text:
# Exact solutions for the statistics of extrema of some random 1D landscapes, Application to the equilibrium and the dynamics of the toy model.

## I Introduction

### A Overview

Disordered systems  are usually characterized by a complicated energy (or free energy) landscape, with many local minima representing metastable states, separated by saddles and barriers which govern the dynamics. In general, obtaining analytical information on the statistics of large scale extrema and saddles of a random energy landscape $`U(x)`$ is an extremely hard task. In one dimension however, the situation is simpler since one has to deal with an alternating sequence of minima and maxima, and there is hope for analytical progress. Recently, the large scale extrema of the pure Brownian landscape and of the biased Brownian landscape have been studied with a powerful real space renormalization technique . There the interest was in the non-equilibrium Arrhenius dynamics of a particle in such a landscape, the so-called Sinai model . At large time this dynamics is dominated by jumps between deep minima. The renormalization procedure thus consists in erasing iteratively the small barriers in the landscape, and retaining only the large scale, large energy features which control the large time dynamics. This procedure yields the asymptotically exact large time dynamics in the case of the Sinai model, and allows to obtain a host of exact results . This real space renormalization technique has also been used in other one dimensional models, such as quantum spin chains , reaction diffusion with disorder  and the random field Ising model , with the same fixed points associated to the pure or to the biased Brownian landscape. For the coarsening of pure 1D $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ model at zero temperature from a random initial condition , another fixed point was found which corresponds to the successive elimination of smallest domains, the only variable there being the length. A question is then whether other energy landscapes can be studied using similar techniques.

### B Definition and properties of the toy model

A one-dimensional energy landscape of interest is the so-called “toy model” defined by the Hamiltonian

$`U_{toy}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}x^2+V(x)`$ (1)
where the random potential $`V(x)`$ is a Brownian motion with correlations

$`\overline{\left(V(x)V(y)\right)^2}=2|xy|`$ (2)
Here we have defined the model directly in the continuum limit, but the universality class contains all models with a small scale cutoff and the above behavior (2) at large scale. This model has been introduced by Villain et al. as a zero-dimensional toy-model for an interface in the random field Ising model . Let us briefly review previous studies of this model and explain some motivations to reexamine this model.

#### 1 Equilibrium : Imry-Ma argument and ‘statistical tilt symmetry’

For a single particle, the Boltzmann equilibrium problem at temperature $`T`$ is defined by the partition function $`Z=𝑑xe^{U_{toy}(x)/T}`$. Although it seems very simple at first sight, it is an interesting example of disordered system. Because of the quadratic well, the typical position of the particle is finite, but it fluctuates in a non trivial way from sample to sample. An Imry-Ma argument gives the following scaling for the typical scale of the absolute minimum

$`x\left(\overline{<x^2>_{T=0}}\right)^{1/2}=C\mu ^{2/3}`$ (3)
where we denote by the brackets $`<.>`$ the thermal Boltzmann measure with potential (1) and by an overbar the average over the random potential (2). The amplitude $`C`$ will be computed here. Usual methods such as perturbation expansion (even summing all terms)  or iteration method  completely fail to recover (3). A Larkin type perturbation  with a small scale cutoff also predicts $`x(1/\mu )`$ instead of (3). Within replica variational approximations of the present model (or within the solvable mean field limit of large embedding space dimension $`N\mathrm{}`$, see below) this is cured at the price of spontaneous replica symmetry breaking (RSB) . RSB is of course not expected to occur in the present exact model (1 \- 2) (see Ref.  for discussion of the cases where RSB may occur in a one dimensional model).

The toy model also possesses the ‘statistical tilt symmetry’ as other random field models  or the directed polymer model , which imply exact remarquable identities  between the disorder averages of the thermal cumulants of the position at any temperature, as a consequence from the statistical translation invariance of the random potential. These exact identities can be summarized by

$`\overline{\mathrm{ln}<e^{\lambda x}>}`$ $`=T{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2\mu }}`$ (4)
which is simply quadratic in $`\lambda `$, so that the second cumulant reads

$`\overline{<x^2><x>^2}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\mu }}`$ (5)
and the disorder-average of all thermal cumulants of order greater than two vanish! As emphasized in , in the low temperature regime, the result (5) implies that the thermal fluctuations of the toy model are related to the presence of metastable states in rare disordered samples.

#### 2 Non-equilibrium dynamics : between Sinai and approach of equilibrium

An Arrhenius dynamics can be defined for the toy model, and provided $`\mu `$ is small so that barriers can be large, one can ask about universal long time properties. This was studied for the special case $`\mu =0`$ where one recovers the Sinai model . The dynamics for small but finite $`\mu `$ is interesting for several physical systems of the random field type, and has not been studied up to now, to our knowledge. Physically, one expects the diffusion to interpolate between a Sinai-type diffusion at short rescaled time and the approach of equilibrium at long rescaled time.

### C  Applications of the toy model

#### 1 Directed polymers in random media

The toy model has also attracted a lot of attention in connection with the problem of $`D`$-dimensional manifolds in $`(N+D)`$ random media, where it plays the role of a prototype model since it represents the simplest case $`D=0`$ and $`N=1`$ . It has been moreover argued in  that the toy model actually describes the statistics of the end-point of a random polymer of length $`L`$ in $`(1+1)`$ with delta correlated noise in the limit $`L`$ large with the correspondence $`\mu =1/L`$. It was found numerically in  that the correlation of the effective random potential for the directed polymer model behaves as (2) only at short distances but saturates at large distances. This analysis has been confirmed by a scaling argument in  and was finally rigorously proven in  where the full statistics of the effective potential was exactly computed to be an “Airy process”, defined there. Thus the approximation of end-point of the directed polymer in $`(1+1)`$ by the toy model is valid only locally.

#### 2 Burgers turbulence

The toy model is related to the statistical properties of a velocity field $`v(x,t)`$ evolving according to the Burgers equation

$`_tv(x,t)+v(x,t)_xv(x,t)=\nu _x^2v(x,t)`$ (6)
This equation can be solved via the Hopf-Cole transformation as

$`v(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑y\left(\frac{xy}{t}\right)e^{\frac{1}{2\nu }\left(\frac{(xy)^2}{2t}+\varphi (y)\right)}}{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑ye^{\frac{1}{2\nu }\left(\frac{(xy)^2}{2t}+\varphi (y)\right)}}}`$ (7)
where $`\varphi (y)=_0^y𝑑y^{}v(y^{},0)`$ is a Brownian motion in the case where the initial velocity field $`v(y^{},t=0)`$ is a white noise process. In the inviscid limit $`\nu 0`$, the integrals are dominated by the saddle

$`\xi (x,t)=\mathrm{min}_y\left({\displaystyle \frac{(xy)^2}{2t}}+\varphi (y)\right)`$ (8)
which gives

$`v(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{x\xi (x,t)}{t}}`$ (9)
The velocity distribution and the statistical properties of shocks (which appear at the points $`x`$ where there are two degenerate minima in (8)) are thus directly related to the properties of minima of the toy model (1) with the correspondence $`\mu =1/t`$.

#### 3 Deterministic KPZ equation

The toy model is also related to the relaxation of an interface evolving according to the deterministic KPZ equation

$`_th(x,t)=\nu _x^2h+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(_xh(x,t))^2`$ (10)
from a random initial condition $`h(y,t=0)`$ which is a white noise in $`y`$. Indeed, the mapping

$`v(x,t)=\lambda _xh(x,t)`$ (11)
transforms the deterministic KPZ equation (10) into the burgers equation (6), leading to

$`h(x,t)={\displaystyle \frac{2\nu }{\lambda }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{\sqrt{4\pi \nu t}}}e^{\frac{1}{2\nu }\left(\frac{(xy)^2}{2t}+\lambda h(y,0)\right)}`$ (12)
Again in the limit $`\nu 0`$ where the saddle method yields (9), the profile $`h(x,t)`$ is made of parabolic segments joined together by cusps corresponding to the shocks of the Burgers equation (see for instance Fig.1 in ).

#### 4 Coarsening and equilibrium in some random field Ising model

For definiteness, we will consider in the following an Ising spin chain, but one can study not only spin systems, but also for instance liquid helium meniscus on a rough substrate , which does also see random field disorder, and can in principle be probed in confined, quasi one dimensional geometry.

Let us consider as in  the 1D random field Ising system of Hamiltonian

$`H=J{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}S_kS_{k+1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}h_kS_k`$ (13)
with spins $`S_k=\pm 1`$, and study its equilibrium and its low temperature Glauber dynamics. In the domain wall representation, two types of domains walls $`A`$, $`(+|)`$, and $`B`$, $`(|+)`$, in numbers $`N_A`$ and $`N_B`$, alternate at positions $`a_\alpha `$, $`b_\alpha `$, respectively, and the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as

$`H=H_{ref}+2J(N_A+N_B){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_A}{}}}U(a_\alpha )+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_B}{}}}U(b_\alpha )`$ (14)
with $`|N_AN_B|<1`$. The potential felt by domains walls of type B is

$`U(k)=2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}}h_j`$ (15)
while domain walls $`A`$ feel potential $`U(k)`$. The dynamics proceeds by diffusion and annihilation of domains of opposite types.

In , the zero field $`\overline{h_k}=0`$ and the uniform applied field $`\overline{h_k}=H`$ situations have been studied. The toy model corresponds to the other interesting case

$`\overline{h_k}=kh`$ (16)
$`\overline{h_k^2}\overline{h_k}^2=g`$ (17)
representing a field gradient with zero net applied field (such gradients are easy to produce experimentally). Indeed, it is easy to see that defining the scaled length $`x=2gk`$, each domain wall $`B`$ sees the toy model energy landscape $`U(k)=U_{toy}(x)`$ with $`U_{toy}(x)`$ defined in (1) in terms of a unit Brownian and

$`\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{h}{2g^2}}`$ (18)
For a positive field gradient ($`h>0`$), the domain walls of type $`B`$ $`(|+)`$ will be attracted towards the minima of $`U_{toy}(x)`$, and will thus be confined in the neighborhood of the point $`x=0`$ where the applied field vanishes, whereas the domain walls of type $`A`$ $`(+|)`$ will be attracted by the local maxima of $`U_{toy}(x)`$ or will be expelled towards the boundaries.

The equilibrium of the toy model considered above and its dynamics involving only one particle corresponds to a single domain wall $`B`$. If the field gradient is $`h>0`$ and if the system is initially prepared with the “natural” boundary conditions, namely spin far on the left are $`()`$, far on the right $`(+)`$ and with a single domain wall of type $`B`$ in between, it remains such, until equilibration time $`T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq0}=2J`$ (or $`T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq0}=J`$ if domains can be created at boundaries). During that window of time the domain wall diffuses in the toy model landscape and reaches thermal equilibrium at time $`t_{eq}`$, a time scale which can be much smaller than $`t_{eq0}`$ if $`J`$ is sufficiently large. Another interesting situation corresponds to unstable single domain wall dynamics and is obtained if the field gradient is applied against these boundary conditions, e.g. a single $`A`$ domain initially. The domain is then expelled towards either side after a time $`t_{exp}`$ which again can be well before $`t_{eq0}`$ if $`J`$ is sufficiently large.

