Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm going over some (molecular dynamics) related literature - specifically the derivation of the Weighted Histogram Analysis Method (WHAM).

As a quick backdrop WHAM is a method for stitching together conceptually overlapping and independent experiments done in Monte Carlo or Molecular Dynamic simulations. This isn't actually super important, as this is more a notation question.

Before the paper gets to the WHAM derivation, there's a discussion on the actual problem, where two variables are defined

$ x = \text{coordinates of atoms}$

$ \xi = \text{reaction coordinate - is a function of x} $

There's also a discussion on the notation used, where a caret above a value indicates it's a function,

"Thus, $\hat{V_i}(x)$ denotes the function and $V_i$ a particular value the function takes"

Having defined this and after some more work, the paper defines the probability density obtained from a simulation, which can be written in the following manner.

$P(\xi) = \langle\delta[\xi - \hat{\xi}(x)]\rangle$

For the record

$P(\xi) = e^{\big(-\beta W(\xi)\big)}$

Firstly, there's no explanation of what $\delta$ is at all, which makes me think it's probably some common operator. I don't think a Kronecker delta because that doesn't make sense in this context (and it lacks subscripts) but maybe?

Secondly, is there some common way to interpret a variable which can also be a function? When I initially read it I assumed that $\xi(x)$ was looking at deviation from the reaction coordinate the $x$ variable showed, but in hind-site I don't know why I thought that.

The reaction coordinate, traditionally, is some physical component of the system. It could be the distance between two residues, a specific orientation of all the atoms in the system, the distance of a specif residue to some arbitrary point etc. I'm not sure if that's the same here, or if it has some other, more specific meaning in this context.

EDIT: I'm currently reading another paper in the literature ("Use of the Weighted Histogram Analysis Method for the "Analysis of Simulated and Parallel Tempering Simulations" by Chodera et al.) which a colleague recommended and uses very different notation - hopefully I can use this to reconcile what's going on here...

share|cite|improve this question
The $\delta$ is the dirac delta function. You can think of it as the continuous case of the kronecker delta. – Kitchi Mar 5 '13 at 7:11
I don't know the answer, but I too am interested in it. – Nick Mar 6 '13 at 3:54
@Kitchi so that was one of my initial thoughts, but that means that if $\xi = \hat{\xi}(x)$ then $P(\xi)=1$ else $P(\xi)=0$ which doesn't seem to make too much sense in the contex – Alex Mar 6 '13 at 4:34
@Alex : That is definitely not what it means. You're forgetting the important ensemble average sign $\right<P(\xi)\left>$ in it – user35952 Jun 15 at 8:15

As @Kitchi writes $\delta$ is the Dirac Delta function. Your question is basically why is this true: $P(\xi) = \langle\delta[\xi - \hat{\xi}(x)]\rangle$.

As already noted (by Alex), when $ ξ=\hat ξ (x)$, we have $ \delta(ξ-\hat ξ (x)) = 1$. So the average that needs to be computed has this form: a configuration which has the reaction coordinate value $\xi$ contributes 1 and other configurations contribute 0.

So we have: $\langle\delta[\xi - \hat{\xi}(x)]\rangle = { \frac{ \text {# of conf. with }\xi}{\text{total # configs}}}$ . Clealy the RHS is the $P(\xi)$ So that this computes the ENSEMBLE average.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.