Abstract
For diffusive many-particle systems such as the SSEP (symmetric simple exclusion process) or independent particles coupled with reservoirs at the boundaries, we analyze the density fluctuations conditioned on the current integrated over a large time. We determine the conditioned large deviation function of the density by a microscopic calculation. We then show that it can be expressed in terms of the solutions of Hamilton–Jacobi equations, which can be written for general diffusive systems using a fluctuating hydrodynamics description.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
In recent years, there has been a growing interest [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9] in characterizing trajectories conditioned on rare events. Such questions appear in a wide range of topics, including protein folding [10], chemical reactions [11, 12], stochastic models of gene expression [13], atmospheric activities [14], glassy systems [15, 16], disordered media [17]. One motivation is to find efficient algorithms where the rare events become typical such that they are computationally easy to generate [2, 11, 18,19,20,21]. To calculate the probability of rare events one needs to understand how these rare events are created and how they relax. In these activities, a major interest concerns conditioning on an atypical value of an empirical observable, such as the integrated current, the empirical density, the entropy production, or the activity [22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. How do the fluctuations get affected by such conditioning, and what is the effective dynamics in this conditioned ensemble? These are questions we address in this present work.
For Markov processes, in particular, for systems with few degrees of freedom and evolving according to a Langevin equation, it is known [1, 8, 15, 16, 23, 29,30,31,32,33] how to describe the conditioned dynamics when the time window for the empirical observable is large. In this paper, we see how the same ideas [29] can be extended to systems with many degrees of freedom.
We work here in the steady state of a one-dimensional diffusive system of length L coupled with reservoirs at the boundary, as shown in Fig. 1. Under a diffusive re-scaling of space i and time \(\tau \), defining \(\left( \frac{i}{L},\frac{\tau }{L^2}\right) \equiv (x,t)\) for large L, these systems are described [34,35,36,37,38,39] by a hydrodynamic density \(\rho (x,t)\) and current j(x, t) whose time evolution is governed by a fluctuating hydrodynamics equation
where \(D(\rho )\) is the diffusivity and \(\eta (x,t)\) is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean and covariance
where \(\sigma (\rho )\) is the mobility. The density \(\rho (x,t)\) could be the density of particles or of energy depending on the system. The microscopic details of the system are embedded in the functions \(D(\rho )\) and \(\sigma (\rho )\). The pre-factor \(\frac{1}{L}\) in the covariance of \(\eta (x,t)\) is due to coarsegraining, which makes the noise strength weak for large L [34, 36, 39, 40].
Our interest is in the statistics of the steady state density \(\rho (x)\) when conditioned on the integrated current \(Q_T\) over a time interval [0, T], for large T. Individual statistics of \(\rho (x)\) and \(Q_T\) have already been studied [36, 40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. For the conserved dynamics (1), when the density is bounded inside the bulk, the probability \(P(Q_T)\) of \(Q_T\) for large T has a large deviation description and the large deviation function is independent of where the current is measured [42, 43, 49]. On the other hand, in the steady state, the probability of \(\rho (x)\) has also a large deviation form when the system size L is large [36, 40, 41, 44]. These two probabilities are given by
for T and L both being large, where \({\varPhi }(q)\) and \({\mathcal {F}}[\rho (x)]\) are the corresponding large deviation functions. Here, the precise meaning of the symbol \(\sim \) is that \(\lim _{L\rightarrow \infty }\lim _{T\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\log P(Q_T=qT)}{L\; T}=-{\varPhi }(q)\) and \(\lim _{L\rightarrow \infty }\frac{\log P[\rho (x)]}{L}=-{\mathcal {F}}[\rho (x)]\).
In contrast to (2), the conditioned probability of \(\rho (x,t)\) depends (as we will see in regions I, II, III, IV, and V of Fig. 2) on where \(Q_T\) is measured. Therefore, we define an empirical observable
Here, \(\alpha (x)\) is arbitrary except for the normalizationFootnote 1 in (3). A choice of \(\alpha (x)=\delta (x-x_0)\) corresponds to the current being measured at \(x_0\).
We denote by \({\mathcal {P}}_t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x)\vert Q]\) the conditioned probability of a density profile \(\rho (x)\) at time t given that \(Q_T^{(\alpha )}\) takes value Q while the system is in its steady state. For large T and L, it has the large deviation form
where \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) is the conditioned large deviation function.
Our goal is to determine this conditioned large deviation function \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\). For the diffusive systems studied in this paper, cross-correlations of the density and the current can be derived from \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\). This way, the function plays the role of free energy [36] in an ensemble where q is fixed. Large deviation functions are also important in understanding non-equilibrium phase transitions in theoretical models [27, 43, 47, 49,50,51] and in experiments [52].
In this paper, we will give \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) at \(t=0\), in the intermediate quasi-stationary state (\(t\gg 1\) and \(T-t\gg 1\)), and at \(t=T\) (indicated in Fig. 2) for diffusing independent particles and for the symmetric simple exclusion process [36]. Our results for the latter are in a perturbation expansion in small density. A hydrodynamic description of these two examples is given by (1) with \(D(\rho )=1\) and \(\sigma (\rho )=2\rho \) for the diffusing independent particles, and \(D(\rho )=1\) and \(\sigma (\rho )=2\rho (1-\rho )\) for the symmetric simple exclusion process.
We shall start by a microscopic calculation on these models where we determine the conditioned probability in terms of the left and right eigenvectors associated to the largest eigenvalue of a tilted matrix [29]. Then, taking a hydrodynamic limit of the conditioned probability we derive \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\). For example, in the quasi-stationary state (regime III in Fig. 2), we will see that
up to an additive constant (subscript “qs” denotes “quasi-stationary”), where \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\alpha )}\) are related [29] to the left and right eigenvectors of a tilted matrix (see Sect. 2.5 for a precise definition). We will see later that these two functions \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) have in fact the following physical interpretation in terms of the large deviation function defined in (4).
up to an additive constant, where \({\mathcal {F}}[\rho (x)]\) is the unconditioned large deviation function of the density, as defined in (2).
We shall show (see (28)) that \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\alpha )}\) have a simple dependence on \(\alpha (x)\), which cancels in the expression (5) for \(\psi _\text {qs}[\rho (x), q]\). In other regions of Fig. 2, e.g. at \(t=0\) and \(t=T\), \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) does depend on \(\alpha (x)\).
In addition, we shall see that the conditioned dynamics for large T, can be effectively described by a fluctuating hydrodynamics equation with an additional driving field, which can be expressed in terms of \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\alpha )}\). For example, in the quasi-stationary regime, the path \(\rho (x,t)\) leading to a fluctuation at \(t_0\) with \(1\ll t_0\) and \(1\ll T-t_0\) (illustrated in Fig. 3), follows, for \(t< t_0\),
with \(\eta (x,t)\) being a Gaussian white noise of zero mean and covariance (1b). Similarly, the path \(\rho (x,t)\) for subsequent relaxation (\(t\ge t_0\)) follows
Comparing (7b) with (1a) one can see that, in the quasi-stationary regime, the effect of conditioning on (3) is a driving field \(E={\varPhi }'(q)\, \alpha (x)-\partial _x \frac{\delta \psi ^{(\alpha )}_\text {left}}{\delta \rho (x,t)}\). Similarly, for (7a) the driving field is \(E+\partial _x \frac{\delta \psi _{\text{ q }s}}{\delta \rho (x,t)}\), as seen from (5). In absence of conditioning, (7a) reduces to the effective dynamics found in [53].
These equations (7), including the noise, are expected to hold in the whole quasi-stationary regime. That in this regime the noise part is of the form given in (7) is not surprising. Afterall, the microscopic dynamics is a Markov process and it is known that the dynamics in the conditioned ensemble is also a Markov process [1, 8, 23, 29].
In the later part of this paper, we shall show that these results are consistent with a macroscopic approach starting from (1) for a rather general \(D(\rho )\) and \(\sigma (\rho )\). In this approach, \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\alpha )}\) are solution of the Hamilton–Jacobi equations
One should note that all our results for the conditioned process are in the large T limit.
