text:
# Localization of thermal packets and metastable states in Sinai model

## I Introduction

The Sinai model  of a particle diffusing in a one dimensional quenched random force field is one of the simplest example of a model with quenched randomness. Its continuum version is defined by the Langevin equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx(t)}{dt}}=U^{}[x(t)]+\eta (t)`$ (1)
where $`\eta (t)`$ is the thermal noise, with correlation $`<\eta (t)\eta (t^{})>=2T\delta (tt^{})`$, and where the random potential $`U(x)`$ is a Brownian motion presenting the correlations :

$`\overline{(U(x)U(x^{}))^2}=2\sigma |xx^{}|`$ (2)
As a result, the Sinai diffusion exhibits a non trivial ultra-slow logarithmic behavior, the walker typically moving as $`x(\mathrm{ln}t)^2`$. Although this model has been much studied , the known analytical results mainly concern the rescaled variable $`X=\frac{\sigma x}{T^2\mathrm{ln}^2t}`$, and its distribution over the disorder realizations, known as the Kesten distribution. However another important issue concerns the thermal distribution of the position in a given sample.

Golosov  has discovered the important phenomenon of localization in the sense that all thermal trajectories starting from the same initial condition remain within a finite distance of each other even in the limit of infinite time! More precisely, he has proved that there exists a process $`m(t)`$, independent of the thermal noise $`\eta `$, such that the distribution $`P_t(y)`$ of the relative distance $`y=xm(t)`$ averaged over the realizations of the disorder converges in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ towards a probability distribution $`P_G(y)`$ defined as the following functional

$`P_G(y)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{r(|y|)}}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{r(t)}+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{\rho (t)}}}_{\{r,\rho \}}`$ (3)
where $`<<..>>`$ denotes the average over the two independent Bessel processes (i.e. the radial parts of free Brownian motions in three dimension) $`r(t)`$ and $`\rho (t)`$ starting at $`r(t=0)=0=\rho (t=0)`$. (The explicit computation of this functional is done in Appendix D of the present paper.)

However, the existence of this limit distribution doesn’t imply that the moments of the random variable $`y`$ remain finite in the limit of infinite time. And indeed, all the integer moments of the relative distance $`\left(x<x(t)>\right)`$ to the thermally averaged position $`<x(t)>`$ diverge in the infinite-time limit, with the following leading divergence

$`\overline{<\left(x<x(t)>\right)^n>}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sigma ^n}}(T\mathrm{ln}t)^{2n1}`$ (4)
where $`<..>`$ denotes the thermal average over $`\{\eta (t)\}`$ and where $`\overline{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the disorder average over the random potential $`\{U(x)\}`$. This happens because the decay of the distribution of $`z=\left(x<x(t)>\right)`$ is algebraic at large distance as $`1/|z|^{3/2}`$ . For $`n=2`$, the behavior (4) has been measured numerically in .

Other quantities characterizing the localization of the thermal packet are the localization parameters $`Y_k(t)`$ representing the disorder-averages of the probabilities that $`k`$ independent particles in the same sample starting from the same initial condition are at the same place at time $`t`$. In a given environment $`U(x)`$ and for a given initial condition $`x_0`$, the probability distribution over the thermal noise

$`P(x,t|x_0,0)<\delta \left(xx_{\{\eta ,U,x_0\}}(t)\right)>`$ (5)
(where $`x_{\{\eta ,U,x_0\}}(t)`$ is the solution of the Langevin equation (1)) satisfies the Fokker-Planck equation

$`_tP(x,t|x_0,0)`$ $`=H_{FP}P(x,t|x_0,0))`$ (6)
$`H_{FP}`$ $`=_x(T_x+U^{}(x))`$ (7)
and the initial condition $`P(x,t0|x_0,0)\delta (xx_0)`$. So the localization parameters read

$`Y_k(t)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x\overline{\left[P(x,t|x_0,0)\right]^k}`$ (8)
In , the parameter $`Y_2(t)`$ has been measured numerically for a version of the discrete Sinai model in a semi-infinite geometry with binary distribution of the random forces. This simulation shows that $`Y_2(t)`$ converges at long time towards a finite value $`Y_2(\mathrm{})`$, which decays as $`T`$ increases (since the temperature broadens the distribution of the thermal packet).

A generalization of $`Y_2(t)`$ is the correlation function $`C(l,t)`$ representing the disorder-average of the probability that two independent particles in the same sample starting from the same initial condition are at a distance $`l`$ from each other at time $`t`$

$`C(l,t)=2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x\overline{\left[P(x,t|x_0,0)P(x+l,t|x_0,0)\right]}`$ (9)
which is normalized to $`_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑lC_2(l,t)=1`$.

Another question related with the distribution of the thermal packet is the dynamics of a given particle between two times $`t_w`$ and $`(t_w+\tau )`$ in the ‘quasi-equilibrium regime’ $`t_w\mathrm{}`$ with finite $`\tau `$ . It was conjectured and checked numerically in  that the disorder averaged probability $`Q(z,\tau )=lim_{t_w\mathrm{}}Q(z,t_w+\tau ,t_w)`$ of the relative displacement $`z=x(t)x(t_w)`$ for the Sinai model on the infinite line was the same as $`Q_{eq}(z,\tau )`$ obtained as the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ of $`Q_L(z,\tau )`$ characterizing the equilibrium dynamics in a finite sample of length $`L`$. In particular, in the large $`\tau `$ limit, one should recover the statics with two independent particles at Boltzmann equilibrium . If these assumptions are true, this means that for the particles of the thermal packets, we should also have a correspondence with the Boltzmann distribution in a Brownian potential on finite sample of length $`L`$

$`p_L^{eq}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta U(x)}}{_0^L𝑑ye^{\beta U(y)}}}`$ (10)
More precisely, it is interesting to compare $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ (8) and $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ (9) with the thermodynamic limit of their statics counterparts

$`Y_k^{eq}`$ $`=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x\overline{[p_L^{eq}(x)]^k}`$ (11)
$`C^{eq}(l)`$ $`=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑y\overline{p_L^{eq}(x)p_L^{eq}(y)}`$ (12)
Some statistical properties of the Boltzmann distribution (10) have already been studied in .

In this paper, we reconsider this question of the localization of the thermal packet from the point of view of the real-space RG analysis detailed in . Within this renormalization picture, at time $`t`$, any particle starting from an initial condition belonging to a renormalized valley will be typically at time $`t`$ around the minimum $`m(t)`$ of this renormalized valley. To study the distribution of a thermal packet, a first step is to consider that the particles of the packet are at Boltzmann equilibrium within the renormalized valley they belong to at time $`t`$. This is only an approximation at finite time, since there are also additional out-of equilibrium situations for the thermal packet . However in the limit of infinite time, these out-of equilibrium situations have vanishing probability , and the joint distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ of relative position $`y=x(t)m(t)`$ and relative energy $`u=U(x(t))U(m(t))`$ corresponds to an average of Boltzmann distribution over infinitely deep Brownian valleys. We will compute explicitly $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ by a path-integral method. We use the same method to compute the $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ parameters (8) and the correlation function $`C(l)`$ (9). On the other hand, we compute $`Y_k^{eq}`$ and $`C^{eq}(l)`$ (12) and find that they indeed coincide with $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ and $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$. This shows that the ensemble of infinitely-deep valleys gives the same results for the quantities mentioned above as the thermodynamic limit of the ensemble of finite-size valleys, so that quasi-equilibrium in Sinai diffusion and equilibrium in a Brownian potential are equivalent.

This approach to the localization phenomenon allows us to study in details the disorder-dependent structure of low-energy eigenstates of the Fokker-Planck operator. Our results are consistent with the features discussed in the Appendix B of  for the related model of one-dimensional random-hopping hamiltonian for fermions.

Finally, it is instructive to recast Sinai diffusion into the general theory of glassy systems. Indeed, in the studies on slowly relaxing systems such as glasses, granular media or disordered spin models, it is natural to separate the dynamics in two parts : there are ‘fast’ degrees of freedom which rapidly reach local quasi-equilibrium plus a slow non-equilibrium part. At a given long-time $`t`$, the fast motion covers a region of phase-space which can be defined as a metastable state associated to time $`t`$ . In Sinai diffusion, this picture directly applies : the metastable states are the renormalized valleys, within which there is a local Boltzmann equilibrium. Moreover, we obtain that the metastable states satisfy all the properties of the construction  as summarized in . In glassy systems, the Edwards ergodicity conjecture  consisting in computing dynamic quantities by taking flat averages over metastable states has given rise to a lot of recent studies . Since Edwards conjecture is usually based on the assumption that all the basins of attraction of the various metastable states have the same size , it is of course a very strong hypothesis that cannot be true in general but only for special systems with special dynamics . In Sinai diffusion with uniform initial condition, the size of the basin of attraction of a metastable state is given by the spatial length of a renormalized valley : it is thus a random variable whose distribution is exactly known. As a consequence, Edwards conjecture cannot be true in general. Nevertheless, within the RSRG approach , all one-time quantities are effectively computed by averages over all metastable states, but with a measure which is not flat, but depends on the quantities and on the properties of the basins of attraction. So the RSRG approach of the Sinai model represents the simplest example where the dynamical study of a glassy system can be faithfully replaced by an average over a set of well specified metastable states, with a well defined measure. However, for special quantities, Edwards conjecture can be recovered. For instance, in this paper, we compute the probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ of the thermal packet, the localization parameters $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ (8) and the correlation function $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ (9) as flat averages over infinitely deep wells. This is because in the infinitely deep valleys, the statistics of the lower-part of the Brownian valley is the same for all metastable states.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we explain within the Real-space Renormalization Group (RSRG) picture why the distribution of the thermal packet is asymptotically given by an average of Boltzmann distribution over infinitely deep Brownian valleys. In section III, we use a probabilistic path-integral method to compute explicit expressions for the joint probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$. We use the same method to compute the probability distribution of the partition function of an infinitely-deep valley (section IV), the localizations parameters $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ (section V), and the correlation function $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ (section VI). In section VII, we consider equilibrium functions in finite samples and compute $`Y_k^{eq}`$ and $`C^{eq}(l)`$ (12) which are found to coincide with $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ and $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$. In section VIII, we derive explicit expressions for the eigenfunctions of the Fokker-Planck operator. In section IX, we discuss the properties of metastable stables and compare with the general theory of metastable states in glassy systems. Finally, the appendices A, B and C contain technical details used in the text, whereas the appendix D shows that our result for $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ after integration over $`u`$ coincides with the explicit computation of the Golosov functional (3).

