text:
# Color and Kinematic Interference Influence on the Probability of Color Singlet Chain States

## 1 Introduction

Color singlet chain states stand for a kind of way of color connection. In $`q\overline{q}+ng`$ system, it begins at quark, connects gluons one by one, and ends at antiquark. Their color states can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\{|f_i,i=1,2,3,\mathrm{},n!\}\hfill & \hfill & \\ & & \{Nc^{(n+1)/2}|1_{qP(1)}1_{P(1)P(2)}\mathrm{}1_{P(n)\overline{q}}\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
In popular generators, such as JETSET, a large Nc approximation is implied, so the probability of color singlet chain states come to one and they become the only way of color connection. But we know that in the real world, Nc is 3. It leads that the probability of color singlet chain states is no longer 1, and now it is necessary to calculate the probability in detail.

To do this will make us encounter two types of interference, color interference and kinematic interference. These interferences will not come up when large Nc approximation. When Nc is limitted, any two color singlet chain states are not orthogonal to each other and this is the origin of color interference. Kinematic interference originates from the variation of momentum structure under the condition of identical color connections. It has two very important nature:1. connected with color factors or color interference. 2. not the interference between Feynman diagrams, but contains the contribution of all Feynman diagrams. We will come to them later. Basicly, these two types of interference come from Nc-limit.

## 2 Color Effective Hamiltonian Method

To study the probability of color states for $`q\overline{q}+ng`$ system, a new method is proposed at tree level, which is called color Effective Hamiltonian method. By using color effective Hamiltonian $`H_c`$ constructed in  we can compute the amplitude of any color singlet

$$f|H_c|0=\underset{P}{}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})^nf|Tr(QG_1G_2\mathrm{}G_n)^PD^P$$
(2)
This expression can tell us the origion and nature of kinematic interference: First, from the color part of $`f|Tr(QG_1G_2\mathrm{}G_n)^P`$ we can get color factors. Then under the condition of identical color connection order of state $`|f`$, the momentum of gluons interchanging will cause different kinematic structure of $`D^P`$, and then different kinematic structure will cause kinematic interference $`Re(D^PD^P^{})`$ further when square of amplitude of Eq. (2).

## 3 Color Interference

We know that color singlet chain states are not orthogonal to each other when Nc limitted. So only after orthogonalization, can we calculate the cross section of color singlet chain states, and then the probability of them. The expressions of probability of SCS in two-gluon case is

$$P_{SCS}=\frac{\sigma _{SCS}}{\sigma _{total}}=\frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }[4.45(|D^{12}|^2+|D^{21}|^2)3.1Re(D^{12}D^{21})]}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }[\frac{16}{3}(|D^{12}|^2+|D^{21}|^2)\frac{4}{3}Re(D^{12}D^{21})]}$$
(3)
The results for three gluon-case, four-gluon case and so on, have the similar form. When neglecting kinematic interference terms, after analytic calculation, we get for $`n=2`$, $`P_{SCS}4.45/(16/3)83\%`$; $`n=3`$, $`P_{SCS}5.47/(64/9)77\%`$; for $`n=4`$, $`P_{SCS}6.83/(256/27)72\%`$. Here are some inferences according to the above: $`P_{SCS}58\%(n=7(91GeV))`$, $`P_{SCS}46\%(n=10(200GeV))`$, $`P_{SCS}28\%(n=17(1TeV))`$. Where $`n`$ is average gluon number for increasing energy, which is from JETSET74 with default parameters. These results indicate the decent trend of probability with n. And we show that in Fig. 1.

Here we can give a naive physical understanding. We know that the probability for two gluons to have identical color is 1/8, then the probability for them to have different color is 7/8, i.e., the probability for them to form color singlet chain state is $`\frac{7}{8}`$, for three gluons it is $`(7/8)^2`$, similarly, for n gluons, it is $`(7/8)^{n1}`$. Then we can say that the probability is reduced by $`(7/8)`$. Qualitative analysis also shows that as long as Nc is 3, when n increases, there will be more and more ways for selecting color connection among partons, especially color singlet with gluonic subsinglet(CS), so the decence of probability of SCS is inevitable outcome.         Fig.1: Decent trend of $`P_{SCS}`$ with n increasing

## 4 Kinematic Interference

Because kinematic interference contains the contribution from all Feynman diagrams, we need to know its expression to study it. We find there are two ways for getting the expression of kinematic interference terms. The first way is direct and relatively exact for concrete Feynman diagrams computing. But when n is larger, the second way is convenient. By using soft-gluon-approximation, color effective hamiltonian is simplified to a form which contains the expression of $`D^P`$. We can find it in .

But we are not sure that if the results from two different ways have much difference. So for two-gluon case, we compared the results from them separately. The results is in Fig. 2. Where the solid line up in the fig is $`P_{SCS}`$ from concrete Feynman diagram computing; the dashed line is $`P_{SCS}`$ from soft-gluon-approximation. Fig. 2 shows that there is little difference between two ways. This implies that the second way is also valid and we can use it on three-gluon case. The result is in this Fig. 3.

We also study the probability of CS for two-gluon case. When two gluons have identical colors, they can form a subsinglet. The probability is

$$P_{CS}=\frac{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }[\frac{2}{3}(|D^{12}|^2+|D^{21}|^2)+\frac{4}{3}Re(D^{12}D^{21})]}{𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }[\frac{16}{3}(|D^{12}|^2+|D^{21}|^2)\frac{4}{3}Re(D^{12}D^{21})]}$$
(4)
The results is the line below in Fig. 2.

There is still one thing we should note, here because color effective Hamiltonian is at tree level, our results must have the relation with cutoff. Throughout studying Feynman diagrams of two-gluon case, we find that when cutoff becomes small, the diagrams containing tri-gluon vertex make dominant contribution to total cross section of $`e^+e^{}q\overline{q}+2g`$. We know that these diagrams can not form CS because the two gluons of final parton state is coming from one mother-gluon propagator, then $`q\overline{q}+2g`$ can only form SCS. We can see in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 that $`P_{SCS}`$ increases with cutoff decreasing.

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Fig.2: Comparision of the results of $`P_{SCS}`$ for two-gluon case between two different ways. A line below the Fig is $`P_{CS}`$ for two-gluon case. | Fig.3: $`P_{SCS}`$ for three-gluon case including kinematic interference with cutoff, using soft-gluon-approximation. |

These results indicate that kinematic interference makes the probability of color singlet chain states decent further; but make that of color singlet with gluonic subsinglet increasing.

When n comes to 10, although the probability of SCS is less than 50% and is no longer the main color connection ,can we still not say which color connection way, such as SCS and CS, is more reasonable and chosen by nature. Because the results above come from PQCD. Hadronization process is determined by perturbative phase and non-perturbative phase together. To find the truth, we still need to study hadronization results from different ways of color connection and the experiments. This will be discussed in .


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Neutrino physics is one of the fast developing areas of particle physics. The recent Super-Kamiokande experimental results on both solar and atmospheric neutrino oscillations support the approximate bimaximal mixings. Though these results favour the large mixing angle (LMA) MSW solution with active neutrinos, such interpretation is not beyond doubt at this stage. We also have little idea about the pattern of the neutrino mass spectrum whether it is hierachical or inverted hierarchical, and both possibilities are consistent with the neutrino oscillation explanations of the atmospheric and solar neutrino deficits. The data from the long baseline experiment using a Neutrino factory will be able to confirm the actual pattern of the neutrino masses in the near future.

In the theoretical front the hierarchical model of neutrino masses and its generation have been widely studied and found to be consistent with the explanation of the LMA MSW solar neutrino solution. However, the inverted hierarchical model of neutrino masses generally predicts the maximal mixing angles $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$ and $`\theta _{23}^\nu `$ close to $`45^0`$, and are suitable for the explanation of the vacuum oscillation (VO) solution of the solar neutrino oscillation and the atmospheric neutrino oscillation data. The atmospheric data gives the lower bound at $`sin^22\theta _{23}0.88`$ and the best-fit value at $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=3\times 10^2eV^2`$. It is quite obvious that the prediction from the inverted hierarchical model fails to explain the LMA MSW solution which has upper experimental limit $`sin^22\theta _{12}0.988`$ at $`95\%`$ C.L., and the best-fit values $`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8163`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=4.2\times 10^5eV^2`$. Combining LMA MSW solution and atmospheric data, the best-fit value of the mass splitting parameter is obtained as $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=0.014`$. It has been argued  that the diagonalisation of the charged lepton mass matrix cannot give a significant contribution to $`\theta _{12}^\nu `$ needed for the explanation of the LMA MSW solution. On such ground the inverted hierarchical models are assumed to be inconsistent with the LMA MSW solution. An attempt was made to explain the LMA MSW solution from the inverted hierarchical model by considering two types of charged lepton mass matrices and was partially successful. We are interested here to make further investigations in this paper whether the inverted hierarchical model gives an acceptable LMA MSW solution when we include the contribution from the diagonalisation of the charged lepton mass matrix having special form in the 1-2 block, to the leptonic mixing matrix.

The paper is organised as follows. In section 2 we outline the seesaw mechanism for the generation of the neutrino mass matrix which leads to the inverted hierarchical mass pattern, and the contruction of the charged lepton mass matrix suitable for the LMA MSW solution. In section 3 we describe briefly the procedure for the analysis of the renormalisation group equations (RGEs) within the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM). This is followed by a summary and discussion in section 4.

