath69 for some constant @xmath70 .
[ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ]    under this assumption , we can prove that the modified langevin dynamics is irreducible by proving an appropriate minorization condition , which crucially relies on the compactness of the position space  @xmath71 ( see section  [ proof of the minorization condition ] for the proof ) .
[ lemma minorization condition ] suppose assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] holds .
then for any fixed @xmath72 and @xmath73 , there exists a probability measure @xmath74 on @xmath75 and a constant @xmath76 such that , for every borel set @xmath77 , @xmath78 with @xmath79 when @xmath80 .
the minorization condition implies the irreducibility of the dynamics , so that the following convergence result readily follows .
[ thm convergence of averages ] when assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] holds , ergodic averages over trajectories almost surely converge to the canonical average : @xmath81      there are various functional frameworks to measure the convergence of the law of the process .
we consider here weighted @xmath82 estimates on the semi - group @xmath83 .
more precisely , we introduce a scale of lyapunov functions @xmath84 for @xmath85 .
recall indeed that only momenta need to be controlled since positions remain in a compact space .
the associated weighted @xmath82 spaces are @xmath86 in order to prove the exponential convergence of the law , we rely on the result of  @xcite , which states that if a lyapunov condition and a minorization condition hold true , then the sampled chain converges exponentially fast to its steady state in the following sense .
[ thm uniform convergence ] suppose that assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] holds .
then the invariant measure @xmath0 is unique , and for any @xmath87 , there exist constants @xmath88 such that @xmath89    as mentioned above , the proof of this result directly follows from the arguments of  @xcite .
the minorization condition is already stated in lemma  [ lemma minorization condition ] , while the appropriate lyapunov condition reads as follows ( see section  [ proof of the lyapunov condition ] for the proof , which uses the same strategy as  @xcite and  @xcite ) .
[ lemma lyapunov ] suppose that assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] holds .
then , for any @xmath90 and @xmath73 , there exist @xmath91 and @xmath92 such that @xmath93      we provide in this section decay estimates for the spatial derivatives of @xmath94 , following the approach pioneered in  @xcite and further refined in  @xcite .
such estimates were obtained for the standard langevin dynamics , but can in fact straightforwardly be extended to modified langevin dynamics with hessians bounded from below by a positive constant .
our aim in this section is to provide decay estimates for the spatial derivatives of @xmath94 in the situation when @xmath63 fails to be strictly convex , for instance because @xmath63 vanishes on an open set as is the case for ar particle simulations .    in order to state our results ,
we first need to define the weighted sobolev spaces @xmath95 for @xmath96 : @xmath97 these spaces gather all functions which grow at most like @xmath98 , and whose derivatives of order at most  @xmath99 all grow at most like @xmath98 .
we also introduce the space of smooth functions @xmath100 , the vector space of functions @xmath101 such that , for any @xmath102 , there exists @xmath103 for which @xmath104 .
we also make the following assumption on the kinetic energy function , which can be understood as a condition of `` almost strict convexity '' of the hessian @xmath105 .
[ hyp thm ] the kinetic energy @xmath106 has bounded second - order derivatives : @xmath107 and there exist a function @xmath108 and constants @xmath109 and @xmath110 such that @xmath111 and @xmath112    a natural choice for the function @xmath113 in assumption [ hyp thm ] is @xmath114 .
the condition   then holds with @xmath115 .
moreover , holds true as soon as @xmath42 is a local perturbation of @xmath116 .
the most demanding condition therefore is  , especially if @xmath117 has to be small .    by following the same strategy as in  (
* proposition a.1 . )
( which refines the results already obtained in  @xcite ) , and appropriately taking care of the lack of strict positivity of the hessian @xmath63 by assuming that @xmath117 is sufficiently small , we prove the following result in section  [ proof proposition kopec ] .    [ main theorem kopec ] suppose that assumptions  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] and  [ hyp thm ] hold , and fix @xmath118 .
for any @xmath119 , there exist @xmath120 and @xmath121 such that , for @xmath122 and @xmath123 with @xmath124 sufficiently small ( depending on  @xmath125 but not on  @xmath99 ) , there is @xmath103 and @xmath126 for which @xmath127    the parameter  @xmath128 can in fact be made explicit , see   below .
the decay estimate   shows that the derivatives of the evolution operator can be controlled in appropriate weighted hilbert spaces .
note however that the lyapunov functions entering in the estimates are not the same a priori on both sides of the inequality  .
let us emphasize , though , that we can obtain a control in all spaces @xmath129 for @xmath125 sufficiently large ( depending on the order of derivation ) .
the asymptotic variance characterizes the statistical error . in section
[ sec : asymptotic_variance ] , we show that the asymptotic variance is well defined for the modified langevin dynamics
. we can in fact prove a stronger result , namely that a central limit theorem ( clt ) holds true for ergodic averages over one trajectory . in a second step ,
we more carefully analyze in section  [ sec : perturbative_variance ] the properties of the variance of the ar - langevin dynamics by proving a linear response result in the limit of a vanishing lower bound on the kinetic energies . to obtain the latter results , we rely on the estimates provided by lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] .
let us first write the asymptotic variance in terms of the generator of the dynamics . to simplify the notation
, we introduce the orthogonal projection @xmath130 onto the orthogonal of the kernel of the operator  @xmath131 ( with respect to the @xmath132 scalar product ) : for any @xmath133 , @xmath134 since @xmath135 , we can define @xmath136 .
the ergodicity result   allows us to conclude that the operator @xmath131 is invertible on  @xmath137 since the following operator equality holds on @xmath138 , the banach space of bounded operators on  @xmath137 : @xmath139 this leads to the following resolvent bounds ( the second part being a direct corollary of lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] ) .
[ corollary convergence thm ] suppose that assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] holds .
then , for any @xmath140 , @xmath141 where @xmath142 are the constants introduced in theorem  [ thm uniform convergence ] .
suppose in addition that assumption  [ hyp thm ] holds , and fix @xmath118 .
for any @xmath119 , there exist @xmath120 and @xmath121 such that , for @xmath122 and @xmath123 with @xmath124 sufficiently small ( depending on  @xmath125 but not on  @xmath99 ) , there is @xmath103 and @xmath126 for which @xmath143    this already allows us to conclude that the asymptotic variance of the time average @xmath16 defined in   is well defined for any observable @xmath144 since @xmath145 \\   & = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}2\int_0^t\int_{{\mathcal{e}}}\left(1-\frac{s}{t}\right)\left(\rm{e}^{s{\mathcal{l}}}\pi_{\mu}a\right)\left(\pi_{\mu}a \right ) d\mu\\ & = 2\int_0^{\infty}\int_{{\mathcal{e}}}\left({\mathrm}{e}^{s{\mathcal{l}}}\pi_{\mu}a\right)\left(\pi_{\mu}a\right ) d\mu \end{aligned}\ ] ] by the dominated convergence theorem .
therefore , @xmath146 in fact , a central limit theorem can be shown to hold for @xmath16 using standard results ( see _ e.g. _
@xcite ) .
our aim in this section is to better understand , from a quantitative viewpoint , the behavior of the asymptotic variance for the ar - langevin dynamics defined in section  [ sec : arps_presentation ] , at least in some limiting regime where the parameter @xmath54 is small . for intermediate values ,
we need to rely on numerical simulations ( see section  [ sec : numerics ] ) .
