arxiv: v1 [math.ap] 16 Nov 2018

Transcription

1 Exit event from a metastable state and Eyring-Kramers law for te overdamped Langevin dynamics arxiv: v1 [mat.ap] 16 Nov 2018 Tony Lelièvre 1, Dorian Le Peutrec 2, and Boris Nectoux 1 1 École des Ponts, Université Paris-Est, INRIA, Camps-sur-Marne, France, {tony.lelievre,boris.nectoux}@enpc.fr 2 Laboratoire de Matématiques d Orsay, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, dorian.lepeutrec@mat.u-psud.fr Abstract. In molecular dynamics, several algoritms ave been designed over te past few years to accelerate te sampling of te exit event from a metastable domain, tat is to say te time spent and te exit point from te domain. Some of tem are based on te fact tat te exit event from a metastable region is well approximated by a Markov jump process. In tis work, we present recent results on te exit event from a metastable region for te overdamped Langevin dynamics obtained in [22,23,57]. Tese results aim in particular at justifying te use of a Markov jump process parametrized by te Eyring-Kramers law to model te exit event from a metastable region. Keywords: Exit event, metastability, Eyring-Kramers and overdamped Langevin. Te objective of tis note is to give motivations (Section 1) and outlines of te proofs (Section 2) of results recently obtained in [22, 23, 57]. Tese results justify te use of te Eyring-Kramers formulas togeter wit a kinetic Monte Carlo model to model te exit event from a metastable state for te overdamped Langevin dynamics. Suc results are particularly useful to justify algoritms and models wic use suc formulas to build reduced description of te overdamped Langevin dynamics. 1 Exit event from a metastable domain and Markov jump process 1.1 Overdamped Langevin dynamics and metastability Let (X t ) t 0 be te stocastic process solution to te overdamped Langevin dynamics in R d : dx t = f(x t )dt + db t, (1) were f C (R d,r) is te potential function, > 0 is te temperature and (B t ) t 0 is a standard d-dimensional Brownian motion. Te overdamped

2 2 Tony Lelièvre et al. Langevin dynamics can be used for instance to describe te motion of te atoms of a molecule or te diffusion of impurities in a crystal (see for instance [52, Sections 2 and 3] or [10]). Te term f(x t ) in (1) sends te process towards local minima of f, wile tanks to te noise term db t, te process X t may jump from one basin of attraction of te dynamics ẋ = f(x) to anoter one. If te temperature is small (i.e. 1), te process (X t ) t 0 remains during a very long period of time trapped around a neigborood of a local minimum of f, called a metastable state, before going to anoter region. For tat reason, te process (1) is said to be metastable. More precisely, a domain Ω R d is said to be metastable for te probability measure µ supported in Ω if, wen X 0 µ, te process (1) reaces a local equilibrium in Ω long before escaping from it. Tis will be made more precise below using te notion of quasi-stationary distribution (see Section 1.5). Te move from one metastable region to anoter is typically related to a macroscopic cange of configuration of te system. Metastability implies a separation of timescales wic is one of te major issues wen trying to ave access to te macroscopic evolution of te system using simulations made at te microscopic level. Indeed, in practice, many transitions cannot be observed by integrating directly te trajectories of te process (1). To overcome tis difficulty, some algoritms use te fact tat te exit event from a metastable region can be well approximated by a Markov jump process wit transition rates computed wit te Eyring-Kramers formula, see for example te Temperature Accelerated Dynamics metod [62] tat will be described below. 1.2 Markov jump process and Eyring-Kramers law Kinetic Monte Carlo metods. Let Ω R d be a domain of te configuration space and let us assume tat te process (1) is initially distributed according to te probability measure µ (i.e. X 0 µ) wic is supported in Ω and for wic te exit event from Ω is metastable. Let us denote by (Ω i ) i=1,...,n te surrounding domains of Ω (see Figure 1), eac of tem corresponding to a macroscopic state of te system. Many reduced models and algoritms rely on te fact tat te exit event from Ω, i.e. te next visited state by te process (1) among te Ω i s as well as te time spent by te process (1) in Ω, is efficiently approximated by a Markov jump process using kinetic Monte Carlo metods [8,25,60,61,67,68]. Kinetic Monte Carlo metods simulate a Markov jump process in a discrete state space. To use a kinetic Monte Carlo algoritm in order to sample te exit event from Ω, one needs for i {1,..., n} te transition rate k i to go from te state Ω to te state Ω i. A kinetic Monte Carlo algoritm generates te next visited state Y among te Ω i s and te time T spent in Ω for te process (1) as follows: 1. First sample T as an exponential random variable wit parameter n i=1 k i, i.e.: ( n T E k i ). (2) 2. Ten, sample te next visited state Y independently from T, i.e Y = i=1 T (3)

3 z 2 Ω 2 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 3 using te following law : for all i {1,..., n}, P [ Y = i ] = k i n l=1 k. (4) l Ω 4 z 4 z 3 Ω 3 x 0 Ω 1 z 1 Ω Fig. 1. Representation of te domain Ω, te surrounding domains (Ω i) i=1,...,4 of Ω, te global minimum x 0 of f in Ω and {z i} = argmin Ω Ωi f (i {1, 2, 3, 4}). Remark 1. Let us give an equivalent way to sample T and Y in a Monte Carlo metod. Let (τ i ) i {1,...,n} be n independent random variables suc tat for all i {1,..., n}, τ i is exponentially distributed wit parameter k i. Ten, te couple (T, Y ) as te same law as (min j {1,...,n} τ j, argmin j {1,...,n} τ j ). Eyring-Kramers law. In practice, te transition rates (k i ) i {1,...,n} are computed using te Eyring-Kramers formula [29, 67]: k i = A i e 2 (f(zi) f(x0)), (5) were x 0 Ω is te unique global minimum of f in Ω and {z i } = argmin Ω Ωi f, see Figure 1. We ere assume for simplicity tat te minimum is attained at one single point z i but te results below can be generalized to more general settings. If Ω is te basin of attraction of x 0 for te dynamics ẋ = f(x) so tat z i is a saddle point of f (i.e. a critical point of index 1), ten, for te overdamped Langevin dynamics (1), te prefactor A i writes: A i = λ(z i) 2π det Hess f(x0 ) det Hess f(zi ), (6) were λ(z i ) is te negative eigenvalue of te Hessian matrix of f at z i. Notice tat te formula (6) requires tat x 0 and z i are non degenerate critical points of f. Te formulas (5) and (6) ave been first obtained in te small temperature regime by Kramers [42] (see te review of te literature [29]).