## II  Real-Space Renormalization Group for the Sinai diffusion

In this section, we briefly recall the principles of the Real-Space Renormalization Group approach to Sinai diffusion  with special emphasis on the successive levels of approximations.

### A  Effective dynamics at large times

Recently we have proposed an approach, based on a real space renormalization group (RSRG) method, which allows us to obtain many exact results for the Sinai model . The way to implement the RSRG is very direct: one decimates iteratively the smallest energy barrier in the system stopping when the time to surmount the smallest remaining barrier is of order the time scale of interest. Despite its approximate character, the RSRG yields for many quantities asymptotically exact results, because the iterated distribution of barriers grows infinitely wide. Indeed, the distribution of the rescaled barrier height $`\eta =\frac{F\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ converges towards the fixed point

$`P^{}(\eta )=\theta (\eta )e^\eta `$ (13)
where

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$ (14)
is the renormalization scale associated to the time $`t`$.

Within this renormalization picture, at time $`t`$, any particle starting from an initial condition belonging to a renormalized valley $`(F_1,F_2)`$ will be typically at time $`t`$ around the minimum $`m(t)`$ of the valley. This simple approximation, called “effective dynamics” in , is sufficient to obtain exact expressions for many quantities, such as for instance the Kesten distribution of the rescaled variable $`X=\frac{\sigma x(t)}{T^2\mathrm{ln}^2t}`$.

However for other quantities, we have already obtained in  that there are differences between the effective dynamics and the real dynamics. For instance, persistence properties of the thermal average $`<x(t)>`$ are well described by persistence properties of the effective dynamics consisting in jumping between valley bottoms but are very different from the persistence properties of a single walker .

### B  Boltzmann equilibrium within renormalized valleys

To study the distribution of a thermal packet, we clearly need to go beyond the effective dynamics. A first step is to consider that the particles of the packet are at equilibrium within the renormalized valley they belong to at time $`t`$. More explicitly, this approximation which assumes that the walkers are at Gibbs equilibrium separately in each renormalized valleys at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, can be written

$`P(xt|x_00){\displaystyle \underset{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}e^{\beta U(x)}\theta _{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(x)\theta _{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(x_0)`$ (15)
where the sum is over all the renormalized valleys $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that are present in the system at the renormalization scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$, and where $`\theta _V(x)`$ is the characteristic function of the valley $`V`$, i.e $`\theta _V(x)=1`$ if $`x`$ belongs to the valley and $`\theta _V(x)=0`$ otherwise. $`Z_V=_V𝑑xe^{\beta U(x)}`$ represents the Boltzmann normalization over the valley $`V`$.

This Boltzmann equilibrium is clearly an excellent approximation within the lower part of the valley, i.e. for the points that are at a finite potential above the minimum of the valley, which have had plenty of time to equilibrate. However, it breaks down further away in the higher part of the valley, for the points that are at a potential of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ above the minimum of the valley, since these points need a time of order $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}t`$ to equilibrate. However, since these points have a weight of order $`e^{\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in the formula (15), they do not play any role for the observables computed in this paper in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$.

More importantly, the approximation (15) breaks down whenever out-of-equilibrium situations occur for the thermal packet as we now explain.

### C  Out-of-equilibrium situations for a thermal packet

In our previous work , we have already described rare events where deviations from the effective dynamics show up. The most important rare events are of order $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and are of three types pictured on Fig 7 of Ref. . In the events of type $`(a)`$, there are two nearly degenerate minima at thermal equilibrium separated by a barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These events (a) are thus well taken into account by the Boltzmann equilibrium in each renormalized valley described in previous section. The rare events $`(b)`$ where two tops are nearly degenerate are on the contrary completely out-of equilibrium, since the thermal packet will be split in two valleys that are not at equilibrium with each other. Finally the events (c) where the valley is being decimated are also out-of-equilibrium events, since the two renormalized valleys at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ cannot be considered at thermal equilibrium. All other rare events are of higher order, for instance the probability that the initial point is near a top, which will also produce an out-of-equilibrium splitting of the thermal packet, is of order $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$.

### D Conclusion

As a conclusion, the expression (15) is an excellent approximation for the thermal packets that are not in out-of-equilibrium situations, and within the lower part of the renormalized valleys, i.e. for the points that are at a finite potential above the minima of the valleys. This approximation breaks down for the higher parts of the valleys, i.e. for the points that are at a potential of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ above the minima of the valleys, and whenever the thermal packet happens to be in an out-of-equilibrium situation like the events (b) and (c) described above which appear with probability $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For a detailed study of systematic corrections to this approximation, and further results, we refer the reader to D.S. Fisher .

From now on, in this paper, we will restrict our attention to the approximation (15) which becomes asymptotically exact in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, in this limit, only the points that are at a finite potential above the minima of the valleys keep a finite weight and all the out-of equilibrium situations have a vanishing probability in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, the Boltzmann distribution over an infinite-deep valley exactly describes the asymptotic dispersion of a thermal packet. More explicitly, the disorder average $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ of the joint probability distribution of the relative position $`y=x(t)m(t)`$ and the relative energy $`u=U(x(t))U(m(t))`$ with respect to the minimum $`[m(t),U(m(t)]`$ of the valley is given by

$`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)=`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta u}\delta (uU_1(|y|))}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}}}_{\{U_1,U_2\}}`$ (17)
where the average $`\mathrm{}`$ is over two independent Brownian trajectories $`U_1(x)`$ and $`U_2(x)`$ forming an infinitely-deep well, i.e. a renormalized valley in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. We note here that the minimum $`m(t)`$ of the valley represents the most probable position in each sample (i.e. it is the point where the probability is the biggest), but not the thermally averaged position $`<x(t)>`$.

Using, the same notations, we obtain the infinite-time limit of the localizations parameters $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ (8)

$`Y_k(\mathrm{})={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑y`$ (18)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta U_1(|y|)}}{_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}+_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}}}\right)^k_{\{U_1,U_2\}}`$ (19)
and of the correlation function (9)

$`C(l,\mathrm{})=4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y\overline{\left[P_{\mathrm{}}(y)P_{\mathrm{}}(y+l)\right]}+2{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑y\overline{\left[P_{\mathrm{}}(ly)P_{\mathrm{}}(y)\right]}`$ (20)
$`=4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta U_1(y)\beta U_1(y+l)}}{\left(_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}+_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}\right)^2}}+2{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta U_1(y)\beta U_2(ly)}}{\left(_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}+_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}\right)^2}}`$ (21)
We now turn to the explicit computation of these expressions.

## III Probability distribution for the thermal packet

### A  Expression of $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ in terms of path-integrals

To define more precisely the average $`\mathrm{}`$ (17) over two independent Brownian trajectories $`U_1(x)`$ and $`U_2(x)`$ forming an infinitely-deep well, let $`𝒱_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the set of Brownian paths $`\{U(x0)\}`$ starting at $`U(0)=0^+`$ in the presence of absorbing boundaries at $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and that are conditioned to finish at $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and not at $`U=0`$. The formula (17) is thus defined as

$`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta u}\delta (uU_1(|y|)}{_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}+_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}}}`$ (23)
where $`U_1(x)`$ and $`U_2(x)`$ are two independent Brownian trajectories belonging to $`𝒱_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and where $`l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ and $`l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ are the random times where $`U_1(x)`$ and $`U_2(x)`$ respectively first hit $`x=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where they are killed. Since the expression is symmetric in $`yy`$, we will assume $`y>0`$ from now on.

To separate the averages over $`U_1`$ and $`U_2`$, it is convenient to exponentiate the denominator to get

$`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)`$ (24)
where

$`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)e^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}}_{\{U_2\}}`$ (25)
and

$`S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)`$ (26)
$`e^{\beta u}\delta (uU_1(|y|)e^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}}_{\{U_1\}}`$ (27)
We now define the path-integral

$`F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,l|u_0){\displaystyle _{U(0)=u_0}^{U(l)=u}}𝒟U(x)`$ (28)
$`e^{\frac{1}{4\sigma }_0^l𝑑x\left(\frac{dU}{dx}\right)^2q_0^l𝑑xe^{\beta U(x)}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}\{U\}`$ (29)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}\{U(x)\}`$ means that there are absorbing boundaries at $`U=0`$ and at $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The explicit computation of this path-integral is done in Appendix B and yields the final result (B24).

To compute the quantity (25), we need to consider the path-integral (29) going from the initial potential $`u_0=ϵ`$ to the final potential $`u=\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ`$ in the limit $`ϵ0`$ and to sum over the random time $`l`$ representing the random time $`l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ where $`U_2(x)`$ first hit $`x=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where it is killed. So we have

$`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)`$ $`=𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma }){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑l\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,l|ϵ)`$ (30)
up to a normalization $`𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ that ensures $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q=0)=1`$. The result for $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)`$ is given in equation (B31) of Appendix B which yields in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$

$`R_{\mathrm{}}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_0(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }})}}`$ (31)
Similarly, to compute (27), we need to compose two path-integrals of type (29), the first one going from the initial potential $`u_0=ϵ`$ to the final potential $`u`$ in a time $`y`$, and the second one going from the initial potential $`u`$ to the final potential $`\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ`$ in a time $`l`$ representing the difference $`(l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}y)`$ that we have to sum over, so that we have

$`S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)=𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })e^{\beta u}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑l`$ (32)
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,l|u)F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,y|ϵ)`$ (33)
The Laplace transform with respect to $`y`$ of this expression is given in equation (B36) of Appendix B which yields in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$

$`\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{}}(p,u,q){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{py}S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta \sigma }}e^{\beta u}`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu \left(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)}{I_\nu (s)}}\left(K_0(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{K_0(s)}{I_0(s)}}I_0(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}})\right)`$ (35)
where

$`s`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}`$ (36)
$`\nu `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}}`$ (37)
### B  Final result for the joint probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$

Using the results (31) and (35), the Laplace transform of the probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ (24) may now be expressed as

$`\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(p,u){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{py}P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ (38)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qR_{\mathrm{}}(q)\widehat{S}_{\mathrm{}}(p,u,q)=\beta e^{\beta u}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu \left(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)}{I_0(s)I_\nu (s)}}\left(K_0(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{K_0(s)}{I_0(s)}}I_0(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}})\right)`$ (40)
In particular, the distribution of the energy $`u`$ alone reads (taking into account the two sides $`y>0`$ and $`y<0`$)

$`P_{\mathrm{}}(u)=2\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(p=0,u)=2\beta e^{\beta u}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ss`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{I_0\left(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)}{I_0^2(s)}}\left(K_0(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}){\displaystyle \frac{K_0(s)}{I_0(s)}}I_0(se^{\frac{\beta u}{2}})\right)`$ (42)
whereas the distribution of the position $`y`$ alone has for Laplace transform

$`\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(p){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(p,u)=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{sI_0(s)I_\nu (s)}}`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle _0^s}𝑑zzI_\nu (z)\left(K_0(z){\displaystyle \frac{K_0(s)}{I_0(s)}}I_0(z)\right)`$ (44)
The Laplace parameter $`p`$ is present only through the index $`\nu =\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{p}{\sigma }}`$ of the Bessel function $`I_\nu `$.