Finally, the full, many domain coarsening can be studied and is expected to exhibit a large degree of universality in the small $`h`$, large Imry Ma length $`4J^2/g`$, small temperature $`TJ`$, large time limit as in . It is interesting to study because of the competition between the disorder which tends to slow the coarsening and the field gradient which tend to accelerate the process.

### D Goal and Results

To summarize, the toy model (1) is thus interesting from several points of view. For the statics, it is directly related to more complex problems ( directed polymer, burgers turbulence and KPZ equation) in some particular limits, as described above; on the other hand, it represents in itself a ‘toy’ disordered system that presents many properties of more complex models, such as the presence of metastable states and the identities of the statistical tilt symmetry.

Up to now, the landscape $`U(x)`$ of the toy model has been characterized by two kinds of approach. There has been on one side some studies on the absolute minimum of the toy model, either in probability theory  and in the context of the Burgers equation , and on the other side a study  on the statistics of all extrema of the model (1), but that does not distinguish between the important ones (the deep ones) and the large number of unimportant small scale extrema, nor does it yield any information on joint distributions. None of these studies addresses the question of the joint distributions in energy and position of the set of all deep extrema, neither the one relevant for the statics (several minima) and even less the one relevant for the dynamics (maxima, minima and barriers).

The goal of this paper is to show that the renormalization method can be generalized to solve a broader class of one dimensional landscape than the previously solved Brownian landscape  and that it is of deeper fundamental interest as an alternative to more conventional probability theory techniques. The class explicitly solved here includes the toy model (1) landscape. We formulate the RSRG for a general one-dimensional landscape as an exact method to obtain the joint probability distribution, in total number, position and value of energy on the subset of the important deep extrema. More precisely, the renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined by the subset of extrema of the initial landscape which have survived after the erasing of all barriers smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This is equivalent to require that in a segment between a maximum $`U(M)`$ and the next minimum $`U(m)`$ of the renormalized landscape, any two points $`(x,y)`$ with $`M<x<y<m`$ must satisfy the constraint that the energy difference $`U(y)U(x)`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and the symmetrical condition for a segment between a minimum and the next maximum). The joint probability distribution of this subset of important extrema contains a tremendous amount of information, including in particular the distribution of absolute extrema, of secondary extrema, of largest barriers etc… Of course the general case is intractable analytically, but our aim is to identify solvable models and universality classes, given by some continuum limits.

To be more specific, we will consider the continuum models where the potential $`U(x)`$ is a stochastic process defined by the Langevin equation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dU(x)}{dx}}=F[U(x),x]+\eta (x)`$ (19)
$`\eta (x)`$ being a delta correlated white noise. The toy model (1) corresponds to the case where the force doesn’t depend on $`U(x)`$ and is linear in $`x`$

$`F[U(x),x]=F[x]=\mu x`$ (20)
Another cases of interest are the stationary landscapes, where the force in the Langevin equation (19) is independent of the space $`x`$

$`F[U,x]=F[U]={\displaystyle \frac{dW[U]}{dU}}`$ (21)
The case $`F[U]=0`$ is the pure Brownian landscape, and the case $`F[U]=F>0`$ is the biased Brownian landscape. These are the only two cases where the RSRG has been applied up to now , but we will show here that it generalizes to include any $`F[U]`$. Note that solving the landscape problem here also amounts to solve the problem of the joint distribution of extremal points in the trajectory of a particle in a one dimensional force field $`F`$ where $`x`$ is interpreted as ”time” and $`U`$ as the position of the particle. For all cases (19), the Markovian character of the Langevin equation implies that the landscape measure can be written as product of blocks measures which satisfy closed real space renormalization equations. For the specific cases of the toy model (20) and of stationary landscapes (21), we obtain here explicit expressions for the blocks measures. This is achieved by two complementary methods very different in spirit. On one hand, for the above continuum models we are able to directly compute the blocks using some constrained path integrals. On the other hand, we can also start from the RSRG equations for the blocks and assume some Ansatz which solves these equations and obtain, interestingly via the Liouville equation, analytical forms for the blocks. As is customary in searching for RG fixed points, this can be done without specifying the initial landscape, and as a result the solutions look a priori more general. We show that these do contain the universality classes corresponding to (19), with a result which coincide exactly with one obtained by the direct path integral method. Our study thus makes more precise the interesting relations between the powerful RSRG method and more conventional probabilistic approach using stochastic calculus.

For the case of the toy model, the full solution for the joint probability measure of the renormalized landscape is obtained in this way explicitly in terms of Airy functions. We then use this exact measure of the renormalized landscape to study in details the equilibrium and the non-equilibrium dynamics of the toy model (1) and give some results for the RFIM in a field gradient.

For the equilibrium, we study the statistical properties of the absolute minimum which dominates at zero temperature. We obtain simple exact expressions for the moments of the position of a single particle at equilibrium and and compare with the results of approximate methods, namely the gaussian variational replica study  and of the vector breaking of replica symmetry . We also compute the properties of configurations with nearly degenerate minima which govern the thermal fluctuations at very low-temperature, and we prove that the rare configurations presenting two nearly degenerate minima do not only give a finite contribution to (5), but actually are entirely responsible of the full result (5).

For the dynamics of a single particle in the toy energy landscape (e.g. a single RFIM domain wall), we compute the distribution over samples of the equilibration time $`t_{eq}`$ or equivalently the distribution of the largest barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eq}=T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$ in the system. Our results are expressed in terms of the dimensionless scaling parameter

$`\gamma _{eq}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right)^{1/3}T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$ (22)
and we give in particular the two asymptotic behaviors of the distribution for $`\gamma _{eq}`$ small and large. We characterize the rare configurations presenting an anomalously large equilibration time which govern the long-time dynamics. We also compute local properties of the renormalized landscape, such as the probability density of a minimum at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$, and the the disorder averaged diffusion front for a single particle, which interpolates between the Kesten distribution of the Sinai model at short rescaled time and the reaching of equilibrium at long rescaled time.

These quantities can be translated into results for observables of the RFIM in a field gradient, assuming convergence to the full state where each maximum of the renormalized landscape contains an A domain and each minimum a B domain. This convergence was proved in  and also holds here in range of parameters of interest (small $`\mu `$, large time $`t`$) and with a random initial condition. As time $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$ increases, decimations occur corresponding to pairs of $`AB`$ domains annihilating. Thus initially, many domain coarsening take place. Depending on the scaling parameter:

$`\gamma _{eq0}=2J\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right)^{1/3}`$ (23)
the equilibrium state, reached at time $`T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq0}=2J`$ will contain either a single domain wall $`B`$ (for $`\gamma _{eq0}+\mathrm{}`$) or several additional pairs $`AB`$ (infinitely many as $`\gamma _{eq0}0`$). The behaviors of the sample to sample probabilities that a single domain wall $`B`$ remains is obtained. A formal solution for the total magnetization is easily written, and an explicit calculation is performed for large $`\gamma _{eq0}`$ where a single domain wall remains. Indeed in that limit the total magnetization is simply $`M=2x_B`$ where $`x_B`$ is the absolute minimum of the toy landscape.

The paper is organized as follows. The Section II is devoted to the general definitions and properties of the renormalization procedure for an arbitrary one-dimensional landscape. In Section III, we compute the probability measure of the renormalized landscape for a large class of models. We then study in details the toy model : we construct the probability measure for the renormalized landscape in Section IV, we study its equilibrium properties in Section V, and the non-equilibrium dynamics in Section VI. Some results for the RFIM in a field gradient are also discussed in Section VI. The Section VII contains our results for the case of stationary landscapes. Finally, to facilitate reading of the paper, we give the more detailed definitions and derivations in the several appendices.

## II Renormalization procedure for an arbitrary 1D landscape

This section contains the precise definitions of the measure for the initial landscape and for the renormalized landscape. The probability measure of the renormalized landscape satisfies by construction a set of RG equations for the joint distribution of extrema.

### A Initial landscape

The general model studied in this paper is the following. We consider one dimensional random landscapes $`U(x)`$ which for definiteness in this section are continuous in the energy $`U`$, discrete in space $`x`$ and defined on a finite interval $`x=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$. A realization of the random landscape is thus simply given by a set of random variables $`U_x`$, $`x=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$ and the original problem is defined by some probability measure noted

$`𝒫[U]DU𝒫(U_1,\mathrm{}U_N)dU_1\mathrm{}dU_N`$ (24)
The normalization with the fixed boundary conditions $`U(x_1=x_L)=U_L`$ and $`U(x_N=x_R)=U_R`$ reads

$`Z(U_L,x_L;U_R,x_R)={\displaystyle 𝒫(U_L,U_2,\mathrm{}U_{N1},U_R)𝑑U_2\mathrm{}𝑑U_{N1}}`$ (25)
We are interested in the statistics of the extrema of this landscape. For definiteness, we choose here the convention that there are infinite potential outside the interval, i.e. $`U(x=1^{})=U(x=N^+)=+\mathrm{}`$, and that $`N=2K1`$ is odd. We then define the probability $`N_{\text{init}}^{(2n)}(U_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,U_R)`$ that the initial landscape has $`n`$ local minima situated at positions $`x_1,x_3..x_{2n1}`$ with the potentials $`u_1,\mathrm{}u_{2n1}`$ and $`(n1)`$ local maxima situated at positions $`x_2,x_4..x_{2n2}`$ with potentials $`u_2,\mathrm{}u_{2n2}`$. They are of course alternated $`x_1<x_2..<x_{2n1}`$ and the values $`x_1=x_L`$ and $`x_{2n1}=x_R=2K1`$ are allowed. An explicit and more precise definition of these objects is given in Appendix A, with a derivation of their normalization property

$`Z(U_L,x_L;U_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑u_1𝑑u_2\mathrm{}𝑑u_{2n1}\theta (U_Lu_1)\theta (U_Ru_{2n1})\underset{i=1,n1}{}\theta (u_{2i}u_{2i1})\theta (u_{2i}u_{2i+1})}`$ (26)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x_Lx_1<x_2<x_3<x_{2n1}x_R}{}}N_{\text{init}}^{(2n)}(U_L,x_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};U_R,x_R)`$ (27)
The objects $`N_{\text{init}}^{(2n)}`$ are usually extremely complicated and contain a lot of irrelevant information. To single out the important, deep extrema we now define the renormalized landscape where all small barriers have been eliminated.

### B Construction of the renormalized landscape

The renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined by the list of positions and energies of a subset $`S_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of extrema of the initial landscape. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$, $`S_0`$ is the set of all extrema of the initial landscape. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$ it is the subset of extrema that survive when all barriers smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the system have been erased. This is shown in Fig 1. This subset $`S_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is again made of alternating minima and maxima. It is convenient to call descending bonds the segments between a maximum and the next minimum both in $`S_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (and respectively ascending bonds the segments between a minimum and the next maximum). The constraint obeyed by the subset is that any two points $`(i,j)`$ on a bond $`[x,y]`$ with $`x<i<j<y`$ must satisfy that their energy difference $`U_jU_i`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if the bond is descending, and symmetrically, the energy difference $`U_iU_j`$ must be smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ if the bond is ascending.