4 4 Tony Lelièvre et al. Remark 2. In te Pysics literature, te approximation of te macroscopic evolution of te system wit a Markov jump process wit transition rates computed wit te Eyring-Kramers formula (5)-(6) is sometimes called te Harmonic Transition State Teory [48, 64]. 1.3 Te temperature accelerated dynamics algoritm. Te temperature accelerated dynamics (TAD) algoritm proposed by M.R. Sørensen and A.F Voter [62] aims at efficiently approximating te exit event from a metastable domain for te dynamics (1) in order to ave access to te macroscopic evolution of te system. We also refer to [1] for a matematical analysis of tis algoritm in a one-dimensional setting. Te basic idea of te TAD algoritm is te following: te exit time from te metastable domain Ω increases exponentially wit te inverse of te temperature, see indeed (2)-(5). Te idea is ten to simulate te process at iger temperature to accelerate te simulation of te exit event. Let us assume tat te process (X t ) t 0, evolving at te temperature low is at some time t 0 0 in te domain Ω R d wic is metastable for te initial condition X t0 Ω. Following [62], let us assume tat te process instantaneously reaces te local equilibrium in Ω, i.e. tat X t0 is distributed according to tis local equilibrium. Te existence and te uniqueness of te local equilibrium in Ω as well as te convergence toward tis local equilibrium is made more precise in Section 1.5 using te notion of quasi-stationary distribution. To ensure te convergence towards te local equilibrium in Ω, a decorrelation step may be used before running te TAD algoritm, see step (M1) in [1, Section 2.2]. As in te previous section, one denotes by (Ω i ) i=1,...,n te surrounding domains of Ω (see Figure 1), eac of tem corresponding to a macroscopic state of te system and, for i {1,..., n}, {z i } = argmin Ω Ωi f. To sample te next visited state among te Ω i s as well as te time T spent in Ω for te process (1), te TAD algoritm proceeds as follows. Let us introduce T sim = 0 (wic is te simulation time) and T stop = + (wic is te stopping time), and iterate te following steps. 1. Let (Y t ) t Tsim be te solution to te evolution equation (1) but for te temperature ig > low, starting from te local equilibrium in Ω at temperature ig. Let (Y t ) t Tsim evolve until it leaves Ω and denote by T sim + τ te first exit time from Ω for te process (Y t ) t Tsim. Let j {1,..., n} be suc tat Y Tsim+τ Ω j Ω. Ten, set T sim = T sim + τ. If it is te first time an exit from Ω troug z j for te process (Y t ) t 0 is observed (else one goes directly to te next step), set τ j ( ig ) = T sim and extrapolate te time to τ j ( low ) wit te formula ( τ j ( low ) = τ j ( ig ) e low )(f(z ig j) f(x 0)), (7)

5 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 5 were we recall x 0 Ω is te unique global minimum of f in Ω. Ten, update te minimum exit time τ min ( low ) among te τ j ( low ) s wic ave been observed so far. Finally, compute a new time T stop so tat tere is a very small probability (say α 1) to observe an exit event from Ω at te temperature ig wic, using (7), would cange te value of τ min ( low ). We refer to [62] or [1] for te computation of T stop. 2. If T sim T stop ten go back to te first step starting from te local equilibrium in Ω at time T sim, else go to te next step. 3. Set T = τ min ( low ) and Y = l were l is suc tat τ l ( low ) = τ min ( low ). Finally, send X t0+t to Ω l and evolve te process (1) wit te new initial condition X t0+t. Remark 3. In [62], wen te process (Y t ) t Tsim leaves Ω, it is reflected back in Ω and it is ten assumed tat it reaces instantaneously te local equilibrium in Ω at temperature ig. Remark 4. One can use a decorrelation step before running te TAD algoritm and te sampling of Y Tsim according to te local equilibrium in Ω at te beginning of te step 1 to ensure tat te underlying Markov jump process is justified, see [1]. Te extrapolation formula (7) wic is at te eart of te TAD algoritm relies on te properties of te underlying Markov jump process used to accelerate te exit event from a metastable state and were transition times are exponentially distributed wit parameters computed wit te Eyring-Kramers formula, see Remark 1 and Equation (5). In te algoritm TAD, it is indeed assumed tat te exit event from Ω can be modeled wit a kinetic Monte Carlo metod were te transition rates are computed wit te Eyring-Kramers law (5)-(6). Ten, at ig temperature, one cecks tat under tis assumption, eac τ i ( ig ) (i {1,..., n}) is an exponential law of parameter A i e 2 (f(z ig i) f(x 0)) (see Remark 1). Te formula (7) allows to construct for all i {1,..., n}, an exit time τ i ( low ) wic is an exponential law of parameter A i e 2 (f(z low i) f(x 0)). By considering te couple (min i {1,...,n} τ i ( low ), argmin i {1,...,n} τ i ( low )), one as access to te exit event from Ω (see Remark 1). Remark 5. Tere are oter algoritms wic use te properties of te underlying Markov jump process to accelerate te simulation of te exit event from a metastable state, see for instance [65] and [66]. Our objective is to justify rigorously tat a Markov jump process wit transition rates computed wit te Eyring-Kramers formula (5) can be used to model te exit event from a metastable domain Ω for te overdamped Langevin process (1). Before, let us recall matematical contributions on te exit event from a domain and on te Eyring-Kramers formula (5).

6 6 Tony Lelièvre et al. 1.4 Matematical literature on te exit event from a domain and on te Eyring-Kramers formulas In te matematical literature, tere are mainly two approaces to te study of te asymptotic beaviour of te exit event from a domain wen 0: te global approaces and te local approaces. Global approaces. Te global approaces study te asymptotic beaviours in te limit 0 of te eigenvalues of te infinitesimal generator L (0) = + f (8) 2 of te diffusion (1) on R d. Let us give for example a result obtained in [6, 7]. To tis end, let us assume tat te potential f : R d R is a Morse function, as m local minima {x 1,..., x m } and tat for small enoug e 2 R d f < +. Let us recall tat φ : R d R is a Morse function if all its critical points are non degenerate. For a Morse function φ : R d R, we say tat x is a saddle point of φ if x is a critical point of φ suc tat te Hessian matrix of φ at x as exactly one negative eigenvalue (i.e. x is a critical point of φ of index 1). Ten, from [35], te operator L (0) as exactly m exponentially small eigenvalues {λ 1, λ 2,..., λ m } wen 0 wit λ 1 = 0 < λ 2... λ m (i.e., wen 0, for all i {1,..., m}, λ i = O(e c ) for some c > 0 independent of ). Moreover, sarp asymptotic estimates can be derived for te eigenvalues {λ 2,..., λ m }. In [6,7], te following results are obtained. Let us assume tat {x 1 } = argmin R df. For k {2,..., m} and B k = {x {x 1,..., x m } \ {x k }, f(x) f(x k )} (i.e. B k is te set of local minima of f wic are lower in energy tan x k ), one denotes by P(x k, B k ) te set of curves γ C 0 ([0, 1],R d ) suc tat γ(0) = x k and γ(1) B k. Let us finally assume tat: 1. For all k {2,..., m}, tere exists a unique saddle point z k (i.e. a critical point of f of index 1) suc tat f(z k ) = inf γ P(xk,B k ) sup t [0,1] f(γ(t)). 2. Te values ( f(z k ) f(x k ) ) are all distinct. k {2,...,m} Tese assumptions imply tat te map x k {x 2,..., x m } z k is injective. Te set {x 2,..., x m } is ten labeled suc tat te sequence ( f(z k ) f(x k ) ) k {2,...,m} is strictly decreasing. Te previous assumptions also imply te existence of a cascade of events, wic occur wit different timescales, to go from one local minimum x k of f to te global minimum x 1 of f in R d, see for instance Figure 2. Ten, one as for k {2,..., m}, in te limit 0: λ k = λ(z k) det Hessf(xk ) 2π det Hessf(z k ) e 2 (f(z k) f(x k )) (1 + o(1)), (9) were λ(z k ) is te negative eigenvalue of te Hessian matrix of f at z k. In te articles [6, 7], using a potential-teoretic approac, te sarp equivalent (9) is obtained and eac of te eigenvalues λ k (for k {2,..., m}) is sown to be te inverse of te average time it takes for te process (1) to go from x k to B k. We