The normalization to $`\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(p=0)=1/2`$ for the half space can be checked using (A7) and (A10). Using (A16), we may expand in $`\nu `$ as follows

$`\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\nu {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz{\displaystyle \frac{K_0^3(z)}{I_0(z)}}+O(\nu ^2)`$ (46)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz{\displaystyle \frac{K_0^3(z)}{I_0(z)}}+O(p)`$
This shows that the probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ exhibits the power-law decay

$`P_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ $`\underset{|y|\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|y|^{3/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2T}{3\sqrt{\pi \sigma }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz{\displaystyle \frac{K_0^3(z)}{I_0(z)}}\right)`$ (47)
making all the integer moments diverging in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$. The exponent $`3/2`$ is of course related to the probability of return to the origin of a random walk . Indeed, the Boltzmann distribution in a renormalized valley typically decays at large distance as $`e^{\beta \sqrt{\sigma y}}`$. However, in rare configurations where the random potential $`U(y)`$ happens to be near the origin $`U(0)`$ at $`y`$, which happens with probability $`1/y^{3/2}`$, then the Boltzmann distribution has a weight of order $`1`$ at $`y`$. These rare configurations entirely dominates the disorder-average for large $`y`$ and are responsible of the power-law decay .

## IV Distribution of the partition function of an infinitely deep valley

The partition function of the valley can be decomposed as the sum over two independent half-valleys

$`Z_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}`$ (48)
Using the result (31) for $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)`$ (25), we obtain that its probability distribution has for Laplace transform

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Ze^{qZ}𝒫_{\mathrm{}}(Z)=R_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_0^2(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }})}}`$ (49)
It is convenient to introduce the rescaled partition function

$`z{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{\mathrm{}}}{l_T}}`$ (50)
where

$`l_T={\displaystyle \frac{4T^2}{\sigma }}`$ (51)
represents the thermal length associated to the typical scale of the extension of the Boltzmann distribution $`e^{\beta U(x)}`$ in a Brownian well $`U(x)\sigma \sqrt{x}`$.

The probability distribution $`p(z)`$ of the dimensionless partition function $`z`$ has for Laplace transform

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ze^{qz}p(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_0^2(\sqrt{q})}}`$ (52)
The series expansion (A3) shows that all the positive moments are finite. The leading behavior at large $`z`$ is indeed given via Laplace inversion by the first pole $`q_1=s_1^2`$ on the negative real axis, where $`s_1`$ is the first zero of the Bessel function $`J_0(s_1)=0`$ :

$`p(z)\underset{z\mathrm{}}{}ze^{s_1^2z}`$ (53)
The behavior of (52) at large $`q`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ze^{qz}p(z)\underset{q\mathrm{}}{}2\pi \sqrt{q}e^{2\sqrt{q}}`$ (54)
leads to the following essential singularity at small $`z`$

$`p(z)\underset{z0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^{5/2}}}e^{\frac{1}{z}}`$ (55)
## V  Localization parameters

To compute the localizations parameters $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ (19), we proceed along the same lines

$`Y_k(\mathrm{})=2{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑y{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^{k1}R_{\mathrm{}}(q)`$ (56)
$`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{k\beta U_1(y)}e^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}}_{\{U_1\}}`$ (57)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^{k1}R_{\mathrm{}}(q)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑ue^{k\beta u}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,l|u)\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,0|ϵ)`$ (59)
Using again the result (B24) for $`\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}`$ we finally get

$`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\sigma \right)^{k1}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz^{2k1}K_0^2(z)`$ (61)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(k)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{2})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\sigma \right)^{k1}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^3(k)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2k)}}(\beta ^2\sigma )^{k1}`$
where we have used again (A7) and (A10).

The increase of $`Y_k`$ at large $`k`$ is a consequence of the average over the disorder, and can be understood by considering the averaged probability $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ to have $`k`$ particles at the minimum of the valley (instead of at the same place but anywhere in the valley for $`Y_k`$), which is exactly given by the negative moment of order $`k`$ of the partition function $`Z_{\mathrm{}}`$ (48)

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ $`=<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z^k}}>={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ZP_{\mathrm{}}(Z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z^k}}`$ (63)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_T}}\right)^k{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{s^{2k1}}{I_0^2(s)}}`$
For large $`k`$, the dominant behavior comes from the the small $`z`$ behavior (55) of the probability distribution, which yields

$`\stackrel{~}{Y}_k`$ $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_T}}\right)^k\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})`$ (64)
This shows that the behavior at large $`k`$ of the average $`Y_k`$ is dominated by very steep valleys having a small partition function $`z`$.

Here we need to make some comments about the relation with the discrete Sinai model with lattice constant $`a`$. For most quantities, the results obtained for the continuum version correspond to the universal limit where the lattice constant $`a`$ is very small as compared to the thermal length $`l_T1/(\sigma \beta ^2)`$ (51) representing the typical extension of the Boltzmann distribution in a Brownian well. For instance, this is the case for the probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ of the thermal packet and for the correlation function $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$. For the localizations parameters $`Y_k`$ however, our result indicates that the dimensionless $`y_k`$ parameters of discrete models will behave as

$`y_k^{discrete}(\mathrm{})`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(k)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{2})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a}{l_T}}\right)^{k1}`$ (65)
when $`k`$ is fixed, in the limit where $`(a/l_T)`$ is small. But for fixed $`(a/l_T)`$, there is a maximal value $`k_{max}`$ beyond which the result above doesn’t apply anymore and is replaced by a non-universal behavior. Indeed, the discrete $`y_k`$ are by definition smaller than $`1`$. And as explained above, the large $`k`$ behavior of (61) is related to very steep valleys having a small partition function $`z`$, i.e. involving a small number of sites in discrete models, so that all details of the model will be important to determine the large $`k`$ behavior of $`y_k^{discrete}(\mathrm{})`$.

Note also that in the opposite regime where the lattice spacing $`a`$ is not negligeable with the thermal length $`l_T`$ (i.e. $`al_T`$ or $`a>l_T`$), there is only a small number of sites that are really important around the minimum of the valley so that the discreteness and details of the model will again be very important. For instance, the behaviors of the localization parameters $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ at zero temperature are highly non-universal and depend on many details : in , the binary distribution of the random forces induces a lot of minima degeneracies separated by barrier of two bonds which can always be passed even in the the limit of zero-temperature (because the particle is not allowed to remain on the same site between $`t`$ and $`t+1`$). Assuming that all degenerate minima have the same weight, the value of $`Y_2(\mathrm{})`$ at $`T=0`$ is found to be $`(\mathrm{ln}2)/2`$ , instead of the $`1`$ one would expect if there were no residual fluctuations at $`T=0`$ around a single minimum.

## VI  Correlation function

To compute the correlation function $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ (21), we decompose it into

$`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ $`=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qq{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑ye^{\beta U_1(y)}e^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}}_{\{U_1\}}e^{\beta U_2(ly)}e^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}}_{\{U_2\}}`$ (67)
$`+\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qqe^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_2(x)}}_{\{U_2\}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ye^{\beta U_1(y)\beta U_1(y+l)}e^{q_0^{l_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}𝑑xe^{\beta U_1(x)}}_{\{U_1\}}`$
which yields in Laplace transform with respect to $`l`$

$`\widehat{C}(p,\mathrm{}){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑le^{pl}C(l,\mathrm{})=2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qq\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑u{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{py}S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)\right)^2`$ (68)
$`+4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qqR_{\mathrm{}}(q)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma }){\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑u_1e^{\beta u_1}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑u_2e^{\beta u_2}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u_2,p|u_1)\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,0|u_2)\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u_1,0|ϵ)`$ (69)
Using the previous result (35) and the expression (B24) for $`\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}`$, we finally get after simplifications

$`\widehat{C}(p,\mathrm{})=8{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_1z_1I_\nu (z_1)K_0(z_1)`$ (70)
$`{\displaystyle _{z_1}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_2z_2K_\nu (z_2)K_0(z_2)`$ (71)
where again $`p`$ only appears in the index $`\nu `$ (37) of Bessel functions.

Expansion in $`p`$ yields (A16)

$`\widehat{C}(p,\mathrm{})=1{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}}+O(p)`$ (72)
This small-p behavior shows that $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ presents at large distance the same power-law decay with exponent (3/2) as the probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ (47)

$`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ $`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^{3/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sqrt{\pi \sigma }}}\right)`$ (73)
making again all the integer moments infinite. As explained after equation (47), this long-range algebraic decay of the mean correlation function comes from rare configurations of the disorder, and is very different from the decay as $`e^{\beta \sqrt{\sigma l}}`$ characterizing the typical correlations. This is thus an explicit example of the important differences that exist in disordered systems between typical and mean correlations .

## VII Comparison with equilibrium functions in large systems

In this section, we consider the Boltzmann equilibrium (10) on a finite system of length $`L`$ to see if, in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, we recover the same properties for the thermal packet as in Sinai diffusion on the infinite line. Some statistical properties of the Boltzmann distribution (10) have already been studied in , where in particular the decay of correlations was shown to be algebraic with the exponent $`3/2`$, for the same reason as discussed above after the equation (47). The $`Y_k^{eq}`$ have already been computed in  for free and periodic boundary conditions, but they were found to be very different even in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$, whereas it is usually expected that for physical quantities that remain finite in this limit, differences should vanish. In the following, we compute the equilibrium functions for both boundary conditions and find that they coincide with each other, (i.e. the result (17) of  is erroneous). The thermodynamic limit is thus well-defined and independent of the boundary conditions.