The main object of interest is the probability measure of the renormalized landscape. We consider the probability $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)`$ that the renormalized landscape has $`n`$ local minima situated at positions $`x_1,x_3..x_{2n1}`$ with the potentials $`u_1,\mathrm{}u_{2n1}`$ and $`(n1)`$ local maxima situated at positions $`x_2,x_4..x_{2n2}`$ with potentials $`u_2,\mathrm{}u_{2n2}`$. Again, more precise and explicit definitions are given in Appendix A, with a derivation of the normalization

$`Z(U_L,x_L;U_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑u_1\mathrm{}𝑑u_{2n1}\theta (U_Lu_1)\theta (U_Ru_{2n1})\underset{i=1,n1}{}\theta (u_{2i}u_{2i1}\mathrm{\Gamma })\theta (u_{2i}u_{2i+1}\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ (28)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{x_Lx_1<x_2<x_3<x_{2n1}x_R}{}}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}(U_L,x_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};U_R,x_R)`$ (29)
The normalization of the measure for the renormalized landscape thus coincides with the normalization of the measure for the initial landscape (25,27).

The $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}`$ satisfy the RG equation (see Appendix A)

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_L}^{x_1}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{x_1}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _{u_1}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u^{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n+2)}(x_L,u_L;u^{},y_1;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_2;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)`$ (34)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{x_{2i}}^{x_{2i+1}}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{x_{2i+1}}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _{u_{2i+1}}^{u_{2i}\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n+2)}(x_L,u_L;\mathrm{};u_{2i},x_{2i};u^{},y_1;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_2;u_{2i+1},x_{2i+1};\mathrm{};x_R,u_R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle _{x_{2i1}}^{x_{2i}}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{x_{2i}}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _{u_{2i1}}^{u_{2i}\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n+2)}(x_L,u_L;\mathrm{};u_{2i1},x_{2i1};u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_1;u^{},y_2;u_{2i},x_{2i};\mathrm{};x_R,u_R)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{x_{2n1}}^{x_R}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{x_R}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _{u_{2n1}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u^{}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n+2)}(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_1;u^{},y_2;x_R,u_R)`$
where, for convenience and future applications to continuum limits, we have used the integral symbol instead of the sum, i.e. $`_y^x𝑑z`$ instead of $`_{z=y+1}^{x1}`$. These RSRG equation describe the decimation upon increasing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and are thus a generalization to an arbitrary landscape of the standard RSRG equations considered in the case of a Brownian landscape (see the formulae (197) and the figure 8 in Ref ). It simply expresses that as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is increased, pairs of extrema separated by an energy barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are eliminated. Each term in (34) corresponds to possible positions of this pair, as represented in Fig 2, the first and last one corresponding to edge bonds.

The aim of this paper is to find solvable cases where analytical solutions of (34) are possible. The general case with arbitrary correlations in the original landscape can only be studied by numerical implementations of the decimation procedure. This has been done, for instance, in the case of a logarithmically correlated landscape in . However, for the initial landscapes that are defined by an initial local measure, we expect that the measure for the renormalized landscape can be decomposed as a product of blocks associated to bonds as we now describe.

### C Markovian landscapes and Block-product measures

From now on, we will consider “Markovian landscapes”, corresponding to the cases where the probability measure of the initial landscape (24) is a product of block measures of the form:

$`𝒫[U]=\mathrm{\Phi }_0(U_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_N(U_N){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(S_i[U_{i+1},U_i])`$ (35)
It follows immediately that the probabilities of the renormalized landscape can be written as a product of block probabilities which depend only on the endpoints of the bonds block, all the information inside the bonds have been in a sense integrated out (A16) :

$`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n)}(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)=E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)`$ (36)
$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_2,x_2;u_3,x_3)\mathrm{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n2},x_{2n2};u_{2n1},x_{2n1})E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)`$ (37)
Note that the blocks $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_2,x_2;u_3,x_3)`$ themselves do not in general satisfy any normalization. The only constraint is the global normalization:

$`Z(u_L,x_L;u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}Tr(E^+(B^{}B^+)^{n1}E^{})`$ (38)
where we have used an obvious matrix notation with respect to $`(x,u)`$. Each term in this sum, $`N^{(2n)}=Tr(E^+(B^{}B^+)^{n1}E^{})`$, represents the probability that the renormalized landscape has exactly $`(2n1)`$ extrema.

The insertion of the decoupled form (37) into the RSRG equation (34) yields the following RG equations for the block measures

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_L,u_L;u,x)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_L}^x}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^x}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _u^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u^{}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_L,u_L;u^{},y_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{},y_1;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_2)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_2;u,x)`$ (41)
$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{x^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{x^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _u^{u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_1;u^{},y_2)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{},y_2;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })`$ (43)
$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,x;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _x^{x^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^{x^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _{u^{\prime \prime }}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,x;u^{},y_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{},y_1;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_2)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_2;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })`$ (45)
$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;x_R,u_R)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_L}^x}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{y_1}^x}𝑑y_2{\displaystyle _u^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },y_1;u^{},y_2)E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{},y_2;x_R,u_R)`$ (46)
Again note that the factorized form and these RG equations hold either for discrete space (with the abovementioned correspondence between the integral symbol and the sum) as well as in the continuum limit where the space cutoff goes to zero.

## III Explicit Solutions for a class of models

### A Soluble models

To be more specific we now consider the continuum models of Markovian landscapes where the potential $`U(x)`$ is a stochastic process defined by the Langevin equation (19). This process corresponds to functional integration with the Fokker-Planck measure

$`𝒫[U]\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle }dx({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU(x)}{dx}}F[U(x),x])^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_UF[U(x),x])`$ (47)
In the following, we will give an explicit solution for the landscape renormalization for all the cases where the Fokker-Planck measure can be rewritten as a Schrodinger measure

$`𝒫[U]exp({\displaystyle }dx({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU(x)}{dx}})^2+V[U(x)])`$ (48)
up to boundaries terms. The two important cases are the toy model defined in (1) and the stationary landscapes (21).

#### 1 Toy model

The toy model (1) corresponds to the case where the force in the Langevin equation (19) is given by (20). The Fokker-Planck measure for the toy model can be be rewritten as a Schrodinger measure up to boundary terms as follows

$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}dx({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dx}}\mu x)^2)=e^{h(u_1,x_1)h(u_2,x_2)}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}dx({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dx}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu U))`$ (49)
where the boundary terms reads

$`h(u,x)={\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}xu+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{12}}x^3`$ (50)
The associated Schrodinger potential is linear in $`U`$

$`V[U]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu U`$ (51)
#### 2 Stationary landscapes

The stationary landscapes correspond to the cases where the force in the Langevin equation (19) is independent of space (21). The transformation from Fokker-Planck measure to Schrodinger measure up to boundary terms is as follows:

$`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}𝑑x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dx}}F[U])^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{}[U]))`$ (52)
$`=e^{\frac{1}{2}(W[U(x_1)]W[U(x_2)])}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2}}𝑑x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dx}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F[U]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{}[U]))`$ (53)
The associated Schrodinger potential reads

$`V[U]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F[U]^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{}[U]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W^{}[U]^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W^{\prime \prime }[U]`$ (54)
### B Properties of the blocks for a Schrodinger measure

For a Schrodinger measure (48), the important simplification comes from the translation invariance of the blocks

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u,x;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u;u^{\prime \prime };x^{\prime \prime }x)`$ (55)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,x_L;u,x)=E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,u,xx_L)`$ (56)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;u_R,x_R)=E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,u_R,x_Rx)`$ (57)
which will allow us to obtain explicit expressions for the Laplace transforms

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u;u^{\prime \prime };p)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xB_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u;u^{\prime \prime };x)`$ (58)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u;u^{\prime \prime };p)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xE_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u;u^{\prime \prime };x)`$ (59)
The symmetry $`xx`$ moreover implies:

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,x;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;u^{\prime \prime },x^{\prime \prime })`$ (60)
so that in Laplace we have the simple relations

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{\prime \prime };u;p)`$ (61)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)=E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{\prime \prime };u;p)`$ (62)
To determine these functions, we now present two methods which are rather different in spirit and complementary.

### C Explicit solution via a path-integral approach

For the Schrodinger measure, the block $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ can be represented by a path-integral

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,x_0;u,x)={\displaystyle _{U_{x_0}=u_0}^{U_x=u}}DUexp({\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}dy({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dy}})^2+V[U])\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_0,x;U)`$ (63)
which is defined for $`uu_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and where the symbol $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_0,x;U)`$ constraints the paths to remain in the interval $`]u_0,u[`$ for $`x_0<y<x`$ and to not perform any returns of more than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. As shown in Appendix (C 1), this constrained path-integral can be expressed in Laplace transform with respect to $`(xx_0)`$ as

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u,p){\displaystyle _{x_0}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{px}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,x_0;u,x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(u_0,u_0+\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }}^u}𝑑u^{}_2\mathrm{ln}K(u^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },u^{},p))`$ (65)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(u\mathrm{\Gamma },u,p)}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u_0}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑v_1\mathrm{ln}K(v,v+\mathrm{\Gamma },p))`$
(the two expressions are equivalent via an integration by part) in terms of the function

$`K(u,v,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{w(p)}}(\varphi _1(u,p)\varphi _2(v,p)\varphi _2(u,p)\varphi _1(v,p))`$ (66)
where $`\varphi _1(u,p)`$ and $`\varphi _2(u,p)`$ are two linearly independent solutions of the equation

$`_u^2FV(u)F=pF`$ (67)
of wronskian ( independent of $`u`$ )

$`w(p)=\varphi _1(u,p)\varphi _2^{}(u,p)\varphi _2(u,p)\varphi _1^{}(u,p)`$ (68)
Similarly for the edges, the final result reads ( see Appendix C 1)

$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_R,p)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _u^{u_R}}_1\mathrm{ln}K(u^{},u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },p)du^{})`$ (69)
### D Explicit solution from the RSRG equations

The RG equations for the blocks $`B`$ (46) are simpler in Laplace variables :

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)={\displaystyle _u^{u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };u^{};p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{};u^{\prime \prime };p)`$ (70)
$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)={\displaystyle _{u^{\prime \prime }}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u;u^{};p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{};u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };u^{\prime \prime };p)`$ (71)
Using the symmetry (62), we obtain that $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{\prime \prime };u;p)`$ satisfies the closed RG equation

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)={\displaystyle _u^{u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{};u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{};u^{\prime \prime };p)`$ (72)
and the edges satisfy

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_R,p)={\displaystyle _u^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{};u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{},u_R,p)`$ (73)
As shown in Appendix (C 2), a class of solutions of the RSRG equation (72) can be found with the factorized Ansatz

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)=A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u,p)A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(u^{\prime \prime },p)`$ (74)
provided that the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defined by

$`_1_2\mathrm{\Phi }(u,u+\mathrm{\Gamma })=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)^2`$ (75)
satisfies the following Liouville equation

$`_1_2\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,u_2)=\mathrm{exp}(2\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,u_2))`$ (76)
The general solution, discussed in more details in Appendix (C 2), can be written

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,u_2)=\mathrm{ln}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{w_Lw_R}}}(\psi _L^{(1)}(u_1)\psi _R^{(2)}(u_2)\psi _L^{(2)}(u_1)\psi _R^{(1)}(u_2))\right]`$ (77)
where $`\psi _L^{(1,2)}(u)`$ and $`\psi _R^{(1,2)}(u)`$ are respectively two pairs of two linearly independent solutions of the two Schrodinger equations:

$`\psi _L^{\prime \prime }(u)=V_L(u,p)\psi _L(u)`$ (78)
$`\psi _R^{\prime \prime }(u)=V_R(u,p)\psi _R(u)`$ (79)
where $`V_L(u,p)`$ and $`V_R(u,p)`$ are arbitrary potentials, and where the constants $`w_{L,R}`$ are the two wronskian, i.e $`w_{L,R}=\psi _{L,R}^{(1)}(u)\psi _{L,R}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{}(u)\psi _{L,R}^{(2)}(u)\psi _{L,R}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{}(u)`$.