## 2 Generation of the inverted hierarchical neutrino mass matrix and the charged lepton mass matrix

The inverted hierarchical model of neutrinos has its origin from the low energy non-seesaw models, e.g., the Zee-type of model using a singly charged singlet scalar field and also the models with an approximate conserved $`L_eL_\mu L_\tau `$ lepton number. However, it is also possible to generate the inverted hierarchical model through the seesaw mechanism at high energy scale within the framework of the grand unified theories with a chiral U(1) family symmetry. In a model independent way, we consider the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LR}`$ and the non-diagonal form of the right-handed Majorana mass matrix $`M_R`$ in the seesaw formula  given by

$$m_{LL}=m_{LR}M_R^1m_{LR}^T$$
(1)
where $`m_{LL}`$ is the left-handed Majorana mass matrix. The leptonic mixing matrix known as the MNS mixing matrix  is defined by

$$V_{MNS}=V_{eL}V_{\nu L}^{}$$
(2)
where $`V_{eL}`$ and $`V_{\nu L}`$ are obtained from the diagonalisation of the charged lepton and $`m_{LL}`$ as

$$m_e^{diag}=V_{eL}m_eV_{eR}^{}$$

$$m_{LL}^{diag}=V_{\nu L}m_{LL}V_{\nu L}^{}$$
(3)
If the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, the MNS matrix (2) is simply given by

$$V_{MNS}=V_{\nu L}^{}$$
(4)
We can always express $`m_{LL}`$ in the basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal,

$$m_{LL}^{}=V_{eL}m_{LL}V_{eL}^{},$$

$$m_{LL}^{diag}=V_{\nu L}^{}m_{LL}^{}V_{eL}^{},$$

$$V_{MNS}=V_{\nu L}^{}$$
(5)
From the above expressions we can calculate the experimentally determined quntities as follows:
(i) the neutrino mass splitting parameter, $`\xi =\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2|}{|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2|}`$
(ii) the atmospheric mixing angle, $`S_{at}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=4|V_{\mu 3}|^2\left(1|V_{\mu 3}|^2\right)`$
(iii) the solar mixing angle, $`S_{sol}=\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=4|V_{e2}|^2|V_{e1}|^2`$
(iv) the CHOOZ angle, $`S_C=4|V_{e3}|^2\left(1|V_{e3}|^2\right)`$ or simply $`|V_{e3}|`$.
The $`V_{fi}`$ where $`f=\tau ,\mu ,e`$ and $`i=1,2,3`$, are the elements of the MNS mixing matrix.

First, we consider the diagonal form of the charged lepton mass matrix $`m_e`$ given by

$$m_e=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_\tau $$
(6)
where the Wolfenstein parameter $`\lambda =0.22`$ and the ratios of the charged lepton masses are $`m_\tau :m_\mu :m_e=1:\lambda ^2:\lambda ^6`$ respectively. From Eq.(6) we get $`V_{eL}=1`$ and $`V_{MNS}=V_{\nu L}^{}`$ as in Eq.(4). Again we consider the diagonal form of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LR}`$ as the up-quark mass matrix,

$$m_{LR}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^8& 0& 0\\ 0& \lambda ^4& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)m_t$$
(7)
where the up-quark masses are in the ratios $`m_t:m_c:m_u=1:\lambda ^4:\lambda ^8`$. Now, the proper choice of the elements in $`M_R`$, enables us to generate the inverted hierarchical neutrino mass matrix. We present here the following examples:

Example (a)

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& \lambda ^3& 0\\ 1& 0& \lambda ^3\end{array}\right)m_0,$$
(8)
with the choice

$$M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{22}& \lambda ^{15}& \lambda ^{11}\\ \lambda ^{15}& \lambda ^8& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^{11}& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)v_R$$

Eq.(8) yields

$$V_{MNS}=V_{\nu L}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.70577& 0.70844& 1.11\times 10^{16}\\ 0.50094& 0.49906& 0.70711\\ 0.50094& 0.49906& 0.70711\end{array}\right)v_R$$
(9)
and the neutrino mass eigenvalues $`m_i=(1.4195,1.4089,0.0105)m_0`$, $`i=1,2,3.`$ This gives the mass splitting parameter $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=0.014`$, and the mixing angles $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.9999`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}1.00`$, $`|V_{e3}|=0.0`$.

Example (b)

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 1\\ 1& (\lambda ^3\lambda ^4)/2& (\lambda ^3+\lambda ^4)/2\\ 1& (\lambda ^3+\lambda ^4)/2& (\lambda ^3\lambda ^4)/2\end{array}\right)m_0,$$
(10)
with the choice

$$M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^{23}& \lambda ^{16}& \lambda ^{12}\\ \lambda ^{16}& \lambda ^8& \lambda ^4\\ \lambda ^{12}& \lambda ^4& 1\end{array}\right)v_R$$

leading to $`m_i=(1.4195,1.4089,0.00239)m_0`$, $`\xi =0.0151`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.9999`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}1.00`$, $`|V_{e3}|=0.0`$.

Example (c)

$$m_{LL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^3& 1& 1\\ 1& \lambda ^4/2& \lambda ^4/2\\ 1& \lambda ^4/2& \lambda ^4/2\end{array}\right)m_0,$$
(11)
with the choice

$$M_R=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \lambda ^{16}& \lambda ^{12}\\ \lambda ^{16}& \lambda ^8& (\lambda ^4+\lambda ^{12})\\ \lambda ^{12}& (\lambda ^4+\lambda ^{12})& 1\end{array}\right)v_R$$

leading to $`m_i=(1.4195,1.4089,0.002343)m_0`$, $`\xi =0.015`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=0.9999`$, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}1.00`$, $`|V_{e3}|=0.0`$.

In the above results the $`V_{MNS}`$ obtained from the $`m_{LL}`$ alone fails to explain the LMA MSW solution, and any small deviation in $`m_{LL}`$ will hardly affect $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$. The last hope is that there could be a significant contribution to $`\theta _{12}`$ from the diagonalisation of the charged lepton mass matrix having special structure in 1-2 block . We wish to examine how $`\theta _{sol}=(\theta _{12}^\nu \theta _{12}^e)`$ can resolve the LMA MSW solar neutrino mixing scenario .

We parametrise the charged leptonic mixing $`V_{eL}`$ by the following three rotations

$$V_{eL}=\overline{R}_{23}\overline{R}_{13}\overline{R}_{12}$$

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& \overline{c}_{23}& \overline{s}_{23}\\ 0& \overline{s}_{23}& \overline{c}_{23}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{c}_{13}& 0& \overline{s}_{13}\\ 0& 1& 0\\ \overline{s}_{13}& 0& \overline{c}_{13}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{c}_{12}& \overline{s}_{12}& 0\\ \overline{s}_{12}& \overline{c}_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
where $`\overline{s}_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}^e`$ and $`\overline{c}_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}^e`$. Putting $`\theta _{13}^e=\theta _{23}^e=0`$, Eq.(12) reduces to

$$V_{eL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{c}_{12}& \overline{s}_{12}& 0\\ \overline{s}_{12}& \overline{c}_{12}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
This gives a special form in the 1-2 block. We then reconstruct the charged lepton mass matrix using Eq.(13) from the relation,

$$m_e=V_{eL}^{}m_e^{diag}V_{eR}$$

$$=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^6\overline{c}_{12}^2+\lambda ^2\overline{s}_{12}^2& \lambda ^6\overline{c}_{12}\overline{s}_{12}\lambda ^2\overline{c}_{12}\overline{s}_{12}& 0\\ \lambda ^6\overline{c}_{12}\overline{s}_{12}\lambda ^2\overline{c}_{12}\overline{s}_{12}& \lambda ^6\overline{c}_{12}^2+\lambda ^2\overline{s}_{12}^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
For a specific choice of $`\theta _{12}^e=13^0`$, and $`\lambda =0.22`$, Eq.(14) leads to

$$m_e=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.00256& 0.01058& 0\\ 0.01058& 0.04596& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(15)
which has a special form in the 1-2 block. The diagonalisation of $`m_e`$ in Eq.(15) gives

$$V_{eL}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.97439& 0.22488& 0\\ 0.22488& 0.97439& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(16)
which is now completely unitary. The corresponding eigenvalues of the charged lepton mass matrix are given by

$$m_e^{diag}=(1.182\times 10^4,4.84\times 10^2,1.0)m_\tau $$
(17)
which gives almost correct physical mass ratios $`m_e:m_\mu :m_\tau =\lambda ^6:\lambda ^2:1`$. The MNS mixing matrix (2) is now calculated, using Eqs.(9) and (16), as

$$V_{MNS}=V_{eL}V_{\nu L}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.5750& 0.8025& 0.1590\\ 0.6468& 0.32696& 0.6890\\ 0.50094& 0.49906& 0.70711\end{array}\right)$$
(18)
This leads to the mixing angles $`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8517`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}=0.9494`$, and $`|V_{e3}|=0.159`$, and these predictions are consistent with the explanation of LMA MSW solution. The possible choice of $`\theta _{12}^e=14^0`$ in Eq.(14) also leads to the predictions of $`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8298`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}=0.9415`$, and $`|V_{e3}|=0.1710`$ while maintaining the good prediction of the ratios of the charged lepton masses. However its $`|V_{e3}|`$ is above the CHOOZ and PALO VERDE experimental constraint  of $`|V_{e3}|0.16`$.

