Ensemble dependence of fluctuations and the canonical/micro-canonical equivalence of ensembles
Nicoletta Cancrini, Stefano Olla

TL;DR
This paper investigates the relationship between microcanonical and canonical ensembles in continuous systems, establishing convergence of Gibbs measures through local limit theorems and applying results to fluctuations of observables.
Contribution
It introduces a rigorous proof of ensemble equivalence using local limit theorems and derives a formula for fluctuations in microcanonical ensembles.
Findings
Proves convergence of Gibbs measures for continuous systems.
Derives a formula for fluctuations of observables like kinetic energy.
Establishes conditions for ensemble equivalence in the thermodynamic limit.
Abstract
We study the equivalence of microcanonical and canonical ensembles in continuous systems, in the sense of the convergence of the corresponding Gibbs measures. This is obtained by proving a local central limit theorem and a local large deviations principle. As an application we prove a formula due to Lebowitz-Percus-Verlet. It gives mean square fluctuations of an extensive observable, like the kinetic energy, in a classical micro canonical ensemble at fixed energy.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Ensemble dependence of
fluctuations and the canonical/micro-canonical equivalence of ensembles.
Nicoletta Cancrini
Nicoletta Cancrini DIIIE Università. L’Aquila, 1-67100 L’Aquila, Italy
and
Stefano Olla
Stefano Olla CEREMADE, UMR-CNRS Université Paris Dauphine, PSL Research University 75016 Paris France.
Abstract.
We study the equivalence of microcanonical and canonical ensembles in continuous systems, in the sense of the convergence of the corresponding Gibbs measures. This is obtained by proving a local central limit theorem and a local large deviations principle. As an application we prove a formula due to Lebowitz-Percus-Verlet. It gives mean square fluctuations of an extensive observable, like the kinetic energy, in a classical micro canonical ensemble at fixed energy.
We thanks Joel Lebowitz for pointing our attention to the microcaconical fluctuation formula of reference [LPV], that motivated the present work. This paper has been partially supported by the European Advanced Grant Macroscopic Laws and Dynamical Systems (MALADY) (ERC AdG 246953) and by ANR-15-CE40-0020-01 grant LSD..
1. Introduction
The relation between averages of observables of a physical system with respect to different phase-space ensembles permits to prove what is called the equivalence of ensembles. That is, in the thermodynamic limit (size of the system goes to ), the expected value of a phase function, corresponding to intensive or per particle properties of the system, is independent of the ensemble used. There are many different aspects and approaches to the equivalence of ensembles, and it will be too long to review all the literature on the subject. For some general mathematical work we mention [stroock1991microcanonical] and [T]. We are interested here, for a system of finite particles, in the difference between the micro canonical average of an observable on a given energy shell (micro canonical manifold), and the canonical average of at the corresponding temperature:
[TABLE]
where is the value of the energy fixed in the micro canonical average, while is the corresponding inverse temperature determined such that the canonical average of the energy per particle is . We will restrict our considerations to situations far from phase transitions (far from thermodynamic singularities), and we expect that the difference (1.1) goes to 0 in the thermodynamic limit (). As the micro canonical average is just a conditional expectation of the canonical average for a given value of the total energy, this is a consequence of the concentration of the distribution of the energy per particle in the canonical distribution around the expected value, due to the law of large numbers. If is uniformly bounded in , or local, and the micro canonical expectation is enough regular in , is an easy consequence of a large deviation principle for the distribution of the energy under the canonical distribution (see section 4). But here we are principally interested in extensive observables, like the total kinetic energy , and their fluctuations in the micro canonical ensemble. In particular the micro canonical fluctuations of the total kinetic energy is greatly affected, and reduced, by the global constraint on the total energy and the asymptotic micro canonical variance, properly normalized, differs from the canonical one. In order to study such difference we need to compute explicitly the first order of .
More precisely, let , the micro canonical variance of the kinetic energy, that typically has order . The canonical variance of depends only on the maxwellian distribution on the velocities and is equal to , where is the spacial dimension. It follows from the results contained in section 5 that
[TABLE]
where the energy and inverse temperature are connected by the thermodynamic relation, and is the heat capacity per particle, defined as . Formula (1.2) was formally derived in [LPV], and its rigorous derivation is the main motivation for the present article. We actually prove (1.2) under some regularity conditions on the micro canonical expectations, and in its finite version, where we also compute explicitly the next order term (see formula (5.17)). We then provide one explicit example where these regularity conditions are satisfied, but we expect that they are verified for a large class of systems. Formula (1.2) is actually a consequence of a more general formula (5.2), also formally deduced in [LPV], that gives the explicit first order correction for .