The results of the path-integral approach (63) are recovered with the following choice:

$`V_L(u,p)=V_R(u,p)=V(u)+p`$ (80)
with the identifications $`\psi _L^{(1)}=\psi _R^{(1)}`$, $`\psi _L^{(2)}=\psi _R^{(2)}`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,u_2)=\mathrm{ln}K(u_1,u_2)`$ (81)
Thus by solving the RSRG equations with the following properties: (i) factorization in blocks (ii) statistical translational invariance and parity of the blocks (iii) an additional factorization property in Laplace variable (74), we have found general solutions involving two arbitrary potentials $`V_L(u,p)`$ and $`V_R(u,p)`$. This method does not use the knowledge of the initial landscape they correspond to. This is a familiar feature of RG equations, fixed points can be found under symmetry assumptions but finding the basin of attraction is harder. We have showed that the special choice (80) corresponds to the case of initial Schrodinger measure (63) that we have independently solved via the path-integral method. It would be of course of great interest to understand whether other choices for the potentials $`V_L(u,p)`$ and $`V_R(u,p)`$ yields sensible solutions for the landscape problem. However this analysis goes beyond the scope of this paper and it is left as an open question for future investigation. Note also that all formulae here and in Appendix (C 2) hold for discrete space, under the same assumptions (defining Laplace transforms as $`B^\pm (u,u^{\prime \prime },p)=_{x=1}^+\mathrm{}B^\pm (u,u^{\prime \prime },x)`$), and one could also check whether discrete landscape could also be solved by these methods.

Note finally that although fixed point (i.e. continuum) models can alternatively be solved by the constrained path integral method, the RSRG is in principle more powerful. Here for instance we only need assumptions (i) to (iii) to hold only asymptotically at large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In principle the full convergence to the fixed point could be also studied, as in any RG method, and universal results established for a broader set of discrete models within the basin of attraction of the fixed points found here.

In the following we restrict to the case of Schrodinger measures corresponding to the choice (80) and use the explicit solutions derived above to study the case of the toy model (1) in details and the case of stationary landscapes (21) more briefly.

## IV Statistics of extrema in the toy model

In this section, we apply the general construction of the probability measure of renormalized landscape to the particular case of the toy model (1). We start by giving the expressions for the blocks before constructing the full measure.

### A Blocks of the toy model in terms of Airy functions

We have seen in (49) how the functional integrals for the process $`dU/dx=\mu x+\eta (x)`$ could be recast up to boundary terms into functional integrals of the Schrodinger-type. The Fokker-Planck blocks thus read (49)

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,x_0,u_1,x_1)=e^{h(u_0,x_0)h(u_1,x_1)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,u_1,x_1x_0)`$ (82)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,u_1,x_1x_0)=e^{h(u_0,x_0)h(u_1,x_1)}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,x_0,u_1,x_1)`$ (83)
in terms of the Schrodinger blocks $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ given in Laplace (65,69) by

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u,p)=\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,u_0,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(u\mathrm{\Gamma },u,p)}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u_0}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑v_1\mathrm{ln}K(v,v+\mathrm{\Gamma },p))`$ (84)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_b,u,p)=\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_b,p)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _u^{u_b}}_1\mathrm{ln}K(u^{},u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma },p)du^{})`$ (85)
The function $`K`$ defined in (66) now corresponds to the problem with the Schrodinger potential $`V[U]=\frac{1}{2}\mu U`$ (51). Two independent solutions of the Schrodinger equation are the Airy functions (F1)

$`\varphi _1(u,p)=Ai(au+bp)`$ (86)
$`\varphi _2(u,p)=Bi(au+bp)`$ (87)
where

$`a`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}\right)^{1/3}`$ (88)
$`b`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2}}`$ (89)
$`a`$ is the characteristic inverse energy, whereas $`b`$ represents the characteristic length scale of the toy model. The wronskian of the two solutions (87) reads

$`w(p)={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}`$ (90)
and thus the function $`K`$ reads(66)

$`K(u,v,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}\left(Ai(au+bp)Bi(av+bp)Bi(au+bp)Ai(av+bp)\right)`$ (91)
Although there are no obvious simple expressions for the integrals involved in the blocks (85), in calculations it will be often useful to extract the leading behavior for $`u<v`$ by rewriting

$`K(u,v,p)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}Ai(au+bp)Bi(av+bp)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Bi(au+bp)}{Ai(au+bp)}}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(av+bp)}{Bi(av+bp)}}\right)`$ (92)
and

$`_1\mathrm{ln}K(u,v,p)=`$ $`_u\mathrm{ln}Ai(au+bp)+_u\mathrm{ln}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{Bi(au+bp)}{Ai(au+bp)}}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(av+bp)}{Bi(av+bp)}}\right)`$ (93)
### B Normalization of the full Measure for the renormalized landscape

As explained in Section (II), we consider left and right reflecting boundaries, i.e. we impose $`u(x_L)=u_L`$ and $`u(x_R)=u_R`$ with $`u(x_L^{})=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`u(x_R^+)=+\mathrm{}`$. Then the normalization of the measure is (47) :

$`Z(u_L,x_L;u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle _{u(x_L)=u_L}^{u(x_R)=u_R}}DUe^{\frac{1}{4}_{x_L}^{x_R}𝑑x\left(\frac{dU}{dx}\mu x\right)^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi (x_Rx_L)}}}e^{\frac{(u_Ru_L\frac{\mu }{2}x_R^2+\frac{\mu }{2}x_L^2)^2}{4(x_Rx_L)}}`$ (94)
The decomposition into blocks at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ reads (37)

$`Z(u_L,x_L,u_R,x_R)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}du_idx_iE_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,x_L;u_1,x_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)\mathrm{}}`$ (98)
$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n2},x_{2n2};u_{2n1},x_{2n1})E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_{2n1},x_{2n1};u_R,x_R)`$
$`=e^{h(u_L,x_L)h(u_R,x_R)}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}du_idx_i\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,u_1,x_1x_L)\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,u_2,x_2x_1)\mathrm{}}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n2},u_{2n1},x_{2n1}x_{2n2})\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_{2n1},u_R,x_Rx_{2n1})`$
i.e. the boundary terms involving the function $`h`$ in the transformation from Fokker-Planck to Schrodinger (49) cancel between two successive blocks, and thus only survive at the boundaries of the full system $`(x_L,x_R)`$.

### C Alternative expression of the full measure using barriers

The invariance by a global shift in the energy $`u`$ of the Fokker-Planck blocks

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,x_0;u_1,x_1)=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,x_0;u_1u_0,x_1)`$ (99)
$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_0,x_0;u_1,x_1)=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_0u_1,x_0;0,x_1)`$ (100)
translates into the following properties for the Schrodinger blocks (83) using the expression of the function h (50)

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u_1,x_1x_0)`$ $`=e^{h(0,x_0)h(u_0,x_0)+h(u_1,x_1)h(u_1u_0,x_1)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_1u_0,x_1x_0)`$ (102)
$`=e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_0u_0\frac{\mu }{2}x_1u_0}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_1u_0,x_1x_0)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_0,u_1,x_1x_0)`$ $`=e^{h(u_0u_1,x_0)h(u_0,x_0)+h(u_1,x_1)h(0,x_1)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_0u_1,0,x_1x_0)`$ (104)
$`=e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_0u_1\frac{\mu }{2}x_1u_1}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_0u_1,0,x_1x_0)`$
and similarly for the edge blocks $`E`$. An alternative expression of (98) containing only differences of energies is thus given by

$`Z(u_L,x_L,u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}du_idx_i[e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_L^3\frac{\mu }{2}x_L(u_Lu_1)}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_Lu_1,0,x_1x_L)]}`$ (105)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_2u_1,x_2x_1)e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_2(u_3u_1)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_2u_3,0,x_3x_2)`$ (106)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_4u_3,x_4x_3)e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_4(u_5u_3)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_4u_5,0,x_5x_4)\mathrm{}`$ (107)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_{2n2}u_{2n3},x_{2n2}x_{2n3})e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_{2n2}(u_{2n1}u_{2n3})}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n2}u_{2n1},0,x_{2n1}x_{2n2})`$ (108)
$`[e^{+\frac{\mu }{2}x_R(u_Ru_{2n1})\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_R^3}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_Ru_{2n1},x_Rx_{2n1})]`$ (109)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F,p)=\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F,0,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(F\mathrm{\Gamma },F,p)}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _0^{F\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑v_1\mathrm{ln}K(v,v+\mathrm{\Gamma },p))`$ (110)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F,p)=\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F,0,p)=\mathrm{exp}(+{\displaystyle _0^F}𝑑v_1\mathrm{ln}K(v,v+\mathrm{\Gamma },p))`$ (111)
### D Full measure using barriers for free boundary conditions

The normalization (94) concerns fixed boundary conditions $`(u_L,u_R)`$ and depends only on the difference $`(u_Ru_L)`$ since there is an invariance with respect to a global shift of all the energies $`u`$. For free boundary conditions, we need to sum over the end-potential $`u_R`$ with fixed $`u_L`$, which of course yields a normalization to $`1`$

$`Z_{free}(x_L;x_R)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_RZ(u_L,x_L;u_R,x_R)=1`$ (112)
The decomposition into blocks at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ now reads using the formulation in terms of barriers (109) that we now denote by $`F_L=u_Lu_1`$, $`F_1=u_2u_1`$, …