Taking the first result with $`\theta _{12}^e=13^0`$, the left-handed neutrino mass $`m_{LL}^{}`$ in the basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal(5), is now expressed for our convenience, as

$$m_{LL}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.437972& 0.897698& 0.973193\\ 0.897698& 0.443296& 0.230068\\ 0.973193& 0.230068& 0.005324\end{array}\right)m_0$$
(19)
where $`V_{MNS}=V_{\nu L}^{}`$ is same as earlier given in Eq.(18), and the neutrino mass eigenvalues are

$$m_i=(1.4196,1.4089,4.234\times 10^7)m_0;i=1,2,3$$

which give the mass splitting parameter, $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=0.014.`$

## 3 Renormalisation effects in MSSM

It is desirable to inspect how the values of $`sin^22\theta _{12}`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}`$, $`|V_{e3}|`$ and $`\xi `$ evaluated at the unification scale where the seesaw mechanism is operative, respond to the renormalisation group analysis on running from higher scale $`\left(M_u=2\times 10^{16}GeV\right)`$ down to the top quark mass scale $`(\mu =m_t)`$ . We consider the renormalisation group equations (RGEs) for the three gauge couplings $`(g_1,g_2,g_3)`$ and the third family Yukawa couplings $`(h_t,h_b,h_\tau )`$ in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) in the standard fashion. At high scale $`\mu =2\times 10^{16}GeV`$, we assume the unification of gauge couplings as well as third generation Yukawa couplings for large $`tan\beta `$ . We choose the input $`\alpha _2=(5/3)\alpha _1=\alpha _3=1/24,`$ and $`h_t=h_b=h_\tau =0.7`$ corresponding to large $`tan\beta =v_u/v_d`$.

We express $`m_{LL}`$ in terms of K, the coefficient of the dimension five neutrino mass operator in a scale-dependent manner,

$$m_{LL}(t)=v_u^2(t)K(t)$$
(20)
where $`t=ln(\mu )`$ and $`v_u(t)`$ is the scale-dependent vacuum expectation value (VEV) $`v_u=v_0sin\beta `$, $`v_0=174GeV`$. In the basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal, we can write Eq.(20) as

$$m_{LL}^{}(t)=v_u^2(t)K^{}(t)$$
(21)
where $`K^{}(t)`$ is the coefficient of the dimension five neutrino mass operators in the basis where the charged lepton mass matrix is diagonal. The evolution equations are given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}lnv_u(t)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{3}{20}g_1^2+\frac{3}{4}g_2^23h_t^2\right],$$
(22)
$$\frac{d}{dt}lnK^{}(t)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{6}{5}g_1^2+6g_2^26h_t^2h_\tau ^2\delta _{i3}h_\tau ^2\delta _{3j}\right],$$
(23)
The evolution equation of $`m_{LL}^{}(t)`$ in Eq.(21) simplifies to

$$\frac{d}{dt}lnm_{LL}^{}(t)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\left[\frac{9}{10}g_1^2\frac{9}{2}g_2^2+h_\tau ^2\delta _{i3}+h_\tau ^2\delta _{3j}\right].$$
(24)
Upon integration from high scale $`(t_u=\mathrm{ln}M_u)`$ to lower scale $`(t_0=\mathrm{ln}m_t)`$ where $`t_0tt_u`$ and $`t=\mathrm{ln}\mu `$, we get

$$m_{LL}^{}(t_0)=e^{\frac{9}{10}I_{g_1}(t_0)}e^{\frac{9}{2}I_{g_2}(t_0)}$$

$$\times \left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{LL11}^{}(t_u)& m_{LL12}^{}(t_u)& m_{LL13}^{}(t_u)e^{I_\tau (t_0)}\\ m_{LL21}^{}(t_u)& m_{LL22}^{}(t_u)& m_{LL23}^{}(t_u)e^{I_\tau (t_0)}\\ m_{LL31}^{}(t_u)e^{I_\tau (t_0)}& m_{LL32}^{}(t_u)e^{I_\tau (t_0)}& m_{LL23}^{}(t_u)e^{2I_\tau (t_0)}\end{array}\right)$$
(25)
where

$$I_{g_i}(t_0)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_{t_0}^{t_u}g_i^2(t)𝑑t,i=1,2,3;$$

$$I_f(t_0)=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}_{t_0}^{t_u}h_f^2(t)𝑑t,f=t,b,\tau .$$
(26)
Using the numerical values of $`I_{g_i}(t)`$ and $`I_f(t)`$ at different energy scales $`t`$, $`t_0tt_u`$ the left-handed Majorana mass matrix $`m_{LL}^{}(t)`$ in Eq.(25) is estimated at different energy scales from the value of $`m_{LL}^{}(t_u)`$ given in Eq.(19). At each scale the leptonic mixing matrix $`V_{MNS}(t)=V_{\nu L}^{}(t)`$ is calculated and this in turn, gives mixing angles $`sin^22\theta _{12}`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}`$ and $`|V_{e3}|`$. For example, at the top-quark mass scale $`t_0=\mathrm{ln}m_t=5.349`$, we have calculated $`I_\tau (t_0)=0.100317`$ and the leptonic mixing matrix

$$V_{MNS}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.56962& 0.80795& 0.15085\\ 0.67061& 0.35075& 0.65364\\ 0.4752& 0.47349& 0.74161\end{array}\right)$$
(27)
which leads to the low-energy predictions: $`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8472`$ and $`sin^22\theta _{23}=0.9399`$. There is a mild reduction from the values estimated at the high energy scale $`t_u`$. This feature shows the compatibility of the inverted hierarchical model with the explanation of the LMA MSW solution. The parameter $`|V_{e3}|=0.15085`$ meets the CHOOZ constraint $`|V_{e3}|0.16`$ . The neutrino mass eigevalues at low-energy scale are obtained as $`m_i=(1.3533,1.3436,3.8376\times 10^7)m_0`$. However the mass splitting parameter $`\xi =\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=0.01449`$ remains almost constant. The running of the mixing angles $`S_{sol}=sin^22\theta _{12}`$ and $`S_{at}=sin^22\theta _{23}`$ is shown in Fig.1 by the solid-line and dotted-line respectively. Both parameters decrease with decrease in energy scale $`t`$. This is a desirable feature for maintaining the stability condition of the inverted hierarchical model. Note that there is no exponential term which depends on the top-quark Yukawa coupling integration in Eq.(25). This differs from the expressions calculated in earlier papers. The absence of such term increases the stability criteria of the mass matrix at low $`tan\beta `$ region and this is made possible only when we consider the scale-dependent vacuum expectation value in Eq.(22). As discussed before, if the CHOOZ constraint is relaxed to $`|V_{e3}|.2`$, then we would be able to get even lower value of $`sin^22\theta _{12}`$ suitable for the explanation of the best-fit value of the LMA MSW solution.
Fig.1. Variations of $`S_{sol}=sin^22\theta _{12}`$ and $`S_{at}=sin^22\theta _{23}`$ with energy scale $`t=\mathrm{ln}\left(\mu \right)`$, which are represented by solid-line and dotted-line, respectively.

We now briefly discuss the analytic solution for the evolution of the neutrino mixings in MSSM. The equation for the evolution of the neutrino mixing angle $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{ij}`$ can be approximated as two flavour mixing in terms of the neutrino mass eigenvalues $`m_1,m_2,m_3`$ by a generalised evolution equation,

$$16\pi ^2\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{ij}=2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{ij}(1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{ij})(h_j^2h_i^2)\frac{m_j+m_i}{m_jm_i}$$
(28)
where $`i<j`$ and $`i,j=1,2,3;`$ or $`e,\mu ,\tau `$. For solar mixing angle $`\theta _{12}`$, we have

$$16\pi ^2\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}=2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}(1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12})(h_\mu ^2h_e^2)\frac{m_2+m_1}{m_2m_1}$$
(29)
and for atmospheric mixing angle $`\theta _{23}`$ we have

$$16\pi ^2\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}=2\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}(1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23})(h_\tau ^2h_\mu ^2)\frac{m_3+m_2}{m_3m_2}$$
(30)
Since $`h_\tau ^2>h_\mu ^2>h_e^2`$ and $`m_1>m_2>m_3`$, both $`S_{sol}`$ and $`S_{at}`$ in Eqs.(29) and (30) increase with increasing energy scale. These features are plainly visible in the Fig.1.

A few more comments on our choice of the texture of the charged lepton mass matrix are also presented. Here we examine the forms of the texture of the charged lepton mass matrix $`m_e`$ and its diagonalisation matrix $`V_{eL}`$ in Eqs.(15)and (16). For simplicity of our analysis we express them in the following approximate forms

$$m_e\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda ^4& \lambda ^3& 0\\ \lambda ^3& \lambda ^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
and

$$V_{eL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & 0\\ \lambda & 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
It is interesting to note that the position of the zeros in the mass matrix in Eq.(31) have the same structure with those of lepton mass matrix obtained by Ibanez and Ross in the gauge theory of the standard model with an horizontal $`U(1)`$ gauge factor. Such form of the texture of the charged lepton mass matrix is also proposed by Georgi and Jarlskog in $`SU(5)`$ model, and this can be realised in a model based on $`SUSYSO(10)\times U(2)`$ using a $`126`$-dimensional Higgs. The CKM matrix of the quark mixings defined by $`V_{CKM}=V_{uL}V_{dL}^{}`$, is usually parametrised by

$$V_{CKM}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\lambda ^2/2& \lambda & A\lambda ^3(\rho i\eta )\\ \lambda & 1\lambda ^2/2& A\lambda ^2\\ A\lambda ^3(1\rho i\eta )& A\lambda ^2& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(33)
where $`\lambda =0.22`$ and $`|A|=0.90`$. For our choice of the diagonal up-quark mass matrix in Eq.(7), we have $`V_{uL}=1`$ leading to $`V_{CKM}=V_{dL}^{}`$. Since $`m_d=m_e^T`$, we have $`V_{eL}=V_{dL}^{}=V_{CKM}`$. Neglecting higher power of $`\lambda `$ in Eq.(33), we have

$$V_{eL}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \lambda & 0\\ \lambda & 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(34)
which is almost same as $`V_{eL}`$ given in Eq.(32) except the difference in sign before some entries. The positions of the zeros are the same. Such linkage gives partial justification to our motivation for the choice of the charged lepton mass matrix (15).