We present this paper in the following order. In Sect. 2, we discuss the microscopic framework for analyzing the conditioned probability in a general lattice gas model and introduce conditioned large deviation function in the hydrodynamic limit. Our calculation is in a weighted ensemble, which is known [1, 8, 23, 29,30,31] to be equivalent to the conditioned process in the large T limit (through an equivalence of ensembles). We use this procedure to derive \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) for the diffusing independent particles in Sect. 3, and for the symmetric simple exclusion process in Sect. 4. Using this microscopic approach we describe the conditioned dynamics in Sect. 5. In Sects. 6 and 7, we show how our expressions of the large deviation function \(\psi _t^{(\alpha )}[\rho (x), q]\) fit with the Hamilton–Jacobi equations derived from a macroscopic approach starting from the fluctuating hydrodynamics description (1).
2 Microscopic Analysis Using the Tilted Matrix
Let us first recall a few earlier results [1, 8, 16, 23, 29,30,31,32, 54] for a Markov process conditioned on an empirical measure by writing them for the two examples: (a) diffusing independent particles and (b) the symmetric simple exclusion process. These are defined on a finite one-dimensional lattice of L sites where particles jump between neighboring sites following a continuous time \(\tau \) update rule (see Figs. 4 and 5). The jump rates at the boundary correspond to coupling to reservoirs of density \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\) [36]. In both examples, a configuration is specified by the set of occupation variables \({\mathbf {n}}\equiv \{n_1,\ldots ,n_L\}\).
The microscopic analogue of the empirical observable (3) is
where \(\varvec{\lambda }\equiv \{\lambda _0,\ldots ,\lambda _L\}\) with \(\lambda _i\) being real valued parameters. A jump from site \(i+1\) to i is counted as a jump from site i to \(i+1\) with a negative sign. (Here, \(i=0\) denotes the left reservoir and \(i=L+1\) denotes the right reservoir.) Similar to the condition in (3) we consider
2.1 Tilted Matrix
Instead of conditioning on the value of \({\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}\), it is more convenient [1, 8, 29,30,31, 54] to work in the ensemble where events are weighted by a factor \(e^{\kappa {{\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}}}\). By analogy [1, 8, 23, 29, 31, 33, 55] with equilibrium thermodynamics, we shall refer to this ensemble as the canonical ensemble and the ensemble where \({\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}\) is fixed as the micro-canonical ensemble. For large N, these two ensembles are equivalent (see Sect. 2.3).
In the canonical ensemble, we need to introduce the following tilted matrix [29]
where \({\mathcal {M}}_0({\mathbf {n}}',{\mathbf {n}})\) is the transition rate from configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\) to \({\mathbf {n}}'\) in the original (without condition) dynamics and for this transition,
The scaled cumulant generating function of \({\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}\), defined by
is the largest eigenvalue of \({\mathcal {M}}_\kappa ^{(\varvec{\lambda })}\) [29] such that
where \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}\) and \({\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}\) are the associated right and left eigenvectors, respectively.
At times of our interest, namely \(\tau =0\), \(\tau =N\), and in the quasi-stationary regime, the probability \(P_\tau ^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})\) of a configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\) in the canonical ensemble can be expressed (see [8, 29, 56]) in terms of these eigenvectors up to normalization constants.
-
At time \(\tau =0\),
$$\begin{aligned} P_0^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})={\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})\;{\mathcal {R}}^{(0,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}}) \end{aligned}$$(14a) -
at time \(\tau =N\),
$$\begin{aligned} P_N^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})={\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}}) \end{aligned}$$(14b) -
and in the quasi-stationary regime, i.e.\(1\ll \tau \) with \(1\ll N-\tau \),
$$\begin{aligned} P_\text {qs}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})={\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})\,{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}}). \end{aligned}$$(14c)
2.2 Dependence on \(\lambda \)
In our examples, the number of particles is conserved inside the bulk of the system, which means
for all \(1\le i\le L\) and equivalently
This conservation of particles leads to a symmetry of the tilted matrix and its eigenvectors. To see this, we use the above relation in (11). Here, using \(\sum _{i=1}^{L}\lambda _i\sum _{j=1}^{i} n_j=\sum _{i=1}^{L} n_i\sum _{j\ge i}^{L}\lambda _j\) and the normalization (10) we get
where \({\mathcal {M}}_{\kappa }\) is the tilted matrix for the case where \(\lambda _0=1\) and \(\lambda _i=0\) for rest of the sites. Denoting the eigenvectors of \({\mathcal {M}}_{\kappa }\) as \(({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )},\,{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )})\), we get
Moreover, the eigenvalue \(\mu (\kappa )\) is same in the two cases, which shows that it is independent of \(\lambda \).
This gives the \({{\varvec{\lambda }}}\)-dependence of the probabilities (14). For example, using (15) in (14c) we see that in the quasi-stationary regime, the probability \(P_\text {qs}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}\) is independent \(\varvec{\lambda }\) (given the normalization in (10)),
2.3 An Equivalence of Ensembles: Canonical Versus Micro-canonical
For large time N, there is [1, 8, 23, 29,30,31] an equivalence between the canonical ensemble and the micro-canonical ensemble, where \({\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}\) is fixed. In this equivalence, the conditioned probability \({\mathcal {P}}_\tau ^{(\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}}\vert {\mathcal {Q}})\) of a configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\) at time \(\tau \) given \({\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}={\mathcal {Q}}\) is related to the probability \(P_\tau ^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}})\) in the canonical ensemble by
where \(\phi (v)\) is the Legendre transform of the eigenvalue \(\mu (\kappa )\), defined by
This also means [36, 42, 43, 49] that the probability of \({\mathcal {Q}}_N^{(\varvec{\lambda })}\) has a large deviation form given by
In this work, our results for the micro-canonical ensemble are obtained from the canonical ensemble using the equivalence (17).
2.4 Hydrodynamic Limit
Our main interest is the probability in the hydrodynamic limit, which is defined in the scaled coordinates \((x,t)\equiv (\tfrac{i}{L},\tfrac{\tau }{L^2})\) for large L, with \(N=L^2T\) and \(\lambda _i=\frac{1}{L}\alpha (x)\) such that
with \(Q_T^{(\alpha )}\) given in (3). In this hydrodynamic limit,
and they are related (due to (18)) by
This scaling (20) is well known [42, 43, 48, 49] and this will be confirmed in our examples.
For the probability of occupation variables \({\mathbf {n}}\), taking a hydrodynamic limit means [36, 38, 57] coarse-graining the system over boxes of width w with \(1\ll w\ll L\), such that each box has a total density \(\rho (x)\) which varies smoothly on the hydrodynamic scale x. If \(P({\mathbf {n}})\) is the probability of a microscopic configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\), then the probability \(P[\rho (x)]\) of a hydrodynamic density profile \(\rho (x)\) is
where the summation is over all \({\mathbf {n}}\) that correspond to the profile \(\rho (x)\) (see for example Sect. 3).
The right eigenvector \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}\) has an interpretation of a probability (see (14b)) and therefore, its hydrodynamic limit is similarly defined by
In comparison, \({\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}\) by itself does not have an interpretation of a probability. Considering (14a, 14c), we define the hydrodynamic limit for the left eigenvector as
for each configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\) that corresponds to the profile \(\rho (x)\). (Note that in contrast to (23a) there is no summation over \({\mathbf {n}}\) in (23b).)
Using this construction of the hydrodynamic limit in (23), we see that the probability in (14) leads to the probability of density \(\rho (x)\), which
-
at \(t=0\) is given by
$$\begin{aligned} P_{t=0}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]\simeq \, \ell ^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]\;r^{(0,\alpha )}[\rho (x)], \end{aligned}$$(24a) -
at \(t=T\) is given by
$$\begin{aligned} P_{t=T}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]\simeq \, r^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)], \end{aligned}$$(24b) -
and in the quasi-stationary regime (\(1\ll t\) and \(1\ll T-t\)) is given by
$$\begin{aligned} P_\text {qs}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]\equiv P_\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}[\rho (x)]\simeq \, \ell ^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]\; r^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)], \end{aligned}$$(24c)up to normalization constants.