7 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 7 also refer to [24] for similar results. In [30], anoter proof of (9) is given using tools from semi-classical analysis. Let us also mention [54] for a generalization of te results obtained in [30]. Notice tat te results presented above do not provide any information concerning te average time it takes for te process (1) to go from te global minimum of f to a local minimum of f wen 0. One also refers to [44] for generalization of [6,7] for a class of non reversible processes wen f as two local minima, and to [11 13,37,55] for related results. z 3 z 2 x 2 x 3 x 1 z 2 z 3 x 2 x 3 x 1 Fig. 2. Examples of two labelings of te local minima {x 1, x 2, x 3} of f in dimension one. Remark 6. Te global approaces ave been used in [60, 61] to construct a Markovian dynamics by projecting te infinitesimal generator L (0) of te diffusion (1) wit a Galerkin metod onto te vector space associated wit te m small eigenvalues {λ 1,..., λ m }. Tis projection leads to a very good approximation of L (0) in te limit 0. Te question is ten ow to relate te transition events (or te trajectories) of te obtained Markov process to te exit events (or te trajectories) of te original one.

8 8 Tony Lelièvre et al. Local approaces. Te local approaces consist in studying te asymptotic beaviour wen 0 of te exit event (τ Ω, X τω ) from a domain Ω R d, were τ Ω := inf{t 0, X t / Ω}. One of te most well-known approaces is te large deviation teory developed by Freidlin and Wentzell in te 1970s. We refer to te book [26] wic summarizes teir main contributions. Tis teory is based on te study of small pieces of te trajectories of te process defined wit a suitable increasing sequence of stopping times. Te rate function is fundamental in tis teory: it quantifies te cost of deviating from a deterministic trajectory wen 0. Te rate functional was first introduced by Scilder [59] for a Brownian motion. Some typical results from [26] (see Teorem 2.1, Teorem 4.1, and Teorem 5.1 tere) are te following. Let Ω be a C open and connected bounded subset of R d. Let us assume tat n f > 0 on Ω (were n is te outward normal derivative to Ω) and tat f as a unique non degenerate critical point x 0 in Ω suc tat f(x 0 ) = min Ω f. Ten, for all x Ω: lim lne [ ] ( x τω = 2 inf f f(x 0) ). 0 Ω Te notatione x stands for te expectation given te fact tat X 0 = x. Moreover, let x Ω suc tat f(x) < inf Ω f. Ten, for any γ > 0 and δ 0 > 0, tere exist δ (0, δ 0 ] and 0 > 0 suc tat for all (0, 0 ) and for all y Ω: e 2 (f(y) inf Ω f) e γ Px [ XτΩ y < δ ] e 2 (f(y) inf Ω f) e γ. Te notation P x stands for te probability given te fact tat X 0 = x. Lastly, if te infimum of f on Ω is attained at one single point y 0 Ω, ten for all δ > 0: lim P [ x XτΩ y 0 < δ ] = 1. 0 A result due to Day [14] (see also [49, 50]) concerning te law of τ Ω is te following. Wen 0, te exit time τ Ω converges in law to an exponentially distributed random variable and for all x Ω lim λ [ ] E x τω = 1, 0 were λ is te principal eigenvalue of te infinitesimal generator of te diffusion (1) associated wit Diriclet boundary conditions on Ω (see Proposition 2 below). Te interest of tis approac is tat it can be applied to very general dynamics. However, wen it is used to prove tat te Eyring-Kramers formulas (5) can be used to study te exit distribution from Ω, it only provides te exponential rates (not te prefactor A i in (5)) and does not give error bounds wen 0. Tere are also approaces wic are based on tecniques developed for partial differential equations. In [51, 52], using formal computations, wen n f > 0 on Ω and f as a unique non degenerate critical point x 0 in Ω suc tat

9 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 9 f(x 0 ) = min Ω f, te following formula is derived: for any F C ( Ω,R) and x Ω, one as wen 0: [ ( )] E x F XτΩ = Ω F(z) nf(z) e 2 f(z) dz Ω + o(1). (10) nf e 2 f dσ Te formal asymptotic estimate (10) implies tat te law of X τω concentrates on points[ were ] f attains its minimum on Ω. Moreover, an asymptotic equivalent of E x τω wen 0 is also formulated in [56] troug formal computations. Tese results are obtained injecting formal asymptotic expansions [ in ( powers )] of in te partial [ differential ] equations satisfied by x Ω E x F XτΩ and x Ω E x τω. We also refer to [52], were using formal computations, asymptotic formulas are obtained [ ] concerning bot te concentration of te law of X τω on argmin Ω f and E x τω wen Ω is te union of basins of attraction of te dynamics d dt γ(t) = f(γ(t)). Wen nf > 0 on Ω and f as a unique non degenerate critical point x 0 in Ω suc tat f(x 0 ) = min Ω f, te formula (10) is proved rigorously by Kamin in [40], and is extended to a non reversible diffusion process (Y t ) t 0 solution to dy t = b(y t ) dt + db t in [15, 16, 39, 58] wen Ω contains one attractor of te dynamics d dtγ(t) = b(γ(t)) and b(x) n < 0 for all x Ω. However, te results [15,16,39,40,58] do not provide any information on te probability to leave Ω troug a point wic is not a global minimum of f on Ω. Finally, let us mention [20, 21, 31, 37, 46, 49, 50] for a study of te asymptotic beaviour in te limit 0 of λ and u (see Proposition 2 below). Te reader can also refer to [19] for a review of te different tecniques used to study te asymptotic beaviour of X τω wen 0 and to [2] for a review of te different tecniques used to study te asymptotic beaviour of τ Ω wen 0. Remark 7. Some autors proved te convergence to a Markov jump process in some specific geometric settings and after a rescaling in time. We refer to [41] for a one-dimensional diffusion in a double well and [27, 50] for a study in iger dimension. In [63], assuming tat all te saddle points of f are at te same eigt, it is proved tat a suitable rescaling of te time leads to a convergence of te diffusion process to a Markov jump process between te global minima of f. Te results presented in tis work (see [22, 23]) follow a local approac. Te quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) on Ω is te cornerstone of te analysis. Tey state tat, under some geometric assumptions, te Eyring-Kramers formulas (wit prefactors) can be used to model te exit event from a metastable state, and provide explicit error bounds. 1.5 Quasi-stationary distribution and transition rates Local equilibrium. Let Ω be a C open bounded connected subset of R d and f C (Ω,R). Let us recall tat τ Ω := inf{t 0, X t / Ω} denotes te first