## 4 Summary and Discussion

The left-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`m_{LL}`$ which explains the inverted hierarchical pattern of neutrino masses, has been generated from the seesaw mechanism using non-diagonal texture of the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`M_R`$ and diagonal form of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix . We have explained the leptonic mixing matrix generated from the diagonalisation of $`m_{LL}`$ of the inverted hierarachical model and the mixing angles so far obtained $`sin^22\theta _{12}0.999`$, is too large for the explanation of the LMA MSW solution. Such high value of $`sin^22\theta _{12}`$ can be tonned down by considering the contribution from the charged lepton mass matrix having special structure in the 1-2 block. With such consideration, the predictions on the mixing angles at the high scale are $`sin^22\theta _{12}=0.8517`$, $`sin^22\theta _{23}=0.9494`$ and $`|V_{e3}|=0.159`$ which are consistent with the LMA MSW solution.

The above results which are calculated at the high energy scale (say, $`\mu =M_u=2\times 10^{16}GeV`$) where the seesaw mechanism operates, decrease with the decrease in energy scale, under the quantum radiative corrections within the framework of the MSSM. This is a good feature at least for $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}`$ in this inverted hierarchical model as it gives the stability under quantum radiative corrections and shows complete consistency of the model with the explanation of the LMA MSW solution. The present finding fails to support the claim that an arbitrary mixing at the high scale can get “magnified” to a large mixing, and even possibly maximal mixing at the low scale . Experimental data from a Neutrino factory may confirm the pattern of the neutrino masses in near future, and hence the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$. Such confirmation of the detailed pattern of neutrino masses and their mixing angles is very important as it may give a clue to the understanding of quark masses and their mixing angles within the framework of an all-encompassing theory.

Though we have constructed both $`m_{LL}`$ and $`m_e`$ in a model independent way and have shown how the inverted hierarchical model of neutrinos can explain the present experimental data particularly LMA MSW solution, the present work is expected to be an important clue for building models from the grand unified theories with the chiral U(1) symmetry.


text:
# Slow relaxation experiments in disordered charge and spin density waves: collective dynamics of randomly distributed solitons

## I Introduction

In spite of several decades of intensive experimental and theoretical works related to slow relaxation phenomena, important questions regarding the nature of the low temperature phase of spin glasses have remained unsolved. Replica symmetry breaking  and droplet theory  constitute two pictures that were already available in the 80’s. It is a debated question to determine which of these two visions of the problem does apply to laboratory experiments (see for instance ). Recent “memory and chaos” experiments  suggest that a new type of droplet theory is needed but there exists unsolved questions that have been the subject of recent works (see for instance ). Other approaches have focussed on the description of out-of-equilibrium ageing dynamics in terms of generalized fluctuation-dissipation relations . These ideas were originally developed in the context of spin glass models but have been used recently to discuss different systems such as domain growth dynamics or chaotic flows . It has been shown recently in Ref.  that the long time dynamics of domain walls in the one dimensional (1D) random field Ising model (RFIM) could be described by a dynamical real space renormalization group (RG). The dynamical RG is similar to the Dasgupta-Ma RG  that was applied to the 1D random Ising model in a transverse magnetic field  and to the 1D random antiferromagnetic Heisenberg model . The Dasgupta-Ma RG was also applied recently to many other random spin models . The general purpose of our article is to use the dynamical RG to describe the long time collective dynamics of disordered charge density waves (CDWs) and spin density waves (SDWs).

Disordered quasi-one dimensional (quasi 1D) systems have known a renewed interest recently since the discovery of several inorganic low dimensional oxides such as CuGeO3  (a spin-Peierls compound), PbNi2V2O8  (a Haldane gap compound) and Y2BaNiO5  (a Haldane gap compound). In these compounds the magnetic sites can be substituted with Zn (a non magnetic ion). These substitutions generate either 3D antiferromagnetism at low temperature (in the case of CuGeO3 and PbNi2V2O8) or strong 3D antiferromagnetic correlations (in the case of Y2BaNiO5). In these two types of low dimensional spin models, the non magnetic defects generate spin-$`1/2`$ moments out of the non magnetic ground state, either in the form of solitons in spin-Peierls systems , or in the form of “edge” spin-$`1/2`$ moments in Haldane gap systems . The available theoretical description of these systems is based on the Dasgupta-Ma real space RG  describing non magnetic defects in 1D and quasi-1D geometries , and appears to be in good agreement with experiments.

It has been shown experimentally by some of the present authors that CDWs and SDWs present slow relaxation phenomena at very low temperature  under the form of what has been called “interrupted ageing” in the spin glass literature . In fact there are two glass cross-over temperatures. One is due to the freezing of the CDW domains and is observed at relatively high temperature mainly in dielectric susceptibility experiments and is defined in the usual way for glassy systems as a separation of the so-called $`\alpha `$\- and $`\beta `$-relaxation processes (see Ref. ). We are interested here in slow relaxation phenomena occurring at lower temperature that were observed in temperature relaxation experiments . Slow relaxation in disordered CDWs and SDWs and antiferromagnetism in the spin-Peierls compound CuGeO3 have the common point that in both cases the physics is related to solitons having a slow dynamics in CDWs and SDWs (the microscopic time associated to the reversal of the soliton can be deduced from experiments and is $`\tau _01`$ s – see Ref. ), and a fast dynamics in CuGeO3 (no slow relaxation has been reported in ac-susceptibility experiments – see for instance  – and specific heat relaxation experiments ). The large value of $`\tau _0`$ in CDWs and SDWs is due to energy barriers associated to the dynamics of individual solitons, not present in CuGeO3. By comparison the microscopic time $`\tau _010^{12}`$ s in spin glasses corresponds to the reversal time of an individual spin. We show in this article from the analysis of quasi 1D strong pinning models that the dynamics of disordered CDWs and SDWs can be interpreted as a collective dynamics of randomly distributed solitons. This dynamics is similar to a domain growth dynamics in the presence of disorder in which a correlation length $`\xi (t)`$ is increasing with time. Larger objects have a slower relaxation because most of the time the energy barrier associated to a correlated pair of solitons that are close in space is larger than the energy barriers of the individual solitons.

It has been shown in Refs.  from the analysis of a strong pinning model that there exist slow relaxation phenomena associated to independent strong pinning impurities in CDWs. It was also shown in Ref.  that the explanation based on independent impurities requires an artificially large concentration of impurities (one impurity per unit cell). It is therefore a relevant question to reexamine the experimental data and investigate new mechanisms responsible for slow relaxation in disordered CDWs and SDWs. More precisely we address the following questions:

* In section II, we reexamine the slow relaxation experiments in CDWs and SDWs already presented in Ref.  and find two features:

+ An “interrupted ageing” behavior (all relaxation times are smaller than a maximum relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$).
    + A power-law relaxation spectrum signaling the presence of a broad distribution of relaxation times.

The strong pinning model with independent impurities proposed in Ref.  has been successful to explain (i) but it does not explain (ii). In this article we look for a model that is consistent with (i) and (ii).
* We propose in section III a phenomenological random energy model (REM) that is compatible with the slow relaxation experiments.
* We show in section IV that the experiments can be qualitatively described as being due to a collective behavior in a strong pinning model. A dynamical RG is used to describe the coupling between the solitonic deformations of the CDW at different impurities at variance with the previous model proposed in Ref.  where the solitonic defects are independent from each other.
* We show in section V that the experiments can also be qualitatively described by the disordered spin-Peierls model proposed in Refs. .

## II Experiments

The specific heat and heat relaxation experiments (see Refs. ) have been performed at the CRTBT-Grenoble in a dilution cryostat over the typical temperature range $`80`$ mK – $`2`$ K on sample mass of a few hundreds mg. The experiments have been performed with a thermal transient technique, the sample being loosely connected to the regulated heat sink via a thermal link. This technique enables us to send energy in the sample for variable durations, from a pulse of a fraction of seconds up to a long “waiting time” of $`24`$ h or more. For the thermal transient experiments reported here, the procedure is the following. Once the sample is in equilibrium with the heat bath at $`T_0`$, one increases slightly the sample temperature to $`T_0+\mathrm{\Delta }T_0`$, (with $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_0/T_010\%`$) during a waiting time $`t_w`$. The energy source is switched off at $`t_w`$ and the thermal transient $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(t,t_w)`$ is recorded until the temperature has relaxed to the initial temperature $`T_0`$. $`t`$ is the time elapsed since the waiting time $`t_w`$. The temperature relaxation $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(t,t_w)`$ depends on the value of the waiting time (ageing behavior). If $`t_w`$ is sufficiently large, $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(t,t_w)`$ does not depend on $`t_w`$ anymore (“interrupted ageing” behavior, see ). One can start a new run at $`T_0`$ with a different $`t_w`$. During a series of runs at different $`T_0`$ below $`1`$ K, the sample is never re-heated above $`1`$ – $`2`$ K. Due to the exceptional stability of the cryostat, the reference temperature $`T_0`$ can be regulated within $`\pm 2\times 10^4`$ over several tens of hours.