In the proof of (5.2) we use a strong form of the large deviations for the energy distribution under the canonical measure, i.e. the asymptotic expression (3.11) for the density of the canonical probability distribution of the energy. This strong local large deviation expression is proven in section section 3, as consequence of an Edgeworth expansion in the corresponding local central limit theorem. This expansion is obtained in section 2 under some condition of uniform bounds in for the first 4 derivatives of the free energy of the canonical measure of the -system.
Even though many of the arguments and results in sections 2,3 and 4 are well known in particular in the probabilistic literature, we decided to present this article as self contained as possible. For example the Edgeworth expansion argument we use in section 2 is essentially the same as used in Feller book [F] for independent variables, but we could not find a precise reference for this statement for dependent continuous variables under canonical Gibbs distributions (in discrete setting see [DS], and general setting for dependent variables is treated in [IL]).
2. The Local Central Limit Theorem
and its Edgeworth expansion
Consider particles, the momentum and coordinates given by , and , where is a manifold of dimension . The phase space is . Let be the coordinates of all the particles except that of the particle. To simplify the notation we take .
We want to consider systems whose Hamiltonian can be written as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
where is a regular functions. Define for :
[TABLE]
Notice that the integration in the can always be done explicitly and
[TABLE]
Assumption: We assume that there is an interval of values of such that exists, together with its first four derivatives, and that are uniformly bounded in :
[TABLE]
with locally bounded in closed bounded intervals not including .
The canonical Gibbs measure associated to and temperature is defined by
[TABLE]
Defining , direct calculations give:
[TABLE]
where we indicated the average w.r.t. the canonical measure defined in (2.2).
Notice that, thanks to the presence of the kinetic energy,
[TABLE]
Define the centered energy
[TABLE]
and its characteristic function
[TABLE]
By performing explicitly the integration over , we have
[TABLE]
where . Consequently we have the bound:
[TABLE]
thus for (i.e. is a characteristic function of a non-lattice distribution). Furthermore is integrable for , and by the Fourier inversion theorem (see chapter XV.3 of [F]) the probability density function of the variable exists for . Observe also that
[TABLE]
In the following we denote the normal gaussian density by
[TABLE]
Let the Hermite polynomials defined by
[TABLE]
The characteristic property of Hermite polynomials is that the Fourier transform of is given by
[TABLE]
where . Recall that , , , and .
We can now state the Local Central Limit Theorem we need in the rest of the article.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Assume that is such that the conditions (2.1) are satisfied. Define
[TABLE]
then the density distribution of for exists and as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is bounded in , uniformly on bounded closed intervals of .
Proof.
We follow the proof of theorem 2 in chapter XVI.2 of [F] for independent random variables. By (2.5) and the Fourier inversion theorem the left hand side of (2.8) exists for . To simplify the notation we do not write the dependence on of , and their derivatives. Consider the function
[TABLE]
where is the Fourier transform of (see (2.4) ) and is an appropriate polynomial in the variable . We want to show that
[TABLE]
Choose arbitrary but fixed. There exists a number such that \bigl{(}\frac{\beta^{2}}{t^{2}+\beta^{2}}\bigr{)}^{\frac{1}{4}}<q_{\delta} for . The contribution of the intervals to the integral (2.12), using (2.5), is bounded by
[TABLE]
and this tends to zero more rapidly than any power of .
We now estimate the contribution to from the region . Let us rewrite
[TABLE]
where111For a complex number such that , we define .
[TABLE]
The function is four times differentiable and in its derivatives are given by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where we used relations (2.6). Let be the Taylor approximation for . Where is a polynomial of degree with ; it is uniquely determined by the property
[TABLE]
and it is given by
[TABLE]
We choose
[TABLE]
then is a polynomial in the variable with real coefficients depending on and . We use the inequality
[TABLE]
with . Furthermore we choose so small that for
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
provided that . For the integrand in (2.14) can be bounded by
[TABLE]
As is arbitrary we have that (2.12) is proved. The function defined in (2.11) is the Fourier transform of
[TABLE]
where are appropriate coefficients depending on and are the Hermite polynomials defined in (2.7). If we rearrange the terms of the sum in ascending powers of we get an expression of the form postulated in the theorem plus terms involving powers with that can be dropped and obtain the result. ∎
The same argument leads to higher order expansions, but the terms cannot be expressed by simple explicit formulas. We have the following
Theorem 2.2**.**
Assume that exist and are uniformly bounded in . Define
[TABLE]
then the density distribution of for exists and as
[TABLE]
uniformly in . Here is the standard normal density, is a real polynomial depending only on , and whose coefficients are uniformly bounded in .