10 10 Tony Lelièvre et al. exit time from Ω. Te quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) on Ω is defined as follows. Definition 1. A probability measure ν on Ω is a quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) on Ω if for all t > 0 and any measurable set A Ω, P ν [ Xt A t < τω ] = ν (A). Te notation P µ stands for te probability given te fact tat te process (1) is initially distributed according to µ i.e. X 0 µ. Te next proposition [9, 45] sows tat te law of te process (1) at time t conditioned not to leave Ω on te interval (0, t) converges to te quasi-stationary distribution. Proposition 1. Let Ω be a C open connected and bounded subset of R d and f C (Ω,R). Ten, tere exist a unique probability measure ν on Ω and c > 0 suc tat for any probability measure µ on Ω, tere exist C(µ) > 0 and t(µ) > 0 suc tat for all t t(µ) and all measurable set A Ω: P µ [ Xt A t < τ Ω ] ν (A) C(µ)e ct. (11) Moreover, ν is te unique quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) on Ω. Proposition 1 indicates tat te quasi-stationary distribution ν can be seen as a local equilibrium of te process (1) in Ω. Te quasi-stationary distribution ν can be expressed wit te principal eigenfunction of te infinitesimal generator L (0) (see (8)) of te diffusion (1) associated wit Diriclet boundary conditions on Ω. To tis end, let us introduce te following Hilbert spaces L 2 w(ω) = { u : Ω R, Ω u2 e 2 f < } and for q {1, 2}, H q w (Ω) = { u L 2 w (Ω), α Nd, α q, α u L 2 w (Ω)}. (12) Te subscript w in te notation L 2 w (Ω) and Hq w (Ω) refers to te fact tat te weigt function x Ω e 2 f(x) appears in te inner product. Moreover, let us denote by H0,w(Ω) 1 = {u Hw(Ω), 1 u = 0 on Ω}. Let us recall te following result [45]. Proposition 2. Let Ω be a C open connected and bounded subset of R d and f C (Ω,R). Ten, te operator L (0) wit domain H1 0,w (Ω) H2 w (Ω) on L2 w (Ω), wic is denoted by L D,(0), is self-adjoint, positive and as compact resolvent. Furtermore, te smallest eigenvalue λ of L D,(0) is non degenerate and any eigenfunction associated wit λ as a sign on Ω. In te following, one denotes by u an eigenfunction associated wit λ. Te smallest eigenvalue λ of L D,(0) is called te principal eigenvalue of L D,(0) and u a principal eigenfunction of L D,(0). Witout loss of generality, one assumes tat u > 0 on Ω and u 2 e 2 f = 1. (13) Ω

11 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 11 Ten, te quasi-stationary distribution ν of te process (1) in Ω is given by (see [45]): ν (dx) = u (x) e 2 f(x) Ω u e 2 f dx. (14) Moreover, te following result sows tat wen X 0 ν, te law of te exit event (τ Ω, X τω ) is explicitly known in terms of λ and u (see [45]). Proposition 3. Let us assume tat X 0 ν, were ν is te quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) in Ω. Ten, τ Ω and X τω are independent. Moreover, τ Ω is exponentially distributed wit parameter λ and for any open set Σ Ω, one as: [ P ν XτΩ Σ ] = n u (z)e 2 f(z) σ(dz) Σ, (15) 2λ u e 2 f were σ(dz) is te Lebesgue measure on Ω. Ω Approximation of te exit event wit a Markov jump process. Let us now provide justifications to te use of a Markov jump process wit transition rates computed wit te Eyring-Kramers formula (5) to model te exit event from a metastable domain Ω. In view of (11), one can be more precise on te definition of te metastability of a domain Ω given in Section 1.1. For a probability measure µ supported in Ω, te domain Ω is said to be metastable if, wen X 0 µ, te convergence to te quasi-stationary distribution ν in (1) is muc quicker tan te exit from Ω. Since te process (1) is a Markov process, it is ten relevant to study te exit event from Ω starting from te quasi-stationary distribution ν, i.e. X 0 ν. As a consequence of Proposition 3, te exit time is exponentially distributed and is independent of te next visited state. Tese two properties are te fundamental features of kinetic Monte Carlo metods, see indeed (2) and (3). It tus remains to prove tat te transition rates can be computed wit te Eyring-Kramers formula (5). For tat purpose, let us first give an expression of te transition rates. Recall tat (Ω i ) i=1,...,n denotes te surrounding domains of Ω (see Figure 1). For i {1,..., n}, we define te transition rate to go from Ω to Ω i as follows: k L i := 1 E ν [ τω ]P ν [ XτΩ Ω Ω i ], (16) were we recall, ν is te quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) in Ω. Te superscript L in (16) indicates tat te microscopic evolution of te system is governed by te overdamped Langevin process (1). Notice tat, using Proposition 3, it olds for all i {1,..., n}: P ν [ XτΩ Ω Ω i ] = ki L n. l=1 kl l