We use a standard procedure to deduce a spectrum of relaxation times from the temperature relaxation $`\mathrm{\Delta }T(t,t_w)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }T(t,t_w)=P_{t_w}(\mathrm{log}_{10}\tau )e^{t/\tau }d\mathrm{log}_{10}\tau .$$
(1)
An approximate expression for the spectrum of relaxation times can be obtained by replacing $`\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )`$ by the $`\theta `$-function $`\theta (\mathrm{log}_{10}\tau \mathrm{log}_{10}t)`$, which is justified for a broad relaxation time spectrum:

$$P_{t_w}(\mathrm{log}_{10}t)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T(t,t_w)}{\mathrm{log}_{10}t}.$$
(2)
We first consider the incommensurate SDW compound (TMTSF)2PF6. The spectrum of relaxation times $`P_{t_w}(\mathrm{log}_{10}t)`$ obtained from Eq. (2) is shown on Fig. 1 for equilibrium relaxation and on Fig. 2 for out-of-equilibrium relaxation. In both cases the long time tail of the spectrum of relaxation times is well described by a power-law. A similar power-law spectrum is obtained for the incommensurate SDW compound AsF6 (see Fig 3) and the incommensurate CDW compound TaS3 (see Figs. 4 and 5).

It is visible on (TMTSF)2PF6 (see Fig. 2) and TaS3 (see Fig. 5) that the exponent of the power-law relaxation in the out-of-equilibrium dynamics is independent on the waiting time. The effect of the maximal relation time is also visible on Fig. 5 where the long time relaxation is faster once equilibrium has been reached.

## III Random energy-like trap models of disordered CDWs

We want to describe the slow relaxation experiments in CDWs and SDWs discussed in section II by a REM-like trap model similar to Refs.  (see Fig. 6). The “trap” energies $`E_\alpha `$ are independent random variables chosen in a distribution $`p(E_\alpha )`$. The model with $`p(E_\alpha )=p_0(E_\alpha )=1/T_g\mathrm{exp}(E_\alpha /T_g)`$ solved by Bouchaud and Dean in Ref.  is recalled in Appendix A. We consider here a trap energy distribution in which there is a maximal energy barrier $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$:

$$p_1(E_\alpha )=\frac{1}{T_g}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(E_\alpha /T_g)}{1\mathrm{exp}(E_{\mathrm{max}}/T_g)}\text{ with }0<E_\alpha <E_{\mathrm{max}}.$$
(3)
The model with the trap distribution (3) has two properties related to the experiments discussed in section II:

* “Interrupted ageing” behavior due to the presence of a maximal energy barrier. The “complexity” $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(T/T_g)\mathrm{ln}(\tau _{\mathrm{erg}}/\tau _0)`$ introduced in Ref.  is equal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }=E_{\mathrm{max}}/T_g`$.
* A power-law distribution of relaxation times for $`\tau _\alpha <\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$:

$$p_1(\tau _\alpha )=\frac{1}{\tau _0}\frac{T}{T_g}\frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}(E_{\mathrm{max}})}\left(\frac{\tau _0}{\tau _\alpha }\right)^{1+T/T_g}.$$
(4)

### A Average and typical relaxation times

The average relaxation time is defined by $`\tau _{\mathrm{av}}=\tau P(\mathrm{log}_{10}\tau )d\mathrm{log}_{10}\tau `$. For the model with the trap energy distribution (3) we find

$$\frac{\tau ^{\mathrm{av}}}{\tau ^0}=\frac{T}{TT_g}\frac{1\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(1T_g/T\right)(E_{\mathrm{max}}/T_g)\right]}{1\mathrm{exp}\left((E_{\mathrm{max}}/T_g)\right)}.$$
(5)
The typical relaxation time corresponds to the maximum of $`P(\mathrm{log}_{10}\tau )`$ and is defined as $`\tau ^{\mathrm{typ}}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}\tau _\alpha \right],`$ where $`\tau _\alpha `$ is the trapping time in trap $`\alpha `$: $`\tau _\alpha =\tau _0\mathrm{exp}(E_\alpha /T)`$. With the trap energy distribution (3) we find

$$\frac{\tau ^{\mathrm{typ}}}{\tau ^0}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T_g}{T}\left[1\frac{(E_{\mathrm{max}}/T_g)}{\mathrm{exp}\left(E_{\mathrm{max}}/T_g\right)1}\right]\right],$$
(6)
which reduces to $`\tau ^{\mathrm{typ}}\tau ^0\mathrm{exp}[T_g/T]`$ if $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is large compared to $`T_g`$. The activated behavior of the typical relaxation time is in agreement with previous experimental observations . The variation of the average relaxation time versus $`1/T`$ is shown on Fig. 7. If $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is weak there is an activated behavior for all values of the temperature, even below $`T_g`$. If $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ increases there is a strong slowing down of the dynamics below $`T_g`$ and the average relaxation time is infinite when $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is infinite in which case we recover the behavior considered in Ref. . The average relaxation time plays a central role in the weak ergodicity breaking scenario for spin-glass models (see Appendix A) but does not play a relevant role in slow relaxation in CDWs and SDWs because it cannot be deduced from experiments in these systems.

### B Relaxation below the glass cross-over temperature $`T_g`$

We use the approximations presented in Appendix A 2 to evaluate the dynamical correlation function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ associated to the model having a maximal energy barrier $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$:

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ $``$ $`\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}\right)^2\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{t}}\right)^{T/T_g}\text{ if }t_wt\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ $``$ $`1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_w}}\right)^{1T/T_g}\text{ if }tt_w\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ $``$ $`1\text{ if }t\tau _{\mathrm{max}}t_w.`$ (9)
We make two comments:

* The system has thermalized before $`t_w`$ if $`t_w\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$. In this case, the correlation function decays exponentially with time: $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t,t_w)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _{\mathrm{max}})`$. Within the approximation used here, this corresponds to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t,t_w)1`$ if $`t\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(t,t_w)0`$ if $`t\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$.
* If $`t,t_w\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$, the system has no time to “experience” the existence of the maximal energy barrier $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$. The out-of-equilibrium relaxation is identical to the model discussed in Appendix A.

### C Relaxation above the glass cross-over temperature $`T_g`$

Relaxation above the glass cross-over temperature is directly relevant to experiments. Above the glass cross-over temperature the correlation function deduced from the approximations in Appendix A are found to be

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ $``$ $`2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{T_g}{T}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _0}{t}}\right)^{T/T_g}{\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{\tau _0}}\text{ if }t_wt\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _0}{t}}\right)^{T/T_g1}\text{ if }tt_w\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(t,t_w)`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\tau _0}{t}}\right)^{T/T_g1}\text{ if }t\tau _{\mathrm{max}}t_w.`$ (12)
The spectrum of relaxation times is a power-law if $`tt_w\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$: $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1/\mathrm{ln}tt^{1T/T_g}`$. The exponent $`1T/T_g`$ does not depend on $`t_w`$. This coincides with the experimental behavior discussed in section II (see Figs. 2 and 4). The model can be used to deduce an estimate of the glass cross-over temperature $`T_g`$ from the exponents obtained in experiments (see section II). $`T_g`$ is related to the exponent $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ appearing in the experimental power-law relaxation spectrum $`P_{t_w}(\mathrm{log}_{10}t)t^{\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}}`$ through the relation $`T/T_g=1+\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}`$. The values of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ and the estimations of $`T_g`$ deduced from the correspondence between the experiments and the REM-like trap model have been given on Table I. For the three compounds (TMTSF)2PF6, AsF6 and TaS3, the exponent $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is increasing with temperature which constitutes a qualitative agreement between experiments and the REM-like trap model. The values of $`T_g`$ are of the order of $`T_g=100÷200`$ mK. We should note that the model cannot be used to describe heat pulse relaxation in the regime $`tt_w`$. Namely Fig. 2 and Fig. 5 suggest that the exponent $`\alpha _{\mathrm{exp}}`$ is the same if $`tt_w`$ or $`t_wt`$ while Eqs. (10) – (12) would predict a different power-law in the regimes $`tt_w`$ and $`t_wt`$. This is an indication that the exponential trap distribution with a cut-off is not well suited to describe the short time dynamics.

## IV Collective dynamics in a strong pinning model

### A The model

Let us now consider the microscopic model discussed by several authors in Refs.  that is used to describe the pinning of a disordered CDW:

$$=\frac{v_F}{4\pi }𝑑x\left(\frac{\phi (x)}{x}\right)^2+w𝑑x\left[1\mathrm{cos}\phi (x)\right]\underset{i}{}V_i\left[1\mathrm{cos}\left(Qx_i+\phi (x_i)\right)\right].$$
(13)
The first term in Eq. (13) is the elastic energy, the second term is the interchain interaction, and the third term is the pining potential. The charge density wave vector is $`Q`$ and the impurities are at random positions $`x_i`$ along the chain.