Remark
Note that to obtain both (24a) and (24c) we have replaced the sum \(\sum _{{\mathbf {n}}\in \rho (x)}{\mathcal {L}}({\mathbf {n}}){\mathcal {R}}({\mathbf {n}})\) by \(\ell [\rho (x)]\sum _{{\mathbf {n}}\in \rho (x)}{\mathcal {R}}({\mathbf {n}})\) for large L. We will see that this relation is satisfied for the two models that we consider in this paper. It is expected to remain valid for more general diffusive systems [58].
2.5 Large Deviation Function
In our examples we shall see that the hydrodynamic limit of the eigenvectors have a large deviation form given by
Using them in (24) gives
with the large deviation function
-
at \(t=0\),
$$\begin{aligned} \psi _0^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]=\psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]+\psi _\text {right}^{(0,\alpha )}[\rho (x)] \end{aligned}$$(27a) -
at \(t=T\),
$$\begin{aligned} \psi _T^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]=\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)] \end{aligned}$$(27b) -
and in the quasi-stationary regime, i.e.\(t\gg 1\) and \(T-t\gg 1\),
$$\begin{aligned} \psi _t^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]\equiv \psi _{\text {qs}}^{(\kappa )}[\rho (x)]= \psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)]+\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho (x)] \end{aligned}$$(27c)
where all these equalities are up to an additive constant (independent of \(\rho (x)\)).
Remark
From (15) we see that the large deviation functions in (25) have a simple dependence on \(\alpha (x)\), given by
where \(V^{(\kappa )}_\text {right}[\rho (x)]\) and \(V^{(\kappa )}_\text {left}[\rho (x)]\) are the large deviation functions associated to \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}\) and \({\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}\) in (15) (following a definition similar to (23) and (25)).
3 Independent Particles
In this section, we analyze the simple case of a system of independent particles with transition rates defined in Fig. 4. Considering the symmetry (15) it is sufficient to analyze the case \(\lambda _0=1\), and \(\lambda _i=0\) for \(i\ge 1\). In the rest of our analysis, we shall consider this case, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
In this case the tilted matrix (11) is
where \({\varOmega }({\mathbf {n}})\) is the component of an arbitrary state vector \(\varvec{{\varOmega }}\) in the configuration space.
The eigenvalue equations (13) become
One can check that the right and left eigenvectors are of the form
where \((a_i, b_i)\) are positive numbers to be determined. With this ansatz the eigenvalue equations (29) lead to
with \(a_0=\rho _a\), \(a_{L+1}=\rho _b\), and \(b_0=1=b_{L+1}\). As the occupation variables \(n_i\) are arbitrary, for the equations to be satisfied, their coefficients must vanish. This leads to a set of coupled linear equations for \(a_i\) and \(b_i\), which can be easily solved, and we get, for \(1\le i\le L\),
with the largest eigenvalue
3.1 Hydrodynamic Limit
In the hydrodynamic limit, from (32) it is easy to confirm (20), which gives
For the hydrodynamic limit of the right eigenvector, defined in (23a), we decompose the system into \(M=L/w\) boxes each containing w sites and define
where the sum is over all configurations with \(\rho _m w\) particles in the m-th box. Then, using (30a) we get
where \(m_i\) denotes the site index of the i-th site of the mth box, and \(\delta _{i,j}\) is the Kronecker delta. Using an identity
and that \(a_{i}\) is slowly varying such that \(a_{i}\simeq a(\frac{m w}{L})\) when the site i is in the m-th box, and defining \(\rho _{m}= \rho (\frac{m w}{L})\) we get
Then, for \(1\ll w\ll L\), using the Stirling’s formula we get (following the definition (23a, 25a, 28a))
with
where we defined
and
For the left eigenvector, the hydrodynamic limit (23b) is simple to construct from (30b), which (following the definition (23b, 25b, 28b)) leads to \(\ell ^{(\kappa )}[\rho (x)]\sim e^{-L\,V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}[\rho (x)]}\) with
and
Remark
The \(\kappa =0\) corresponds to the case without a condition on the empirical observable. So, the steady state large deviation function of density \({\mathcal {F}}_\text {ni}[\rho (x)]=V_\text {right}^{(0)}[\rho (x)]\) is
3.2 Large Deviation Function
Expressions for \(\psi ^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}_\text {left}\) and \(\psi ^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}_\text {right}\) for an arbitrary \(\alpha (x)\) follow from (28). Using this result in (27) we get the large deviation function at three different times, all of which are of the form
with the average density profile
-
at \(t=0\),
$$\begin{aligned} {{\bar{\rho }}}_{0}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}(x)={\bar{\rho }}_\text {free}(x)\left[ (1-x)e^{-\kappa \int _0^{x}dy\alpha (y)}+\, x\,e^{\kappa \int _x^{1}dy \alpha (y)}\right] \end{aligned}$$(38a) -
at \(t=T\),
$$\begin{aligned} {{\bar{\rho }}}_{T}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}(x)=\rho _a(1-x)e^{\kappa \int _0^{x}dy\alpha (y)}+\rho _b\, x\,e^{-\kappa \int _x^{1}dy \alpha (y)} \end{aligned}$$(38b) -
and in the quasi-stationary regime,
$$\begin{aligned} {{\bar{\rho }}}_\text {qs}(x)={\bar{\rho }}_\text {free}(x)+x(1-x)\left[ \rho _a\left( e^{\kappa }-1 \right) +\rho _b\left( e^{-\kappa }-1 \right) \right] \end{aligned}$$(38c)
4 Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process
In this section, we analyze the one-dimensional symmetric simple exclusion process with the transition rates defined in Fig. 5. We indicate how to perform a low-density expansion. Our results will be limited to the first two terms in this expansion, although it is straightforward to extend our approach to higher orders. Considering the symmetry (15) we will analyze only the case \(\lambda _0=1\), and \(\lambda _i=0\) for \(i\ge 1\).
4.1 A Representation of the Eigenvectors
A configuration can be specified by the position of the particles. In a configuration with m occupied sites \(\{i_1,\ldots ,i_m\}\) we denote the component of the eigenvectors as
We normalize such that the component of both eigenvectors in the empty configuration is 1.
4.2 A perturbation Solution for Small Density
For finite L, the Perron-Frobenius theorem [59] assures that the largest eigenvalue of the tilted matrix is non-degenerate. Expressions of the eigenvalue and eigenvectors exist [60, 61], but it is hard to extract from them the large scale behaviors. Here, we use a perturbation expansion in small \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), where it is possible to systematically solve the eigenvalue equation order by order. We write
with increasing orders in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\).
For \(\rho _a=\rho _b=0\), all \({\mathcal {R}}_n^{(\kappa )}=0\) except for the empty configuration and one has \(\mu _0(\kappa )=0\). Considering that the injection rates of particles into the system are of order one in density whereas the extraction rates are of order zero, it is also clear that at order n in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), the \({\mathcal {R}}_n^{(\kappa )}\) of configurations with more than n occupied sites vanish. (This is evident in the block-diagonal structure of the tilted matrix given in Appendix A.) Therefore,
and so on. Here we present the solution up to only the second order.
The equations one needs to solve up to the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\) are given in the Appendix A. Since at this order \({\mathcal {R}}_2^{(\kappa )}\) of configurations with 3 or more occupied sites vanish, the hierarchy closes. For arbitrary L, we get the solution
in agreement with an earlier result [56]. The right eigenvector, up to the second order, is given by
As the probabilities (14) are always a product of a left and a right eigenvector, we will only need the following orders for the left eigenvector.