12 12 Tony Lelièvre et al. Tus, te expressions (16) are compatible wit te use of a kinetic Monte Carlo algoritm, see (2) and (4). Indeed, starting from te quasi-stationary distribution ν, te exit event from Ω can be exactly modeled using te rates (16): te exit time is exponentially distributed wit parameter n l=1 kl l, independent of te exit point, and te exit point is in Ω i Ω wit probability ki L/ n l=1 kl l. Te remaining question is tus following: does te transition rate (16) satisfy te Eyring-Kramers law (5) in te limit 0? Notice tat, using Proposition 3, for i {1,..., n}, te transition rate defined by (16) writes: ki L = n u (z) e 2 f(z) σ(dz) Ω Ω i, (17) 2 u e 2 f were we recall, u is te eigenfunction associated wit te principal eigenvalue λ of L D,(0). Ω Te remainder of tis work is dedicated to te presentation of recent results in [23], [22] and [57] wic aim at studying te asymptotic beaviour of te exit event (τ Ω, X τω ) from a metastable domain Ω in te limit 0. In particular, te results give a sarp asymptotic formula of te transition rates (17) wen 0. Remark 8. If one wants to recover te expression of te prefactor (6), one as to multiply by 1 2 te expression (16). Tis can be explained as follows. Once te process (1) reaces Ω Ω i, it as, in te limit 0, a one-alf probability to come back in Ω and a one-alf probability to go in Ω i. If z i is a non degenerate saddle point of f, tis result is not difficult to prove in dimension 1. Indeed, it is proved in [57, Section A.1.2.2], tat wen reacing Ω Ω i, te probability tat te process (1) goes in Ω i is O() in te limit 0. To extend tis result to iger dimensions, one can use a suitable set of coordinates around z i. 2 Main results on te exit event In all tis section, Ω R d is C open, bounded and connected, and f C (Ω,R) 3. Te purpose of tis section is to present recent results obtained in [22] and [23]. Bot [22] and [23] are mainly concerned wit studying te asymptotic beaviour wen 0 of te exit law of a domain Ω of te process (1). In [22], wen Ω only contains one local minimum of f and n f > 0 on Ω, we obtain sarp asymptotic equivalents wen 0 of te probability tat te process (1) leaves Ω troug a subset Σ of Ω starting from te quasi-stationary distribution or from a deterministic initial condition in Ω. Ten, tese asymptotic equivalents are used to compute te asymptotic beaviour of 3 Actually, all te results presented in tis section are proved in [22] and [23] in te more general setting: Ω = Ω Ω is a C oriented compact and connected Riemannian manifold of dimension d wit boundary Ω.

13 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 13 te transition rates (16). In [23], we explicit a more general setting tan te one considered in [22] were we identify te most probable places of exit of Ω as well as teir relative probabilities starting from te quasi-stationary distribution or deterministic initial conditions in Ω. More precisely, we consider in [23] te case wen Ω contains several local minima of f and f 0 on Ω. 2.1 Sarp asymptotic estimates on te exit event from a domain In tis section, we present te results of [22] wic give sarp asymptotic estimates on te law of X τω and on te expectation of τ Ω wen 0. Tese results give in particular te asymptotic estimates of te transition rates (k L j ) j=1,...,n defined in (16). Geometric setting. Let us give te geometric setting wic is considered in tis section: [H1] Te function f : Ω R and te restriction of f to Ω, denoted by f Ω, are Morse functions. Moreover, f (x) 0 for all x Ω. [H2] Te function f as a unique global minimum x 0 in Ω and min f > min f = min f = f(x 0). Ω Ω Ω Te point x 0 is te unique critical point of f in Ω. Te function f Ω as exactly n 1 local minima wic are denoted by (z i ) i=1,...,n. Tey are ordered suc tat f(z 1 )... f(z n ). [H3] n f(x) > 0 for all x Ω. Under te assumption [H2], one denotes by n 0 {1,..., n} te number of global minima of f Ω, i.e.: f(z 1 ) =... = f(z n0 ) < f(z nn0 +1)... f(z n ). On Figure 3, one gives a scematic representation in dimension 2 of a function f satisfying te assumptions [H1], [H2], and [H3], and of its restriction to Ω, in te case n = 4 and n 0 = 2. Remark 9. Te assumption [H1] implies tat f does not ave any saddle point (i.e. critical point of index 1) on Ω. Actually, under [H1], [H2], and [H3], te points (z i ) i=1,...,n play geometrically te role of saddle points and are called generalized saddle points of f on Ω, see [31, Section 5.2]. Tis can be explained by te fact tat, under [H1], [H2], [H3] and wen f is extended by outside Ω, te points (z i ) i=1,...,n are geometrically saddle points of f (te extension of f by is consistent wit te Diriclet boundary conditions used to define L D,(0) ) in te following sense. For all i {1,..., n}, z i is a local minimum of f Ω and a local maximum of f Di, were D i is te straigt line passing troug z i and ortogonal to Ω at z i.

14 14 Tony Lelièvre et al. z 4 z 3 level sets of f x 0 Ω z 1 z 2 f Ω Ω z 4 z 3 z 1 z 2 B z1 B z2 B z3 B z4 Fig. 3. Scematic representation in dimension 2 of a function f satisfying te assumptions [H1], [H2], and [H3], and of its restriction f Ω to Ω. On te figure, n = 4 and n 0 = 2. Remark 10. Notice tat under [H1], [H2], and [H3], extending f by reflection outside Ω in a neigborood of z i also implies tat z i is a geometric saddle point of f as defined in Remark 9. In dimension one, suc a construction was considered by Kramers in [43] to derive formulas for transition rates, as explained in [53]. Moreover, as in Remark 8, it can be proved in dimension 1 (exactly as in [57, Section A.1.2.2]), tat wen reacing Ω Ω i, te probability tat te process (1) goes in Ω i is O() wen 0. To extend tis result to iger dimensions, one can use a suitable set of coordinates around z i. Let us now define g : Ω R + by g(x) = f(x) wen x Ω and g(x) = T f(x) wen x Ω, (18) were T f is te tangential gradient of f in Ω. Let us recall tat for x Ω, T f(x) is defined by T f(x) = f(x) ( f(x) n) n, were n is te unit outward normal to Ω at x. Te assumptions one needs to state te results in tis section depend on te Agmon distance in Ω between te points (z i ) i=1,...,n. Te Agmon distance is defined as follows: for any x Ω and y Ω, d a (x, y) := inf L(γ, (0, 1)), (19) γ Lip(x,y)

15 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 15 were Lip(x, y) is te set of Lipscitz curves γ : [0, 1] Ω wic are suc tat γ(0) = x and γ(1) = y, and were for γ Lip(x, y), L(γ, (0, 1)) = 1 0 g(γ(t)) γ (t) dt. Remark 11. Let us give some common points and differences between te quasipotential V introduced in [26, Section 2] and te Agmon distance (19). Contrary to te quasipotential V, te Agmon distance (19) is symmetric. Moreover, let us consider x y Ω suc tat tere exists a curve γ : [0, 1] Ω wit d dtγ(t) = f(γ(t)), γ(0) = x and γ(1) = y. Ten, te Agmon distance (19) between x and y equals f(x) f(y) = V (y, x) > 0 but V (x, y) = 0 d a (x, y). Finally, let us define te following sets. For i {1,..., n}, B zi is te basin of attraction of z i for te dynamics d dt x(t) = T f ( x(t) ) in Ω, i.e. B zi = {y Ω, lim t x(t) = z i if x(0) = y} (see for instance Figure 3). Moreover, one defines for i {1,..., n}: Bz c i := Ω \ B zi. Main results. Let us now give te main results of tis section. Proposition 4. Let u be te eigenfunction associated wit te principal eigenvalue λ of L D,(0) wic satisfies normalization (13). Let us assume tat te ypoteses [H1], [H2], [H3] are satisfied. Ten, in te limit 0, one as: and λ = Ω det Hessf(x0 ) n 0 n f(z i ) π det Hessf Ω (z i ) e 2 (f(z1) f(x0)) (1 + O()) u (x) e 2 f(x) dx = i=1 (20) π d 4 (det Hessf(x 0 )) 1/4 d 4 e 1 f(x0) (1 + O()). (21) Furtermore, one obtains te following teorem on te asymptotic beaviour of n u, wic is one of te main results of [22]. Teorem 1. Let us assume tat [H1], [H2], and [H3] are satisfied and tat te following inequalities old: and for all i {1,..., n}, f(z 1 ) f(x 0 ) > f(z n ) f(z 1 ) (22) d a (z i, B c z i ) > max[f(z n ) f(z i ), f(z i ) f(z 1 )]. (23)