the regime where both @xmath54 and @xmath55 go to  0 is somewhat singular since the transition from @xmath147 to @xmath148 becomes quite abrupt , which prevents a rigorous theoretical analysis .
the regimes where either @xmath54 or @xmath55 go to infinity are also of dubious interest since the dynamics strongly perturbs the standard langevin dynamics .
therefore , we restrict ourselves to the situation where @xmath149 with @xmath55 fixed .    in order to highlight the dependence of the ar kinetic energy function on the restraining parameters @xmath45 ,
we denote it by @xmath150 in the remainder of this section .
let us however first give a more precise definition of this function , having in mind that @xmath55 is fixed while @xmath54 eventually goes to  0 .
we introduce to this end an interpolation function @xmath151 such that @xmath152 and @xmath153 we next define an interpolation function @xmath154 obtained from the function @xmath155 by an appropriate shift of the lower bound and a rescaling .
more precisely , @xmath156 with @xmath157 a plot of @xmath158 is provided in figure  [ figure arps redefinition shift functions left ] .     and
@xmath154 for @xmath51 and @xmath52.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    , as well as two ar kinetic energy functions @xmath150 with @xmath51 and @xmath159 or @xmath160.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    [ definition arps langevin ] for two parameters @xmath45 , the ar kinetic energy function @xmath161 is defined as @xmath162 where the individual kinetic energy functions are @xmath163\frac{p_i^2}{2m_i } , & \quad   \text{for } \frac{p_i^2}{2m_i } \in [ { k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max } } } ] , \\
\frac{p_i^2}{2m_i } ,    & \quad \text{for } \frac{p_i^2}{2m_i}{\geqslant}{k_{\mathrm{max}}}. \\
\end{aligned } \right.\ ] ]    of course , @xmath164 converges to @xmath165 as @xmath149 .
the limiting kinetic energy function @xmath166 corresponds to what we call the zero-@xmath55-ar - langevin dynamics ( see figure  [ figure arps redefinition shift functions right ] for an illustration ) .
let us emphasize that the limiting dynamics is not the standard langevin dynamics , so that the expansion in powers of @xmath54 of the variance we provide is with respect to the limiting variance of the dynamics corresponding to  @xmath166 . to simplify the notation
, we denote by @xmath167 the variance associated with the kinetic energy  @xmath150 .
[ proposition variance perturbation ] there exists @xmath168 such that , for any @xmath169 , there is a constant @xmath170 for which @xmath171    the proof can be read in section  [ proof of the proposition variance perturbation ] .
the assumption that @xmath55 is sufficiently small ensures that assumption  [ hyp thm ] holds ( see section  [ proof of lemma arps condition ] ) .
the result is formally clear .
the difficulty in proving it is that the kinetic energy is not a smooth function of  @xmath54 because the shift function is only piecewise smooth .
[ rmk : lr_var ] an inspection of the proof of proposition  [ proposition variance perturbation ] shows that the linear response result can be generalized to non - zero values of  @xmath54 and in fact to linear responses in the parameter  @xmath55 as well . for the latter case , we consider @xmath172 . denoting now by @xmath173 the variance associated with the kinetic energy  @xmath150 , it can be proved that , for @xmath174 not too large , there are @xmath175 such that , for @xmath176 sufficiently small , @xmath177
the aim of this section is to quantify the evolution of the variance of ar - langevin dynamics as the parameters of the kinetic energy function are modified .
we first consider in section  [ sec : galerkin ] a simple system in spatial dimension  1 , for which the variance can be very precisely computed using a galerkin - type approximation .
we next consider more realistic particle systems in section  [ subsection a more realistic system : second order discretization ] , relying on molecular dynamics simulations to estimate the variance . in this section
, the function @xmath178 is chosen to be of the form @xmath179 , with @xmath180 a fifth - order spline function .
we first consider a single particle in spatial dimension @xmath181 , in the periodic domain @xmath182 and at inverse temperature @xmath183 . in this case , it is possible to directly approximate the asymptotic variance   using some galerkin discretization , as in  @xcite or  @xcite .
we denote by @xmath184 the generator of the modified langevin dynamics associated with the ar kinetic energy function @xmath150 defined in  , by @xmath185 the associated canonical measure , and by @xmath186 the projector onto functions of @xmath187 with average  0 with respect to  @xmath185 .    for a given observable  @xmath188 ,
we first approximate the solution of the following poisson equation : @xmath189 and then compute the variance as given by  : @xmath190 to achieve this , we introduce the basis functions @xmath191 , where @xmath192 ( for @xmath193 ) and @xmath194 are the hermite polynomials : @xmath195 the choice of @xmath196 is natural in view of the spatial periodicity of the functions under consideration , while hermite polynomials are eigenfunctions of the generator associated with the ornstein - uhlenbeck process on the momenta for the standard quadratic kinetic energy @xmath197 .
note however that , when the kinetic energy is modified as @xmath150 , the hermite polynomials are no longer orthogonal for the @xmath187 scalar product .
we approximate the poisson equation   on the basis @xmath198 for given integers @xmath199 , and we look for approximate solutions of the form @xmath200 with @xmath201_{nk } \psi_{nk},\ ] ] where @xmath202 is a vector of size @xmath203 . restricting   to @xmath204 leads to @xmath205 where @xmath206 is a matrix of size @xmath207 and
@xmath208 a vector of size @xmath203 , whose entries respectively read @xmath209_{nk , ml } & = \left\langle \psi_{ml},-{\mathcal{l}}_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max } } } } \psi_{nk}\right\rangle_{l^2(\mu_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max } } } } ) } , \\ \left[a_{n_g , n_h}\right]_{ml } & = \left\langle \psi_{ml},\pi_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max } } } } a \right\rangle_{l^2(\mu_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max}}}})}. \\ \end{aligned}\ ] ] the approximated solution @xmath210 of the poisson equation can therefore be computed by solving  .
note however that some care is needed at this stage since @xmath184 is not invertible on @xmath204 , because the basis functions @xmath211 are not of integral  0 with respect to  @xmath185 .
we correct this by performing a singular value decomposition of  @xmath206 , removing the component of @xmath208 associated with the singular value  0 , and computing the inverse of @xmath206 on the subspace generated by the eigenvectors associated with non - zero eigenvalues . in practice , we compute the entries of @xmath208 and @xmath206 by numerical quadrature . since the hermite polynomials are no longer orthogonal for the @xmath187 scalar product , quadratures are required both in position and momentum variables .
the variance is finally approximated as @xmath212    in the simulations presented in this section , the potential is @xmath213 , the observable under study is @xmath214 , and we always set @xmath215 . figure  [ fig : convergence galerkin ] presents the convergence of the variance with respect to the basis size , for the standard langevin dynamics and the ar langevin dynamics with @xmath51 and various values of @xmath54 .
the results show that the choice @xmath216 is sufficient in all cases to approximate the asymptotic value .
we checked in addition in one case , namely for the standard dynamics , that the values we obtain are very close to a reference value obtained with @xmath217 : the relative variation is of order @xmath218 for @xmath219 , @xmath220 for @xmath216 and @xmath221 for @xmath222 .