### B One strong pinning impurity

Let us recall the solution of the one-impurity model discussed in Refs. . With $`V_i=0`$, $`\phi (x)`$ is the solution of the sine Gordon-like equation

$$w\mathrm{sin}\phi (x)\frac{v_F}{2\pi }\frac{^2\phi (x)}{x^2}V\delta (xx_1)\mathrm{sin}\phi (x)=0.$$
(14)
The low-energy solutions are dipoles made of a superposition of two solitons:

$$\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\phi (x)}{4}\right)=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\psi }{4}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|xx_1|}{\xi _0}\right).$$
(15)
The width of the soliton is

$$\xi _0=\sqrt{\frac{v_F}{2\pi w}}.$$
(16)
For commensurate impurities having $`Qx_1=0`$, $`\psi `$ is the solution of $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\psi /2\right)=V_c^{(1)}/V`$, where the one-impurity pinning threshold is given by $`V_c^{(1)}=\sqrt{2wv_F/\pi }`$. With $`V>V_c^{(1)}`$ there is one unstable solution ($`\psi =0`$) and there are two stable solutions $`\psi =\pm 2\mathrm{arccos}(V_c^{(1)}/V)`$. The single impurity solutions are degenerate and their total energy is $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(1)}=2(VV_c^{(1)})^2/V`$. With incommensurate impurities ($`Qx_10`$), $`\psi `$ is the solution of

$$\frac{2v_F}{\pi \xi _0}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\psi }{2}\right)=V\mathrm{sin}(Qx_1+\psi ).$$
(17)
The dipolar low-energy excitations were discussed in Ref.  for independent impurities close to commensurability ($`Qx_11`$). Eq. (17) can be solved numerically if $`Qx_1`$ is not a small parameter.

Another way of solving the one-impurity model is to consider the soliton profile given by (15) as a variational solution parametrized by $`\psi `$. The energy landscape associated to a single impurity is the following:

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(1)}(X_0)=\frac{1}{(1+X_0^2)^2}\left\{A(x_1)+B(x_1)X_0\left(16w\xi _0C(x_1)\right)X_0^2B(x_1)X_0^3\left(16w\xi _0A(x_1)\right)X_0^4\right\},$$
(18)
where $`X_0=\mathrm{tan}(\psi /4)`$. The coefficients $`A(x_1)`$, $`B(x_1)`$ and $`C(x_1)`$ are given by

$`A(x_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2V\mathrm{sin}^2(Qx_1)`$ (19)
$`B(x_1)`$ $`=`$ $`4V\mathrm{sin}(Qx_1)`$ (20)
$`C(x_1)`$ $`=`$ $`2V\left[1+3\mathrm{cos}(Qx_1)\right].`$ (21)
Minimizing Eq. (18) with respect to $`X_0`$ leads directly to Eq. (17). For commensurate impurities there are two degenerate energy minima separated by an energy barrier. For incommensurate impurities the two energy minima are not degenerate (there is a metastable state).

### C Two strong pinning impurities

The purpose of this section is to replace a cluster made of two impurities by a single effective impurity. We start with the case of two impurities that are close to each other ($`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$). The opposite limit $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ is discussed in a straightforward fashion because in this case the two impurities have an independent dynamics. An approximate solution for an arbitrary $`|x_2x_1|`$ can be obtained by interpolating between the two limiting cases $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ and $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$.

#### 1 Variational soliton profile

We look for variational solutions describing two impurities at positions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2>x_1`$ under the form $`\mathrm{tan}\left(\phi (x)/4\right)=F(x)`$, with

$$F(x)=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\psi _1}{4}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|xx_1|}{\xi _0}\right)+\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\psi _2}{4}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{|xx_2|}{\xi _0}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ are variational parameters that can be determined by minimizing the total energy obtained from the soliton profile (22). If the distance between the two impurities is much smaller than $`\xi _0`$ ($`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$) the two-impurity energy landscape $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0)`$ is a function of the single parameter $`X_0`$ given by

$$X_0=\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\psi _1}{4}\right)+\mathrm{tan}\left(\frac{\psi _2}{4}\right).$$
(23)
#### 2 Commensurate impurities in the limit $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$

Let us now consider the situation where the two impurities at positions $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are commensurate and the distance between the two impurities is small compared to the width of the soliton ($`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$). The total energy of the two-impurity system takes the form

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0)=\frac{16X_0^2}{(1+X_0^2)^2}\left\{w\xi _0V+w\xi _0X_0^2\right\}.$$

The ground state is such that $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0^{})/X_0=0`$, which leads to

$`X_0^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Vw\xi _0}{V+w\xi _0}}}`$ (24)
$`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{V}}\left(Vw\xi _0\right)^2.`$ (25)
We make two remarks:

* The pinning threshold associated to two commensurate impurities such that $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ is $`V_c^{(2)}=w\xi _0=2V_c^{(1)}`$, equal to two times the pinning threshold associated to a single impurity. The interaction between impurities increases the pinning threshold and favors the so-called “collective pinning” regime corresponding to $`V<V_c^{(2)}`$, as opposed to the “strong pinning” regime corresponding to $`V>V_c^{(2)}`$.
* In the limit of strong impurity pinning ($`Vw\xi _0`$), there are two energy minima corresponding to $`X_0=\mathrm{tan}(\psi /4)+\mathrm{tan}(\psi ^{}/4)=\pm 1`$ and having an energy $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0^{})=4V`$. These two minima are separated by the saddle point $`X_0^{}=\mathrm{tan}(\psi /4)+\mathrm{tan}(\psi ^{}/4)=0`$ having an energy $`E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0^{})=0`$. If $`Vw\xi _0`$ and $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$, the energy barrier associated to the two impurity system is $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(2)}=E_{\mathrm{tot}}(X_0^{})E_{\mathrm{tot}}(X_0)=4V`$, equal to two times the energy barrier associated to a single impurity: $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{(1)}=2V`$ (see section IV B). This shows that the interaction between impurities makes the system more glassy.

#### 3 Incommensurate impurities in the limit $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$

The energy landscape associated to two incommensurate impurities at a distance much smaller than the soliton width ($`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$) can be reduced to an effective single impurity energy landscape:

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0)=\frac{1}{(1+X_0^2)^2}\left\{\stackrel{~}{A}_0+\stackrel{~}{B}_0X_0\left(16w\xi _0\stackrel{~}{C}_0\right)X_0^2\stackrel{~}{B}_0X_0^3\left(16w\xi _0\stackrel{~}{A}_0\right)X_0^4\right\}.$$
(26)
The coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_0`$ are obtained as the sum of the coefficients associated to the single impurity energy landscapes given by Eqs. (19) – (21): $`\stackrel{~}{A}_0=A(x_1)+A(x_2)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_0=B(x_1)+B(x_2)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{B}_0=C(x_1)+C(x_2)`$. The form (26) of the two-impurity energy landscape can be understood as follows. The elastic and interchain energy of the two-impurity model are identical to the one-impurity model if one uses the variables $`X_0=\mathrm{tan}(\psi /4)`$ for the one-impurity system and $`X_0=\mathrm{tan}(\psi /4)+\mathrm{tan}(\psi ^{}/4)`$ for the two-impurity system. The pinning energy is additive since the phase of the CDW at $`x_1`$ is approximately equal to the phase of the CDW at $`x_2`$ if $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$.

#### 4 Limit $`|x_1x_2|\xi _0`$

If the two impurities are at a distance much larger than the soliton width ($`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$) the two impurities have an independent dynamics. The two impurities are characterized by the coefficients $`(A_1,B_1,C_1)`$ and $`(A_2,B_2,C_2)`$ (see Eq. (18)). The two decoupled impurities can be replaced by a single impurity characterized by the coefficients $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}})`$. The coefficients $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{}},\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}})`$ correspond either to $`(A_1,B_1,C_1)`$ if the impurity at position $`x_1`$ has the longest relaxation time or to $`(A_2,B_2,C_2)`$ if the impurity at position $`x_2`$ has the longest relaxation time.

#### 5 Interpolation between the limits $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ and $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$

An arbitrary value of the distance between the impurities can be treated by interpolating between the two limiting cases $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ and $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ discussed above. Namely we suppose that the energy landscape at an arbitrary distance $`|x_2x_1|`$ is still given by Eq. (26):

$$E_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(2)}(X_0)=\frac{1}{(1+X_0^2)^2}\left\{\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{B}X_0\left(16w\xi _0\stackrel{~}{C}\right)X_0^2\stackrel{~}{B}X_0^3\left(16w\xi _0\stackrel{~}{A}\right)X_0^4\right\},$$
(27)
and that the coefficients $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ interpolate between the solutions already obtained in the limits $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$ and $`|x_2x_1|\xi _0`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{A}=\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_0\stackrel{~}{A}_{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|x_2x_1|}{\xi _0}}\right)`$ (28)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}=\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{B}_0\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|x_2x_1|}{\xi _0}}\right)`$ (29)
$`\stackrel{~}{C}=\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}}+\left(\stackrel{~}{C}_0\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|x_2x_1|}{\xi _0}}\right).`$ (30)
The correlations mediated by the gaped medium decay exponentially with distance and this is why we use an exponential interpolation in Eqs. (28) – (30).

### D Dynamical RG

Now we discuss the collective dynamics of the model defined by Eq. (13). The method is similar to Ref.  and consists in eliminating the fastest degrees of freedom. There is a smallest relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$ (being the smallest of the relaxation times of individual impurities) that increases in the course of the RG. Assuming a broad distribution of relaxation times, the density of relaxation times is given by the number of impurities $`\rho (\tau _{\mathrm{min}})\delta \tau _{\mathrm{mnin}}`$ that are eliminated as the smallest relaxation time is increased from $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$ to $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}+\delta \tau _{\mathrm{min}}`$.