Remarks
-
For the symmetric simple exclusion process, the eigenvalue equation can be systematically solved to arbitrary order. The “miracle” which makes an explicit solution possible in practice is that at every order, the eigenvectors are low degree polynomials of the site indices i. This is special to the exclusion process, and may not apply to other diffusive systems.
-
At the first order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), the expressions of eigenvalue and eigenvectors coincide with that of the independent particles case in Sect. 3.
4.3 Cumulants of the Occupation Variable
One can then derive the cumulants of the occupation variables from the probability (14). For example, at time \(\tau =N\), using (14b) and the representation (39) we get
where the normalization \({\mathcal {N}}=1+\sum _i{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i)+\sum _i\sum _{j\ne i}{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)+\cdots \).
Using this with the perturbation solution of the eigenvectors we can construct a perturbation expansion of the cumulants for the low density limit. For example, at the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), the average occupation of a site i at time \(\tau =N\) is
and the connected correlation
For time \(\tau =0\) and for the quasi-stationary state (see (14)) we can similarly write the average occupations and their correlations by replacing \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}\) by \({\mathcal {R}}^{(0)}{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}\) or \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}\) in (44).
4.4 Hydrodynamic Limit
It is straightforward to take the hydrodynamic limit of the expressions (42) and (43), which can be used to derive the hydrodynamic limit of the cumulants of the occupation variables. For large L, we define
and
Similarly, from (42) we define
and
Remark
In taking the hydrodynamic limit of the perturbation expansion we have assumed that the limits of large L and small density can be exchanged. We will see that the resulting large deviation functions are consistent with the macroscopic analysis in Sect. 7.2.
4.4.1 Cumulants of Density
At time \(\tau =0\), in the quasi-stationary regime, and at \(\tau =L^2 T\) (the hydrodynamic time \(t=T\)) the cumulants of the occupation variables are of the form (see (44))
for large L, up to the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), where
-
at \(t=0\),
$$\begin{aligned} u(x)&=\ell ^{(\kappa )}(x)r^{(0)}(x) \end{aligned}$$(50a)$$\begin{aligned} c(x,y)&= \ell ^{(\kappa )}(x)\ell ^{(\kappa )}(y)g_\text {right}^{(0)}(x,y)+r^{(0)}(x)r^{(0)}(y)g_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}(x,y) \end{aligned}$$(50b) -
in the quasi-stationary state,
$$\begin{aligned} u(x)&=\ell ^{(\kappa )}(x)r^{(\kappa )}(x) \end{aligned}$$(51a)$$\begin{aligned} c(x,y)&= \ell ^{(\kappa )}(x)\ell ^{(\kappa )}(y)g_\text {right}^{(\kappa )}(x,y)+r^{(\kappa )}(x)r^{(\kappa )}(y)g_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}(x,y) \end{aligned}$$(51b) -
at \(t=T\),
$$\begin{aligned} u(x)=r^{(\kappa )}(x)\qquad \text {and}\qquad c(x,y)= g_\text {right}^{(\kappa )}(x,y) \end{aligned}$$(52)
Explicit expressions of the cumulants are given in Appendix B.
4.4.2 Large Deviation Function
Here, we show how to derive a small density expansion of the large deviation function in (26) from the above expansion of the cumulants of the density.
Take an arbitrary probability distribution \(P({\mathbf {n}})\) where the occupation variables are either 0 or 1. Then, one can write
where \(h_i\) are real valued parameters. If one expands this product, averages over \(P({\mathbf {n}})\), and uses the fact that cumulants of order k scale like \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\) to the power k, then one gets, for finite L,
In the hydrodynamic limit, when \(h_{i} \simeq h(\frac{i}{L})\), \(\left\langle n_{i} \right\rangle \simeq {\bar{\rho }}(\frac{i}{L})\), and \(\left\langle n_{i} n_{j} \right\rangle _c \simeq {1 \over L} c(\frac{i}{L},\frac{j}{L})\), we get for the generating functional
with
Then, \(P[\rho (x)]\) has [7, 36] the large deviation form (26) with the large deviation function \(\psi [\rho (x)]\) given by the Legendre transformation
where h(x) is the solution of \(\frac{\delta {\mathcal {G}}[h]}{\delta h(x)}=\rho (x)\).
The small density expansion of (53, 54) is then straightforward to get from the perturbation expansion of the cumulants. It gives
where up to the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\),
The expression (55) remains valid at all times with \({\bar{\rho }}(x)\) and c(x, y) being replaced by their expressions in Sect. 4.4.1. For the unconditioned case, where \({\bar{\rho }}(x)\) and c(x, y) are given by (49) for \(\kappa =0\), one can verify that this perturbation expansion result is consistent with previously known expressions [36, 40, 44].
4.4.3 Small Density Expansion of \(\chi (\kappa )\), \(V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}\) and \(V_\text {right}^{(\kappa )}\)
It is straightforward to take the hydrodynamic limit of (41), which confirms (20) at the level of a small density expansion with
This is in agreement with earlier findings in [42, 56].
For \(\lambda _0=1\) and \(\lambda _i=0\) for \(i\ge 1\), the large deviation functions \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\equiv V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\equiv V_\text {right}^{(\kappa )}\) (see (28)). An expression for \(V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}\) can be derived by taking the hydrodynamic limit (23b, 25b) of \({\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}\). For a configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\), where the occupation variables are either 0 or 1, we write
using the representation in (39). Then, from the perturbation expansion (40c, 43) and taking the hydrodynamic limit (23b, 25b) we get
where \(\ell ^{(\kappa )}(x)\) and \(g_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}(x,y)\) are defined in (45) and (46).
In comparison, it is harder to derive an expression for \(V_\text {right}^{(\kappa )}\) by taking the hydrodynamic limit of the expression (42) for \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}\). It is much easier to derive using the relation (27b) and the result (49, 55) at time T. This gives
up to the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), and an additive constant.
Remark
We have checked (details in Appendix C) that the result (57), and the expression of \(\psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}\) and \(\psi _T^{(\kappa )}\) obtained from (55) satisfy the relation (27c).
5 Effective Dynamics
In the canonical ensemble, the biased dynamics is Markovian and one can write [1, 5, 6, 8, 23, 29, 62] the transition rates in terms of the tilted Matrix. For example, in the quasi-stationary regime, the transition rate \(W_{\text {qs}}^{(\kappa ,\varvec{\lambda })}({\mathbf {n}}',{\mathbf {n}})\) from a microscopic configuration \({\mathbf {n}}\) to another configuration \({\mathbf {n}}'\) is given by [29]
This means, a spontaneous fluctuation at time \(\tau _0\) in the quasi-stationary regime (\(1\ll \tau _0\) and \(1 \ll N-\tau _0\)), relaxes following this dynamics (59a).
Similarly, the path leading to a spontaneous fluctuation can be described by a time reversal of (59a). The transition rate of this time-reversed process can be constructed [63] using the quasi-stationary distribution (14c), which gives
For the two examples considered in this paper (the independent particles and the symmetric simple exclusion process), it is straightforward to see that the effective dynamics (59a) with (11) correspond to re-weighting the jump rates of particles (see Figs. 4 and 5): the jump rate for a particle from site i to \(i+1\) is weighted by a factor \(e^{E_i}\), whereas the jump rate from \(i+1\) to i is weighted by \(e^{-E_i}\), where
with
Similar re-weighting of jump rates can be seen for the time reversed dynamics (59b). We note that, in general, the jump rates for the dynamics are non-local functions of the occupation variables \({\mathbf {n}}\).
5.1 Hydrodynamic Limit
In the large L limit, when \(x=\frac{i}{L}\) and \(\lambda _i=\frac{1}{L}\alpha (x)\), (60) becomes
In a hydrodynamic description (1), the effect of such a weak bias can be incorporated (see [64] for another example) within the linear response theory, where e(x) acts as an external driving field. This leads to the following dynamics.
Relaxation
A spontaneous fluctuation of hydrodynamic density in the quasi-stationary state relaxes following \(\partial _t\rho (x,t)=-\partial _x j(x,t)\) with
where \(\eta (x,t)\) is a Gaussian white noise of zero mean and covariance (1b).