### A $`Y_k^{eq}`$ parameters at equilibrium

The $`Y_k^{eq}`$ parameters for free boundary conditions may be rewritten in terms of path-integrals as

$`Y_k^{free}(L)={\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{k\beta U(x)}}{\left(_0^L𝑑ye^{\beta U(y)}\right)^k}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}`$ (74)
$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^{k1}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x\overline{e^{k\beta U(x)}e^{q_0^L𝑑ye^{\beta U(y)}}}`$ (75)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^{k1}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_L{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u`$ (76)
$`e^{k\beta u}G(u_L,Lx|u)G(u,x|0)`$ (77)
where the basic path-integral $`G`$ is

$`G(u,l|u_0)=`$ (78)
$`{\displaystyle _{U(0)=u_0}^{U(l)=u}}𝒟U(y)e^{\frac{1}{4\sigma }_0^L𝑑y\left(\frac{dU}{dy}\right)^2q_0^L𝑑ye^{\beta U(x)}}`$ (79)
It is analogous to the path-integral (29) except that here there are no boundary conditions at $`U=0`$ and $`U=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and the variable $`u`$ is in $`]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[`$. From a technical point of view, we mention here that contrary to the previous works  which expand the path-integral (79) upon eigenstates of the the Hamiltonian $`H=\frac{d}{du^2}+qe^{\beta u}`$, here we have chosen to work in Laplace transform with respect to the length $`l`$ to have a more compact result (C2). Using (C2), we obtain in Laplace with respect to $`L`$

$`\widehat{Y}_k^{free}(\omega ){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Le^{\omega L}Y_k^{free}(L)`$ (80)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\right)^{k2}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑zz^{2k1}`$ (81)
$`\left[K_\mu (z){\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}I_\mu (s)+I_\mu (z){\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}K_\mu (s)\right]^2`$ (82)
with

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\sigma }}}`$ (83)
The thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is obtained as

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_k^{free}(L)=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}(\omega \widehat{Y}_k^{free}(\omega ))`$ (84)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\right)^{k1}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑zz^{2k1}K_0^2(z)`$ (85)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(k)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{2})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\sigma \right)^{k1}`$ (86)
in agreement with the equation (19) of .

We now consider periodic boundary conditions, and indicate the modifications that appear. Taking into account that the probability to have $`U(L)=U(0)`$ is $`(1/\sqrt{4\pi \sigma L})`$, we have in terms of the path-integral (79)

$`Y_k^{periodic}(L)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{4\pi \sigma L}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq^{k1}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x`$ (87)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ue^{k\beta u}G(0,Lx|u)G(u,x|0)`$ (88)
So here, it is simpler to compute the following Laplace transform

$`y_k(\omega ){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Le^{\omega L}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y_k^{periodic}(L)}{\sqrt{L}}}\right)`$ (89)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{\pi }}{\beta \sqrt{\sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)}}\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\right)^{k1}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑zz^{2k1}`$ (90)
$`\left[K_\mu ^2(z){\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}I_\mu ^2(s)+I_\mu ^2(z){\displaystyle _z^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}K_\mu ^2(s)\right]`$ (91)
The thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is then obtained as

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}Y_k^{periodic}(L)=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega }}{\sqrt{\pi }}}y_k(\omega )\right)`$ (92)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(k)}{2\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{2})}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4}}\sigma \right)^{k1}`$ (93)
contrary to the erroneous result in equation (17) of . Our result thus coincides with (86) concerning the equilibrium with free boundary conditions and with (61) concerning the localizations parameters for Sinai diffusion on the infinite-line.

### B Two-point correlation $`C^{eq}(l)`$ at equilibrium

Similarly, the two-point correlation for free boundary conditions may be expressed in terms of the path-integral (79)

$`C_L^{free}(l)=2{\displaystyle _0^{Ll}}𝑑x\overline{\left[p_L^{eq}(x)p_L^{eq}(x+l)\right]}=2{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq{\displaystyle _0^{Ll}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq\overline{e^{\beta U(x)\beta U(l+x)}e^{q_0^L𝑑ye^{\beta U(x)}}}`$ (94)
$`=2{\displaystyle _0^{Ll}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_2e^{\beta u_1\beta u_2}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_LG(u_L,Lxl|u_2)G(u_2,l|u_1)G(u_1,x|0)`$ (95)
so that in double Laplace with respect to $`l`$ and $`L`$ we get

$`\widehat{C}^{free}(p,\omega ){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dLe^{\omega L}{\displaystyle _0^L}dle^{pl}C_L^{free}(l)={\displaystyle \frac{32}{\beta ^2\sigma }}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}dz_1z_1I_\nu ^{}(z_1)[K_\mu (z_1){\displaystyle _0^{z_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}I_\mu (s)`$ (96)
$`+I_\mu (z_1){\displaystyle _{z_1}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}K_\mu (s)]{\displaystyle }_{z_1}^+\mathrm{}dz_2z_2K_\nu ^{}(z_2)[K_\mu (z_2){\displaystyle _0^{z_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}I_\mu (s)+I_\mu (z_2){\displaystyle _{z_2}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}K_\mu (s)]`$ (97)
with $`\nu ^{}=\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{p+\omega }{\sigma }}`$. The thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is obtained as

$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{C}_L^{free}(p)\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑le^{pl}C_L(l)`$ (98)
$`=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}(\omega \widehat{C}^{free}(p,\omega ))=8{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_1z_1I_\nu (z_1)K_0(z_1)`$ (99)
$`{\displaystyle _{z_1}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_2z_2K_\nu (z_2)K_0(z_2)`$ (100)
and thus coincides with the result (71) for correlation of two particles of the thermal packet in Sinai diffusion on the infinite line. It is shown in equation (C13) of Appendix (C) that periodic boundary conditions also yield the same result (100).

### C Probability distribution of the partition function

The probability distribution of the partition function

$$𝒵_L=_0^L𝑑xe^{\beta U(x)}$$
(101)
has already been computed in , but to compare with our result (48) for the infinitely deep valley, we need to consider the modified partition function

$$Z_L=_0^L𝑑xe^{\beta [U(x)U_{min}]}$$
(102)
where $`U_{min}`$ is the minimum of $`U(x)`$ for $`0xL`$. Using the notations of (29), the Laplace transform of the probability distribution $`P_L(Z)`$ can be expressed in terms of path-integrals as

$`\widehat{P}_L(q)`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Ze^{qZ}P_L(Z)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^0}𝑑u_0{\displaystyle _{u_0}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_L{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_0`$ (105)
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle _{U(0)=0}^{U(x_0)=u_0+ϵ}}𝒟U(x)e^{\frac{1}{4\sigma }_0^L𝑑x\left(\frac{dU}{dx}\right)^2q_0^L𝑑xe^{\beta [U(x)u_0]}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[u_0,+\mathrm{}]}\{U(x)\}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{U(x_0)=u_0+ϵ}^{U(L)=u_L}}𝒟U(x)e^{\frac{1}{4\sigma }_0^L𝑑x\left(\frac{dU}{dx}\right)^2q_0^L𝑑xe^{\beta [U(x)u_0]}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[u_0,+\mathrm{}]}\{U(x)\}`$
The change of functional $`V(x)=U(x)u_0`$ leads to

$`\widehat{P}_L(q)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑v_0{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑v_L{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_0\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle _{V(0)=v_0}^{V(x_0)=ϵ}}𝒟U(x)e^{\frac{1}{4\sigma }_0^L𝑑x\left(\frac{dV}{dx}\right)^2q_0^L𝑑xe^{\beta V(x)}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[0,+\mathrm{}]}\{U(x)\}`$ (108)
$`{\displaystyle _{V(x_0)=ϵ}^{V(L)=v_L}}𝒟V(x)e^{\frac{1}{4\sigma }_0^L𝑑x\left(\frac{dV}{dx}\right)^2q_0^L𝑑xe^{\beta V(x)}}\mathrm{\Theta }_{[0,+\mathrm{}]}\{U(x)\}`$
$`=\sigma {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑v_0{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑v_L{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑x_0\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}F_{[0,+\mathrm{}]}(ϵ,x_0|v_0)F_{[0,+\mathrm{}]}(v_L,Lx_0|ϵ)`$
which yields in Laplace with respect to the length $`L`$, using (B24)

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Le^{\omega L}\widehat{P}_L(q)`$ (109)
$`=\sigma \left[\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑v\widehat{F}_{[0,+\mathrm{}]}(ϵ,\omega |v)\right]^2`$ (110)
$`=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta \sqrt{\sigma }I_\mu \left(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}\right)}}{\displaystyle _0^s}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{z}}I_\mu (z)\right]^2`$ (111)
where $`\mu `$ has been defined in (83). Again, the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is obtained as

$`\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{}}(q)`$ $`=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\left(\omega {\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Le^{\omega L}\widehat{P}_L(q)\right)`$ (113)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_0^2\left(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}\right)}}`$
which coincides with the result (49) for the infinitely-deep valley. It is of course straightforward to generalize this computation to obtain that the joint distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ (40) also coincides with the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ of the finite-size joint distribution of $`(xx_{min})`$ and $`(uU_{min})`$ where $`U_{min}`$ is the minimum of $`U(x)`$ for $`0xL`$ and where $`x_{min}`$ is the position of this minimum.

### D Conclusion

The conclusion of this section is that the statistical properties of the thermal packet for the Sinai diffusion in the infinite time limit exactly coincide with the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ of the statistical properties concerning independent particles at Boltzmann equilibrium in a sample of size $`L`$, with no dependence on the boundary conditions.

## VIII Localization properties of Fokker-Planck eigenfunctions

As discussed in Section II, the approximation (15) becomes asymptotically exact in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. It is thus interesting to explore the consequences of this approximation for the eigenfunctions of the Fokker-Planck operator.

### A  Recall of some exact results

To discuss the properties of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the Fokker-Planck equation (7), it is more convenient to use the well-known transformation into an imaginary-time Schrodinger equation via the introduction of the Green function

$`G(x,t|x_0,0)=e^{\frac{\beta }{2}(U(x)U(x_0))}P(x,t|x_0,0)`$ (114)
which satisfies

$`_tG(x,t|x_0,0)=H_SG(x,t|x_0,0)`$ (115)
$`H_S=T_x^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4T}}U^{}(x)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U^{\prime \prime }(x))`$ (116)
with the initial condition $`G(x,t|x_0,0)\delta (xx_0)`$. This is the standard form for the Schrodinger operator $`H_S`$ associated to a diffusion process. It can be factorized as $`H_S=TQ^{}Q`$ with $`Q=_x+U^{}(x)/(2T)`$ and $`Q^{}=_x+U^{}(x)/(2T)`$, and has thus a real positive spectrum. We consider the case of a very large but finite system where the spectrum of energies $`E_n`$ is discrete. The Fokker Planck operator $`H_{FP}`$ is non hermitian but has the same real positive spectrum, with right and left eigenfunctions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^R(x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^L(x)`$ associated to $`E_n`$. They are related to the eigenfunctions $`\psi _n(x)`$ of the Schrodinger operator by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^R(x)=e^{U(x)/(2T)}\psi _n(x)`$ (117)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^L(x)=e^{U(x)/(2T)}\psi _n(x)`$ (118)
The expansion upon Fokker-Planck eigenfunctions now reads

$`P(xt|x_00)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_n^R(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_n^L(x_0)e^{E_nt}`$ (119)
The ground-state $`n=0`$ has of course for energy $`E_0=0`$ and corresponds to the relaxation towards Boltzmann equilibrium so that the left and right ground state eigenvectors are simply given by :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^L(x)`$ $`=1/\sqrt{Z_{tot}}`$ (120)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_0^R(x)`$ $`=e^{U(x)/T}/\sqrt{Z_{tot}}`$ (121)
where $`Z_{tot}=𝑑xe^{U(x)/T}`$ is the normalization over the finite large system.