We consider that the initial condition of the dynamics is a quench from high temperature. The initial condition of the RG flow corresponds to uncorrelated impurities. The experiments discussed in section II correspond to a different initial condition but it is expected that the two types of initial conditions can be used to discuss the qualitative physics.

The energy landscape of an impurity at site $`x_i`$ is characterized by the coefficients $`(A(x_i),B(x_i),C(x_i))`$ (see Eq. 18) and by a relaxation time $`\tau _i`$. We note by $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=\mathrm{Min}\{\tau _i\}`$ the smallest of these relaxation times corresponding to impurity $`i_0`$. The impurity $`i_0`$ has two neighboring impurities: one at the left (site $`i_L`$) and one at the right (site $`i_R`$). The relaxation times of the impurities at sites $`i_L`$ and $`i_R`$ are $`\tau _L`$ and $`\tau _R`$. There are two possibilities to eliminate the impurity at site $`i_0`$:

* Transform the two impurities at sites $`i_0`$ and $`i_L`$ into an effective impurity at site $`i_L^{}`$ having a relaxation time $`\tau _L^{}`$.
* Transform the two impurities at sites $`i_0`$ and $`i_R`$ into an effective impurity at site $`i_R^{}`$ having a relaxation time $`\tau _R^{}`$.

The transformation (i) is implemented if $`\tau _L^{}<\tau _R^{}`$. The transformation (ii) is implemented if $`\tau _R^{}<\tau _L^{}`$.

The distribution of relaxation times is shown on Fig. 10 for an incommensurate CDW wave vector and on Fig. 11 for a commensurate CDW wave vector. The two systems are qualitatively similar in the sense that (i) the collective dynamics generates a broad spectrum of relaxation times; and (ii) there is a maximum relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$. At long times, the spectrum of relaxation times is approximately a power-law, which is not against the experiments discussed in section II. For comparison we have shown on Fig. 12 the distribution of relaxation times of non interacting strong pinning impurities with the same parameters as Fig. 10. There is already a distribution of relaxation times associated to independent impurities which is due to the fact that the energy landscape associated to an impurity at position $`x_1`$ depends on the coordinate $`x_1`$ through Eqs. (19) – (21). But the distribution of relaxation times of interacting impurities is obviously much broader than the distribution of relaxation times of non interacting impurities (see Figs. 10 and 12). Given that there are evidences that a broad spectrum of relaxation times is present in the slow relaxation experiments either for commensurate of incommensurate systems. we conclude that the long time dynamics of disordered CDWs and SDWs is a collective phenomenon that can be qualitatively captured by the dynamical RG of the strong pinning model. The small time dynamics can be well approximated by independent impurities corresponding to Fig. 12 on the condition that the initial condition is a quench from high temperature.

## V Collective dynamics in a disordered spin-Peierls system

### A The model

Now we consider the model introduced in Refs.  to describe non magnetic substitutions in spin-Peierls and Haldane gap systems (see Fig. 13). In this model non magnetic impurities in a dimerized system generate solitonic spin-$`1/2`$ moments out of the non magnetic singlets. Two spin-$`1/2`$ moments at distance $`l`$ are coupled by an antiferromagnetic exchange $`J(l)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(l/\xi _0)`$ that decays exponentially with distance. $`\xi _0`$ is the correlation length associated to the gaped background. There is an energy barrier associated to the dynamics of an isolated soliton in CDWs and SDWs (see for instance Fig. 8) which explains that the microscopic time $`\tau _0`$ is of order of $`1`$ sec (see ). The model proposed for non magnetic substitutions in CuGeO3 can thus be “transformed” into a model of slow relaxation in CDWs and SDWs just by changing the time scale $`\tau _0`$ associated to the dynamics of individual solitonic spin-$`1/2`$ moments. From this analogy we deduce an expression of the glass cross-over temperature of disordered CDWs and SDWs.

We represent the solitonic spin-$`1/2`$ degrees of freedom in the spin-Peierls system by Ising spins distributed at random in 1D and use a Glauber dynamics. The Ising spins $`\sigma _i`$ interact with the Hamiltonian

$$=\underset{i,j}{}J_{i,j}\sigma _i\sigma _j,$$
(31)
where the exchange $`J_{i,j}`$ decays exponentially with distance (see Refs. ):

$$J_{i,j}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{d_{i,j}}{\xi _0}\right).$$
(32)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the spin gap, $`\xi _0`$ is the correlation length associated to the CDW without disorder (see Eq. 16 for the expression of $`\xi _0`$ in the strong pinning model), and $`d_{i,j}`$ is the distance between the Ising spins at sites $`i`$ and $`j`$. Since there is no frustration the dynamics of the ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic models are equivalent and we use here the ferromagnetic model.

The single spin flip Glauber dynamics of the model defined by Eqs. (31) and (32) is given by the master equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}P(\{\sigma \},t)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}w_i\{\sigma \}P(\{\sigma \},t)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}w_i\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_i,\mathrm{},\sigma _N\}P(\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_i,\mathrm{},\sigma _N\},t),`$ (33)
where the transition rates take the form

$$w_i\{\sigma \}=\frac{r_i}{2}\left(1\sigma _i\mathrm{tanh}\left(\beta J_{i,j}\underset{jV(i)}{}\sigma _j\right)\right),$$
(34)
where $`V(i)`$ is the set of neighbors of site $`i`$. The form of the transition rates given by Eq. (34) ensures that the detailed balance is verified: $`P_B\{\sigma \}w_i\{\sigma \}=P_B\{\sigma ^{}\}w_i\{\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ˇ}{\sigma }_i,\mathrm{},\sigma \},`$ where $`P_B\{\sigma \}`$ is the Boltzmann distribution.

### B Two-spin model

Following Refs.  we consider the model defined by Eqs. (31) and (32) for two Ising spins $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ at distance $`l`$. The distribution of distances is $`P(l)=x\mathrm{exp}(xl)`$ and the exchange (32) becomes $`J(l)=\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(l/\xi _0)`$. The relaxation time associated to the two-spin cluster can be obtained from the Glauber matrix defined by (33): $`\tau (l)=\tau _0\left[1\mathrm{tanh}(J(l)/T)\right]^1`$. Since we consider the long-time behavior, we use the approximation $`\tau (l)\frac{\tau _0}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left[2J(l)/T\right]`$. The typical relaxation time follows an Aharenius behavior:

$$\frac{\tau ^{\mathrm{typ}}}{\tau _0}=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\tau (l)}{\tau _0}\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2x\xi _0}{1+x\xi _0}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}\right).$$
(35)
The activation energy in Eq. (35) is equal to the average energy barrier given by $`2J(l)=2x\xi _0/(1+x\xi _0)`$. The average relaxation time is given by an Aharenius law in limit of a small dilution of impurities ($`x\xi _01`$):

$$\frac{\tau ^{\mathrm{av}}}{\tau _0}=\frac{\tau (l)}{\tau _0}\frac{1}{4}\frac{x\xi _0T}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}\right).$$
(36)
The activation energy in Eq. (36) is equal to the largest energy barrier given by $`2\mathrm{M}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}[J(l)]=2\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Comparing the typical relaxation time in the REM-like model and the two-spin model (see Eqs. (5) and (36)) we obtain an estimate of the glass cross-over temperature in terms of the microscopic parameters:

$$T_g=\frac{2x\xi _0\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+x\xi _0}.$$
(37)
which is equal to the average energy barrier. The estimate of $`T_g`$ given by Eq. (37) is similar to the estimate of the Néel temperature of doped low dimensional oxides discussed in Refs. . In both cases the physics is controlled by correlations among the solitons.

### C RG of the disordered 1D Ising model

Let us consider two Ising spins $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ coupled by a ferromagnetic exchange $`J`$ and replace these two spins by an effective Ising spin $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$. We note $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ the relaxation times of the spins $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$ and we note $`r_1=1/\tau _1`$ and $`r_2=1/\tau _2`$ the transition rates. The Glauber matrix of the two-spin system can be diagonalized by forming symmetric and antisymmetric combinations of the occupation probabilities . We deduce the transition rate $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ of the effective spin $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{r_1+r_2\sqrt{(r_1r_2)^2+4r_1r_2\mathrm{tanh}^2(\beta J)}\right\}.$$
(38)
The couplings $`\stackrel{~}{J}_L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_R`$ between the effective spin $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$ and its neighboring spins (see Fig. 15) can be obtained by equating the partition function of the four-spin system and the partition function of the three-spin system, leading to

$`\stackrel{~}{J}_R`$ $`=`$ $`T\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J)}\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_R)\right]`$ (39)
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_L`$ $`=`$ $`T\mathrm{arg}\mathrm{cosh}\left[\sqrt{2}\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J)}\mathrm{cosh}(\beta J_L)\right].`$ (40)
The RG transformations can be iterated by eliminating the smallest relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{min}}=\text{Min}\{\tau _i^{(1)},\tau _{i,i+1}^{(2)}\}`$ which is either the relaxation time $`\tau _i^{(1)}`$ associated to a single spin or the relaxation time $`\tau _{i,i+1}^{(2)}`$ associated to the pair of spins $`(i,i+1)`$.

The distribution of logarithm of the relaxation times is shown on Fig. 16. Because of the collective dynamics there is a broad distribution of relaxation times and a maximum relaxation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{max}}`$, which is compatible with the experiments discussed in section II. The disordered spin-Peierls system discussed in this section has thus the same behavior as the disordered strong pinning model discussed in section IV. In the case of the Ising model (see Fig. 16) the RG generates only time scales that are larger than $`\tau _0`$. In the case of the disordered strong pinning model the RG generates time scales that are also smaller than $`\tau _0`$ (being the relaxation time of individual solitons) which explains the origin of the maximum in the relaxation time spectrum (see Fig. 10).