we therefore set @xmath216 in the remainder of this section .     and
@xmath223 : approximation of the variance of observable @xmath224 for the standard dynamics and the ar dynamics with fixed parameter @xmath51 and various values of @xmath54.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    the variation of the computed variance for @xmath224 is plotted in figure  [ fig : variancegalerkinallkmaxkmin ] for various parameters @xmath45 of the ar - langevin dynamics . note
that , as expected , the variance increases with increasing values of @xmath54 for fixed @xmath55 , but also with increasing values of @xmath55 for fixed @xmath54 .
we next illustrate the linear response results of proposition  [ proposition variance perturbation ] and remark  [ rmk : lr_var ] in figures  [ fig : variance_kmax5_overkmin left ] and  [ fig : variance_kmax5_overkmin right ] : in both situations , the variance increases linearly with the parameter under consideration is varied in a sufficiently small neighborhood of its initial value .
after that initial regime , nonlinear variations appear .
note also that the relative increase of the variance is more pronounced as a function of @xmath55 than @xmath54 .    , approximated by the galerkin method , as a function of @xmath54 and for several values of  @xmath55.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]     and its initial value computed for reference parameters .
( left ) fixed upper bound @xmath225 , and reference value @xmath226.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    . fixed lower bound @xmath159 , and reference value @xmath227.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    [ remark smoothness stability ] in practice
, the idea usually is to set the lower bound @xmath54 sufficiently large when performing monte carlo simulations , in order to decrease as much as possible the computational cost .
the gap @xmath228 should however not be too small in order to have a sufficiently smooth transition from a vanishing kinetic energy to a quadratic one .
this requires therefore @xmath55 to be quite large if @xmath54 is large .
the results presented in figure  [ fig : variance_kmax5_overkmin right ] suggest that this may not be the optimal choice , unless the algorithmic speed - up is quite large .      in order to study the variation of the variance as a function of @xmath54 and @xmath55 in systems of higher dimensions , we resort to monte carlo simulations .
this requires discretizing the ar - langevin dynamics  , and we resort to a scheme of weak order  2 , obtained by a splitting strategy where the generator of the modified langevin dynamics   is decomposed into three parts : @xmath229 the transition kernel obtained by a strang splitting reads @xmath230 .
contrarily to the standard kinetic energy functions , the elementary evolution associated with @xmath231 can not be integrated analytically . to preserve the order of the scheme , we approximate @xmath232 by a midpoint rule , encoded by a transition kernel @xmath233 satisfying @xmath234 for smooth test functions @xmath235 .
this gives the following discretization scheme : @xmath236 where @xmath237 are i.i.d .
standard @xmath34-dimensional gaussian random variables .
the first and the last line are obtained by implicit schemes , solved in practice by a fixed point strategy ( the termination criterion being that the distance between successive iterates is smaller than @xmath220 , and the initial iterate being obtained by a euler - maruyama step ) . by following the same approach as in  @xcite
, it can indeed be proved that this scheme is of weak order  2 ; see  @xcite for further precisions .
the ergodicity of some second - order schemes was proved for the standard langevin dynamics in @xcite . since
the ar - langevin dynamics can be seen as a perturbation of the standard langevin dynamics , it can be proved by combining the proofs from  @xcite and the proof of theorem  [ thm uniform convergence ] that , when @xmath45 are sufficiently small , the corresponding discretization of the ar - langevin dynamics remains ergodic ( see @xcite ) .
the corresponding invariant measure is denoted by @xmath238 .
it also follows by the results of  @xcite that the error on averages of smooth observables @xmath239 with respect to @xmath238 is of order  2 , i.e. there exists @xmath240 such that @xmath241 as already mentioned in remark  [ remark smoothness stability ] , the reduction of the gap between the parameters @xmath54 and @xmath55 reduces the smoothness of the transition between the restrained dynamics and the full dynamics .
this raises issues in the stability of the scheme , which can be partly cured by resorting to a metropolis - hastings correction ( @xcite and  @xcite ) .
the system we consider is composed of @xmath242 particles in dimension  2 , so that @xmath243 and @xmath244 .
the masses are set to  1 for all particles . among these particles ,
two particles ( numbered 1 and 2 in the following ) are designated to form a dimer while the others are solvent particles .
all particles , except the two particles forming the dimer , interact through the purely repulsive wca pair potential , which is a truncated lennard - jones potential  @xcite : @xmath245 + \varepsilon & \quad { \rm if \ } r { \leqslant}r_0 , \\ 0 & \quad { \rm if \ } r >
r_0 , \end{array } \right.\ ] ] where @xmath246 denotes the distance between two particles , @xmath247 and @xmath248 are two positive parameters and @xmath249 . the interaction potential between the two particles of the dimer is a double - well potential @xmath250 ^ 2,\ ] ] where @xmath251 and @xmath252 are two positive parameters .
the potential @xmath253 has two energy minima .
the first one , at @xmath254 , corresponds to the compact state .
the second one , at @xmath255 , corresponds to the stretched state .
the total energy of the system is therefore , for @xmath256 with @xmath257 , @xmath258 where the solvent - solvent and dimer - solvent potential energies respectively read @xmath259 we choose @xmath183 , @xmath260 , @xmath261 , @xmath262 , @xmath263 , and set the particle density @xmath264 to  0.56 in the numerical results presented in this section , sufficiently high to ensure that the solvent markedly modifies the distribution of configurations of the dimer compared to the gas phase .
the source of metastability in the system is the double - well potential on the dimer .
in such a system , it makes sense to restrain only solvent particles ( since they account for most of the computational cost ) , and keep the standard kinetic energy for the particles forming the dimer ( since the observable depends on their positions ) .
as noted in remark  [ remark individual parameters ] , the method allows us to choose different individual kinetic energies for different particles . since the solvent interacts with the dimer , we study how the variance of time averages of observables related to the configuration of the dimer , such as the dimer potential energy  @xmath265 , depend on the restraining parameters chosen for the solvent particles .
we also estimate the variance of time averages based on observables depending only on the solvent degrees of freedom , such as the solvent - solvent potential energy @xmath266 .
the asymptotic variance of time averages for a given observable  @xmath188 is estimated by approximating the integrated auto - correlation function @xmath267dt,\ ] ] where the expectation is with respect to initial conditions @xmath268 and all realizations of the ar langevin dynamics .
this is done by first truncating the upper bound in the integral by a sufficiently large time @xmath269 , and using a trapezoidal rule : @xmath270 where @xmath271 , and the empirical averages over @xmath6 realizations of trajectories of @xmath272 steps are defined as @xmath273 with @xmath274 the initial condition @xmath275 for the @xmath276th trajectory is obtained from the last configuration of the @xmath277th configuration , namely @xmath278 .
figure  [ fig : acf ] presents the auto - correlation function obtained for @xmath265 .
the results show that the choice @xmath279 is reasonable .