### B  Construction of an orthonormalized set of eigenfunctions for the approximate dynamics

In this section, we consider the approximation (15) for the dynamics as defining a new dynamics denoted by tilde

$`\stackrel{~}{P}(xt|x_00){\displaystyle \underset{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}e^{\beta U(x)}\theta _{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(x)\theta _{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }}(x_0)`$ (122)
and try to expand it upon a basis of eigenfunctions as in (119)

$`\stackrel{~}{P}(xt|x_00)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x_0)e^{\stackrel{~}{E}_nt}`$ (123)
At time $`t`$, the states in (123) with energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}_n>1/t`$ are negligeable in the sum, and correspond in the RSRG picture to bonds that have been already decimated. The state $`n`$ will become negligeable in the sum (123) at a time $`t_n1/\stackrel{~}{E}_n`$, and this disparition from the sum corresponds in the RSRG picture to a decimation at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n=T\mathrm{ln}t_n=T\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{E}_n`$. The low-lying energies $`\stackrel{~}{E}_n`$ are thus exactly determined by the large RG scales $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ at which decimations occur in the system. Of course in the real system, in the case of near degeneracies of neighboring bonds, slight shifts in these levels will occur.

To determine now the eigenfunctions, we consider what happens upon this decimation at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$. We may consider that the time exponential factor associated with level $`n`$ has changed from $`e^{E_nt_n^{}}=1`$ to $`e^{E_nt_n^+}=0`$ while none of the others decaying exponentials in (123) have changed (since time scales are well separated). The difference $`\stackrel{~}{P}(xt_n^{}|x_00)\stackrel{~}{P}(xt_n^+|x_00)`$ is thus equal to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x_0)`$ On the other hand from the RSRG point of view, what happens is simply a decimation where two valleys $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ have merged into a single one $`V^{}`$. Thus we get using (122):

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x_0)=e^{U(x)/T}`$ (124)
$`[{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{V_1}(x)\theta _{V_1}(x_0)}{Z_{V_1}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{V_2}(x)\theta _{V_2}(x_0)}{Z_{V_2}}}`$ (125)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(\theta _{V_1}(x)+\theta _{V_2}(x))((\theta _{V_1}(x_0)+\theta _{V_2}(x_0))}{Z_{V_1}+Z_{V_2}}}]`$ (126)
One sees that indeed the right hand side has the nice property to factorize into a function of $`x`$ and one of $`x_0`$ and thus one can determine unambiguously $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x_0)`$ by fixing the constant using $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)=e^{U(x)}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x)`$ from (118), which leads to the eigenset for $`n1`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x)=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Z_{V_1}Z_{V_2}}{Z_{V_1}+Z_{V_2}}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{V_1}}}\theta _{V_1}(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z_{V_2}}}\theta _{V_2}(x))`$ (127)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)=e^{U(x)/T}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x)`$ (128)
One can check on (128) that the eigenfunctions have all the correct normalization and orthogonality properties. First one has for $`n1`$

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)}=0`$ (129)
This insures the normalization of the probability distribution $`\stackrel{~}{P}(xt|x_00)`$ for all $`t`$ and $`x_0`$ as it should.

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\stackrel{~}{P}(xt|x_00)}={\displaystyle 𝑑x\mathrm{\Phi }_0^R(x)\mathrm{\Phi }_0^L(x_0)}=1`$ (130)
Second one finds the correct normalization

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R(x)}={\displaystyle 𝑑xe^{U(x)/T}[\mathrm{\Phi }_n^L(x)]^2}=1`$ (131)
Furthermore, one can also check that the set of wavefunctions exactly forms an orthonormalized set :

$`{\displaystyle 𝑑x\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L(x)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_m^R(x)}=\delta _{n,m}`$ (132)
So the disorder-dependent form (128) for the eigenfunctions have all the good properties to represent via the expansion (123) the dynamics defined in (122). One may even define the following effective Fokker-Planck operator

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{FP}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}_n|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^R><\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_n^L|`$ (133)
as an approximation to $`H_{FP}`$ (7).

### C  Qualitative properties of eigenfunctions

We can now discuss the typical shape of an eigenstate and compare with the qualitative features discussed in the Appendix B of  for the related model of one-dimensional random-hopping hamiltonian for fermions (except that here there is no particle-hole symmetry and there is no need to distinguish even and odd sites) :

(i) an eigenstate (128) has two peaks corresponding to the minima of valleys $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$. The eigenstate has a significant value in finite regions of order $`l_T\frac{T^2}{\sigma }`$ (51) around these two peaks.

(ii) these two peaks are separated by a distance of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\mathrm{ln}E)^2`$.

(iii) Away from one of these bumps but within the valley, ie. for distance $`r\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, the decay of the wave-function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n^R(x)`$ is governed by the Boltzmann factor $`e^{\beta U(r)}`$ which typically behaves as $`e^{c\sqrt{r}}`$. In particular, on the edges of the valleys where $`r\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, this gives an amplitude of order $`e^{c^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$.

(iv) Beyond the involved two valleys, within our simple approximation (128) with theta-functions on the edges of valleys, the eigenstate is simply zero. So to estimate the decay of the eigenstate for distances $`r\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$, we must take into account as in the Appendix B of  that the two points are typically separated by a number $`\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}`$ of valleys, and that the overlap between two neighboring valleys is not exactly zero but of order $`e^{c^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$. And thus a perturbation theory yields that the decay for distances $`r\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ behaves as $`e^{c^{\prime \prime }\frac{r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}`$. We thus recover that the localization length in the sense of asymptotic exponential decay of the associated quantum wavefunction thus behaves as $`\lambda (E)\mathrm{\Gamma }(T\mathrm{ln}E)`$ whereas the typical extension of an eigenstate behaves as the typical distance between the two peaks which behaves as $`l(E)\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(T\mathrm{ln}E)^2`$ and which directly gives the low-energy behavior of the integrated density of states $`N(E)1/l(E)1/(T\mathrm{ln}E)^2`$ . We note that the length $`l(E)`$ is the one which appear in the averaged Green function (114) as computed in  for the lattice fermion model with random hopping, and computed in  for the present problem.

So the disorder-dependent form (128) for the eigenfunctions, even if only approximate near the edges of the valleys, give a good insight into the properties of low-energy eigenfunctions. For a study of systematic corrections to this approximation, and further results on the statistics of wavefunctions far in the tails, we refer the reader to D.S. Fisher .

## IX  Properties of metastable states in Sinai diffusion

In the slowly relaxing systems such as glasses, granular media or disordered spin models, the notion of metastable states is an important and ubiquitous concept. In particular, the Edwards ergodicity conjecture  consisting in computing dynamic quantities by taking flat averages over metastable states has given rise to a lot of recent studies . However, as discussed in details in , truly metastable stables only exist in mean-field approximations or in the zero-temperature limit, and thus to use this concept at finite temperature in finite-dimensional systems, one needs to consider metastable states with finite lifetimes. In this context we find instructive to consider what happens in Sinai diffusion from the point of view of metastable states and to compare with the general theory of glassy systems.

### A  Identification of the set of metastable states at a given time $`t`$

In the general theory of glassy systems, it is natural to separate the dynamics in two parts : there are ‘fast’ degrees of freedom which rapidly reach local quasi-equilibrium plus a ‘slow’ non-equilibrium part. At a given long-time $`t`$, the fast motion covers a region of phase-space which can be defined as a metastable state associated to time $`t`$ . In Sinai diffusion, this picture directly applies. The formula (15) leads to a very direct identification of metastable states : at time t, the metastable states $`(i)`$ are given by all the renormalized valleys $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}`$ that exist at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$. Moreover, the formula (15) exactly corresponds to the construction of Gaveau, Schulman and Lesne  as summarized in , where the evolution operator $`e^{tH_{FP}}`$ is replaced by a projector onto the subspace of states $`(i)`$ having an eigenvalue $`E_n<1/t`$

$`e^{tH_{FP}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}|P_i><Q_i|`$ (134)
with the following identifications : the right eigenvectors read

$`P_i(x)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\beta U(x)}}{_{V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)}}𝑑ye^{\beta U(x)}}}\theta (xV_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)})`$ (135)
and thus they have indeed the properties of being positive, normalized and not-zero in non-overlapping regions of space. The left eigenvectors read

$`Q_i(x)=\theta (xV_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(i)})`$ (136)
They are thus indeed one within the support of $`P_i(x)`$, and zero everywhere else. Moreover, the fast degrees of freedom have indeed converged towards a local Boltzmann equilibrium within the metastable state represented by the renormalized valley (135).

### B One-time dynamical quantities as averages over the set of metastable states at a given time $`t`$

We now consider the question of Edwards conjecture. In Sinai diffusion, within the RSRG approach , all one-time quantities are effectively computed by averages over all renormalized valleys, with a measure which is not a priori flat, but which depends on the computed quantity. In particular, for a uniform initial condition, the spatial length of a renormalized valley exactly represents the size of the basin of attraction of this renormalized valley. So the rescaled size $`\lambda =\frac{\sigma l}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}=\frac{\sigma l}{(T\mathrm{ln}t)^2}`$ of the basins of attraction of the metastable states is a random variable distributed with the probability distribution

$`D(\lambda )=P^{}(.)_\lambda P^{}(.)`$ (137)
where $`P^{}(\lambda )`$ is the distribution of the rescaled length of bonds . More explicitly, its Laplace transform reads

$`\widehat{D}(p)=\left[\widehat{P}^{}(p)\right]^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\sqrt{p}}}`$ (138)
and inversion yields

$`D(\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}\left[2\pi ^2\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)^2\lambda 1\right]e^{\lambda \pi ^2\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}`$ (140)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }\lambda ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^{m+1}m^2e^{\frac{m^2}{\lambda }}`$
Since Edwards conjecture is usually based on the assumption that all the basins of attraction of the various metastable states have the same size , it is of course a very strong hypothesis that cannot be true in general but only for special systems with special dynamics . In Sinai diffusion, the metastable states have not the same size and thus Edwards conjecture cannot be satisfied in general.