16 16 Tony Lelièvre et al. Let i {1,..., n} and Σ i Ω be an open set containing z i and suc tat Σ i B zi. Let u be te eigenfunction associated wit te principal eigenvalue of L D,(0) wic satisfies (13). Ten, in te limit 0: Σ i n u e 2 f = C i () e 2f(z i ) f(x 0 ) (1 + O()), (24) were C i () = (det Hessf(x 0)) 1/4 n f(z i )2π d 2 4 det Hessf Ω (z i ) Tese results ave te following consequences. d 6 4. Corollary 1. Let us assume tat all te assumptions of Teorem 1 are satisfied. Let i {1,..., n} and Σ i Ω be an open set containing z i and suc tat Σ i B zi. Ten, in te limit 0: P ν [X τω Σ i ] = n f(z i ) det Hessf Ω (z i ) ( n0 k=1 ) 1 n f(z k ) det Hessf Ω (z k ) e 2 (f(zi) f(z1)) (1 + O()), (25) were ν is te quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) in Ω (see (14)). Moreover, if Σ i is te common boundary between te state Ω and a state Ω i, ten, wen 0 ki L = 1 det Hessf(x0 ) n f(z i ) π det Hessf Ω (z i ) e 2 (f(zi) f(x0)) (1 + O()), (26) were k L i is te transition rate (16) to go from Ω to Ω i. Notice tat since z i is not a saddle point of f, te prefactor in (26) is not te prefactor 1 2 A i (see Remark 10 for te explanation of te multiplicative term 1 2 ), were A i is defined by (6), but it is actually te expected prefactor for a generalized saddle point of f (see Remarks 9 and 10). Te asymptotic estimate (25) is a consequence of Proposition 4, Teorem 1 togeter wit (15), and (26) is a consequence of Proposition 4, Teorem 1 and (17). Te main difficulty is to prove (24) wic requires a sarp equivalent of te quantity Σ i n u e 2 f wen z i is not a global minimum of f on Ω, i.e. wen i {n 0 + 1,..., n}. In [22], numerical simulations are provided to ceck tat (25) olds and to discuss te necessity of te assumptions (23) to obtain (25). Furtermore, in [22], te results (24) and (25) are generalized to sets Σ Ω wic do not necessarily contain a point z {z 1,..., z n }: tis is te oter main results of [22] wic is not presented ere. Moreover, wit te elp of leveling results on te function x E x [F(X τω )], we generalized (25) to deterministic initial conditions in Ω (i.e. wen X 0 = x Ω) wic are te initial conditions considered in te teory of large deviations [26]. Te proofs of Proposition 4 and Teorem 1 are based on tools from semi-classical analysis and more precisely, tey are based on tecniques developed in [31 35,46].

17 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 17 Starting points of te proofs of Proposition 4 and Teorem 1. Let us recall tat u is te eigenfunction associated wit te principal eigenvalue λ of L D,(0) wic satisfies normalization (13). In view of (15) and in order to obtain (25), one wants to study te asymptotic beaviour wen 0 of u on Ω. Te starting point of te proofs of Proposition 4 and Teorem 1 is te fact tat u is solution to an eigenvalue problem for te same eigenvalue λ. Indeed, recall tat u is solution to L (0) u = λ u in Ω and u = 0 on Ω. If one differentiates tis relation, u is solution to L (1) u = λ u in Ω, T u = 0 on Ω, 2 ( div + f ) u = 0 on Ω, (27) were L (1) = 2 + f + Hess f is an operator acting on 1-forms (namely on vector fields). In te following te operator L (1) wit tangential boundary conditions (27) is denoted by L D,(1) of L D,(1) projector of L D,(p). From (27), u is terefore an eigenform associated wit λ. For p {0, 1}, let us denote, by π (p) associated wit te eigenvalues of L D,(p) te ortogonal smaller tan 2. Anoter crucial ingredient for te proofs of Proposition 4 and Teorem 1 is te fact tat, from [31, Capter 3], Terefore, from (27), it olds Ran π (0) = Span u and dim Ran π (1) = n. (28) u Ran π (1), (29) and from (13) and te fact tat L (0) u, u L 2 w = 2 u 2 L 2 w, one as λ = 2 u 2 L 2 w. (30) Tus, to study te asymptotic beaviour wen 0 of λ, u and u, we construct a suitable ortonormal basis of Ran π (1). Tis basis is constructed using so-called quasi-modes. Sketc of te proofs of Proposition 4 and Teorem 1. Let us give te sketc of te proof of (25) wic is te main result of [22]. Recall tat from Proposition 2, one works in te Hilbert space L 2 w (Ω). Te spaces L2 w (Ω) and Hw 1 (Ω) (see (12)) extend naturally on 1-forms as follows } Λ 1 L 2 w {u (Ω) := = t (u 1,..., u d ) : Ω R d, k {1,..., d}, u 2 k e 2 f <, Ω

18 18 Tony Lelièvre et al. and Λ 1 H 1 w(ω) := { u = t (u 1,..., u d ) : Ω R d, (i, k) {1,..., d} 2, i u k L 2 w(ω) }. In te following, one denotes by. L 2 w (resp.. H 1 w ) te norm of L 2 w(ω) and of Λ 1 L 2 w (Ω) (resp. H1 w (Ω) and Λ1 Hw 1 (Ω)). Finally,.,. L 2 stands for bot te scalar w product associated wit te norm of L 2 w(ω) and wit te norm of Λ 1 L 2 w(ω). In view of (29) and (28), one as for all ortonormal basis (ψ j ) j {1,...,n} of Ran π (1), in L 2 w (Ω): n u = u, ψ j L 2 w ψ j, (31) and from (30), it olds λ = 2 j=1 n u, ψ j L 2 2 w. (32) j=1 In particular, one as for all k {1,..., n}, Σ k n u e 2 f = n u, ψ j L 2 w ψ j n e 2 f, (33) Σ k j=1 were we recall tat Σ k is an open set of Ω suc tat z k Σ k and Σ k B zk. Step 1: approximation of u. Under [H1], [H2], and [H3], it is not difficult to find a good approximation of u. Indeed, let us consider, ũ := χ χ L 2 w, (34) were χ Cc (Ω,R+ ) and χ = 1 on {x Ω, d(x, Ω) ε} were ε > 0. In particular, for ε small enoug, χ = 1 in a neigboorood of x 0 (wic is assumed in te following). Let us explain wy ũ is a good approximation of u. Since L D,(0) is self adjoint on L 2 w (Ω), one as (1 π (0) )ũ 2 L 2 w C D,(0) L ũ, ũ = C L 2 w 2 Ω χ 2 e 2 f. Ω χ2 e 2 f Since f(x 0 ) = min Ω f < min Ω f and x 0 is te unique global minimum of f on Ω (see [H2]), one as using Laplace s metod (x 0 is a non degenerate critical point of f and χ(x 0 ) = 1): Ω χ 2 e 2 f = (π) d 2 dethessf(x0 ) e 2 f(x0) (1 + O()). Terefore, for any δ > 0, coosing ε small enoug, it olds wen 0: (0) (1 π )ũ 2 = O(e 2 L 2 (f(z1) f(x0) δ) ), w