Note that Theorem 2.1 is Theorem 2.2 for and taking does not improve our estimates and results.
Remark 2.3**.**
Theorem 2.1 is stated for continuous random variables . It can be stated also for discrete random variables, in the same form once , the characteristic function of , is integrable. In spin systems with finite range interacting potentials, like the Ising model, this is the case, see [DT] and [CM] where a Gaussian upper bound on the characteristic function is proved.
3. Local Large Deviations and Boltzmann formula
In this section we study the energy distribution under the canonical measure. With reasonable conditions on the interaction potential , is finite for every . We can extend its definition to all denoting for .
We define the Frenchel-Legendre transform of :
[TABLE]
Let , the corresponding domain of definition. For any there exists a unique such that
[TABLE]
Under the canonical measure (2.2) can be seen as a normalized sum of random variables. We denote by the density of its probability distribution. For any integrable function
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let and defined by (3.2) be such that satisfies (2.1). Then, for large ,
[TABLE]
where and are defined in (2.8) and (2.10) respectively.
Proof.
Let , , and . Consider the positive measure on defined, for any integrable function on , by
[TABLE]
so that for any we have
[TABLE]
For any integrable function we can write
[TABLE]
Take , let as in the hypotheses of the theorem. For any integrable function we have
[TABLE]
In order to apply theorem 2.1 we identify
[TABLE]
so that for
[TABLE]
and using
[TABLE]
∎
We can resume the above result more explicitly, by using the bounds and the explicit form of the polynomial ,
[TABLE]
where .
Theorem 3.1 allows to write the probability density function in (3.3) as
[TABLE]
where and
[TABLE]
As , we can thus rewrite
[TABLE]
The functional is convex, derivable and has a minimum in where ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Equation (3.11) says that the sequence satisfies a local large deviation principle, also called Large Deviation Principle in the Strong Form, see [DS] where the principle is defined for discrete random variables with assumptions that are generally stronger than (2.1).
4. Micro-Canonical distribution and equivalence of ensembles.
We here define the equivalence of ensembles. Given an observable on , we define the micro canonical average as a conditional expectation by the classic formula:
[TABLE]
for any measurable function on . It is an easy exercice to see that these conditional expectations do not depend on . Of course (4.1) defines the conditional expectation only a.s. with respect to the Lebesgue measure. But under the regularity assumptions on the interaction potential , the microcanonical surface
[TABLE]
is regular enough such that co-area formulas (cf. [EG]) can be applied and give the existence of a regular conditional distribution on , defined for every value of . We will assume in the following various conditions on the function , that have to be verified in the various applications.
By equivalence of ensembles we mean here the convergence of
[TABLE]
for a certain class of functions. We are in particular interested in the rate of convergence in (4.3).
For the simple case when is a bounded function such that is continuous around uniformly in , all we need is:
[TABLE]
By the uniform continuity of , for any , there exists such that if . Then
[TABLE]
Let us split the large deviation term:
[TABLE]
Let us estimate the first term of the RHS (the second term is analogous). To shorten notation, denote . By exponential Chebichef inequality, for any :
[TABLE]
Notice that
[TABLE]
Consequently optimizing the estimate over we have
[TABLE]
and similar estimate for the term of the deviation on the other side.
Our conditions on implies the strong convexity of in an interval around , uniform in . This means exists such that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
that converge exponentially to [math] for any . Taking concludes the argument.
In the next section we will analyse closer this convergence, allowing observables that are extensive.
5. Lebowitz-Percus-Verlet formulas for fluctuations
In this section is a function on , eventually extensive, such that satisfies the following:
- (i)
is finite, where is the norm of with respect to the canonical measure defined in (2.2)
- (ii)
For there exists such that
[TABLE]
- (iii)
Let for some , then there exists such that
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.1**.**
Under conditions (i)-(iii) above the following formula holds
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since expression (5.2) is homogeneous in , we can divide by and consider functions such that . We write the difference between the canonical and micro canonical expectations as
[TABLE]
Denote
[TABLE]
Obviously . We want to prove that
[TABLE]
Under conditions, above, using (2.1), the properties of the norm and Schwarz inequality, we have that . For a given , consider the bounded function
[TABLE]
Then we can split the integral and,using Schwarz inequality, obtain
[TABLE]
By (4.6), and choosing , the first term on the RHS of the above is bounded by
[TABLE]
and we take such that .