However, for special quantities, Edwards conjecture can be recovered. For instance, in this paper, we have computed the probability distribution $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y,u)`$ of the thermal packet, the localization parameters $`Y_k(\mathrm{})`$ (8) and the correlation function $`C(l,\mathrm{})`$ (9) as flat averages over infinitely deep wells. This is because in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$, only the lower part of the Brownian valley is important, and thus there is no dependence on the size of the valley for these quantities concerning the thermal packet.

### C  Hierarchical organization of metastable states associated to different times

In the case of Sinai diffusion, one knows much more than the one-time description in terms of metastable states. Indeed, the expressions (128) for the Fokker-Planck eigenvectors contain in fact all the information on the changes in time of the set of metastable states. They have an obvious hierarchical organization : two eigenstates can be either disjoint or nested (ie. one is included in another). And the evolution in time is described by the RSRG procedure. This is why two-time aging quantities can be computed within the RSRG method .

## A Useful properties of Bessel functions

The Bessel functions $`I_\nu (z)`$ and $`K_\nu (z)`$ are two linearly independent solutions of

$`z^2f^{\prime \prime }(z)+zf^{}(z)(z^2+\nu ^2)f(z)=0`$ (A1)
Series expansion in $`z`$ reads

$`I_0(z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k!)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)^{2k}`$ (A2)
$`K_0(z)`$ $`=I_0(z)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\psi (k+1)}{(k!)^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)^{2k}`$ (A3)
and

$`I_\nu (z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +k+1)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}\right)^{\nu +2k}`$ (A4)
$`K_\nu (z)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu (z)I_\nu (z)}{\mathrm{sin}\pi \nu }}`$ (A5)
The wronskian property

$`I_\nu (z)K_\nu ^{}(z)I_\nu ^{}(z)K_\nu (z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}`$ (A6)
gives

$`{\displaystyle _z^+\mathrm{}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sI_0^2(s)}}=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_0(s)}{I_0(s)}}\right]_z^+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{K_0(z)}{I_0(z)}}`$ (A7)
$`{\displaystyle _z^+\mathrm{}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{K_0(s)}{sI_0^3(s)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2(s)}{I_0^2(s)}}\right]_z^+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2(z)}{2I_0^2(z)}}`$ (A8)
$`{\displaystyle _z^+\mathrm{}}𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{K_0^2(s)}{sI_0^4(s)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K_0^3(s)}{I_0^3(s)}}\right]_z^+\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{K_0^3(z)}{3I_0^3(z)}}`$ (A9)
Another useful integral is for any $`k>0`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑zz^{2k1}K_0^2(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^3(k)}{4\mathrm{\Gamma }(k+\frac{1}{2})}}`$ (A10)
The equation (A1) leads to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\left(I_0^2(s)[I_0^{}(s)]^2\right)\right]=sI_0^2(s)`$ (A11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\left(K_0^2(s)[K_0^{}(s)]^2\right)\right]=sK_0^2(s)`$ (A12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{2}}\left(I_0(s)K_0(s)I_0^{}(s)K_0^{}(s)\right)\right]`$ (A13)
$`=sI_0(s)K_0(s)`$ (A14)
Differentiation with respect to order

$`I_\nu (z)`$ $`=I_0(z)\nu K_0(z)+O(\nu ^2)`$ (A15)
$`K_\nu (z)`$ $`=K_0(z)+O(\nu ^2)`$ (A16)
## B  Explicit computations for infinitely-deep valleys

### 1 Explicit expression for $`F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,x|u_0)`$

The path-integral $`F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,x|u_0)`$ defined in (29) can be obtained via the Feynman-Kac formula. Indeed, as a function of the variables $`(u,x)`$, it satisfies the imaginary-time Schrodinger equation

$`_xF=\sigma _u^2Fqe^{\beta u}F`$ (B1)
with the initial condition at $`x=0`$

$`F(u,0)=\delta (uu_0)`$ (B2)
and the absorbing boundary conditions at $`u=0`$ and $`u=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`F(0,x)=0`$ (B3)
$`F(\mathrm{\Gamma },x)=0`$ (B4)
The Laplace transform with respect to $`x`$

$`\widehat{F}(u,p)={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{px}F(u,x)`$ (B5)
satisfies the system

$`\sigma _u^2\widehat{F}qe^{\beta u}\widehat{F}p\widehat{F}=\delta (uu_0)`$ (B6)
$`\widehat{F}(0,p)=0`$ (B7)
$`\widehat{F}(\mathrm{\Gamma },p)=0`$ (B8)
Let us introduce two linearly independent solutions $`\varphi _1(u,p)`$ and $`\varphi _2(u,p)`$ of the equation:

$`\sigma _u^2\widehat{F}qe^{\beta u}\widehat{F}p\widehat{F}=0`$ (B9)
In terms of the new variables

$`z={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}e^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}`$ (B10)
$`\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{p}{\sigma }}}`$ (B11)
the equation becomes

$`z^2\widehat{F}^{\prime \prime }(z)+z\widehat{F}^{}(z)(z^2+\nu ^2)\widehat{F}(z)=0`$ (B12)
Two linearly independent solutions of this equation are the Bessel functions $`I_\nu (z)`$ and $`K_\nu (z)`$ so we choose

$`\varphi _1(u,p)=I_\nu (z)=I_{\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{p}{\sigma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}e^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)`$ (B13)
$`\varphi _2(u,p)=K_\nu (z)=K_{\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{p}{\sigma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}e^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)`$ (B14)
and the wronskian of these two solutions reads

$`w=\varphi _1(u)\varphi _2^{}(u)\varphi _2(u)\varphi _1^{}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}`$ (B15)
We now introduce the function

$`E(u,v,p)=`$ (B16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{w}}(\varphi _1(u,p)\varphi _2(v,p)\varphi _2(u,p)\varphi _1(v,p))`$ (B17)
and express two solutions of the equation (B9) which vanish respectively at $`0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u,p)=E(0,u,p)`$ (B18)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u,p)=E(u,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)`$ (B19)
Their wronskian reads :

$`W(p)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}(u,p)\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u,p)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u,p)\mathrm{\Phi }_+^{}(u,p)`$ (B20)
$`=E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)`$ (B21)
The solution of the system (B6) now reads :

$`\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,p|u_0)=`$ (B22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\mathrm{min}(u,u_0),p)\mathrm{\Phi }_+(\mathrm{max}(u,u_0),p)}{\sigma W(p)}}=`$ (B23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{E(0,\mathrm{min}(u,u_0),p)E(\mathrm{max}(u,u_0),\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}{\sigma E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}`$ (B24)
### 2 Explicit expression for $`R_{\mathrm{}}(q)`$

Specializing (B24) to the case $`u_0=ϵ`$ and $`u=\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ`$ and expanding

$`E(0,ϵ,p)`$ $`=ϵ+O(ϵ^2)`$ (B25)
$`E(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)`$ $`=ϵ+O(ϵ^2)`$ (B26)
we get

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,p|ϵ)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}`$ (B27)
Then (30) yields

$`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)`$ $`=𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,p=0|ϵ)`$ (B29)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })}{\sigma E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p=0)}}`$
Using the expansions (A3) of Bessel functions, the normalization condition $`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q0)=1`$ determines the normalization

$`𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })=\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (B30)
so that the final result reads

$`R_\mathrm{\Gamma }(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}}{I_0(s)K_0(se^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}})K_0(s)I_0(se^{\frac{\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{2}})}}`$ (B31)
with $`s=\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}`$.

### 3 Explicit expression for $`S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)`$

We now turn to the evaluation of (33) in Laplace with respect to $`y`$

$`\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,u,q){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{py}S_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,u,q)=`$ (B32)
$`𝒩(\mathrm{\Gamma })e^{\beta u}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ^2}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,0|u)\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,p|ϵ)\right)`$ (B33)
Using

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u,p|ϵ)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{E(u,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}{\sigma E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}`$ (B34)
and

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\widehat{F}_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(\mathrm{\Gamma }ϵ,0|u)\right)={\displaystyle \frac{E(0,u,0)}{\sigma E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },0)}}`$ (B35)
we get

$`\widehat{S}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,u,q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\sigma E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },0)}}e^{\beta u}E(0,u,0){\displaystyle \frac{E(u,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}{E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}`$ (B36)
In the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$, using the expansions (A5) we get

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E(u,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}{E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{I_\nu \left(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}e^{\frac{\beta u}{2}}\right)}{I_\nu \left(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}\right)}}`$ (B37)
and

$`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{E(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },0)}}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_0(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }})}}`$ (B38)
so that we obtain the formula (35) given in the text.

## C Computation of equilibrium functions in large systems

### 1 Basic path-integral

The Laplace transform with respect to $`l`$ of the basic path-integral (79) satisfies the same equation as (B6) but the boundary conditions are now at $`u\pm \mathrm{}`$. So using again the notations (B11) the solution reads (B24)

$`\widehat{G}(u,p|u_0)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta \sigma }}`$ (C1)
$`K_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{min}(u,u_0)}\right)I_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{max}(u,u_0)}\right)`$ (C2)
### 2 Two-point correlation $`C^{eq}(l)`$ for periodic boundary conditions

For periodic boundary conditions, the two-point correlation may be expressed in terms of the path-integral (79) as

$`C_L^{periodic}(l)=2\sqrt{4\pi \sigma L}{\displaystyle _0^{Ll}}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑qq`$ (C3)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_1e^{\beta u_1}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_2e^{\beta u_2}`$ (C4)
$`G(0,Lxl|u_2)G(u_2,l|u_1)G(u_1,x|0)`$ (C5)
which yields in Laplace transform

$`\widehat{c}(p,\omega ){\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Le^{\omega L}{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑le^{pl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{C_L^{free}(l)}{\sqrt{L}}}\right)`$ (C6)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{16\sqrt{4\pi \sigma }}{\beta \sigma }}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{s}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_1z_1I_\nu ^{}(z_1)`$ (C7)
$`\left[K_\mu (z_1)I_\mu (s)\theta (z_1s)+I_\mu (z_1)K_\mu (s)\theta (sz_1)\right]`$ (C8)
$`{\displaystyle _{z_1}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_2z_2K_\nu ^{}(z_2)`$ (C9)
$`\left[K_\mu (z_2)I_\mu (s)\theta (z_2s)+I_\mu (z_2)K_\mu (s)\theta (sz_2)\right]`$ (C10)
with $`\mu =\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{\omega }{\sigma }}`$ and $`\nu ^{}=\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{p+\omega }{\sigma }}`$. The thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is obtained as