19 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 19 and tus: π (0) ũ = ũ + O(e 1 (f(z1) f(x0) δ) ) in L 2 w(ω). From (28) and since χ 0, one as for any δ > 0 (coosing ε small enoug), wen 0 u = π(0) ũ π (0) ũ L 2 w = ũ + O(e 1 (f(z1) f(x0) δ) ) in L 2 w(ω). (35) Since ũ L 2 w = 1, tis last relation justifies tat ũ is a good approximation of u in L 2 w(ω). Notice tat (35) implies (21). Step 2: construction of a basis of Ran π (1) to prove Teorem 1. In view of (33), te idea is to construct a family of 1-forms ( ψ j ) j {1,...,n} wic forms, wen projected on Ran π (1), a basis of Ran π(1) and wic allows to obtain sarp asymptotic estimates on n u on all te Σ j s wen 0. In te literature, suc a 1-form ψ j is called a quasi-mode (for L D,(1) ). A quasi-mode for LD,(1) is a smoot 1-form w suc tat for some norm, it olds wen 0: π (1) w = w + o(1), (36) To prove Teorem 1, one of te major issues is te construction of a basis ( ψ j ) j {1,...,n} so tat te remainder term o(1) in (36), wen w = ψ k, is of te order (see (23)) (1 π (1) ) ψ k H 1 w = O ( e 1 max[f(zn) f(z k), f(z k ) f(z 1)] ). (37) Tis implies tat ( π (1) ψ j ) j {1,...,n} is a basis of Ran π(1) and above all, after a Gram-Scmidt procedure on ( π (1) ψ j, wen 0, tat for all k )j {1,...,n} {1,..., n} (see (33)): Σ k n u e 2 f = and (see (32)) λ = 2 n ũ, ψ j L 2 w j=1 Σ k ψj n e 2 f + O ( e 2f(z k ) f(x 0 )+c ) (38) n ũ, ψ j L 2 w 2 + O ( e 2 (f(z1) f(x0)+c)) (39) j=1 for some c > 0 independent of. Here, we recall, ũ (see (34)) is a good approximation of u (see (35)). Let us now explain ow we will construct te family ( ψj in order to obtain (38) and (39). Ten, we explain ow te )j {1,...,n} ( terms ψj n e 2 f) ( and ũ, ψ j L 2 Σ j j {1,...,n} w appearing in (38) )j {1,...,n} and (39) are computed.

20 20 Tony Lelièvre et al. Step 2a: construction of te family ( ψ j ) j {1,...,n}. To construct eac 1-form ψ j, te idea is to construct an operator L (1) wit mixed tangential Diriclet and Neumann boundary conditions on a domain Ω j Ω wic is suc tat ( {z1,..., z n } {x 0 } ) Ω j = {z j }. For j {1,..., n}, ψj is said to be associated wit te generalized saddle point z j. Te goal of te boundary conditions is to ensure tat wen 0, eac of tese operators as only one exponentially small eigenvalue (i.e. tis eigenvalue is O ( ) e c for some c > 0 independent of ), te oter eigenvalues being larger tan. Ten, we sow tat eac of tese small eigenvalues actually equals 0 using te Witten complex structure associated wit tese boundary conditions on Ω j. To construct suc operators L (1) wit mixed boundary conditions on Ω j, te recent results of [38] and [28] are used. Te 1-form ψ j associated wit z j is ten defined using an eigenform v (1),j associated wit te eigenvalue 0 of te operator L (1) associated wit mixed boundary conditions on Ω j : ψ j := χ j v (1),j χ j v (1),j, (40) L 2 w were χ j is a well cosen cut-off function wit support in Ω j. Notice tat for j {1,..., n}, te quasi-mode ψ j is not only constructed in a neigbourood of z j : it as a support as large as needed in Ω. Tis is a difference wit previous construction in te literature, suc as [31]. We need suc quasi-modes for te following reasons. Firstly, we compute te probability tat te process (1) leaves Ω troug open sets Σ j wic are arbitrarily large in B zj. Secondly, we use te fact tat te quasi-mode ψ j decreases very fast away from z j to get (37). Tis is needed to state te ypotesis (23) in terms of Agmon distances, see next step. Step 2b: Accuracy of te quasi-mode ψ j for j {1,..., n}. To obtain a sufficiently small remainder term in (36) (to get (37) and ten (38)), one needs to quantify te decrease of te quasi-mode ψ j outside a neigboorood of z j. Tis decrease is obtained wit Agmon estimates on v (1),j wic allow to localize ψ j in a neigboorood of z j. For j {1,..., n}, we prove te following Agmon estimate on v (1),j : χj v (1),j e 1 da(.,zj) H 1 = O( N ), (41) w for some N N and were d a is te Agmon distance defined in (19). To obtain (41), we study te properties of tis distance. Te boundary of Ω introduces tecnical difficulties. Te Agmon estimate (41) is obtained adapting to our case tecniques developed in [31, 46]. For all j {1,..., n}, using te fact tat (1 π (1) ) ψ j 2 L 2 w C L D,(1) ψ j, ψ j L 2 w and (41), one sows tat (1 π (1) ) ψ j 2 L 2 w C q e 2 infsupp χ j da(.,zj),