## VI Conclusion

To conclude we have discussed the collective dynamics of randomly distributed solitons and shown that this approach was relevant to disordered CDWs and SDWs. We have proposed a phenomenological REM-like model that in good agreement with experiments. Since the article was already summarized in the Introduction, we end-up with open questions:

* We assumed that the solitons are decoupled from each other in the initial condition of the RG. This corresponds to a quench from high temperature. The initial condition relevant to the experiments in section II is different because the dynamics starts from an equilibrium state and a small temperature variation is applied. It has been pointed out that there can be a specific dynamics associated to the temperature dependence of the equilibrium correlation length  and it is thus a relevant question to examine similar issues in CDWs and SDWs.
* We have assumed that only charge or spin degrees of freedom were relevant in CDWs or SDWs. The interplay between charge and spin degrees of freedom raises many questions already in pure systems (see for instance ). It is an open question to examine the physics associated to defects in the presence of a charge and a spin sector. The interplay between charge and spin degrees of freedom could explain the effect of a magnetic field on the slow relaxation properties where it was observed that a weak magnetic field has an effect on the relaxation time spectra .

Finally, it would be interesting to test the existence of slow dynamics effects in other types of experiments, such as dielectric response. Indeed, it is suggested in Ref.  that the residual so-called “$`\beta _0`$ process” could be the link to the low-$`T`$, slow heat relaxation phenomena. Dielectric experiments in the temperature range of $`1`$ K and below are planned to test this hypothesis.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (R.M.) acknowledges fruitful discussions on related topics with J.C. Anglès d’Auriac, F. Iglói and J. Souletie.

## A Weak ergodicity breaking in a REM-like trap model

In this Appendix we discuss a REM-like trap model having $`p(E_\alpha )=p_0(E_\alpha )=\frac{1}{T_g}\mathrm{exp}(E_\alpha /T_g)`$ that was introduced in connection with the so-called “weak ergodicity breaking” property in Ref. . We first recall in section A 1 the exact solution used by Bouchaud and Dean in Ref.  in their discussion of the weak ergodicity breaking property. We give in section A 2 a set of approximations that can be used to recover the weak ergodicity breaking property. Similar approximations are used in the main body of the article (in section III) for the REM-like trap model of disordered CDWs. For this model relevant to disordered CDWs it is not possible to use the same exact solution as Bouchaud and Dean and this is why we are lead to use a set of well controlled approximations.

### 1 Weak ergodicity breaking via an exact solution

The authors of Ref.  could demonstrate the so-called “weak ergodicity breaking” property in a model having $`p(E_\alpha )=p_0(E_\alpha )=\frac{1}{T_g}\mathrm{exp}(E_\alpha /T_g)`$. We note $`P_\alpha (t_w)`$ the probability to find the system in trap $`\alpha `$ at time $`t_w`$. The evolution of the system is given by the Glauber dynamics

$$\frac{d}{dt_w}P_\alpha (t_w)=\underset{\beta =1,\beta \alpha }{\overset{N}{}}w_{\alpha \beta }P_\alpha (t_w)+\underset{\beta =1,\beta \alpha }{\overset{N}{}}w_{\beta \alpha }P_\beta (t_w),$$
(A1)
where the transition rates are given by $`w_{\alpha \beta }=r_0\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_\alpha )`$ and $`w_{\beta \alpha }=r_0\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_\beta )`$, with $`\tau _0=1/r_0`$ the microscopic time scale and $`\beta =1/T`$ the inverse temperature. To solve Eq. (A1), it is convenient to make a Laplace transform with respect to the waiting time:

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_\alpha (E)=_0^+\mathrm{}E𝑑t_w\mathrm{exp}(Et_w)P_\alpha (t_w).$$

In Laplace transform, the Glauber dynamics equation (A1) becomes

$$E\stackrel{~}{P}_\alpha (E)+Nr_0e^{\beta E_\alpha }\stackrel{~}{P}_\alpha (E)=\frac{E}{N}+\underset{\beta }{}r_0e^{\beta E_\beta }\stackrel{~}{P}_\beta (E).$$
(A2)
The solution of Eq. (A2) is found to be

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_\alpha (E)=\frac{f_E(\tau _\alpha )}{_\beta f_E(\tau _\beta )},$$
(A3)
with $`f_E(\tau _\alpha )=E\tau _\alpha /(1+E\tau _\alpha )`$, and with $`\tau _\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(\beta E_\alpha )/(Nr_0)`$ the average trapping time in trap $`\alpha `$. The expression of the Laplace transform of the dynamical correlation function is given by

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(t,E)=_0^+\mathrm{}p_0(E_\alpha )\stackrel{~}{P}_\alpha (E)\mathrm{exp}\left[t/\tau _\alpha \right]𝑑E_\alpha .$$
(A4)
The presence of a dynamical glass transition can be seen from the divergence of the average relaxation time

$$\frac{\tau ^{\mathrm{av}}}{\tau _0}=\frac{\tau _\alpha }{\tau _0}=_0^+\mathrm{}p_0(E_\alpha )\frac{\tau _\alpha }{\tau _0}𝑑E_\alpha =\frac{T}{TT_g}$$
(A5)
while the typical relaxation time

$$\frac{\tau ^{\mathrm{typ}}}{\tau _0}=\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\tau _\alpha }{\tau _0}\right)\right]=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{T_g}{T}\right]$$
(A6)
follows an Aharenius behavior. Using (A3), we obtain the correlation function

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(t,E)=\frac{_{\tau _0}^+\mathrm{}p_0(\tau )f_E(\tau )e^{t/\tau }𝑑\tau }{_{\tau _0}^+\mathrm{}p_0(\tau )f_E(\tau )𝑑\tau }.$$
(A7)
The denominator can be evaluated by replacing $`f_E(\tau )`$ by $`f_0(\tau )`$ defined as $`f_0(\tau )=E\tau `$ if $`\tau <1/E`$ and $`f_0(\tau )=1`$ if $`\tau >1/E`$. This leads to

$$_{\tau _0}^+\mathrm{}p_0(\tau )f_E(\tau )𝑑\tau \tau _0^{T/T_g}\frac{1}{1T/T_g}\left\{\frac{T_g}{T}(E\tau _0)^{T/T_g}E\tau _0\right\}.$$

Since the waiting time is large compared to $`\tau _0`$, one has $`E\tau _01`$ and therefore

$$_{\tau _0}^+\mathrm{}p_0(\tau )f_E(\tau )𝑑\tau \frac{T_g}{T(1T/T_g)}E^{T/T_g}.$$

To evaluate the inverse Laplace transform of Eq. (A7), Bouchaud and Dean used the change of variable $`u=f_E(\tau )`$, from what they deduced the exact result

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)=\frac{T}{T_g}\left(1\frac{T}{T_g}\right)_{\frac{t}{t+t_w}}^1(1u)^{T/T_g1}u^{T/T_g}𝑑u,$$
(A8)
which is valid if $`T<T_g`$. In the limiting cases $`t/(t+t_w)1`$ and $`t/(t+t_w)1`$, Eq. (A7) reduces to

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)1{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t+t_w}}\right)^{1T/T_g}\text{if }t/(t+t_w)1`$ (A9)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{t+t_w}}\right)^{T/T_g}\text{if }t/(t+t_w)1\text{.}`$ (A10)
The correlation function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)`$ tends to zero if $`t_w`$ is finite and $`t+\mathrm{}`$ while it tends to unity if $`t`$ if finite and $`t_w+\mathrm{}`$, which constitutes the so-called “weak ergodicity breaking” property .

### 2 Weak ergodicity breaking via an approximate solution

Now let us give a set of approximations that can be used to recover the weak ergodicity breaking property. These approximations will be applied to another model in section III in a situation where we cannot use the change of variable leading to (A8). The approximations are the following: (i) We replace $`f_E(\tau )`$ by $`f_0(\tau )`$ in the expression (A7) of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(t,E)`$; (ii) We replace the exponential $`\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )`$ by the $`\theta `$-function $`\theta (\tau t)`$. We deduce the Laplace transform of the dynamical correlation function

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(t,E)1{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}(Et)^{1T/T_g}\text{ if }Et<1`$ (A11)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(t,E)(1{\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}})(Et)^{T/T_g}\text{ if }Et>1.`$ (A12)
The inverse Laplace transform is evaluated within the same approximations. Namely we replace $`\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _\alpha )`$ by $`\theta (\tau _\alpha t)`$. This leads to

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_0(t,E)_0^{1/E}E𝑑t_w\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w),$$

from what we deduce

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)=\frac{}{(1/E)}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,E)}{E}\right]_{E=1/t_w}.$$

The final form of the correlation function is found to be

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{t_w}}\right)^{1T/T_g}\text{ if }t<t_w`$ (A13)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0(t,t_w)\left[1\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{T_g}}\right)^2\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{t}}\right)^{T/T_g}\text{ if }t_w<t.`$ (A14)
The approximate correlation functions given by (A13) – (A14) reproduce well the asymptotic behavior of the exact solution given by (A9) – (A10) except for the prefactors that are not relevant to our discussion. The qualitative physics of the model (namely the weak ergodicity breaking property) can thus be reproduced from these approximations. We use the same approximations in the main body of the article for the model having the trap energy distribution (3) for which we cannot use the exact solution anymore.