$`\widehat{C}_{\mathrm{}}^{periodic}(p)=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\omega }}{\sqrt{\pi }}}\widehat{c}(p,\omega ))`$ (C11)
$`=8{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_1z_1I_\nu (z_1)K_0(z_1)`$ (C12)
$`{\displaystyle _{z_1}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑z_2z_2K_\nu (z_2)K_0(z_2)`$ (C13)
## D  Relation with Golosov theorem

As explained in the introduction, the theorem of Golosov  states that $`P_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ is equal to $`P_G(y)`$ given by equation (3). The purpose of this appendix is to show this formula of Golosov gives the same result as the equation (44) obtained in the text. We first rewrite (3) as

$`P_G(y)=\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}({\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dqe^{q_0^L𝑑te^{\beta \rho (t)}}_{\{\rho \}}`$ (D1)
$`e^{\beta r(y)}e^{q_0^L𝑑te^{\beta r(t)}}_{\{r\}})`$ (D2)
Since the Bessel processes $`\{r(t)\}`$ and $`\{\rho (t)\}`$ may be considered as radial parts of free three-dimensional Brownian motion, the Feynman-Kac formula yields

$`e^{q_0^L𝑑te^{\beta \rho (t)}}_{\{\rho \}}`$ (D3)
$`={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}4\pi R_L^2𝑑R_LG_p(R_L,L|0)`$ (D4)
$`e^{\beta r(y)}e^{q_0^L𝑑te^{\beta r(t)}}_{\{r\}}={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}4\pi R_L^2𝑑R_L`$ (D5)
$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}4\pi R^2𝑑RG_q(R_L,Ly|R)e^{\beta R}G_q(R,y|0)`$ (D6)
where $`G_q(R,l|0)`$ satisfies the imaginary-time Schrodinger equation

$`_lG_q(R,l|R_0)=H_qG_q(R,l|R_0)`$ (D7)
where

$`H_q={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{R^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{R}}\left(R^2{\displaystyle \frac{f}{R}}\right)+qe^{\beta R}`$ (D8)
is the radial restriction of the corresponding 3D Hamiltonian. We have moreover the initial condition

$`G_q(R,l0|R_0){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi R^2}}\delta (RR_0)`$ (D9)
The identity $`\frac{1}{R^2}\frac{}{R}\left(R^2\frac{f}{R}\right)=\frac{1}{R}\frac{^2}{R^2}\left(Rf\right)`$, leads to the change of function

$`g_q(R,l|R_0)=4\pi RR_0G_q(R,l|R_0)`$ (D10)
This new function $`g_q`$ satisfies the one-dimensional Schrodinger equation

$`_lg_q(R,l|R_0)=h_qg_q(R,l|R_0)`$ (D11)
$`h_q=\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dR^2}}+qe^{\beta R}`$ (D12)
on the semi-infinite line $`R0`$ with the absorbing boundary condition at $`R=0`$

$`g_q(R=0,l|R_0)=0`$ (D13)
and with the initial condition

$`g_q(R,l0|R_0)\delta (RR_0)`$ (D14)
By comparison with the equations (B1-B2-B4), we immediately obtain

$`g_q(R,l|R_0)=\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{lim}F_{[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(R,l|R_0)`$ (D15)
Since the function $`G_q(R,l|0)`$ has to be obtained as the limit

$`G_q(R,l|0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}g_q(R,l|ϵ)\right)`$ (D16)
we have, using (B11) and (A5)

$`e^{q_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{\rho (t)}}_{\{\rho \}}=`$ (D17)
$`\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑RR\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}g_q(R,L|ϵ)\right)`$ (D18)
$`=\underset{\nu 0}{lim}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{2}{\beta }\nu )^2}{I_\nu \left(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}\right)}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑RRI_\nu \left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\beta }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\sigma }}}e^{\beta \frac{R}{2}}\right)\right]`$ (D19)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{I_0\left(\frac{2}{\beta }\sqrt{\frac{q}{\sigma }}\right)}}`$ (D20)
in agreement with (31).

Similarly, we compute the Laplace transform with respect to $`y`$

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{py}e^{\beta r(y)}e^{q_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑te^{\beta r(t)}}_{\{r\}}`$ (D21)
$`=\underset{s0}{lim}[s{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dRR{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dR^{}\widehat{g}_q(R,s|R^{})e^{\beta R^{}}`$ (D22)
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\widehat{g}_q(R^{},p|ϵ)\right)]`$ (D23)
which gives the same result as (35).


format: text

text:
# Non-Abelian phases, charge pumping, and quantum computation with Josephson junctions

## Abstract

Non-Abelian geometric phases can be generated and detected in certain superconducting nanocircuits. Here we consider an example where the holonomies are related to the adiabatic charge dynamics of the Josephson network. We demonstrate that such a device can be applied both for adiabatic charge pumping and as an implementation of a quantum computer.

If a quantum system is prepared in a superposition of two states, a physical observable associated with this system can exhibit oscillatory behavior depending on the relative phase of the two states. Interference can be induced during the dynamical evolution of the system, in this case we refer to the accumulated phase as the dynamical phase. Interference can also be of geometrical nature if the parameters (coupling constants, external fields,$`\mathrm{}`$) of the Hamiltonian are varied cyclically . After Berry’s original work, considerable attention has been devoted to the interpretation, generalization, and detection of geometric phases . An important generalization is when the adiabatic cyclic evolution involves a degenerate eigenspace of the Hamiltonian. In this case it has been shown by Wilczek and Zee  that the evolution over a closed path does not result in a phase change but it leads to a superposition of the degenerate eigenstates and the geometric phase acquires a non-Abelian structure. Originally investigated in Nuclear Quadrupole Resonance , more recently it was shown that non-Abelian phases occur in the manipulation of trapped ions .

Apart from its fundamental importance, geometric interference has interesting applications in the field of quantum information processing . Implementations of quantum computers so far include optical systems and liquid-state NMR  as well as solid-state devices based on superconductors  and on semiconductors . Recently it has been shown that quantum computation can also be implemented by geometric means (geometric quantum computation) using Abelian  as well as non-Abelian  phases.

Non-Abelian phases can also appear in the quantum dynamics of superconducting nanocircuits , this is what we will show in this work. There are various interesting aspects associated with this analysis. In addition to their possible detection, which is intriguing by itself, the existence of non-Abelian phases in superconducting nanocircuits leads to a new scheme for adiabatic charge pumping and allows to implement solid state holonomic quantum computation. Some parts of our proposal are on purpose speculative. The adiabatic manipulation of degenerate subspaces and the degeneracy condition itself is non-trivial to achieve for an artificially fabricated device. We believe, however, due to the rapid development in the control of artificial two-level systems in solid-state devices , the realization of geometric interference in mesoscopic systems has become plausible. Furthermore the applications of non-Abelian phases in pumping and computation are interesting new directions to pursue.

In our discussion of non-Abelian phases in Josephson junction circuits we follow the spirit of the schemes described in Refs.. The starting point is the network shown in Fig.1a). It consists of three superconducting islands labeled by $`j=L,M,R`$ (Left, Middle, Right) each of which is connected to a fourth (Upper) island labeled with $`U`$. Gate voltages are applied to the three bottom islands via gate capacitances. The device operates in the charging regime, that is the Josephson energies $`J_j`$ ($`j=L,M,R`$) of the junctions are much smaller than the charging energy $`E_C`$ of the setup. Each coupling is designed as a Josephson interferometer (a loop interrupted by two junctions and pierced by a magnetic field) as shown in Fig.1a. Thus the effective Josephson energies $`J_j`$ can be tuned by changing the flux in the corresponding loop. Electrostatic energies can be varied by changing the gate voltages $`V_g`$.

Let us first analyze the electrostatic problem (i.e. $`J_j0`$). For the sake of simplicity we assume that all capacitances are equal to $`C`$ and we consider identical gate charges $`q_g=C_gV_g/(2e)`$ for the three bottom islands. The charge states are indicated as $`n_U,n_L,n_M,n_R`$ where $`n`$ labels the number of Cooper pairs in the corresponding island . For gate charges $`q_g1/2`$ and $`1<2q_U+3q_g<2`$ (where $`q_U=C_UV_U/(2e)`$, see Fig.1a), only four charge states are important as long as $`TE_C=(2e)^2/(4C)`$. Three of these charge states, $`0,1,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,1`$ are degenerate. Their charge configuration corresponds to one excess Cooper pair in one of the islands $`j=L,C,R`$, and none in the island $`U`$. The fourth state $`1,0,0,0`$ has one excess pair on the island $`U`$ and none on the other islands. All other charge states are much higher in energy.

The Josephson couplings $`J_j`$ allow for tunneling between the upper island and each of the bottom islands. The quantum-mechanical Hamiltonian of this simple four-state system reads (in complete analogy with Refs.)

$`H=\delta E_C|1,0,0,01,0,0,0|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J_L(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L)|1,0,0,00,1,0,0|+`$ (1)
$`+J_M(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M)|1,0,0,00,0,1,0|+J_R(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R)|1,0,0,00,0,0,1|+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.]`$ (2)
where $`\delta E_C={\displaystyle \frac{4}{5}}E_C\left[(q_gq_U){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right]`$ is the energy difference between the three degenerate states and the fourth one, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_j=\mathrm{\Phi }_j/\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ are the external magnetic fluxes in units of the flux quantum $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$ . In all the manipulations described below the gate voltages will be kept fixed. The three fluxes $`\{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R\}`$ are the parameters which will be varied cyclically. In general all the SQUID loops could be asymmetric, although it is not necessary for the purpose of our discussion.

The Hamiltonian defined in Eq.(2) can easily be diagonalized. The lowest and highest eigenstate are non-degenerate. The peculiar feature, exploited in  is that the other two states (with zero energy) are degenerate for arbitrary values of the couplings $`J_j`$. The subspace is spanned by the eigenstates (not normalized)

$`|D_1=J_M|0,1,0,0+J_L|0,0,1,0,`$ (3)
$`|D_2=J_R\left(J_L^{}|0,1,0,0+J_M^{}|0,0,1,0\right)+(|J_L|^2+|J_M|^2)|0,0,0,1.`$ (4)
By manipulation of the external magnetic fluxes it is possible to generate non-Abelian phases. We will show that by means of such phases adiabatic charge pumping and holonomic quantum computation can be realized with superconducting nanocircuits.