$ ] for @xmath280 as a function of time.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    the results of  @xcite show that the errors on the approximation of the variance should be of order  @xmath281 when @xmath282 .
this is illustrated in figures  [ fig : variance zero coeff left ] ,  [ fig : variance zero coeff right ] ,  [ fig : variance max coeff left ] and  [ fig : variance max coeff right ] , which present the convergence of @xmath283 as a function of @xmath284 for @xmath285 .
it is possible to extrapolate the value of the variance at @xmath286 by fitting @xmath283 as @xmath287 .
note that the errors on the variance are bigger in the case @xmath288 , which is expected due to the smaller gap between the parameters @xmath289 . in the sequel ,
all the reported approximations of the variance are obtained by computing @xmath283 for  6 values of the time step @xmath284 , and extrapolating to the limit @xmath290 as in figures  [ fig : variance zero coeff left ] ,  [ fig : variance zero coeff right ] ,  [ fig : variance max coeff left ] and  [ fig : variance max coeff right ] .
more precisely , the time steps are chosen as @xmath291 for @xmath292 when @xmath226 , and @xmath293 for @xmath294 . for intermediate values of @xmath54 ,
the time steps @xmath295 are obtained by a linear interpolation between @xmath296 and @xmath297 .     for @xmath298 , as a function of the step size @xmath284 , for @xmath159 and @xmath299.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]     for @xmath300 , as a function of the step size @xmath284 , for @xmath159 and @xmath299.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    , except that @xmath288.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    , except that @xmath288.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]    the variations as a function of  @xmath54 of the approximations of the variances @xmath301 for the solvent - solvent potential energy @xmath302 and the dimer potential energy @xmath253 are reported in figures  [ fig : variance over kmin left ] and [ fig : variance over kmin right ] .
surprisingly , even though the solvent particles are restrained , the variance of the solvent - solvent potential decreases linearly for moderately small values of @xmath54 ; whereas , as expected , the variance of the dimer potential , which is only implicitly influenced by the restraining parameters , increases linearly for these values of @xmath54 . in order to more easily compare the impacts of the restraining procedure , we plot in figure  [ fig : comparisonreldifferencevariance_ss_dd left ] the relative differences of the variance @xmath167 and the variance of zero-@xmath55-ar dynamics @xmath303 as a function of @xmath54 .
for the two observables under consideration , the impact of an increase of the parameter @xmath54 on the variance associated with the dimer potential is much weaker than on the variance related to the solvent potential .
we also provide in figure  [ fig : comparisonreldifferencevariance_ss_dd right ] the percentage of restrained particles , which directly depends on the restraining parameter @xmath54 and dictates the algorithmic speed - up .
this supports the idea that the use of the ar - langevin method for heterogeneous systems can be beneficial when the ar parameters are set to non - zero values for the part of the system which is not directly of interest ( e.g. the solvent ) , while the standard kinetic energy should be kept for the degrees of freedom that are directly involved in the observable ( e.g. the dimer ) .     for @xmath298 as a function of @xmath304 $ ] for @xmath305.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]     for @xmath265 as a function of @xmath304 $ ] for @xmath305.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]     with respect to the reference variances @xmath303.,scaledwidth=80.0% ]
the modified langevin equation can be written as a perturbation of the langevin equation , namely @xmath306 where @xmath307 is uniformly bounded as @xmath308 in view of assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] . by a direct integration in time of the momenta dynamics ,
@xmath309 where @xmath310 is a gaussian random variable with mean zero and covariance @xmath311 . note also that @xmath312 is uniformly bounded ; more precisely , @xmath313 .
let us first consider the case @xmath314 .
we introduce @xmath315 for a given time @xmath73 . with this notation , @xmath316 where we used young s inequality to obtain the last line , with a constant @xmath317 sufficiently small so that @xmath318 .
we next take the expectation of the previous inequality , conditionally to the filtration of events up to time  @xmath319 .
since @xmath320=0 $ ] , it follows @xmath321{\leqslant}\alpha^2(1+{\varepsilon}){\mathcal{k}}_1(q_t , p_t ) + r,\ ] ] for some constant @xmath322 .
this shows the lyapunov condition for @xmath323 .
the higher order conditions ( @xmath324 ) can be proved as in  ( * ? ? ?
* section  5.1.5 ) , by noting that @xmath325 is equal to @xmath326 plus some lower order polynomial in  @xmath327 .
the main idea is , as in  ( * ? ? ?
* section  5.1.5 ) , to compare the modified langevin dynamics to the standard langevin dynamics with zero forces , for which a minorizing measure @xmath74 can be explicitly constructed . from the rewriting  , we deduce , in view of the momenta evolution  , @xmath328 where periodic boundary conditions are considered , and @xmath329 note that @xmath330 is bounded as @xmath331 whereas @xmath332 is a gaussian random variable , which is correlated to @xmath333 .
a simple computation shows that @xmath334= \left(\begin{matrix } \mathcal{v}_{qq } & \mathcal{v}_{qp } \\
\mathcal{v}_{pq } & \mathcal{v}_{pp } \end{matrix } \right ) , \quad \qquad \left\ { \begin{aligned } \mathcal{v}_{qq}&=\frac{1}{\beta\gamma}\left(2t-\frac{1}{\gamma}\left(3 - 4\alpha_t+\alpha_t^2\right)\right),\\ \mathcal{v}_{qp } & = \frac{1}{\beta\gamma}\left(1-\alpha_t\right)^2 , \\ \mathcal{v}_{pp}&=
\frac{1}{\beta}\left(1-\alpha_t^2\right ) , \end{aligned } \right.\ ] ] where @xmath335 is the same constant as in section  [ proof of the lyapunov condition ] . therefore , for a given measurable set @xmath336 , @xmath337 where @xmath338 are both bounded by some constant @xmath339 ( depending on @xmath340 and  @xmath319 ) when @xmath341 .
note that there is an inequality in   since we neglect in fact the periodic images of @xmath342 when writing it as @xmath343 , the latter two quantities being interpreted as elements of @xmath344 .
since the matrix @xmath345 is definite positive , we can finally consider the following minorizing measure : @xmath346 where @xmath347 is a normalization constant .
the proof is concluded by defining @xmath348 .
the proof follows the strategy of  ( * ? ? ?
* proposition a.1 ) .
we recall in this section the general outline of this proof , and highlight the required extensions .
the proofs of these extensions are then provided in section  [ proof of lemma in sketch of the proof ] . without restriction of generality , and in order to simplify the notation , we assume that @xmath349 . we introduce weight functions @xmath350 where the lyapunov functions  @xmath98 are defined in  .
we also define @xmath351.\]]the following result , central in this proof , gives estimates on derivatives of @xmath352 in the weighted spaces @xmath353 ( see section  [ proof of lemma in sketch of the proof ] for the proof ) .
[ proposition kopec 1 ] suppose that assumptions  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] and  [ hyp thm ] hold .
for any @xmath119 , there exists @xmath121 and @xmath354 such that , for @xmath122 and @xmath355 with @xmath128 sufficiently small , there is @xmath356 and @xmath126 for which @xmath357    assume in the sequel that @xmath355 for @xmath125 sufficiently large . in view of the estimates  , and using the fact that @xmath358 with @xmath359 as @xmath360 , we obtain that , for any @xmath119 , there exist @xmath354 such that , for @xmath361 , it is possible to find @xmath103 and @xmath126 for which @xmath362 by the sobolev embedding theorem , we can conclude that , for any @xmath119 , there exist @xmath363 such that , for @xmath361 and provided @xmath364 , it is possible to find @xmath103 and @xmath365 for which @xmath366 this concludes the proof of lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] .