$`Z_{free}(x_L;x_R)=1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_L{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_R{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}}dF_i{\displaystyle _{x_L<x_1<\mathrm{}x_{2n1}<x_R}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}}dx_j`$ (118)
$`[e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_L^3\frac{\mu }{2}x_LF_L}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_L,0,x_1x_L)]`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_1,x_2x_1)e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_2(F_1F_2)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_2,0,x_3x_2)`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_3,x_4x_3)e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_4(F_3F_4)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_4,0,x_5x_4)\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_{2n3},x_{2n2}x_{2n3})e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_{2n2}(F_{2n3}F_{2n2})}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_{2n2},0,x_{2n1}x_{2n2})`$
$`[e^{+\frac{\mu }{2}x_RF_R\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_R^3}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_R,x_Rx_{2n1})]`$
### E Full measure using barriers on the infinite line

Of particular interest is of course the limit of the infinite system $`x_L\mathrm{}`$ and $`x_R\mathrm{}`$. We define the following function that describes the right boundary in the limit $`x_R\mathrm{}`$

$`g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\underset{x_R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_R[e^{+\frac{\mu }{2}x_RF_R\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_R^3}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_R,x_Rx)]`$ (119)
Using (85)

$`g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}\underset{x_R\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_R^3+i\lambda x_R}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑Fe^{+\frac{\mu }{2}x_RF}e^{_0^F𝑑u_1\mathrm{ln}K(u,u+\mathrm{\Gamma },i\lambda )du}\right]`$ (120)
In the limit $`x_R\mathrm{}`$, the integral over $`F`$ is dominated by a saddle with $`F`$ large. Using (93) it is convenient to rewrite

$`_1\mathrm{ln}K(F,F+\mathrm{\Gamma },i\lambda )`$ $`=_F\mathrm{ln}Ai(aF+bi\lambda )\psi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F,\lambda )`$ (121)
$`\psi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F,\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{aAi(a(F+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda )}{\pi Ai(aF+bi\lambda )\left[Ai(aF+bi\lambda )Bi(a(F+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda )Bi(aF+bi\lambda )Ai(a(F+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda )\right]}}`$ (122)
A saddle-point analysis with the asymptotic behavior (F5) immediately gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\zeta e^{\zeta y}Ai(\zeta +b)\underset{y\mathrm{}}{}e^{\frac{1}{3}y^3by}`$ (123)
As a consequence, we get

$`g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{aAi(ib\lambda )}}e^{_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑u\psi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(u,\lambda )}`$ (124)
Similarly, the other boundary $`x_L\mathrm{}`$ yields

$`\underset{x_L\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_L[e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_L^3\frac{\mu }{2}x_LF_L}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_L,0,xx_L)]=g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ (125)
As a consequence, the full measure using barriers on the infinite line reads (118)

$`Z_{free}(\mathrm{};+\mathrm{})=1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n2}{}}}dF_i{\displaystyle _{x_1<\mathrm{}x_{2n1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}}dx_jg_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1)`$ (129)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_1,x_2x_1)e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_2(F_1F_2)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_2,0,x_3x_2)\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_{2n3},x_{2n2}x_{2n3})e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_{2n2}(F_{2n3}F_{2n2})}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_{2n2},0,x_{2n1}x_{2n2})`$
$`g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_{2n1})`$
## V Boltzmann equilibrium at low temperatures of the toy model

In this section, we use the explicit measure of the renormalized landscapes of the toy model derived in the previous section to compute various observables that characterize the equilibrium of the toy model (1) on the full line $`]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[`$ at low temperature. For $`T=0`$, we need to compute the distribution over samples of the position of absolute minimum energy on the full line. For small $`T`$, we need to compute the probabilities of configurations with nearly degenerate minima which govern the thermal fluctuations.

### A Distribution of the position at zero temperature

To obtain the distribution of the position of absolute minimum energy, we need the final state of the renormalized landscape, corresponding to the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$ limit, where all internal barriers have been eliminated. The decomposition (129) then reduces to the term $`n=1`$ that contains only the boundary blocks

$`Z_{free}(\mathrm{};+\mathrm{})=1={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xg_{\mathrm{}}(x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (130)
where (124)

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda x}}{aAi(bi\lambda )}}`$ (131)
since the function $`\psi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (122) vanishes for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$. The distribution of the position $`x`$ of the minimum on $`]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[`$ reads

$`P_{]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[}(x)=g_{\mathrm{}}(x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (132)
in agreement with . The normalization is easily checked with the relation $`b=1/a^2`$ and the properties (F3) (F6)

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xP(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2Ai(ib\lambda )^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i}}[{\displaystyle \frac{Bi(z)}{Ai(z)}}]_{z=i\mathrm{}}^{z=+i\mathrm{}}=1`$ (133)
Let us now describe the asymptotic behaviors of this distribution. The Airy function $`Ai(z)`$ has an infinity of poles which all are on the negative real axis : the largest one is $`e_1=2.33810741..`$ where $`Ai^{}(|e_1|)=0.70121082`$, the second one is $`e_2=4.08794944..`$ where $`Ai^{}(|e_2|)=0.80311137`$ and so on. For $`x<0`$, we may deform the contour in the complex plane to express the function $`g`$ as a series over the zeroes $`(|e_s|)`$ of the Airy function

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x<0)=a{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^{}(|e_s|)}}e^{a^2|e_s||x|}`$ (134)
Thus $`g(x)`$ decays exponentially for $`x\mathrm{}`$. For $`x>0`$, we may shift the contour integration $`\lambda \lambda ic`$

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda xcx}}{aAi(bi\lambda +bc)}}`$ (135)
Assuming $`c`$ large, we replace the function $`Ai`$ by its asymptotic behavior (F5)

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda (b(c+i\lambda ))^{1/4}e^{x(c+i\lambda )+\frac{2}{3}(b(c+i\lambda ))^{3/2}}`$ (136)
A saddle-point analysis leads to the choice $`c=\frac{x^2}{b^3}`$ and to the asymptotic behavior

$`g_{\mathrm{}}(x)\underset{x+\mathrm{}}{}2a^3xe^{\frac{1}{3}(a^2x)^3}`$ (137)
Putting (134) and (137) together, the asymptotic behavior of the distribution (132) is given by

$`P_{]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[}(x)\underset{|x|+\mathrm{}}{}2a^4|x|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^{}(|a_1|)}}e^{\frac{1}{3}(a^2|x|)^3a^2|a_1||x|}`$ (138)
### B Moments of the position at zero temperature

Here we obtain the explicit analytical expressions for the disorder averaged thermal moments moments $`\overline{<x^p>}`$ of the position in the limit of zero temperature, where they are determined by the absolute minimum. They can be derived from the Fourier transform

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{isx}P(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2Ai(ib\lambda )Ai(ib(\lambda +s))}}`$ (139)
as (89)

$`\overline{<x^p>}=b^p{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}_{(iu)}^p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}\right)=\mu ^{2p/3}C_p`$ (140)
where $`C_p`$ are numerical constants given by

$`C_p=2^{2p/3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}_{(iu)}^p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}\right)`$ (141)
For odd $`p`$, an integration by parts shows that $`C_p`$ vanishes, i.e. the odd moments vanish as it should from the symmetry $`(x,x)`$. For even $`p`$, we may also write

$`C_{2p}=2^{4p/3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}_{(iu)}^{2p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}\right)=2^{4p/3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}\left(_u^p\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(iu)}}\right)\right)^2`$ (142)
We give the lowest moments:

$`C_2=2^{4/3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}(iu)^2}{Ai(iu)^4}}={\displaystyle \frac{2^{4/3}}{3}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{iu}{Ai(iu)^2}}=1.05423856519..`$ (143)
$`C_4=2^{8/3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{(iu2\frac{Ai^{}(iu)^2}{Ai(iu)^2})^2}{Ai(iu)^2}}=3.15451..`$ (144)
These exact results are in reasonable agreement with numerical simulations of Ref.  which found $`C_2=1.05381\pm .01`$ and $`3.15441\pm .04`$. It should also be compared with the result of approximate replica methods which give respectively $`C_2=3/(2\sqrt{\pi })^{2/3}=1.29038`$ (RSB gaussian variational method), $`C_2=1.00181`$ (vector breaking) . Note also the exact result for the ratio $`R=C_4/C_2^2=2.83827..`$ in good agreement with the numerical simulation result $`R=2.84048`$, while the replica approximations give respectively $`R=3`$ (GVM) and $`R=2.995`$ (VB).

### C Joint distribution of position and energy at zero temperature

To obtain information on the minimal energy on the full line, we need to fix the absolute value of the energy at a given point for all samples. The usual natural choice is of course

$`U(x=0)=0`$ (145)
Then in the renormalization procedure, we need to keep information on this value, that doesn’t a priori appear in the list of extrema. As a consequence, to obtain the joint distribution $`P_{]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[}(x_0,u_0)`$ of the minimal energy $`U(x_0)=u_0`$ (with $`u_0[0,+\mathrm{}[`$ and of its position $`x_0`$, we need to consider the renormalized landscapes on the two independent half-lines $`]\mathrm{},0]`$ and $`[0,+\mathrm{}[`$ which have the same statistical properties. More precisely, we have for the case $`x_0>0`$

$`P_{]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[}(x_0>0,u_0)=P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(x_0,u_0){\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑u_1{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(x_1,u_1)`$ (146)
where $`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(x_0,u_0)`$ is the joint probability that $`(x_0,u_0)`$ characterizes the absolute minimum on the half-line, and where the integrals represents the probability that the minimum on the other half line is less deep than $`u_0`$. The decomposition (118) for the case $`x_L=0`$ and $`x_R\mathrm{}`$ becomes in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$ using (119)

$`Z_{free}(0;+\mathrm{})=1={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_L{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x\stackrel{~}{E}_+\mathrm{}^+(F_L,0,x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (147)
where $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ has been defined in (131) and where the edge block $`\stackrel{~}{E}^+`$ has for Laplace transform in the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}^+(F,0,p)={\displaystyle \frac{Ai(aF+bp)}{Ai(bp)}}`$ (148)
As a consequence, the joint distribution for the half line reads

$`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(x,u)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{E}_+\mathrm{}^+(u,0,x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _1x}Ai(au+bi\lambda _1)}{Ai(bi\lambda _1)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _2x}}{aAi(bi\lambda _2)}}`$ (149)
in agreement with . In particular, for $`u=0`$ we have

$`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(x,0)`$ $`=\delta (x)g_{\mathrm{}}(0)`$ (150)
as it should in terms of the function $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ (131).

For the distribution of the energy $`u_0`$ alone, the relation (146) becomes after taking into account the two sides $`x>0`$ and $`x<0`$

$`P_{]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[}(u_0)=2P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u_0){\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑uP_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{du_0}}\left[{\displaystyle _0^{u_0}}𝑑uP_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u)\right]^2`$ (151)
where

$`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xP_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(x,u)=\underset{p0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{aAi(bz_2)}}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(au+bz_1)}{Ai(bz_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p+z_2z_1}}\right)`$ (152)
is the distribution of the energy alone on the half-line $`[0,+\mathrm{}[`$. For $`u>0`$, we may close the contour in $`z_1`$ on the right at infinity to obtain via Cauchy theorem

$`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(au+bz_2)}{aAi^2(bz_2)}}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(au+bi\lambda )}{aAi^2(bi\lambda )}}`$ (153)
and this expression is also valid for $`u=0`$ (150).