A somewhat similar analysis based on (59b) leads to the following dynamics:
Fluctuation
The path leading to a fluctuation in the quasi-stationary state is described by \(\partial _t \rho (x,t)=-\partial _x j(x,t)\) with
Remarks
-
The time evolution of the most probable density profile leading to a fluctuation and its subsequent relaxation are the zero noise case of (62b) and (62a). We have verified this explicitly for the independent particles starting from their microscopic dynamics. For the symmetric simple exclusion process, we checked this up to the second order in a low density expansion.
-
The effective dynamics (7) in the micro-canonical ensemble are readily obtained from (62) using the ensemble equivalence (21).
6 Macroscopic Analysis
The two examples discussed in Sects. 3 to 5 are governed [36, 39, 42, 53], for large L, by the fluctuating hydrodynamics equation (1). Our goal here is to show that the large deviation functions (34, 35) and (57, 58) are consistent with a macroscopic approach. Besides this, the macroscopic analysis applies for a general class of models where the microscopic details enter in the terms \(D(\rho )\) and \(\sigma (\rho )\).
Much of the results can be inferred by drawing an analogy of (1) to a Langevin equation in the weak noise limit, as in [29]. In this analogy, a simple quantity is the generating function, which for (1) is defined by
where \(P^{(\alpha )}_T[r(x),Q\vert s(x)]\) is the joint probability of a density profile \(\rho (x,T)=r(x)\) at the hydrodynamic time \(t=T\), and \(Q_T^{(\alpha )}=Q\) in (3), given the density \(\rho (x,0)=s(x)\) at \(t=0\). Similarly to the Langevin equation [29], one expects, for large L and T, the generating function to have the form
where \(\chi (\kappa )\), \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {right}\), and \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {left}\) are the same quantities as in (20) and (25). Starting from (64) we now obtain a variational formulation as in [34,35,36, 40].
6.1 A Variational Formulation
For large L, the probability of a certain time evolution of \(\rho (x,t)\) and j(x, t) inside the time window [0, T], which follows (1) is given by [34, 36]
where \(\sim \) means that sub-leading terms in large L are neglected. Using this, the generating function (63) can be written as a path-integral
with
with \(t_i=0\) and \(t_f=T\). The path integral in (66a) is over all paths \(\{\rho (x,t),j(x,t)\}\) satisfying \(\partial _t\rho =-\partial _x j\) with the initial density profile \(\rho (x,0)=s(x)\) and the final density profile \(\rho (x,T)=r(x)\).
For large L and T, assuming a single optimal path, we get the large deviation form (64) with
where the optimization is over all paths \((\rho (x,t),j(x,t))\) satisfying the conditions mentioned earlier.
In a rather general class of systems [49], the optimal path for (67) starts at the given density profile \(\rho (x,0)=s(x)\) but soon becomes time independent \(\rho (x,t)={\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}(x)\) and remains at this density until only close to the final time T where it changes to \(\rho (x,T)=r(x)\). (This assumption for the time independence of the optimal profile for \(t\gg 1\) and \(T-t\gg 1\) is equivalent to assuming the additivity principle [42].) This is illustrated in the schematic in Fig. 6. In this paper, we shall only consider situations where this scenario holds. For examples where this breaksdown see [48, 65].
Remarks
-
1.
The probability (65) does not include the contribution of reservoirs. This applies to density profiles \(\rho (x)\) which are fixed at the boundary, i.e.\(\rho (0,t)=\rho _a\) and \(\rho (1,t)=\rho _b\). This is justified when the coupling with the reservoirs is strong, so that fluctuations of density at the boundary relax to the reservoir density in a time scale much faster than the hydrodynamic time scale.
-
2.
The formula (67) means
$$\begin{aligned} \chi (\kappa )=\lim _{T\rightarrow \infty }\frac{1}{T}\max _{\rho ,j} S_T^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho ,j] \end{aligned}$$(68)which leads to the well-known result [36, 42]
$$\begin{aligned} \chi (\kappa )=\max _{q}\left\{ \kappa \; q- {\varPhi }(q)\right\} ;\quad {\varPhi }(q)=\min _{{\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}}\int _0^1dx\frac{\left( q+D({\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs})\partial _x{\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}(x)\right) ^2}{2\sigma ({\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs})} \end{aligned}$$(69)which agrees [36, 42] with (33) and (56) for the independent particles and for the symmetric simple exclusion process.
6.2 Hamilton–Jacobi Equation
In (67), the deviation of the optimal path from \({\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}(x)\) near \(t=0\) and \(t=T\) (see Fig. 6) are important and they contribute to \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {right}\) and \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {left}\). Here, we show how this variational formula (67) leads to a pair of Hamilton–Jacobi equations for \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {right}\) and \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {left}\).
We start by deriving the equation for \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {left}\). For this, we use (see remark after Eq. (24))
for \(0< t< T\), which can be seen from the definition (63). We consider infinitesimal \(t>0\) but large T, such that \(T-t\) is large. This means, we can use (64) for \(G_{T-t}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[r(x), \rho (x)]\). On the other hand, using the Action formulation (66) we write, for an infinitesimal t,
where \(\rho (x)\simeq s(x)-t\, \partial _x j(x)\). Using this in (70) and a saddle point analysis for large L we get
Expanding \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {left}[s(x)-t\, \partial _x j(x)]\) in a Taylor series up to linear order in t, and then using an integration by parts, we get
For density profiles which are fixed at the boundary (see the remark 1 in Sect. 6.1), one can see from (28, 35, 57) that
for the two systems we study in this paper. Similar conditions occurred already in earlier works [34, 53]. Using this in (71) and optimizing over j(x) leads to
where we denote \(s'(x)\equiv \partial _xs(x)\).
A similar analysis (by considering small decrement around the time T) leads to an analogous equation for \(\psi ^{(\kappa , \alpha )}_\text {right}\) .
These two are the Hamilton–Jacobi equations associated to the variational problem (67). Their micro-canonical analogue (8) can be obtained by the ensemble equivalence (21).
6.3 Optimal Path
In (71) the optimal current
This means that the optimal path \(\rho _\text {opt}(x,t)\) near \(t=0\) follows
It is straightforward to extend the argument for \(t\ge 0\) but \(T-t\gg 1\) (region II of Fig. 2) and show that the dynamics is the same.
A similar analysis in the derivation of (73b) shows that the optimal path \(\rho _\text {opt}(x,t)\) in region IV of Fig. 2 is described by
In the quasi-stationary state (76) also describes the optimal path leading to a fluctuation and (75) describes the optimal path of relaxation (see illustration in Fig. 3).
6.4 Fixed point of the dynamics
Using (73) we show in Appendix D that along the optimal path (75),
with \(\psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}\) given in (27c). Since \(\sigma (\rho )\) is positive, this means \(\frac{d}{dt}\psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}[\rho _\text {opt}(x,t)]=0\) if and only if \(\partial _x\frac{\delta \psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}[\rho _\text {opt}(x,t)]}{\delta \rho _\text {opt}(x,t)}=0\). (The case \(\kappa =0\) has been discussed earlier in [53].)
The examples we consider here have a unique quasi-stationary density \({\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}\), where \(\frac{\delta \psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}}{\delta {{\bar{\rho }}}_\text {qs}(x)}=0\). Then (77) implies that \({\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}\) is an attractive fixed point of (75) (see Fig. 3).
For \({\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}\) the optimal current (74) is \(j_\text {opt}=\chi '(\kappa )\), which can be seen from (69). Then, we get
which leads to
A similar calculation for (76) lead to
These give conditions for the solution of (73). It is well-known [53, 66] that, there are multiple solutions of a Hamilton–Jacobi equation. For the two examples studied in this work, the relevant solution of (73) follows the boundary condition (78) and (see (72))
6.5 Conditioned Stochastic Dynamics
In Sect. 5 we have shown using a microscopic analysis that, in the quasi-stationary state, conditioned dynamics is given by a fluctuating hydrodynamics equation (62). Here, we give a derivation using the macroscopic approach.