[ lemma a.6 ] let @xmath367 be a linear operator .
assume that @xmath106 and @xmath368 .
there exists an integer @xmath369 such that , for all @xmath370 , there is a constant @xmath371 for which the following inequality holds true for any @xmath372 : @xmath373u(t ) \
\mathcal{a}u(t ) \pi_s \ , dq \ , dp \right)dt \ .
\label{eq : lemma a.6 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    in fact , a careful inspection of the proof shows that , since @xmath374 , it is possible to avoid the assumption @xmath375 by appropriately increasing the lyapunov index  @xmath125 . since @xmath375 for ar - langevin dynamics
, we however keep this assumption .
a simple computation shows that @xmath376 the formal adjoint of the operator @xmath131 in @xmath60 is given by @xmath377 in view of assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] , there exists therefore @xmath378 such that @xmath379\pi_s \nonumber\\ & { \leqslant}\left(\omega_s + \gamma\left\|{\delta}u\right\|_{l^{\infty}}\right)\pi_{s}. \label{eq : estimation adjoint}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with this estimation , we can follow exactly the proof of  ( * ? ? ?
* lemma a.6 ) , _ i.e. _ write the expression for @xmath380 $ ] , use  , integrate the resulting expression in time and with respect to @xmath381 ( for @xmath125 sufficiently large ) , and finally use   to deduce  .
let us now prove lemma  [ proposition kopec 1 ] .
the complete proof is done by induction on @xmath99 .
we provide here the complete proofs for @xmath382 and @xmath323 , and only sketch the extension to higher orders of derivation since the proof follows the same lines as in  ( * ? ? ?
* appendix  a ) .
recall first that , in view of assumption  [ hyp mod langevin ergodicity ] , the exponential convergence of the law provided by theorem  [ thm uniform convergence ] holds .
denote by @xmath383 the corresponding exponential rate of decay for a given @xmath384 .
for any @xmath103 , we directly obtain the following decay estimates in @xmath385 when @xmath386 : there exists @xmath387 such that @xmath388 note that this corresponds to the case @xmath382 in lemma  [ proposition kopec 1 ] .
we now prove the estimates in the case @xmath323 .
we first apply lemma  [ lemma a.6 ] with @xmath389 : there exists @xmath390 such that , for all @xmath391 and @xmath392 , there is @xmath126 and @xmath356 for which @xmath393dt{\leqslant}c \left\|a\right\|_{l^{\infty } _ { { \mathcal{k}}_{r}}}^2 .
\label{eq : estimation dp}\ ] ] in order to control derivatives in  @xmath394 , the key idea , going back to  @xcite , is to use mixed derivatives @xmath395 ( for some parameter @xmath396 ) .
this allows indeed to retrieve some dissipation in the @xmath394 direction when @xmath63 is positive definite .
the next lemma is the most important part of our proof since we show how to extend the use of mixed derivatives to the case when @xmath63 is not positive definite .
[ lemma estimation operator a1 ] consider the operator @xmath397 for some parameter @xmath398 .
there exists @xmath390 such that , for @xmath391 and provided @xmath364 ( for some constant @xmath399 defined in   below ) , there is @xmath400 , @xmath401 , @xmath396 and @xmath126 for which @xmath402dt { \leqslant}c \left\|a\right\|_{w^{1,\infty } _ { { \mathcal{k}}_{r}}}^2 .
\label{eq : estimation operator l}\ ] ]    define @xmath403 for @xmath404 .
the commutator of @xmath405 and @xmath131 is @xmath406&=-\alpha \left({\nabla}_p { \partial}_{p_i}{u}\right)\cdot \left(\gamma { \nabla}_p-{\nabla}_q\right )   + \left({\nabla}_q { \partial}_{q_i}v\right)\cdot { \nabla}_p \\ & = -\alpha \left({\nabla}_p { \partial}_{p_i}{u}\right)\cdot l_\alpha -\alpha \left(\gamma-\alpha\right)\left({\nabla}_p { \partial}_{p_i}{u}\right ) \cdot   { \nabla}_p   + \left({\nabla}_q { \partial}_{q_i}v\right)\cdot{\nabla}_p \ .
\label{eq : [ l_i , lop ] } \end{aligned}\ ] ] introducing @xmath407 , a simple computation shows that @xmath408u(t ) = \\ & \quad=   -2\alpha \sum_{i=1}^d   \sum_{j=1}^{d }   l_iu(t)\left({\partial}_{p_j } { \partial}_{p_i}u\right ) l_{\alpha , j } u(t ) \label{eq : computation [ l , l ] new } \\ & \qquad + 2\alpha(\alpha-\gamma ) \sum_{i=1}^d l_{\alpha , i } u(t ) \left({\nabla}{\partial}_{p_i } u\right)\cdot { \nabla}_p u(t ) + 2\sum_{i=1}^dl_{\alpha , i } u(t ) { \nabla}\left ( { \partial}_{q_i } v\right)\cdot { \nabla}_p u(t ) \\ & \quad{\leqslant}\left ( { \varepsilon}_1+{\varepsilon}_2 - 2\nu\alpha\right ) \left|l_\alpha u(t)\right|^2 - 2\alpha   \sum_{i=1}^d\sum_{j=1}^{d } l_{\alpha , i}u(t ) { \partial}_{p_j } { \partial}_{p_i}(u -   u_{\nu } ) l_{\alpha , j } u(t ) \\ &
\qquad + \frac{\alpha^2 ( \gamma-\alpha)^2}{{\varepsilon}_1}\left ( \sup_{\left|j\right|=2}\left\|{\partial}^j u\right\|_{l^{\infty}}^2 \right ) \left|{\nabla}_p u(t)\right|^2 + \frac{c_v^2}{{\varepsilon}_2}\left|{\nabla}_p u(t)\right|^2 \end{aligned}\ ] ] for any @xmath409 .
with this preliminary computation , we can now choose @xmath410 in lemma  [ lemma a.6 ] and sum over @xmath411 : for @xmath391 with @xmath369 sufficiently large , @xmath412 l_\alpha u(t ) \
, \pi_s \ , dq \ , dp \right)dt \label{eq : ipp 3}\\ & \quad    + \frac{\alpha^2 ( \gamma-\alpha)^2}{{\varepsilon}_1 } \left(\sup_{\left|j\right|=2}\left\|{\partial}^ju\right\|_{l^{\infty}}^2\right)\int_{0}^t\exp(\zeta t ) \left ( \int_{{\mathcal{e } } } \left|{\nabla}_pu(t)\right|^2 \pi_s \ , dq \ , dp \right ) dt \nonumber \\ & \quad    + \frac{c_v^2}{{\varepsilon}_2}\int_{0}^t\exp(\zeta t ) \left ( \int_{{\mathcal{e}}}\left|{\nabla}_pu(t)\right|^2 \pi_s \ , dq \ , dp \right ) dt \nonumber \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath413 for some integer @xmath414 ( upon increasing @xmath369 ) , and in view of  , the first and the two last terms of the right hand side of the above inequality can be controlled uniformly in time for @xmath415 .
it remains to take care of the terms   and  .