For the second term, by Jensen’s inequality and (3.11), for any we have
[TABLE]
Since, by Taylor formula and condition above, , and , with independent of , we have that
[TABLE]
Choose as a sequence , for , and such that , we have
[TABLE]
Then we have:
[TABLE]
If grows faster than the last term above tends to [math] as . If we choose , we also satisfy that .
We can thus rewrite equation (5.3) as
[TABLE]
Note that for any differentiable function
[TABLE]
By (5.9) we can write (5.7) as
[TABLE]
By lemma 5.2 below:
[TABLE]
and (5.2) follows. ∎
Lemma 5.2**.**
Under the conditions of Theorem 5.1 the following relations hold
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that by (5.3)
[TABLE]
and, using the definition of above and (5.4), that this is equal to
[TABLE]
This proves the first of (5.11). For the second one:
[TABLE]
and again using the definition of above and (5.4), we have that this is equal to
[TABLE]
This proves the second of (5.11).
∎
Let and two functions such that they and their product satisfies the assumptions of Theorem (5.1). Applying formula (5.2) to we obtain
[TABLE]
while
[TABLE]
where contains all term of smaller order and is bounded by
[TABLE]
Then defining the correlations
[TABLE]
we get the formula for the equivalence of the correlations:
[TABLE]
Remark 5.3**.**
This formula is different than the one of reference [LPV]. The term with the derivative of the canonical correlation is in general smaller than the others. It can be even smaller than the error term as we will see evaluating the fluctuations of the kinetic energy below.
Remark 5.4**.**
For extensive variables, like , typically we have , that implies that the error in (5.15) is of order . But in these cases the other terms are of order .
5.1. Fluctuations of kinetic energy
Consider the kinetic energy
[TABLE]
Then, if is the space dimension,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
applying equation (5.15) we obtain
[TABLE]
Observe that as and the second term in the r.h.s of (5.16) is smaller than the error term. Dividing by , we obtain for the variances of :
[TABLE]
The quantity is called heat capacity (per particle). This is in fact equal to . Notice that (5.17) coincide, up to terms of lower order in , to formula (3.7) in [LPV].
Notice in particular that the asymptotic canonical and microcanonical variances of are different. Denoting by the total potential energy, since is constant under the microcanonical measure, we have that , so the same formula is valid for .
It remains to prove the conditions of theorem 5.1 are satisfied by , but this in general depends on the model considered, i.e. on the interaction between the particles.
In section 3 we have defined
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
where the Heaviside unit step function is defined by for and for . Using the N-spherical coordinates on the momentum variables, this can be written as
[TABLE]
where is the surface of the dimensional unit sphere. Consequently
[TABLE]
This formula goes back to Gibbs ([gibbs], chapter 8, (308)), one can prove that is at least times differentiable see [DH].
For any observable , the micro canonical mean can be written as
[TABLE]
Using the dimensional spherical momentum coordinates as above, one can write for the micro canonical mean of the kinetic energy as
[TABLE]
Of course we have the trivial bound . Furthermore, since the micro canonical distribution is symmetric in the , we have
[TABLE]
An analogous calculation brings to
[TABLE]
We can rewrite these expression by using the micro canonical potential energy weight:
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
These formulas imply that these microcanonical averages are at least times differentiable in and the derivatives can be explicitely computed.
Starting from expression (5.21) we give a qualitative argument to understand why conditions (i)-(iii) in section 5 should be satisfied for extensive observables. We then present an example where most calculations can be made exactly. From (5.21) one can see that dimensionally the micro canonical mean of behaves as and that the derivatives with respect to are well defined till the order . The third derivative of behaves dimensionally as . Thus, as the canonical norm and does not grow in , the required conditions are, at least dimensionally, satisfied. The same reasoning can be extended to any extensive or intensive quantity looking directly expression (5.19).
5.2. Exactly solvable one dimensional model
We here introduce the one dimensional model system studied in [DH] where conditions (5.1) can be explicitly satisfied.