In the quasi-stationary state, if \({\mathcal {P}}[\rho ,j\vert \rho _i]\) is the probability of a path \(\left\{ \rho (x,t),j(x,t)\right\} \) in a time window \([t_i,t_f]\) (for \(1\ll t_i<t_f\) and \(1\ll T-t_f\)) given an initial density \(\rho (x,t_i)=\rho _i(x)\), then using (63) and (66b) one can write
where we denote \(\rho (x,t_f)=\rho _f(x)\) and \(\rho (x,T)=\rho _T(x)\). Then, for large L, using (26) and (64) we get
This expression can be simplified by using
where the last equality is obtained by using \(\partial _t\rho =-\partial _x j\), integration by parts, and the boundary condition (79). In addition, we use (73a) to write
Using the above two results in (80) and following a simple algebra we get
with the Action
Comparing with (65) one can clearly see that the conditioned dynamics in the quasi-stationary state is given by a fluctuating hydrodynamics equation \(\partial _t\rho (x,t)=-\partial _x j(x,t)\) with j(x, t) in (62a). This describes, how a spontaneous fluctuation relaxes in the quasi-stationary state.
On the other hand, (62b) shows the path leading to a fluctuation. This is given by a time reversal of (62a), which can be constructed (for example see eq. 2.15 of [53]) by using that \(P_\text {qs}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho ]\) is the steady state of (62a). This gives a fluctuating hydrodynamics equation \(\partial _t\rho (x,t)=-\partial _x \left\{ j(x,t)+\sigma (\rho )\partial _x\frac{\delta \psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}}{\delta \rho (x,t)}\right\} \) with the j(x, t) in (62a). Then, using (27c) one gets (62b).
7 Solution in Specific Examples
Here, we show how to check that the results for \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) derived in Sects. 3 and 4 using a microscopic analysis, are indeed solution of the Hamilton–Jacobi equations (73).
7.1 Independent Particles
In this case, using (28b) and (33) in (73a) we get
Expression (35a) for \(V^{(\kappa )}_\text {left}\) gives
With this, the left hand side of (82) becomes
From the boundary condition \(\rho (0)=\rho _a\), \(\rho (1)=\rho _b\), and using (35b) we see that the above expression agrees with the right hand side of (82).
Moreover, one can check that the solution (28b, 35a) is consistent with the boundary condition (78, 79).
A similar calculation shows that \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa )}\) in (28a, 34a) is a solution of (73b) with the boundary condition (78, 79).
7.2 Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process
In this case, our solution for \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) in (28, 57, 58) are for small density. We have explicitly verified, up to the second order in density, that these are solutions of the Hamilton–Jacobi equations (73) and they satisfy the boundary condition (78, 79). The analysis is similar to that of the independent particles in Sect. 7.1. In fact, at the leading order in density, they are identical.
8 Summary
In the present work we have tried to determine the probability of the density (4) in a diffusive many-particle system conditioned on the time-integrated current (3) for large T. This is a generalization to extended systems of earlier works on conditioned stochastic processes [8, 16, 23, 29,30,31,32]. We mostly worked with the canonical ensemble where dynamics is weighted by the current (3). However, the equivalence of ensembles allows to make predictions for the conditioned process (see Sect. 2). We give explicit expressions for a system of independent particles (Sect. 3) and the symmetric simple exclusion process (Sect. 4).
In the hydrodynamic limit, the conditioned probability of the density \(\rho (x)\) is characterized by the large deviation function \(\psi _t^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho ]\) in (26). For the two systems considered in this paper, we have calculated \(\psi _t^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}[\rho ]\) at three different times of the evolution, namely, at \(t=0\), at \(t=T\), and in the quasi-stationary regime. These are, in general, related by (see (27))
with \({\mathcal {F}}\) defined in (2).
In the second half of the paper, we used a macroscopic approach, where \(\psi _t^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) is expressed (see (27)) in terms of \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\), which are solutions of a pair of Hamilton–Jacobi equations (73). These solutions also act as the potential for an additional field that drives the conditioned process (see (62) and Sect. 6.5). Using this macroscopic approach we verified the microscopic results for the two specific examples (see Sect. 7).
The macroscopic formulation is expected to work for a wide class of diffusive systems where the microscopic details enter in the two functions \(D(\rho )\) and \(\sigma (\rho )\) in (1). This is in the spirit of the macroscopic fluctuation theory [34]. It would be interesting to find more examples for explicit solutions of \(\psi _\text {left}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) and \(\psi _\text {right}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}\) using both the microscopic and the macroscopic approach. Because the SSEP conditioned on the current is known to be described by an XXX spin chain with additional boundary terms, one could try to relate our results to other choices of boundary densities and \(\kappa \) by a rotational symmetry [67, 68]. For systems on a ring, where the unconditioned state is in equilibrium, the calculation may be simpler. However, due to the periodic boundary condition, the optimal profile in the quasi-stationary state could become time dependent (see [48, 65, 69]), in contrast with the two examples studied in the present work.
In the unconditioned case (\(\kappa =0\)), the spatial correlations of density follow simple differential equations [39, 70], whose solutions can be formally expressed in terms of a Green’s function. It would be interesting to see if there are similar equations for the conditioned case, especially in the quasi-stationary state.
References
Jack, R.L., Sollich, P.: Large deviations and ensembles of trajectories in stochastic models. Prog. Theo. Phys. Suppl. 184, 304 (2010)
Majumdar, S.N., Orland, H.: Effective Langevin equations for constrained stochastic processes. J. Stat. Mech. 2015, P06039 (2015)
Hirschberg, O., Mukamel, D., Schütz, G.M.: Density profiles, dynamics, and condensation in the ZRP conditioned on an atypical current. J. Stat. Mech. 2015, P11023 (2015)
Schütz, G.M.: Duality Relations for the Periodic ASEP Conditioned on a Low Current. From Particle Systems to Partial Differential Equations III: Particle Systems and PDEs III, Braga, Portugal, December 2014. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2016)
Popkov, V., Schütz, G.M.: Transition probabilities and dynamic structure function in the ASEP conditioned on strong flux. J. Stat. Phys. 142, 627 (2011)
Popkov, V., Schütz, G.M., Simon, D.: ASEP on a ring conditioned on enhanced flux. J. Stat. Mech. 2010, P10007 (2010)
Touchette, H.: The large deviation approach to statistical mechanics. Phys. Rep. 478, 1 (2009)
Chetrite, R., Touchette, H.: Nonequilibrium Markov processes conditioned on large deviations. Ann. Henri Poincaré 16, 2005 (2015)
Maes, C.: The fluctuation theorem as a Gibbs property. J. Stat. Phys. 95, 367 (1999)
Mey, A.S.J.S., Geissler, P.L., Garrahan, J.P.: Rare-event trajectory ensemble analysis reveals metastable dynamical phases in lattice proteins. Phys. Rev. E 89, 032109 (2014)
Delarue, M., Koehl, P., Orland, H.: Ab initio sampling of transition paths by conditioned Langevin dynamics. J. Chem. Phys. 147, 152703 (2017)
Dykman, M.I., Mori, E., Ross, J., Hunt, P.M.: Large fluctuations and optimal paths in chemical kinetics. J. Chem. Phys. 100, 5735 (1994)
Horowitz, J.M., Kulkarni, R.V.: Stochastic gene expression conditioned on large deviations. Phys. Biol. 14, 03LT01 (2017)
Lauri, J., Bouchet, F.: Computation of rare transitions in the barotropic quasi-geostrophic equations. N. J. Phys 17, 015009 (2015)
Garrahan, J.P., Jack, R.L., Lecomte, V., Pitard, E., van Duijvendijk, K., van Wijland, F.: Dynamical first-order phase transition in kinetically constrained models of glasses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 195702 (2007)
Garrahan, J.P., Jack, R.L., Lecomte, V., Pitard, E., van Duijvendijk, K., van Wijland, F.: First-order dynamical phase transition in models of glasses: an approach based on ensembles of histories. J. Phys. A 42, 075007 (2009)
Dorlas, T.C., Wedagedera, J.R.: Large deviations and the random energy model. Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 15, 1 (2001)