our strategy is to prove that they are negative when @xmath416 , and can hence be transfered to the lef - hand side of the inequality . to simplify the notation
, we denote @xmath417 .
recall that , by assumption  [ condition dnu - dnunu ] , it holds @xmath418 .
an integration by parts shows that @xmath419 with this expression we now estimate the term ( [ eq : ipp 3 ] ) by @xmath420 where we have used young s inequality and introduced a constant @xmath421 such that @xmath422 .
the following conditions are therefore sufficient to ensure that   and   are non - positive when @xmath416 : there exists @xmath396 such that @xmath423 and @xmath424 these conditions can be restated as @xmath425 since @xmath426 can be chosen arbitrarily small ( while still being positive ) , the latter condition holds provided @xmath427 : @xmath428 after optimization with respect to @xmath429 , this leads to the final condition @xmath430 in conclusion , defining @xmath431 we see that the estimate   holds when the constant @xmath432 from assumption  [ hyp thm ] satisfies @xmath364 .
the remainder of the proof of lemma  [ proposition kopec 1 ] is very similar to the corresponding proof in  @xcite .
we first combine   and lemma  [ lemma estimation operator a1 ] : there exists @xmath390 such that for @xmath391 there exists an integer  @xmath246 , a sufficiently small @xmath401 and @xmath433 such that if @xmath434 , then there is a constant @xmath365 for which @xmath435 we can now again apply lemma  [ lemma a.6 ] , and sum the estimates obtained with @xmath436 . before stating the result
, we bound the integrand of the term involving the commutator @xmath437 $ ] ( for @xmath438 ) as : @xmath439u(t){\partial}_{p_i}u(t ) \right| & = \left| \sum_{i=1}^d
\nabla_p({\partial}_{p_i}u ) \cdot ( \nabla_q -\gamma\nabla_p)u(t ) \ , { \partial}_{p_i}u(t ) \right| \\ & { \leqslant}d \left ( \sup_{\left|j\right|=2}\left\|{\partial}^j u\right\|_{l^{\infty}}^2 \right ) \left|(\nabla_q -\gamma\nabla_p)u(t)\right| \ , |\nabla_p u(t)| \\ & { \leqslant}d \left ( \sup_{\left|j\right|=2}\left\|{\partial}^j u\right\|_{l^{\infty}}^2 \right ) \left[\frac12 |\nabla_q u(t)|^2 + \left(\gamma+\frac12\right ) |\nabla_p u(t)|^2\right ] .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] then , for @xmath391 ( with @xmath369 sufficiently large ) and for all @xmath440 , @xmath441 in view of   and   and since @xmath442 for some integer @xmath443 , we see that there exists @xmath444 sufficiently large such that , for any @xmath391 and @xmath445 sufficiently small , and provided @xmath364 , there is a constant @xmath365 and an integer  @xmath246 for which @xmath446 to conclude to lemma  [ proposition kopec 1 ] for @xmath323 , it remains to apply lemma [ lemma a.6 ] with @xmath447 in order to obtain an estimate similar to the one above , but for @xmath448 .
this is possible in view of the following bounds on the commutator : for all @xmath438 , @xmath449u(t){\partial}_{q_i}u(t ) \big| = \left| { \nabla}\left({\partial}_{q_i}v\right)\cdot { \nabla}_p u(t){\partial}_{q_i}u(t ) \right| { \leqslant}\left|{\nabla}_{p}u(t)\right|^2+c_v^2\left|{\partial}_{q_i}u(t)\right|^2.\ ] ]      the remainder of the proof is done by induction of @xmath99 and relies on the control of the commutators @xmath450 $ ] with @xmath451 , which are independent of @xmath452 , as well as @xmath453\psi\right|{\leqslant}\sum_{\substack{i\in \mathbb{n}^{2d}\\ \left|i\right|{\leqslant}n}}\mathcal{p}_i\left|{\partial}^i\psi\right| , \ ] ] where @xmath454 are positive polynomial functions that depend on the polynomial growth of @xmath452 and its derivatives .
these polynomial functions can be controlled with lyapunov weights for sufficiently large indices .
in addition , the same approach as in the proof of lemma  [ lemma estimation operator a1 ] is used to estimate the extra term arising from missing positivity of @xmath63 , namely @xmath455l_{\alpha , j}\left({\partial}^n_qu(t)\right)\pi_s \ , dq \
, dp \right ) dt   \\ & \qquad{\leqslant}2(1+\mathscr{g}_s)\alpha{\varepsilon}_3\left\| { \nabla}\widetilde{u}\right\|_{l^{\infty}}\int_{0}^t\mathrm{exp}(\zeta t)\left(\int_{\mathcal{e}}\left|l_\alpha\left({\partial}^n_qu(t)\right)\right|^2\pi_s \ , dq \ , dp \right ) dt \\ & \qquad \ \ \ + \frac{2\alpha}{{\varepsilon}_3}\left\| { \nabla}\widetilde{u}\right\|_{l^{\infty}}\int_{0}^t\mathrm{exp}(\zeta t ) \left(\int_{\mathcal{e}}\left|{\nabla}_p l_\alpha\left({\partial}^n_qu(t)\right)\right|^2\pi_s \ , dq \ , dp \right ) dt .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] therefore , the result is obtained when the same condition   on @xmath432 is satisfied .
note however that this condition depends on  @xmath125 , hence on  @xmath99 since @xmath125 has to be larger than some index  @xmath456 .
we define the ar perturbation function as @xmath457 this allows to write the generator @xmath458 of the ar - langevin dynamics   as a perturbation of the generator @xmath459 : @xmath460 for notational convenience we omit the subscript @xmath55 and simply write @xmath461 .
we also denote by @xmath462 the invariant measure associated with @xmath463 , and by @xmath464 the projection @xmath465 for a given observable @xmath118 , the asymptotic variance associated with the corresponding time averages reads , in view of  : @xmath466 where @xmath467 is the unique solution in @xmath129 ( @xmath125 being such that @xmath468 ) of the following poisson equation : @xmath469 similarly , the limiting variance for @xmath226 can be rewritten as @xmath470    in order to prove the convergence of   to   and to identify the linear term in  @xmath54 , the idea is to expand @xmath462 and @xmath471 in powers of @xmath54 . to this end , we rewrite the poisson equation   as @xmath472 the operator @xmath473 is not bounded ( since @xmath474 contains derivatives in  @xmath394 , which can not be controlled by  @xmath475 ) , so that it is not possible to write the inverse of @xmath476 as some neumann series .
it is however possible to consider a pseudo - inverse operator by truncating the neumann series at order  @xmath99 .
this motivates the introduction of the following approximation of the solution of  : @xmath477 the corresponding approximation of the variance reads @xmath478 the connection with the exact variance   is given by the following lemma , which is proved in section  [ proof of theorem truncated variance ] .
we introduce a critical value @xmath479 such that assumption  [ hyp thm ] is satisfied for @xmath480 and @xmath481 ( see section  [ proof of lemma arps condition ] ) .
this allows to resort to lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] .
proposition  [ proposition variance perturbation ] now straightforwardly follows by combining lemma  [ theorem truncated variance ] and the following expansion in powers of  @xmath54 of the truncated variance ( whose proof can be read in section  [ proof of variance perturbation main theorem ] ) .