The expansion near $`u=0`$ reads

$`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u)`$ $`\underset{u0}{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(bi\lambda )+auAi^{}(bi\lambda )+\frac{a^2u^2}{2}Ai^{\prime \prime }(bi\lambda )}{aAi^2(bi\lambda )}}=g_{\mathrm{}}(0){\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{2}}g_{\mathrm{}}^{}(0)+O(u^3)`$ (154)
which leads to the following expansion for the full line

$`P_{]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[}(u_0)\underset{u_00}{}2u_0g_{\mathrm{}}^2(0)+O(u_0^3)`$ (155)
To obtain the asymptotic behavior for large $`u`$, we may shift the contour integration $`\lambda \lambda ic`$, and assuming $`c`$ large, we get via the saddle-point method with the choice $`c=\frac{au}{3b}`$ (F5)

$`P_{[0,\mathrm{}[}(u)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(au+bi\lambda +bc)}{aAi^2(bi\lambda +bc)}}\underset{c\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{(bi\lambda +bc)^{1/2}}{(au+bi\lambda +bc)^{1/4}}}e^{\frac{4}{3}(bi\lambda +bc)^{3/2}\frac{2}{3}(au+bi\lambda +bc)^{3/2}}`$ (157)
$`\underset{u\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}a(au)^{1/2}e^{4\left(\frac{au}{3}\right)^{3/2}}`$
### D  Samples presenting nearly degenerate minima and thermal fluctuations at low temperature

As explained in the introduction, there are remarquable identities  for the disorder averages of the thermal cumulants of the position (4). It was moreover shown in  that the result (5) for the second cumulant at low temperature contains a finite contribution from the rare configurations presenting two nearly degenerate minima. In this section, we compute the statistical properties of such configurations and show that they actually give the full exact result (5).

#### 1 Configurations with two nearly degenerate minima

It is shown in Appendix (D) that the probability to have two nearly degenerate minima separated by an energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=ϵ0`$ and situated at $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ reads

$`𝒟(ϵ,x_1,x_2)=ϵg_{\mathrm{}}(x_1)d(x_2x_1)g_{\mathrm{}}(x_2)+O(ϵ^2)`$ (158)
where the function $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ has been defined in (131) and where

$`d(y)=a{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda y}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}(ib\lambda )}{Ai(ib\lambda )}}`$ (159)
The total probability density to have two degenerate minima separated by a distance $`y>0`$ thus reads

$`D(y)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝒟(ϵ,x_1,x_1+y)}{ϵ}}\right)=d(y){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1g(x_1)g(x_1+y)=bd(y){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda y}}{Ai^2(ib\lambda )}}`$ (160)
In Laplace with respect to $`y`$ we have

$`\widehat{D}(p)`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{py}D(y)=a{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(z_2)}}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}(z_1)}{Ai(z_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{bp+z_2z_1}}`$ (161)
In particular, the second moment is given by

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^2D(y)`$ $`=\underset{p0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2\widehat{D}(p)}{dp^2}}\right)`$ (164)
$`=\underset{p0}{lim}\left(a{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(z_2)}}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_1}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}(z_1)}{Ai(z_1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{2b^2}{(bp+z_2z_1)^3}}\right)`$
$`=ab^2{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(z_2)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}}{Ai}}\right)^{\prime \prime }(z_2)`$
where we have used Cauchy theorem. This last integral may be computed via integration by part, with the help of the following properties of Airy function : the function $`f(z)=\frac{Ai^{}(z)}{Ai(z)}`$ satisfies $`f^{}(z)=zf^2(z)`$ and the function $`g(z)=\frac{1}{Ai^2(z)}`$ satisfies $`g^{}(z)=2f(z)g(z)`$ :

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^2D(y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{ab^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_2}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(z_2)}}={\displaystyle \frac{ab^2}{2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{Bi(z)}{2iAi(z)}}\right]_{z=i\mathrm{}}^{z=+i\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{ab^2}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}`$ (165)
with (89).

#### 2 Contribution to the second thermal cumulant at low temperature

The contribution of these configurations with two degenerate minima to the second thermal cumulant of the position (5) can be estimated at order $`T`$ in temperature as follows. The two minima have for respective Boltzmann weights $`p=\frac{1}{1+e^{\beta ϵ}}`$ and $`(1p)=\frac{e^{\beta ϵ}}{1+e^{\beta ϵ}}`$. The variable $`(x<x>)`$ is $`(1p)(x_1x_2)`$ with probability $`p`$ and $`p(x_2x_1)`$ with probability $`1p`$, so we get after averaging over $`ϵ`$ with a flat measure as in the study of the rare events in

$`\overline{<(x<x>)^2>}`$ $`=\overline{p(1p)(x_1x_2)^2}`$ (168)
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_1{\displaystyle _{x_1}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ𝒟^{}(ϵ=0,x_1,x_2){\displaystyle \frac{e^{ϵ/T}}{(1+e^{ϵ/T})^2}}(x_2x_1)^2`$
$`=T{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yD(y)y^2`$
Using (165), we exactly find the exact result (5). This shows that the thermal fluctuations at low temperature are entirely due the presence of metastable states in rare disordered samples. In particular, the susceptibility

$`\chi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\left(<x^2><x>^2\right)`$ (169)
has for average a finite value at zero-temperature

$`\overline{\chi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mu }}`$ (170)
but only the samples with two nearly degenerate minima contribute to this zero-temperature value. The typical samples with only one minimum have a susceptibility that vanishes at zero temperature. This type of behavior was also found numerically in  and analyzed in  for the random directed polymer model.

#### 3 Contribution to the thermal moments at low temperature

The small-T behavior of the even moments of $`(x<x>)`$ can be similarly computed

$`\overline{<(x<x>)^{2n}>}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{T}{n}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}y^{2n}D(y)+O(T^2)`$ (171)
The moments of $`D(y)`$ read, with the same method as in (164)

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yy^kD(y)`$ $`=a(1)^kb^k{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(z)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}}{Ai}}\right)^{(k)}(z)={\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{(k2)/3}}{\mu ^{(2k1)/3}}}m_k`$ (172)
where $`m_k`$ are numbers given by

$`m_k=(1)^k2^{(2k1)/3}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^{+i\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(z)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}}{Ai}}\right)^{(k)}(z)`$ (173)
#### 4 Discussion

The comparison between (171) and (4) shows that there are a lot of cancelations in the disorder averages of the cumulants. This phenomenon was already emphasized in  for the random directed polymer, and will be studied in more details in  for the toy model as well as in other one-dimensional random systems which do not present the statistical tilt symmetry leading to the identities (4).

Another question that needs further explanations and that will be studied in  is why the result (5) which can be understood at order $`T`$ by considering only the configurations with two degenerate minima remains true for arbitrary temperature. Indeed, in the light of the above discussion, it would be natural to expect corrections at order $`T^2`$ coming from configurations with three degenerate minima and described by the distribution function analogous to (158)

$`𝒯(ϵ_1,ϵ_2,x_1,x_2,x_3)=ϵ_1ϵ_2g_{\mathrm{}}(x_1)d(x_2x_1)d(x_3x_2)g_{\mathrm{}}(x_3)`$ (174)
and so on for configurations with $`n`$ nearly degenerate minima. One also expect corrections from the thermal width around minima. The study of the roles played by these various effects in different systems is postponed to a future work .

## VI Non-equilibrium dynamics of the toy model

In this section, we study the non-equilibrium dynamics of the toy model by using the full measure of the renormalized landscape of the toy model for an arbitrary scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We also briefly summarize some results for the RFIM in a field gradient, already discussed in the Introduction.

As in the Sinai model , the long-time dynamics is asymptotically entirely determined by the renormalized landscape at scale

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$ (175)
in the sense that a particle starting at $`x_0`$ at time $`t=0`$ will be at time $`t`$ around the minimum of the renormalized valley at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that contains the initial position $`x_0`$. As in the Sinai model , this method allows to compute asymptotically exact results for scaling variables in the limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to large barriers, and to large distances. Here in the toy model, there is a typical scale of energy given by $`(1/a)`$ and a typical length $`b=1/a^2`$ (89). As a consequence, we need to define the following scaling variables for the barrier

$`\gamma a\mathrm{\Gamma }=({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}})^{1/3}T\mathrm{ln}t`$ (176)
and for the length

$`\stackrel{~}{x}={\displaystyle \frac{x}{b}}=({\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}})^{2/3}x`$ (177)
The RSRG method will thus give asymptotic exact results for the dynamics in the double limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ (to have large barriers $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and $`\mu 0`$ (to have large typical scales for energy and length in the toy landscape) with the scaling variables $`\gamma `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ fixed. For large $`\gamma `$, as studied in previous section, the system will reach equilibrium. For small $`\gamma `$, i.e. when the barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$ is much smaller than the characteristic energy scale $`(1/a)`$ of the toy model, the dynamics should look like the Sinai model, where the typical length associated to the dynamics is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$  so that the scaling variable for distance of diffusion during the time $`t`$ reads in this regime

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }X)_{Sinai}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{x}}{\gamma ^2}}`$ (178)
We will first consider a global quantity of the whole system : each sample is characterized by an equilibration time $`t_{eq}`$ corresponding to the largest barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eq}`$ in the system via

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eq}=T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$ (179)
We will compute the distribution over samples of this equilibration time and then characterize the samples which have an anomalously large equilibration time and which thus dominate the long time dynamics. We will then study local quantities, such as the probability density of minima of the renormalized landscape, and the diffusion front, i.e. the generalization of the Kesten distribution of the Sinai model  to the case of the toy model.

As discussed in the Introduction, the equilibrium state for the RFIM in a field gradient for large $`J`$ is obtained by stopping the RSRG at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eq0}=T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq0}=2J`$ at which equilibrium is attained and putting a $`B`$ domain wall in each minimum and a $`A`$ domain in each maximum of the renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2J`$. The equilibrium state thus consists in a $`B`$ domain plus $`n`$ additional pairs of domains $`AB`$, the probability of $`n`$ with respect to sample being thus $`N_{\mathrm{\Gamma }=2J}^{(2+2n)}`$. The distribution of the total number of domains at equilibrium is thus a scaling function of $`\gamma _{eq0}=a2J`$. Below we obtain the behavior at large $`\gamma _{eq0}`$ of these probabilities for $`n=0,1`$ as well as an estimate of the total number of domains at small $`\gamma _{eq0}`$. Similarly, inserting instead $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$, one also finds these probabilities for the out of equilibrium system at time $`t`$ starting from a random (i.e. high temperature) configuration at time zero. The total magnetization reads

$`M=2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_A}{}}}a_\alpha 2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N_B}{}}}b_\alpha `$ (180)
its probability measure at time $`t`$ can thus be formally expressed using the full measure for the renormalized landscape at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$, and the equilibrium expression obtained using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2J`$. In the limit of large $`\gamma _{eq0}`$, its probability distribution coincides exactly with the one of the absolute minimum of the toy model given by formula (132) setting $`M=2x`$.