Ray, U., Chan, G.K., Limmer, D.T.: Exact fluctuations of nonequilibrium steady states from approximate auxiliary dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 210602 (2018)
Giardinà, C., Kurchan, J., Peliti, L.: Direct evaluation of large-deviation functions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 120603 (2006)
Giardina, C., Kurchan, J., Lecomte, V., Tailleur, J.: Simulating rare events in dynamical processes. J. Stat. Phys. 145, 787 (2011)
Tailleur, J., Lecomte, V.: Simulation of large deviation functions using population dynamics. AIP Conf. Proc. 1091, 212 (2009)
Lebowitz, J.L., Spohn, H.: A Gallavotti–Cohen-Type symmetry in the large deviation functional for stochastic dynamics. J. Stat. Phys. 95, 333 (1999)
Touchette, H.: Introduction to dynamical large deviations of Markov processes. Physica A 504, 5–19 (2018)
Maes, C., Netocný, K.: Canonical structure of dynamical fluctuations in mesoscopic nonequilibrium steady states. EPL 82, 30003 (2008)
Maes, C., Netocnný, K., Wynants, B.: Steady state statistics of driven diffusions. Physica A 387, 2675 (2008)
Mehl, J., Speck, T., Seifert, U.: Large deviation function for entropy production in driven one-dimensional systems. Phys. Rev. E 78, 011123 (2008)
Speck, T., Engel, A., Seifert, U.: The large deviation function for entropy production: the optimal trajectory and the role of fluctuations. J. Stat. Mech. 2012, P12001 (2012)
Agranov, T., Krapivsky, P.L., Meerson, B.: Occupation time statistics of a gas of interacting diffusing particles. Phys. Rev. E 99, 052102 (2019)
Derrida, B., Sadhu, T.: Large deviations conditioned on large deviations I: Markov chain and Langevin equation. J. Stat. Phys. 176, 773 (2019)
Jack, R.L., Sollich, P.: Effective interactions and large deviations in stochastic processes. Euro. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 224, 2351 (2015)
Chetrite, R., Touchette, H.: Nonequilibrium microcanonical and canonical ensembles and their equivalence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 120601 (2013)
Lecomte, V., Appert-Rolland, C., van Wijland, F.: Thermodynamic formalism for systems with Markov dynamics. J. Stat. Phys. 127, 51 (2007)
Evans, R.M.L.: Rules for transition rates in nonequilibrium steady states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 150601 (2004)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: Macroscopic fluctuation theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 593 (2015)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: Towards a nonequilibrium thermodynamics: a self-contained macroscopic description of driven diffusive systems. J. Stat. Phys. 135, 857 (2009)
Derrida, B.: Non-equilibrium steady states: fluctuations and large deviations of the density and of the current. J. Stat. Mech. 2017, P07023 (2007)
Eyink, G., Lebowitz, J.L., Spohn, H.: Hydrodynamics of stationary nonequilibrium states for some stochastic lattice gas models. Commun. Math. Phys. 132, 253 (1990)
Spohn, H.: Large Scale Dynamics of Interacting Particles. Springer-Verlag, New York (1991)
Sadhu, T.: Derrida, B (2016) Correlations of the density and of the current in non-equilibrium diffusive systems. J. Stat. Mech. 11, 113202 (2016)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: Fluctuations in stationary nonequilibrium states of irreversible processes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 040601 (2001)
Tailleur, J., Kurchan, J., Lecomte, V.: Mapping out-of-equilibrium into equilibrium in one-dimensional transport models. J. Phys. A 41, 505001 (2008)
Bodineau, T., Derrida, B.: Current fluctuations in nonequilibrium diffusive systems: an additivity principle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 180601 (2004)
Bodineau, T., Derrida, B.: Distribution of current in nonequilibrium diffusive systems and phase transitions. Phys. Rev. E 72, 066110 (2005)
Derrida, B., Lebowitz, J.L., Speer, E.R.: Free energy functional for nonequilibrium systems: an exactly solvable case. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 150601 (2001)
Hurtado, P.I., Garrido, P.L.: Large fluctuations of the macroscopic current in diffusive systems: a numerical test of the additivity principle. Phys. Rev. E 81, 041102 (2010)
Hurtado, P.I., Espigares, C.P., del Pozo, J.J., Garrido, P.L.: Thermodynamics of currents in nonequilibrium diffusive systems: theory and simulation. J. Stat. Phys. 154, 214 (2014)
Bertini, L., Sole, A.D., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: Non equilibrium current fluctuations in stochastic lattice gases. J. Stat. Phys. 123, 237 (2006)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: Large deviations of the empirical current in interacting particle systems. Theory Probab. Appl. 51, 2 (2007)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: Current fluctuations in stochastic lattice gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 030601 (2005)
Nyawo, P.T., Touchette, H.: Large deviations of the current for driven periodic diffusions. Phys. Rev. E 94(3), 032101 (2016)
Hurtado, P.I., Garrido, P.L.: Spontaneous symmetry breaking at the fluctuating level. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 180601 (2011)
Kumar, N., Ramaswamy, S., Sood, A.K.: Symmetry properties of the large-deviation function of the velocity of a self-propelled polar particle. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 118001 (2011)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Landim, C.: Macroscopic fluctuation theory for stationary non-equilibrium states. J. Stat. Phys. 107, 635 (2002)
Chetrite, R., Touchette, H.: Variational and optimal control representations of conditioned and driven processes. J. Stat. Mech. 2015, P12001 (2015)
Evans, R.M.L.: Detailed balance has a counterpart in non-equilibrium steady states. J. Phys. A 38, 293 (2004)
Derrida, B., Douçot, B., Roche, P.E.: Current fluctuations in the one-dimensional symmetric exclusion process with open boundaries. J. Stat. Phys. 115, 717 (2004)
Kipnis, C., Landim, C.: Scaling Limits of Interacting Particle Systems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1999)
Bodineau, T.: Private communication
van Kampen, N.G.: Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2007)
Lazarescu, A.: The physicist’s companion to current fluctuations: one-dimensional bulk-driven lattice gases. J. Phys. A 48, 503001 (2015)
Vanicat, M.: An integrabilist approach of out-of-equilibrium statistical physics models, Ph.D. thesis Université Grenoble Alpes HAL Id: tel-01688587 (2018). https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01688587
Simon, D.: Construction of a coordinate Bethe ansatz for the asymmetric simple exclusion process with open boundaries. J. Stat. Mech. 2009, P07017 (2009)
Stroock, D.W.: An Introduction to Markov Processes. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 230. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)
Bodineau, T., Derrida, B., Lebowitz, J.: A diffusive system driven by a battery or by a smoothly varying field. J. Stat. Phys. 140, 648 (2010)
Bodineau, T., Derrida, B.: Work, dissipation, and fluctuations in nonequilibrium physics cumulants and large deviations of the current through non-equilibrium steady states. C. R. Physique 8, 540 (2007)
Goldstein, H., Poole, C., Safko, J.: Classical Mechanics, 3rd edn. Addison Wesley, New York (2000)
Lecomte, V., Imparato, A., van Wijland, F.: Current fluctuations in systems with diffusive dynamics, in and out of equilibrium. Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 184, 276 (2010). (Preprint arXiv:0911.0564v1)
Derrida, B., Gerschenfeld, A.: Current fluctuations in one dimensional diffusive systems with a step initial density profile. J. Stat. Phys. 137, 978 (2009)
Tizón-Escamilla, N., Lecomte, V., Bertin, E.: Effective driven dynamics for one-dimensional conditioned Langevin processes in the weak-noise limit. J. Stat. Mech. 2019, 013201 (2019)
Bertini, L., De Sole, A., Gabrielli, D., Jona-Lasinio, G., Landim, C.: On the long range correlations of thermodynamic systems out of equilibrium (2007). arXiv:0705.2996
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Abhishek Dhar.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix
Tilted Matrix for the Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process
Here, we explicitly write the eigenvalue equation for the tilted matrix in a symmetric simple exclusion process of arbitrary length L. For \(\lambda _0=1\) and \(\lambda _i=0\) for \(i\ge 1\), we use the representation (39) for the eigenvectors with a normalization such that the component of both right and left eigenvectors for the empty configuration is 1. We write the eigenvalue equation up to the two particle sector.