Charge pumping \- For this purpose it is sufficient to have only symmetric SQUID loops. In contrast to the well-known turnstiles for single electrons or Cooper pairs  (in which the gate potentials are modulated periodically), here charge is transported through the chain (from the L-island to the R-island) by means of modulating the Josephson couplings while keeping the gate voltages unchanged. The pumping cycle goes as follows. The system is initially prepared in the $`|0,1,0,0`$ state (i.e.the state $`|D_1`$ with $`J_L,J_M=0`$ ) where the Cooper pair is in the left island. This can be achieved by turning off all Josephson couplings and coupling the L-island to a lead which provides the extra Cooper pair. Once the charge is on the island, one should change adiabatically the magnetic fluxes along a closed loop $`\gamma `$. At the end of the loop the initially prepared stated $`|D_1`$ will be mapped into the following rotated state: $`|D_1U_\gamma |D_1,`$ where the unitary matrix $`U_\gamma `$ may be expressed as :

$$U_\gamma =𝐏\mathrm{exp}_\gamma \underset{j=L,M,R}{}A_jd\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_j;(A_j)_{\alpha ,\beta }=D_\alpha |\frac{}{\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_j}|D_\beta ,\alpha ,\beta =1,2.$$
(5)
Path ordering P is required as, in general, the matrices $`A_j`$ do not commute along the path. If the path $`\gamma `$ is chosen in the $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R)`$\- plane (at fixed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M=0`$), as shown in Fig.1b it can be shown that, after one adiabatic cycle, the final state of the system is $`|0,0,0,1`$, i.e. one Cooper pair has been transported through the chain of the three islands .

The mechanism described here relies entirely on the geometric phase accumulated during the cycle and can be generalized to describe pumping of a single Cooper pair through $`N`$ superconducting islands. The connection between pumping and geometric phases has been discussed by Pekola et al. . The crucial difference is that here only the Josephson couplings have to be varied. During the cycle, exactly one Cooper pair is transported, in this sense there are no errors due to the spread of the wave function discussed in . There are drawbacks though, mostly related to the fact that the degenerate states are not the ground state and relaxation processes may become important.

Quantum computation, one qubit \- The pumping process illustrated so far is nothing but one of the key elements to construct a quantum computing scheme using non-Abelian phases. Proceeding along the lines of Ref., we point out the necessary ingredients and the differences which arise in the case of the Josephson junction setup. The nanocircuit presented in Fig.1a constitutes the qubit. The logical states to encode information in this implementation are

$`|0_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`|0,1,0,0`$ (6)
$`|1_{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`|0,0,0,1.`$ (7)
The other two charge states ($`|1,0,0,0`$ and $`|0,0,1,0`$) serve as auxiliary states. To show that the implementation is possible, it is sufficient to provide explicit representations for the gates $`U_1=e^{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_1|1_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}1|}`$ and $`U_2=e^{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\sigma _y}`$, describing rotations of the qubit state about the $`z`$ axis and the $`y`$ axis, respectively. In this case only one asymmetric SQUID (as shown in Fig.1) is required to implement the one-qubit operations.

The gate $`U_1`$ is a phase shift for the state $`|1_{\mathrm{}}`$ while the state $`|0_{\mathrm{}}`$ remains decoupled, i.e., $`J_L0`$ during the operation. In the initial state we have $`J_R=0`$, so the eigenstates $`\{|D_1,|D_2\}`$ correspond to the logical states $`\{|0_{\mathrm{}},|1_{\mathrm{}}\}`$. The control parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R`$ evolve adiabatically along the closed loop $`C_1`$ in the $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R)`$-plane from $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R=1/2`$ to $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R=1/2`$ (see Fig.2a). By using the formula for holonomies Eq.(5) one can show that this cyclic evolution produces the gate $`U_1`$ with the phase $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ :

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=\sigma _1_{𝒮(C_1)}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{M}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R\right)}{\left(|J_R(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R)|^2+|J_M(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M)|^2\right)^2}$$
(8)
where $`𝒮(C_1)`$ denotes the surface enclosed by the loop $`C_1`$ in $``$. and $`\sigma _1=4\pi ^2J_R(0)^2(|J_{Ml}|^2|J_{Mr}|^2)`$.
Similarly we can consider a closed loop $`C_2`$ (see Fig.2b) in the $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L,\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R)`$-plane at fixed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{M}=0`$, and let the control parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R`$ undergo a cyclic adiabatic evolution with starting and ending point $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R=1/2`$. This operation yields the gate $`U_2`$ with phase $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\sigma _2_{𝒮(C_2)}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L\right)\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R\right)}{\left(J_M(0)^2+|J_R(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_R)|^2+|J_L(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_L)|^2\right)^{3/2}}$$
(9)
where $`𝒮(C_2)`$ denotes the surface enclosed by the loop $`C_2`$ in $``$, and $`\sigma _2=4\pi ^2|J_R(0)|^2(|J_{Ml}|^2+|J_{Mr}|^2)`$ where we have assumed $`J_L(0)=J_R(0)`$. Obviously the pumping cycle discussed above is a special case of the gate $`U_2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2=\pi /2`$.

Quantum computation, two qubits \- It turns out that it is possible to implement a conditional phase shift $`U_3=e^{i\mathrm{\Sigma }_3|11_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}11|}`$ by coupling two qubits via Josephson junctions. These junctions should be realized as symmetric SQUID loops such that the coupling can be switched off. The capacitive coupling due to these SQUID loops can be neglected if the capacitances of the junctions are sufficiently small .

By setting $`\delta E_C=0`$ (this was not necessary in the one-qubit case) and by coupling the qubits as shown in Fig.3a) we obtain the Hamiltonian

$$H_{2\mathrm{q}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}}=\frac{1}{2}[J_M^{(2)}|UUUM|+J_X|11_{\mathrm{}}UU|+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.]$$
(10)
where we introduced the notation $`|U=|1,0,0,0`$ and $`|M=|0,0,1,0`$ for the auxiliary states which are coupled by the interaction between the qubits. The matrix element $`J_X=J_X(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{U}})`$ is given by $`J_X=(1/2)J_{UR}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}})J_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{U}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}})\mu `$ where $`\mu =\left[1/\delta E_C^++1/\delta E_C^+\right]`$. Here $`\delta E_C^+`$ and $`\delta E_C^+`$ denote the charging energy difference between the initial and the intermediate state (see below). The coupling is of second order in the Josephson energies since the inter-qubit coupling junctions change the total number of pairs on each one-bit setup. Thus the coupling occurs via intermediate charge states which lie outside the Hilbert space of the two-qubit system. These are states, e.g. $`|0,0,0,0|1,0,0,1`$, without excess Cooper pair on the first qubit and two excess pairs on the second qubit. We have abbreviated the charging energy difference between the corresponding state and the initial qubit state by $`\delta E_C^+`$, and we have denoted the external magnetic fluxes in the coupling SQUID loops by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{U}}`$.
While $`J_X(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{U}})`$ is the only off-diagonal coupling of second order, there are also second-order corrections of the diagonal elements, i.e. of the energies of the two-qubit states. These corrections would lift the degeneracy and thus would hamper the geometric operation which is based on the degeneracy of all states. It is therefore crucial that it is possible to compensate these corrections and to guarantee the degeneracy. It is easy to see that by adjusting the gate voltages the energy shifts can be canceled. Note that during the geometric operation the values of the Josephson couplings are changing and therefore also the energy shifts are not constant. Consequently their compensation by means of the gate voltages has to follow the evolution of the parameters.
Let us now show explicitly how the gate $`U_3`$ can be achieved. To this aim, we consider a closed loop $`C_3`$ in the $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{M}^{(2)},\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}})`$-plane at fixed $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{U}}=0`$. (See Fig.3b). If the control parameters $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}}`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{M}^{(2)}`$ undergo a cyclic adiabatic evolution with starting and ending point $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{U}\mathrm{R}}=1/2`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\mathrm{M}^{(2)}=0`$, the geometric phase obtained with this loop is

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_3=\sigma _3_{𝒮(C_3)}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M^{(2)}𝑑\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{UR}\frac{\mu ^2\mathrm{sin}\left(2\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{UR}\right)}{\left(|J_M^{(2)}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_M^{(2)})|^2+\mu ^2J_{RU}(0)^2|J_{UR}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{UR})|\right)^2}$$

with $`\sigma _3=4\pi ^2J_{RU}(0)^4(|J_{Ml|}^2|J_{Mr}|^2)`$ and $`J_{UR}(0)=J_{RU}(0)`$.

As we have mentioned in the introduction, some caution is required before regarding this scheme ready for implementation. In practice it will be difficult to achieve perfect degeneracy of all states. Thus the question is imposed to which extend incomplete degeneracy of the qubit states is permissible. Clearly, the adiabatic condition requires the inverse operation time $`\tau _{\mathrm{op}}`$ to be smaller than the minimum energy difference to the neighboring states: $`\tau _{\mathrm{op}}^1\mathrm{min}\delta E_C,J_j,J_X`$. On the other hand, if the degeneracy is not complete and the deviation is of the order $`ϵ`$ one can show by modifying the derivation of Eq. (4) in Ref. that for $`ϵ\tau _{\mathrm{op}}^1`$ the holonomies can be realized to a sufficient accuracy. This inequality expresses the requirement that the operation time be still small enough in order to not resolve small level spacings of the order $`ϵ`$.

There is another important constraint on $`\tau _{\mathrm{op}}`$. As the degenerate states in Eq. (4) are different from the ground state of the system, $`\tau _{\mathrm{op}}`$ must not be too large in order to prevent inelastic relaxation. The main origin for such relaxation processes is the coupling to a low-impedance electromagnetic environment. We can estimate the relaxation rate by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}E(R_{\mathrm{env}}/R_K)`$ where $`R_K=h/e^2`$ is the quantum resistance and $`E`$ is on the order of the Josephson energies $`EJ_j,J_X`$. Thus it is not difficult to satisfy the condition $`\tau _{\mathrm{op}}<\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{in}}^1`$ experimentally. In fact, it has been found recently that inelastic relaxation times in charge qubits can be made quite large and exceed by far the typical dephasing times due to background charge fluctuations .

Both charge pumping and the implementation of quantum computing are related to coherent manipulations of charge states. Therefore as a readout one can use the scheme developed  to measure charge qubits. No additional difficulty is forecasted at this level.

Stimulating discussions with G. Falci, G.M. Palma, E. Paladino, M. Rasetti and P. Zanardi are gratefully acknowledged. We wish to thank M.-S. Choi for informing us of his results. This work has been supported by the EU (IST-FET SQUBIT) and by INFM-PRA-SSQI.