recall that the function @xmath155 ( with @xmath155 defined in  ) belongs to @xmath493)$ ] .
the next result shows that the same is true for @xmath494 with @xmath495 defined in  .
this is not obvious a priori since @xmath495 is only piecewise @xmath39 , with singularities on the first order derivative at  @xmath54 and  @xmath55 .
in fact , it can even be proved that @xmath496 and all its derivatives are small when @xmath54 is small .    for any @xmath45
, the function @xmath154 belongs to @xmath497)$ ] .
moreover , its derivatives have a compact support in @xmath498 $ ] .
finally , for any @xmath499 and @xmath500 , there exists a constant @xmath501 such that @xmath502 , \qquad \left\|f_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{(n ) } - f_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{(n)}\right\|_{l^{\infty}}{\leqslant}c_{n_0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}},\delta}{k_{\mathrm{min}}}. \label{eq : corollary ftheta minus f 1}\ ] ] [ lemma cinfty in p f ]    the function @xmath495 is defined piecewise on three intervals @xmath503 , @xmath504 and @xmath505 . in the interior of each interval ,
both @xmath155 and @xmath495 are @xmath39 , and so is therefore their composition . in addition
, @xmath154 is constant on @xmath505 , hence all derivatives vanish on this interval . to prove that @xmath154 is @xmath39 with derivatives of compact support , it therefore suffices to prove that all derivatives can be extended by continuity at the points @xmath54 and @xmath55 .
since @xmath155 is constant outside the interval @xmath506 $ ] , a simple computation shows that , for @xmath507 , @xmath508 it is therefore obvious to check the continuity at @xmath54 and @xmath55 since all derivatives of @xmath155 vanish at  0 and  @xmath55 , and @xmath509 while @xmath510 .
moreover , it is easy to check that @xmath511 , so that the estimate   already follows in the case @xmath382 since @xmath155 is lipschitz continuous . to obtain the same result for higher order derivatives
, we note that the @xmath99-th order derivative can be rewritten as @xmath512{\mathds{1}}_{\left[{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max}}}\right]}\right)\ , . \ ] ] therefore , @xmath513 is the sum of ( i ) @xmath514 , which is of order  @xmath54 in @xmath82 norm by the same argument as before since @xmath515 is lipschitz continuous ; and ( ii ) a remainder term of order  @xmath54 since @xmath516 is uniformly bounded ; while for any @xmath517 there exists @xmath518 such that @xmath519 , \qquad \left|\left(\frac{{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}{{k_{\mathrm{max}}}-{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}\right)^n-1\right|{\leqslant}r_{n,\delta } { k_{\mathrm{min}}}\,.\ ] ] this allows to obtain the desired result .    in view of the definition  - of @xmath520 , we can deduce the following estimates on @xmath521 and its derivatives , which allow in particular to control @xmath522 . to state the result , we introduce @xmath523    [ lemma ueps minus uzero intro ] for any @xmath45 , the function @xmath161 belongs to @xmath524 . for any @xmath525 and @xmath526
, the function @xmath527 has a compact support in @xmath528 .
moreover , for any @xmath529 and @xmath500 , there exists a constant @xmath530 such that @xmath531 , \quad \left\|{\partial}^{\alpha } u_{{k_{\mathrm{min } } } , { k_{\mathrm{max}}}}-{\partial}^{\alpha } u_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}\right\|_{l^{\infty}}{\leqslant}c_{n_0,\delta,{k_{\mathrm{max } } } } { k_{\mathrm{min}}}\ , .
\label{eq : ueps minus uzero intro}\ ] ] [ corollary ukmin cinfty ]    in order to obtain more precise statements about the behavior of the functions @xmath532 for small values of  @xmath54 , a natural idea would be to perform taylor expansions with respect to this parameter .
the difficulty is however that the derivatives with respect to @xmath54 of the shift function @xmath533 are not continuous in @xmath534 .
this prevents to write directly remainders of order  @xmath535 . before stating the precise result in lemma  [ lemma dkimkim conv ]
, we need another technical ingredient .
[ lemma kminkmax tau ] fix @xmath536 and define @xmath537 .
then , for any @xmath525 and @xmath500 , there exists @xmath538 such that @xmath539 , \qquad \left\|\frac{f_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{(n ) } \circ \theta_{{k_{\mathrm{min } } } } - f_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{(n ) }   } { { k_{\mathrm{min}}}}-f_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{(n+1 ) } \circ \tilde{\tau}\right\|_{l^{\infty}}{\leqslant}c_{n,\delta } \ , { k_{\mathrm{min}}}\,.\ ] ]    note that , formally , @xmath540 is the derivative of @xmath495 on @xmath541 $ ] with respect to  @xmath54 , evaluated at @xmath226 .
recall also @xmath542 .
simple computations show that there exists @xmath543 such that @xmath544 since @xmath545 , there exists @xmath546 $ ] such that @xmath547 therefore , for @xmath548 $ ] , @xmath549\right ) }    + c_\delta \left\| f^{(n+1)}_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}\right\|_{l^{\infty}\left(\left[0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}\right]\right ) } \right){k_{\mathrm{min } } } , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have used the following equality : there exists @xmath550 $ ] such that @xmath551 together with the bound @xmath552 .
. there exist functions @xmath554 ( for @xmath555 ) , with compact support in @xmath528 , such that , for @xmath556 and @xmath103 , there is @xmath557 such that @xmath558,\quad\left\|d_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},i}-{k_{\mathrm{min}}}\mathscr{d}_i\right\|_{w^{r,\infty}}{\leqslant}c_{r,\delta } { k_{\mathrm{min}}}^{2}. \label{eq : dkimkim esti kmin2}\ ] ] [ lemma dkimkim conv ]    recall that the functions @xmath559 are defined , for @xmath560 , as @xmath561 \frac{p_i}{m_i}\\ & \qquad + \frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i } \left[f^{\prime}_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}\left(\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\right)-f_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{\prime}\left(\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\right)\right]\frac{p_i}{m_i}\ , .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] we next define , for @xmath555 , the function @xmath562\tilde{\tau}\left(\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\right)\frac{p_i}{m_i } ,   & \qquad \mathrm{for } \
\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\in \left[0 , { k_{\mathrm{max}}}\right ] , \\ 0 , & \qquad \mathrm{for } \
\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i } { \geqslant}{k_{\mathrm{max } } } , \end{aligned } \right.\ ] ] where @xmath540 is defined in lemma  [ lemma kminkmax tau ] .
recall that @xmath563 and @xmath515 have compact support on @xmath498 $ ] for @xmath119 .
therefore , @xmath564 also has compact support in @xmath528 .
the case @xmath565 of follows directly from lemma  [ lemma kminkmax tau ] with @xmath382 and @xmath323 .
let us now consider the case @xmath566 more carefully . to simplify the presentation ,
we consider separately the two terms in the sums defining the functions @xmath567 and @xmath568 , _ i.e. _ @xmath569 and @xmath570 with @xmath571 \frac{p_i}{m_i},\ ] ] and @xmath572 , \\ 0 , & \qquad \mathrm{for } \ \frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i } { \geqslant}{k_{\mathrm{max}}}. \end{aligned } \right.\ ] ] we present the estimates only for the difference @xmath573 since similar computations allows to control the difference @xmath574 . for @xmath575 ,
we denote by @xmath576 the @xmath577th component of the momentum of the @xmath578th particle and by @xmath579 and @xmath580 the @xmath581th components of @xmath582 and @xmath583 .