21 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 21 for some q > 0. Tus, in order to get (37), te support of χ j as to be arbitrarily close to x 0 and B c z j. Tis explains te assumptions (22) and (23), and te fact tat te quasi-mode ψ j is not constructed in a neigboorood of z j but in a domain Ω j arbitrarily large in Ω. Tis is one of te main differences compared wit [31]. At te end of tis step, one as a family ( ψ j ) j {1,...,n} wic satisfies (37). Tis allows us to obtain, in te limit 0 (see (38)), for some c > 0 independent of and for all k {1,..., n}: Σ k n u e 2 f = n ũ, ψ j L 2 w j=1 Σ k ψj n e 2 f + O ( e 2f(z k ) f(x 0 )+c ). ( Etape 3: computations of ψj n e 2 f) ( and ũ, ψ j L 2 Σ j j {1,...,n} w )j {1,...,n}. In view of (38) and (39), for all j {1,..., n}, one needs to compute te terms ψj n e 2 f and ũ, ψ j L 2 w. Σ j To do tat, we use for all j {1,..., n} a WKB approximation of v (1),j, denoted by v (1) z j,wkb. In te literature we follow, v(1) z j,wkb is constructed in a neigboorood of z j (see [31, 46]). To prove Teorem 1, we extend te construction of v (1) z j,wkb to neigbouroods in Ω of arbitrarily large closed sets included in B zj (indeed, tere is no restriction on te size of Σ j in B zj ). Ten, te comparison between v (1),j and v(1) z j,wkb is also extended to neigbouroods in Ω of arbitrarily ( large closed sets included in B zj. Once te terms ψ Σj j n e 2 )j {1,...,n} f and ( ũ, ψ ) j L are computed, one concludes te proof of (20) using (39) 2w j {1,...,n} and te proof of (24) using (38). 2.2 Most probable exit points from a bounded domain Setting and motivation. In tis section, we present recent results from [23] on te concentration of te law of X τω on a subset of argmin Ω f = {z Ω, f(z) = min Ω f} wen 0 in a more general geometric setting tan te one of Teorem 1. Te main purpose of tese results is to prove an asymptotic formula wen 0 for te concentration of te law of X τω on a set of points of argmin Ω f wen Ω contains several local minima of f and wen n f is not necessarily positive on Ω. Let Y Ω. We say tat te law of X τω concentrates on Y if for all neigborood V Y of Y in Ω, one as lim P [X τ Ω V Y ] = 1, 0

22 22 Tony Lelièvre et al. and if for all x Y and all neigborood V x of x in Ω, it olds: lim P [X τ Ω V x ] > 0. 0 In [51, 52, 56], wen n f(x) = 0 for all x Ω or wen n f(x) > 0 for all x Ω (and wit additional assumptions on f), it as been sown tat te law of X τω concentrates on points were f attains its minimum on Ω (see (10)). Later on, it as been proved in [15, 16, 39, 40, 58] wen n f > 0 on Ω and f as a unique non degenerate critical point in Ω (wic is necessarily its global minimum in Ω). Tools developed in semi-classical analysis allow us to generalize tis geometric setting. For instance, we consider several critical points of f in Ω and we drop te assumptions n f > 0 on Ω (owever we do not consider te case wen f as saddle points on Ω). Assuming tat f and f Ω are Morse functions, and f 0 on Ω, we raise te following questions: Wat are te geometric conditions ensuring tat, wen X 0 ν, te law of X τω concentrates on points were f attains its minimum on Ω (or a subset of tese points)? Wat are te conditions wic ensure tat tese results extend to some deterministic initial conditions in Ω? Te results of [23] aim at answering tese questions. Let us recall tat wen f and f Ω are Morse functions and wen f 0 on Ω, te elements of te set {z is a local minimim of f Ω } {z Ω, n f(z) > 0} (42) are te generalized saddle points of f on Ω and play te role of saddle points of f on Ω, see Remark 9. Before stating te main results of [23], let us discuss te two questions above wit one-dimensional examples. Remark 12. Te assumption tat te drift term b in (1) is of te form b = f is essential ere to te existence of a limiting exit distribution of Ω wen 0. If it is not te case and wen for instance te boundary of Ω is a periodic orbit of te dynamics d dt x(t) = b( x(t) ), te penomenon of cycling discovered by Day in [17, 18] prevents te existence of a limiting exit distribution wen 0. We also refer to [3 5] for te study of tis penomenon of cycling. One-dimensional examples. To discuss te two questions raised in te previous section, one considers two one-dimensional examples. Example 1. Te goal is ere to construct a one-dimensional example for wic, starting from te global minimum of f in Ω or from te quasi-stationary distribution ν, te law of X τω does not concentrate on points were f attains its minimum on Ω. To tis end, let us consider te function f represented in Figure 4 for wic one as te following result. Proposition 5. Let z 1 < z 2 and f C ([z 1, z 2 ],R) be a Morse function. Let us assume tat f(z 1 ) < f(z 2 ), {x [z 1, z 2 ], f (x) = 0} = {c, x 1 } wit z 1 < c < x 1 <

23 Metastability and Eyring-Kramers law 23 {f = min Ω f} z 1 c x 1 z 2 Fig. 4. Example of a function f suc tat, starting from te global minimum x 1 of f in Ω or from te quasi-stationary distribution ν, te law of X τω concentrates on z 2 wereas f(z 2) > min Ω f = f(z 1). z 2 and f(x 1 ) < f(z 1 ) < f(z 2 ) < f(c) (see Figure 4). Ten, for all x (c, z 2 ], tere exists ε > 0 suc tat wen 0: P x [X τ(z1,z 2 ) = z 1] = O(e ε ) and tus Px [X τ(z1,z 2 ) = z 2] = 1 + O(e ε ). Moreover, tere exists ε > 0 suc tat wen 0: P ν [X τ(z1,z 2 ) = z 1] = O(e ε ) and tus Pν [X τ(z1,z 2 ) = z 2] = 1 + O(e ε ), were ν is te quasi-stationary distribution of te process (1) in (z 1, z 2 ). Te proof of Proposition 5 is based on te fact tat in one dimension, explicit formulas can be written for x P x [X = z τ(z1,z 2 ) j] (j {1, 2}), see [57, Section A.5.3.1] or [23]. According to Proposition 5, wen 0 and wen X 0 = x (c, z 2 ) or X 0 ν, te process (1) leaves Ω = (z 1, z 2 ) troug z 2. However, te generalized saddle point z 2 (see (42)) is not te global minimum of f on Ω. Tis fact can be explained as follows: te potential barrier f(c) f(x 1 ) is larger tan te potential barrier f(z 2 ) f(x 1 ). Tus, te law of X τω wen X 0 = x (c, z 2 ) cannot concentrate on z 1 since it is less costly to leave Ω troug z 2 rater tan to cross te barrier f(c) f(x 1 ) to exit troug z 1. Moreover, it can be proved tat te quasi-stationary distribution ν concentrates in any neigborood of x 1 in te limit 0, wic explains wy te law of X τω wen X 0 ν also concentrates on z 2. Concerning te two questions raised in te previous section, tis example indicates tat in te small temperature regime, tere exist cases for wic te process (1), starting from te global minimum of f in Ω or from ν, leaves Ω troug a point wic is not a global minimum of f Ω. Tis example also suggests te following. If one wants te law of X τω to concentrate wen 0 on points in Ω were f attains its minimum, one sould exclude cases wen te largest timescales for te diffusion process in Ω are not related to energetic barriers involving points of Ω were f Ω attains its minimum. In order to exclude suc cases, we will assume in te following tat te closure of eac of te connected components of {f < min Ω f} intersects Ω.