For non random initial configurations prepared with a single domain $`B`$, the equilibration time of this domain is $`t_{eq}`$ computed below (provided $`T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq0}>T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$, otherwise additional pairs are created at time $`t_{eq0}`$ and take positions in the additional deep extrema). If the single domain is $`A`$, then it is expelled from the system when the extrema corresponding to the highest barrier is decimated, again the expulsion time is the same $`T\mathrm{ln}t_{exp}=T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$. Note, interestingly, that if two almost degenerate minima (within energy difference $`T`$) exist, the domain wall $`A`$ will be expelled with finite probabilities towards the two boundaries, and the system will be in a macroscopic mixture of two reversed states (either all spins (+) or all (-)) between times $`t_{exp}`$ and $`t_{eq0}`$ (if we assume that $`hLJ`$).

### A Distribution over samples of the equilibration time

We first study the distribution over samples of the equilibration time $`t_{eq}`$ at which equilibrium is reached. The probability $`𝒫(t_{eq}<t)`$ that the system has already reached equilibrium at time $`t`$ is directly given by the probability that there remains only one valley at renormalization scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$ in the decomposition (129) with (124)

$`𝒫(t_{eq}<t)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xg_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^2Ai^2(ib\lambda )}}e^{2_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑F\psi _\mathrm{\Gamma }(F,\lambda )}`$ (181)
where $`\psi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has been defined in (122).

It is convenient to rewrite it as a scaling function of $`\gamma `$ defined in (176)

$`𝒫(t_{eq}<t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(i\lambda )}}e^{2_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑f\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma (f,\lambda )}`$ (182)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma (f,\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{Ai(f+\gamma +i\lambda )}{\pi Ai(f+i\lambda )\left[Ai(f+i\lambda )Bi(f+\gamma +i\lambda )Bi(f+i\lambda )Ai(f+\gamma +i\lambda )\right]}}`$ (183)
Equivalently, this result describes the probability distribution $`P_{max}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ over samples of the largest barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$ existing in the system

$`P_{max}(\mathrm{\Gamma })={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝒫(t_{eq}<t)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(a\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ (184)
#### 1 Probability of large equilibration times

For large $`\gamma `$, the dominant behavior of the function $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma `$ (183) is found by using (F5)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(\gamma +f+i\lambda )}{Bi(\gamma +f+i\lambda )}}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{4}{3}(\gamma +f+i\lambda ))^{3/2}}`$ (185)
which leads to

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma (f,\lambda )`$ $`=\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{ae^{\frac{4}{3}(\gamma +f+i\lambda ))^{3/2}}}{2\pi Ai^2(f+i\lambda )\left[1e^{\frac{4}{3}(\gamma +f+i\lambda ))^{3/2}}\left(\frac{Bi(f+i\lambda )}{2Ai(f+i\lambda )}\right)\right]}}`$ (187)
$`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi Ai^2(f+i\lambda )}}e^{\frac{4}{3}\gamma ^{3/2}2\gamma ^{1/2}(f+i\lambda )+O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma ^{1/2}}\right)}`$
The change of variable $`f=\frac{w}{\sqrt{\gamma }}`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑f\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma (f,\lambda )`$ $`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dw}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi Ai^2(i\lambda +\frac{w}{\sqrt{\gamma }})}}e^{\frac{4}{3}\gamma ^{3/2}2i\lambda \gamma ^{1/2}2w}\left[1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{1/2}}}\right)\right]`$ (189)
$`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \sqrt{\gamma }Ai^2(i\lambda )}}e^{\frac{4}{3}\gamma ^{3/2}2i\lambda \gamma ^{1/2}}\left[1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{1/2}}}\right)\right]`$
The leading behavior of (182) is thus given by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma )`$ $`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai^2(i\lambda )}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \sqrt{\gamma }Ai^2(i\lambda )}}e^{\frac{4}{3}\gamma ^{3/2}2i\lambda \gamma ^{1/2}}\left[1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{1/2}}}\right)\right]\right]`$ (191)
$`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}1{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{4}{3}\gamma ^{3/2}}}{2\pi \sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\lambda \gamma ^{1/2}}}{Ai^4(i\lambda )}}\left[1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^{1/2}}}\right)\right]`$
Shifting the contour integration $`\lambda \lambda ic`$ and assuming $`c`$ large, we get using (F5)

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda 2\sqrt{\gamma }}}{Ai^4(i\lambda )}}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{2\sqrt{\gamma }(c+i\lambda )}}{Ai^4(i\lambda +c)}}\underset{c\mathrm{}}{}8\pi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda (c+i\lambda )e^{2\sqrt{\gamma }(c+i\lambda )+\frac{8}{3}(c+i\lambda )^{3/2}}`$ (192)
A saddle-point analysis leads to the choice $`c=\frac{\gamma }{4}`$ and to the asymptotic behavior

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda 2\sqrt{\gamma }}}{Ai^4(i\lambda )}}\underset{\gamma +\mathrm{}}{}\pi \sqrt{2\pi }\gamma ^{5/4}e^{\frac{1}{6}\gamma ^{3/2}}`$ (193)
The probability to have only one valley at time $`t`$ finally behaves for large $`\gamma `$ as (191)

$`𝒫(t_{eq}<t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma )`$ $`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}=1\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}\gamma ^{3/4}e^{\frac{3}{2}\gamma ^{3/2}}`$ (194)
Equivalently, this result describes the asymptotic tail of probability distribution $`P_{max}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ over samples of the largest barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t_{eq}`$ existing in the system (184)

$`P_{max}(\mathrm{\Gamma })={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(a\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}a\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{5/4}e^{\frac{3}{2}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/2}}`$ (195)
#### 2 Small equilibration times

For small $`\gamma `$, the leading behavior of (182) can be found with the change of variable $`f=\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}`$ using (F5)

$`{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑f\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma (f,\lambda )={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{2sds}{\gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}+i\lambda +\gamma )}{\pi Ai(\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}+i\lambda )\left[Ai(\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}+i\lambda )Bi(\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}+i\lambda +\gamma )Bi(\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}+i\lambda )Ai(\frac{s^2}{\gamma ^2}+i\lambda +\gamma )\right]}}`$ (196)
$`\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma ^3}}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ss^2{\displaystyle \frac{e^s}{\mathrm{sinh}s}}={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (3)}{\gamma ^3}}`$ (197)
where $`\zeta (n)`$ is the Riemann zeta function. This leads to the following essential singularity for the short equilibration times

$`𝒫(t_{eq}<t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\gamma )\underset{\gamma 0}{}e^{2\frac{\zeta (3)}{\gamma ^3}}`$ (198)
or equivalently for probability distribution $`P_{max}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of the largest barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ existing in the system (184)

$`P_{max}(\mathrm{\Gamma })={\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\mathrm{\Phi }\left(a\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{6\zeta (3)}{a\mathrm{\Gamma }^4}}e^{2\frac{\zeta (3)}{(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^3}}`$ (199)
### B Rare configurations with anomalously large equilibration times

We are now interested into the statistical properties of the configurations that present an anomalously large equilibration time, as described by the tail (194) since these configurations are important for the long time dynamics. In the regime $`\gamma 1`$ under consideration, the leading correction to the one valley event (194) that we have computed in the previous section corresponds to the two valleys configurations, because the configurations with three or more valleys are even more unlikely. These configurations correspond to the last non-equilibrium dynamics in the system before it finally equilibrates by going over the largest barrier $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{eq}`$. We can already deduce from the previous section the total probability of the two valleys configurations (194)

$`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/4}e^{\frac{3}{2}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/2}}`$ (200)
To characterize the statistical properties of these two valley events, we have the probability measure (129)

$`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,F_1,x_2,F_2,x_3)`$ $`=g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_1)\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F_1,x_2x_1)e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_2(F_1F_2)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F_2,0,x_3x_2)g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_3)`$ (201)
where $`x_1<x_2<x_3`$, $`x_1`$ and $`x_3`$ are the two local minima separated by the barriers $`F_1\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`F_2\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from the local maximum $`x_2`$. For large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the leading behavior of the blocks $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ (111) can be found using (92)

$`K(u,v,p)\underset{v>>u}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}Ai(au+bp)Bi(av+bp)`$ (202)
which yields

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,F,p)=\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F,0,p)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi Ai(bp)Bi(aF+bp)}}`$ (203)
At the same level on approximation, $`g_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by $`g_{\mathrm{}}`$ (131), so that we finally get at leading order

$`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,F_1,x_2,F_2,x_3)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_2(F_1F_2)}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _3}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _4}{2\pi }}`$ (205)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)x_1+i(\lambda _3\lambda _2)x_2i(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)x_3}}{Ai(bi\lambda _1)Ai(b\lambda _2)Bi(aF_1+b\lambda _2)Ai(b\lambda _3)Bi(aF_2+b\lambda _3)Ai(bi\lambda _4)}}`$
It is shown in Appendix (E) that after integration over the barriers and the position $`x_2`$ of the local maximum, the measure for the two minima $`(x_1,x_3)`$ has the simple structure

$`M_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,x_3)`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_3}}𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_1{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_2N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,F_1,x_2,F_2,x_3)`$ (207)
$`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2\pi (a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2}}}e^{\frac{4}{3}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/2}}g_{\mathrm{}}(x_1)g_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_1x_3+2b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})g_{\mathrm{}}(x_3)`$
with

$`g_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda x}}{a^2Ai^2(bi\lambda )}}=(g_{\mathrm{}}g_{\mathrm{}})(x)`$ (208)
The total normalization $`N^{(4)}`$ (200) is recovered by integration over $`(x_1,x_3)`$ with the use of (193).

Since all the functions $`g_{\mathrm{}}(y)`$ are centered around $`y=0`$, the two-minima measure $`M_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,x_3)`$ is concentrated around $`(x_1,x_3)=(x_\mathrm{\Gamma },x_\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ with

$`x_\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{a\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{2a^2}}`$ (209)
More precisely, a saddle-point analysis leads to the approximation by a product of two Gaussian distributions of broadness

$`\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2a^2(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/4}}}`$ (210)
as

$`M_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,x_3)`$ $`\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}=N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{1}{2\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}(x_1+x_\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}}{2\sqrt{2\pi \sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{1}{2\sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}(x_3x_\mathrm{\Gamma })^2}}{2\sqrt{2\pi \sigma _\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}}`$ (211)
concentrating all the normalization $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}`$ found above (200).

The two valleys configurations with an anomalously large barrier $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$ thus present minima which are anomalously far from the origin when compared to the typical scale of minima (89)

$`x_{\mathrm{min}}^{(4)}={\displaystyle \frac{b\sqrt{a\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{2}}b`$ (212)
which is necessary with the Brownian scaling to have a barrier of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between them.