then , for @xmath584 , @xmath585\frac{{\displaystyle}\theta_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}^{\prime}\left(\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\right)-1}{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}\right| \\ & \quad + \frac{|p_{i,\alpha}p_{i,\alpha'}|}{m_i^2}\left|f_{0,{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}^{\prime}\left(\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\right)\left[\frac{{\displaystyle}\theta_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}^{\prime}\left(\frac{\left|p_i\right|^2}{2m_i}\right)-1}{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}-\frac{1}{{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}\right ] \right| , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where we used @xmath586 for @xmath587 $ ]
. the first two terms in the last inequality can be bounded by @xmath588 for some constant @xmath589 in view of lemma  [ lemma kminkmax tau ] . for the last two terms ,
distinguish the cases @xmath590 and @xmath591 , where for @xmath592 we define @xmath593 when @xmath590 , the third term disappears since @xmath594 on @xmath595 $ ] .
in addition , @xmath596 so that @xmath597\right)}\right){k_{\mathrm{min}}}\ , .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] when @xmath598 , we use @xmath599 for @xmath600 $ ] , so that there exists @xmath601 such that @xmath602}\left |\frac{\theta_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}^{\prime}(x)-1}{{k_{\mathrm{min } } } } - \frac{1}{{k_{\mathrm{max } } } } \right|{\leqslant}c_{\delta } { k_{\mathrm{min } } } , \quad \sup_{x\in \left[{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max}}}\right]}\left|\theta_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}^{\prime}(x)-1\right|{\leqslant}\frac{1}{{k_{\mathrm{max}}}-{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}{\leqslant}\frac{1}{\delta}\ , . \label{du theta minus x minus tau kminkmax}\ ] ] using these bounds as well as the inequality @xmath542 and   for @xmath323 , it follows @xmath603 this concludes the proof of   for @xmath566 .
[ lemma admukim new ] fix @xmath536
. then for any @xmath608 , there exist @xmath609 such that , for @xmath610 , @xmath611 , \qquad \int_{\mathbb{r}^d } f\left(p\right)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta u_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}(p)}dp=\int_{\mathbb{r}^d } f\left(p\right)\mathrm{e}^{-\beta u_{0}(p)}dp+ a_f { k_{\mathrm{min}}}+{\mathrm}{o}\left({k_{\mathrm{min}}}^2\right)\ , .
\label{eq : admukim new}\ ] ]    recall that @xmath612 .
note that @xmath613\,.\ ] ] manipulations similar to the ones used to prove   allow to show that there exists a function @xmath614 with compact support in @xmath528 such that , for @xmath610 and @xmath356 , there is @xmath557 for which @xmath558 , \quad \left\|u_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}}}-u_0-{k_{\mathrm{min}}}\mathcal{u}\right\|_{w^{r,\infty } } { \leqslant}c_{r,\delta } { k_{\mathrm{min}}}^2\ , .
\label{eq : ukmin minus
u w r infty}\ ] ] this allows to write @xmath615 with @xmath616 uniformly bounded in @xmath617 .
moreover since @xmath618 also has a compact support , we easily obtain @xmath619 with @xmath620 uniformly bounded in @xmath617 .
therefore , there exists a constant @xmath621 such that @xmath622 so that   follows with @xmath623 .      in order to use lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] , we need to check that assumption  [ hyp thm ] holds with @xmath432 as small as wanted for appropriate values of @xmath605 .
the first condition   is easy to check , so we concentrate on the last two conditions .
the reference kinetic energy function @xmath624 in lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] is chosen as the standard kinetic energy @xmath625 , so that @xmath626 .
it therefore remains to check the last condition .
an inspection of the proof of lemma  [ main theorem kopec ] reveals that it holds provided @xmath605 are such that   holds .
straightforward computations show that @xmath627 - \frac{p_i |p_i|^2}{m^2_i } f'_{{k_{\mathrm{min}}},{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}\left(\frac{p_i^2}{m_i}\right),\ ] ] so that , using the fact that @xmath628 has compact support in @xmath528 ( hence @xmath629 ) and in view of the expression   of @xmath630 , the following bound holds : @xmath631 similarly , there exists a constant @xmath365 ( depending on @xmath632 and @xmath633 ) such that @xmath634 .
\ ] ] it is then easy to see that   holds upon choosing @xmath635 with @xmath536 sufficiently small .
denote by @xmath367 the operator  @xmath636 . by corollary  [ lemma ueps minus uzero intro ]
, for any @xmath525 and @xmath491 , there exists a constant @xmath637 such that @xmath638 by the resolvent estimate  , there exists for any @xmath639 a constant @xmath640 such that @xmath641 therefore , choosing an integer @xmath125 for which @xmath642 , there exists a constant @xmath126 such that @xmath643 by the same principle , using the fact that , by  , there is for any @xmath644 a constant @xmath645 such that @xmath646 and in view of  , there exists , for any @xmath647 , integers @xmath648 and @xmath649 such that , for all @xmath650 , there is a constant @xmath126 and an integer @xmath356 for which @xmath651 by recurrence , there exist , for any @xmath507 , integers @xmath652 such that , for all @xmath361 , there is @xmath653 and @xmath654 for which @xmath655 this gives the claimed result .
we start by writing the difference between the variance   and the truncated one  : @xmath656 a simple computation gives @xmath657 we first use lemma  [ corollary : estimate lopd n ] : there exists @xmath658 such that , for @xmath361 , there is @xmath659 and @xmath126 such that @xmath660 therefore , using   and  , there exists some constant @xmath637 such that @xmath661 we finally apply @xmath662 to both sides of  : in view of  , it follows @xmath663 the result is then a direct consequence of the equality  .
we first expand @xmath665 in terms of @xmath666 as @xmath667 estimates on @xmath666 and its derivatives in terms of  @xmath188 can be obtained with  .
lemma  [ corollary : estimate lopd
n ] then allows to estimate the higher order terms in the above equality : there exists @xmath668 and @xmath365 such that @xmath669 by combining these estimates with , we obtain @xmath670 where @xmath671 is uniformly bounded in @xmath672 due to for @xmath54 small enough ( upon possibly increasing  @xmath125 ) .    with the notation of lemma  [ lemma
admukim new ] , for any @xmath608 , @xmath673 with @xmath674 uniformly bounded for @xmath54 small enough .
finally , by combining   and  , we see that there exists @xmath490 such that @xmath675    stephane redon and zofia trstanova gratefully acknowledge funding from the european research council through the erc starting grant n. 307629 .
this work was funded by the agence nationale de la recherche , under grant anr-14-ce23 - 0012 ( cosmos ) . gabriel stoltz benefited from the scientific environment of the laboratoire international associ between the centre national de la recherche scientifique and the university of illinois at urbana - champaign .
, , , , , , , , adaptive torsion - angle quasi - statics : a general simulation method with applications to protein structure analysis and design .
bioinformatics * 23*(13 ) ( 2007 ) .