For the right eigenvector, defining \({\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)=0\) for \(i=j\), we get the following set of coupled equations.
-
Empty-particle sector.
$$\begin{aligned} \mu +\rho _a+\rho _b=e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1)+(1-\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(L) \end{aligned}$$ -
Single-particle sector.
- \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1<i<L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i)-\left[ {\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i-1)-2{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i+1)\right] \\&\quad =e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,i)+(1-\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(i=1\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1)-\left[ 2\rho _a{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1)-2{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(2)\right] \\&\quad =e^{\kappa }\rho _a+(1-\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(i=L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(L)-\left[ {\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(L-1)-2{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(L)+2\rho _b{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(L)\right] \\&\quad =e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,L)+\rho _b \end{aligned}$$
-
Two-particle sector.
- \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1<i<j<L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)-\bigg [{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i-1,j)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j-1)-4{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)\\&\qquad +{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i+1,j)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j+1)\bigg ] -2{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)\delta _{i+1,j} \\&\quad =e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,i,j)+(1-\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1=i<j<L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)-\bigg [2\rho _a{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j-1)-4{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(2,j)\\&\quad +{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j+1)\bigg ]-2{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)\delta _{2,j} =e^{\kappa }\rho _a{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(j)+(1-\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1<i<j=L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)-\bigg [{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i-1,L)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L-1)\\&\quad -4{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)+{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i+1,L)\\&\quad +2\rho _b{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)\bigg ]-2{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L) \delta _{i,L-1}=e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a){\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(1,i,L)+\rho _b{\mathcal {R}}^{(\kappa )}(i) \end{aligned}$$
Similarly, for the left eigenvector, we define \({\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)=0\) for \(i=j\), and get the following set of equations.
-
Empty particle sector.
$$\begin{aligned} \mu +\rho _a+\rho _b=e^{\kappa }\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1)+\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(L) \end{aligned}$$ -
Single particle sector.
- \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1<i<L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i)-\left[ {\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i-1)-2{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i+1)\right] \\&\quad =e^{\kappa }\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,i)+\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(i=1\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1)-\left[ 2\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1)-2{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(2)\right] \\&\quad =e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a)+\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(i=L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(L)-\left[ {\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(L-1)-2{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(L)+2\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(L)\right] \\&\quad =e^{\kappa }\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,L)+(1-\rho _b) \end{aligned}$$
-
Two particle sector.
- \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1<i<j<L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)-\bigg [{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i-1,j)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j-1)-4{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)\\&\qquad +{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i+1,j)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j+1)\bigg ]-2{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j)\delta _{i+1,j}\\&\quad =e^{\kappa }\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,i,j)+\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,j,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1=i<j<L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)-\bigg [2\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j-1)-4{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(2,j)\\&\quad +{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j+1)\bigg ]-2{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j)\delta _{2,j} =e^{-\kappa }(1-\rho _a){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(j)+\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,j,L) \end{aligned}$$ - \(\circ \) :
-
For \(1<i<j=L\),
$$\begin{aligned}&(\mu +\rho _a+\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)-\bigg [{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i-1,L)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L-1)-4{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)+{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i+1,L)\\&\quad +2\rho _b{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)\bigg ]-2{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i,L)\delta _{i,L-1} =e^{\kappa }\rho _a{\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(1,i,L)+(1-\rho _b){\mathcal {L}}^{(\kappa )}(i) \end{aligned}$$
It is easy to see a pattern in the equations and using this we can write the equations for an arbitrary particle sector. It is then possible to systematically solve the equations order by order using the perturbation expansion in small density as given in Sect. 4.2.
Cumulants for the Symmetric Simple Exclusion Process
We write the cumulants of density using a set of parameters
which was used earlier [56]. In terms of these, the cumulants in (49) have the following expression.
-
At \(t=0\),
$$\begin{aligned} {\bar{\rho }}(x)&= \frac{\rho _a}{z} \bigg \{(1+xh)(1+xh-(pz) x) +\frac{s}{6z}(1-x)\bigg [6+2xh\big (7-z+xh(6-z+2xh)\big )\\&\quad -(pz)x\big (10+2z+xh(16-2z+7xh) \big ) +(pz)^2 x\big (2+x(5+3xh) \big )\bigg ]+{\mathcal {O}}(s^2)\bigg \},\\ c(x,y)&= -\frac{\rho _a^2}{z^2} x(1-y)\bigg \{2h^2(1+xh)(1+yh) -h(pz)\big ( 2+3h(x+y)+4h^2xy \big )\\&\quad +(pz)^2\big (1+h(x+y)+2h^2xy \big )+{\mathcal {O}}(s)\bigg \}\qquad \text {for }x\le y. \end{aligned}$$ -
In the quasi-stationary state,
$$\begin{aligned} {\bar{\rho }}(x)&\equiv {\bar{\rho }}_\text {qs}(x) =\rho _a \bigg \{(1-px)(1+xh)\\&\quad -sx(1-x)\bigg [ h +\frac{p}{3}(7-z+2xh)-\frac{p^2}{3}(1+x)(2+xh)\bigg ]+{\mathcal {O}}(s^2)\bigg \}, \\ c(x,y)&= -\rho _a^2 x(1-y)\bigg \{p^2(1+hx)(1+hy)+h^2(1-px)(1-py)+{\mathcal {O}}(s)\bigg \} \qquad \text {for }x\le y. \end{aligned}$$ -
at \(t=T\),
$$\begin{aligned} {\bar{\rho }}(x)&=\rho _a \, z \bigg \{1-px+s\frac{(1-x)}{6}\left[ -6+p^2x(2-x)\right] +{\mathcal {O}}(s^2)\bigg \}, \\ c(x,y)&= -\rho _a^2 z^2x(1-y) \bigg \{p^2+{\mathcal {O}}(s)\bigg \}\qquad \text {for } x\le y. \end{aligned}$$
Small Density Expansion of \(V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}\)
Here, we show that the expression of \(V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}\) in (57) agrees with \(\psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa )}-\psi _T^{(\kappa )}\), up to an additive constant, as expected from (27c). To see this, we use (55a) and we get
where the subscripts T and \(\text {qs}\) refer to the cumulants (49) at time \(t=T\) and in the quasi-stationary state. (In the third line of the above equation we used that \(c_T(x,y)\) and \(c_\text {qs}(x,y)\) are symmetric under exchange of x and y.) The terms in the first line are constant and therefore ignored. For the rest of the terms we use
up to the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\), which can be seen from (50) and (52).
Then, it is straightforward to see that, up to the second order in \(\rho _a\) and \(\rho _b\),
and
This shows that the expression in (85) agrees with \(V_\text {left}^{(\kappa )}\) in (57), up to an additive constant.
A H-Theorem
To derive (77) we write, along the optimal path (75),
Then, using (75) and an integration by parts we get
where we use \(\frac{\delta \psi _\text {qs}^{(\kappa ,\alpha )}}{\delta \rho _\text {opt}(x,t)}=0\) at the boundary \(x=0\) and 1 (due to (27c) and (79)). To simplify the expression, we use
which is obtained by subtracting (73b) from (73a) and then using (27c). From the above two equations we get (77).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Derrida, B., Sadhu, T. Large Deviations Conditioned on Large Deviations II: Fluctuating Hydrodynamics. J Stat Phys 177, 151–182 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-019-02363-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10955-019-02363-8