Consider identical point particles confined by a one dimensional box of size . The Hamiltonian is
[TABLE]
The potential energy is determined by the interaction potential
[TABLE]
and the box potential
[TABLE]
The pair potential is given by
[TABLE]
where is the hard core diameter of a particle with respect to pair interactions. The pair potential above can be viewed as a simplified Lennard-Jones potential. The depth of the potential well is determined by the binding energy parameter and the interaction range by the parameter . It is assumed
[TABLE]
the latter condition ensures that particles may interact with their nearest neighbors only. In order to have the volume sufficiently large for realizing the completely dissociated state, corresponding to it is . The energy of the system can take values between the ground state energy and infinity. Following the calculations of [DH] expression (5.21) for this model becomes
[TABLE]
where are positive coefficient depending on and see [DH] for more details. Furthermore the canonical mean energy per particle
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
Expression (5.25) shows that does not vanish iff this implies . Expression (5.25) is explicit but complicate. To verify that satisfies conditions (i)-(iii) we consider the particular case of so that
[TABLE]
where we use to simplify the formulas for large. Calculating the derivatives of (5.25) (we omit the calculation) one can show that there exists a positive constant such that
[TABLE]
Remembering that
[TABLE]
by (5.26) and (5.27) conditions (i)-(iii) of theorem 5.1 are satisfied.
6. Thermodynamic limit
All the statements in the previous sections are for finite , under the assumption that is bounded in along with the first four derivatives. By definition is analytical in . Assume now that converges to which is analytical in . Then all the derivatives of converge to the derivatives of and conditions (2.1) are satisfied. We thus have
[TABLE]
Usual thermodynamic notations denote the free energy, heat capacity, and the thermodynamic entropy. It follows the Boltzmann formula:
[TABLE]
Also we denote
[TABLE]
that is the rate function for the large deviations of is the infinite Gibbs state defined bu DLR equations.
In absence of phase transition, i.e. only for , then the equivalence on ensembles follows from (5.3). Differentiability of the limit of depends on the system we are considering. In next section we give examples where analycity of is assured at least for small enough.
7. Examples
7.1. Independent case
Consider a system of noninteracting particles in a potential. This is the case . The Hamiltonian can be written as the sum of identical terms
[TABLE]
Consequently does not depend on and is a smooth function of if is a nice reasonable potential.
7.1.1. Independent harmonic oscillators
Consider a system of harmonic oscillators in dimension . The Hamiltonian is given by
[TABLE]
To simplify notations take . Explicitely we have
[TABLE]
and , , so that the heat capacity here is .
If we calculate the expected value of the kinetic energy with respect to the canonical measure at inverse temperature we obtain
[TABLE]
The fluctuations (the variance) of are given by
[TABLE]
The expected value of in the with respect to the microcanonical measure is given by
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This imply that the microcanonical variance is given by
[TABLE]
Since , we have
[TABLE]
that coincide with the general formula (5.16).
7.2. Mean Field
[TABLE]
Where is a symmetric reasonable potential such that for any . One can check by direct computation, using the symmetry of the potential that are uniformly bounded in .
7.3. Massless surface
On the lattice :
[TABLE]
For defining , we are back to the independent case.
For , under certain conditions on , there is a polynomial decay of correlations. Check Spencer review
7.4. Real Gas
Consider a system of particles interacting with a stable and tempered pair potential , i.e., there exists such that:
[TABLE]
for all and all and the integral
[TABLE]
is convergent for some (and hence for all . In [PT] it has been proved the validity of cluster expansion for the canonical partition function in the high temperature - low density regime. This implies that the thermodynamic free energy is analytic in if and the density are small enough. Conditions (2.1) are thus satisfied.
7.5. Unbounded spin systems with finite range potential.
We consider here the unbounded spin systems studied in [BH]. For any domain of , with , we consider the following ferromagnetic Hamiltonian on the phase space defined as follows
[TABLE]
where means that the sum is over the sites that are at distance from . Here is a one particle phase on with at least quadratic increase at infinity, is a convex function on with bounded second derivative, i.e. . As the kinetic energy term is not present to use Theorem 2.2 we need to prove that the characterstic function of the centered energy has modulus and is integrable. We have to prove an analogous of (2.5) which assures that the probability density function of the variable exists. The finite range of the potential is sufficient to prove both properties. Define a
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
we can write the Hamiltonian as
[TABLE]
where depends only on the variables in . For any , let be the canonical measure defined by the Hamiltonian defined above and indicate by the expectation value w.r.t. . Then
[TABLE]
where in the last equality we used independence of the variables due to the finite range potential. We thus have
[TABLE]
The variables have finite probability density. This implies that their characteristic functions have modulus strictly less than one for (see [F]). Furthermore such density is in so that, by Plancherel equality, is integrable (see [F]). These two properties of assure that the modulus of is strictly less than one for and integrable for large enough so that, by the Fourier inversion theorem, the probability density function of the centered energy exists.
In [BH] exponential decay of correlations is proven for small enough which implies analycity of the free energy in the thermodynamic limit.
References