### C  Probability density of minima in the renormalized landscape

The probability $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ that the point $`x`$ is the bottom of a renormalized valley at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be decomposed into

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(x)V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ (213)
where $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ represents the constraints on the landscape on the half line $`[x,+\mathrm{}[`$ : the potential starting from $`U(x)`$ has to reach $`U(x)+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at an arbitrary position $`y`$ without any return to $`U(x)`$, which reads in terms of the Fokker-Planck block (83,50) with the use of (100,111,91)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle _x^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yB_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,x;\mathrm{\Gamma },y)={\displaystyle _x^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{h(0,x)h(\mathrm{\Gamma },y)}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,\mathrm{\Gamma };yx)`$ (215)
$`=e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ae^{i\lambda x}}{\pi \left(Ai(ib\lambda )Bi(a\mathrm{\Gamma }+ib\lambda )Bi(ib\lambda )Ai(a\mathrm{\Gamma }+ib\lambda )\right)}}{\displaystyle _x^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{i\lambda y+\frac{\mu }{2}y\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\mu ^2}{12}y^3}`$
so that finally in terms of the scaling variables $`\gamma `$ (176) and $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ (177)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{x}}}{\left(Ai(i\lambda )Bi(\gamma +i\lambda )Bi(i\lambda )Ai(\gamma +i\lambda )\right)}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{y}+\gamma \stackrel{~}{y}\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{y}^3}`$ (216)
Similarly, for the left half line $`]\mathrm{},x]`$, we have by symmetry

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(x)=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ (217)
In the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, we have using (202,F5) and by evaluating the integral over $`y`$ by the saddle-point method

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ $`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{x}}}{Ai(i\lambda )Bi(\gamma +i\lambda )}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{y}+\gamma \stackrel{~}{y}\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{y}^3}`$ (219)
$`\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}ae^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{x}}}{Ai(i\lambda )}}=e^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$
leading to

$`V_{\mathrm{}}(x)=g_{\mathrm{}}(x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (220)
as it should to recover the probability distribution of the absolute minimum of the full landscape (132).

In the other limit $`\gamma 0`$, we have using (F2)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ $`\underset{\gamma 0}{}ae^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{x}}}{\left(\gamma +\frac{\gamma ^3}{3}i\lambda +\mathrm{}\right)}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{y}\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{y}^3}\left(1+\gamma \stackrel{~}{y}+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (222)
$`\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\gamma }}\left(1+\gamma \stackrel{~}{x}\right)+O(\gamma )`$
and thus, for the points $`x`$ that are in the region where $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ remains finite, the probability (213) is given by

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\gamma ^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}`$ (223)
i.e. it represents in this regime as it should the uniform density $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ of minima of the Sinai model .

Another quantity of interest is probability that $`x`$ is the nearest minimum $`x_{min}^R`$ from the boundary $`x_R=+\mathrm{}`$ in the renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`W_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(x)V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,+\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ (224)
where the constraint on the left half line is the same as before (213,217) and where the constraint on the right half-line reads (124)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})=\underset{x_R\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_RE_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,x;F_R,x_R)=e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x^3}g_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ (225)
or in terms of of the rescaled variables using (124,183)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})=ae^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda \stackrel{~}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ai(i\lambda )}}e^{_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑f\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\gamma (f,\lambda )}`$ (226)
Of course, in the regime $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the distribution (224) of $`x_{min}^R`$ is the same as the distribution of the absolute minimum (220). In the other limit $`\gamma 0`$, we expect that $`x_{min}^R`$ is much bigger than the scale $`b`$ (89) of the absolute minimum. In this regime, its position will not be governed by the constraint on right landscape $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$, which is easy to satisfy in this region, but by the constraint on the left landscape, which behaves in this regime as (222)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(x)=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ $`\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\gamma }}\left(1\gamma \stackrel{~}{x}\right)+O(\gamma )`$ (227)
We thus expect that $`\stackrel{~}{x}_{min}^R`$ scales as $`1/\gamma `$, i.e.

$`x_{min}^R\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{\gamma }}`$ (228)
As a consequence, the total number $`n`$ of minima is the renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be roughly estimated in this regime by dividing the effective region (228) by the typical distance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ (223) between two minima

$`n^{typ}(\gamma )\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma ^3}}`$ (229)
This estimation is coherent with the behavior found in (198). Of course, an exact calculation of the distribution of the number $`n`$ of minima of the renormalized landscape could in principle be done from (129)

$`Z_{free}=1={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n+2)}`$ (230)
where $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2n+2}`$ represents the total normalization of the renormalized landscapes containing exactly $`n`$ local minima. We have considered previously $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ (181) corresponding to a single minimum, and $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}`$ (200) corresponding to two minima, but unfortunately, the multiple integrals over the barriers $`F`$ and positions $`x`$ needed in (129) become rapidly intractable for arbitrary $`n`$ and arbitrary $`\gamma `$.

### D Diffusion front

As explained at the beginning of the Section VI, the long-time dynamics is determined by the properties of the renormalized landscape $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=T\mathrm{ln}t`$, and the results obtained will be valid in the double limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mu 0`$ in terms of the scaling variables $`\gamma `$ (176) and $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ (177). As in the Sinai model , the average over the disorder of the diffusion front $`\overline{P(x,t|x_0,0)}`$ is given by the probability that $`x`$ is the minimum of a renormalized valley at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that contains the initial position $`x_0`$.

Let us first consider the case $`x<x_0`$. The constraint for the left half-line $`]\mathrm{},x]`$ is simply given by $`V_L(x)=V_R(x)`$ (213,217). The constraint for the landscape on the right half line is now that $`x`$ should be the starting point of a renormalized bond of arbitrary barrier $`F\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and of length $`l`$ satisfying $`x+l>x_0`$. We thus have

$`\theta (x_0x)\overline{P(x,t|x_0,0)}=V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(x)\left(V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,+\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F{\displaystyle _{x_0x}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lV_R(x,F,l)\right)`$ (231)
where $`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R`$ represents the constraints on the landscape on the half line $`[x,+\mathrm{}[`$ : the point $`x`$ should either be the first minimum on the right of the renormalized landscape (225) or it should be the starting point of a finite ascending renormalized bond of barrier $`F`$ and length $`l`$, followed by an arbitrary descending bond, i.e. in terms of the Fokker-Planck block (83,100)

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,F,l)`$ $`=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,x;F,x+l){\displaystyle _{x+l}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yB_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(F,x+l;F\mathrm{\Gamma },y)`$ (233)
$`=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,x;F,x+l){\displaystyle _{x+l}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑yB_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(\mathrm{\Gamma },x+l;0,y)`$
Using the explicit expressions (50,111,91), we have

$`V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,F,l)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{\pi ^2}}e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x^3+\frac{\mu }{2}(F\mathrm{\Gamma })(x+l)}`$ (236)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _1l+_0^{F\mathrm{\Gamma }}𝑑va\left(\frac{Ai^{}(av+bi\lambda _1)Bi(a(v+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda _1)Bi^{}(av+bi\lambda _1)Ai(a(v+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda _1)}{Ai(av+bi\lambda _1)Bi(a(v+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda _1)Bi(av+bi\lambda _1)Ai(a(v+\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda _1)}\right)}}{\left(Ai(a(F\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda _1)Bi(aF+bi\lambda _1)Bi(a(F\mathrm{\Gamma })+bi\lambda _1)Ai(aF+bi\lambda _1)\right)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle _{x+l}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}y^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _2(yxl)}}{\left(Ai(bp)Bi(a\mathrm{\Gamma }+bi\lambda _2)Bi(bp)Ai(a\mathrm{\Gamma }+bi\lambda _2)\right)}}`$
so that in terms of the scaling variables $`\gamma `$ (176) and $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ (177), the integral needed in (231) reads

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F{\displaystyle _{x_0x}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lV_R(x,F,l)={\displaystyle _\gamma ^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{df}{a}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{x}}^+\mathrm{}}b𝑑\stackrel{~}{l}V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x=b\stackrel{~}{x},F={\displaystyle \frac{f}{a}},l=b\stackrel{~}{l})`$ (237)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi ^2}}e^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _\gamma ^+\mathrm{}}𝑑f{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{x}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{l}e^{(f\gamma )(\stackrel{~}{x}+\stackrel{~}{l})}`$ (238)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _1\stackrel{~}{l}+_0^{f\gamma }𝑑w\left(\frac{Ai^{}(w+i\lambda _1)Bi(w+\gamma +i\lambda _1)Bi^{}(w+i\lambda _1)Ai(w+\gamma +i\lambda _1)}{Ai(w+i\lambda _1)Bi(w+\gamma +i\lambda _1)Bi(w+i\lambda _1)Ai(w+\gamma +i\lambda _1)}\right)}}{\left(Ai(f\gamma +i\lambda _1)Bi(f+i\lambda _1)Bi(f\gamma +i\lambda _1)Ai(f+i\lambda _1)\right)}}`$ (239)
$`{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}+\stackrel{~}{l}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{y}e^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{y}^3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _2(\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{x}\stackrel{~}{l})}}{\left(Ai(i\lambda _2)Bi(\gamma +i\lambda _2)Bi(i\lambda _2)Ai(\gamma +i\lambda _2)\right)}}`$ (240)
In the limit $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, the term (225) dominates and the diffusion front converges as it should towards the distribution of the absolute minimum for $`x`$ and doesn’t depend anymore on the initial position $`x_0`$

$`\overline{P(x,t|x_0,0)}\underset{\gamma \mathrm{}}{}g_{\mathrm{}}(x)g_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (241)
In the other limit $`\gamma 0`$, the term (225) is negligeable, and the typical length associated to the dynamics is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ (223). The diffusion front is expected to become in this regime a function of the scaling variable (178)

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }X)_{Sinai}={\displaystyle \frac{x_0x}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{x}}{\gamma ^2}}`$ (242)
The contribution of finite barriers (240) indeed becomes with the appropriate changes of variables $`\stackrel{~}{l}=\gamma ^2l`$, $`\lambda _1=\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2}`$, $`f=\gamma (1+\eta )`$

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F{\displaystyle _{x_0x}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lV_R(x,F,l)\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\pi }}e^{\frac{1}{3}\stackrel{~}{x}^3}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _{\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{x}}{\gamma ^2}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑le^{\gamma \eta (\stackrel{~}{x}+\gamma ^2l)}`$ (243)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda l+_0^\eta \gamma 𝑑v\left(\frac{Ai^{}(\gamma v+i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Bi(\gamma v+\gamma +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Bi^{}(\gamma v+i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Ai(\gamma v+\gamma +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})}{Ai(\gamma v+i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Bi(\gamma v+\gamma +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Bi(\gamma v+i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Ai(\gamma v+\gamma +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})}\right)}}{(Ai(\gamma \eta +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Bi(\gamma (1+\eta )+i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Bi(\gamma \eta +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2})Ai(\gamma (1+\eta +i\frac{\lambda }{\gamma ^2}))}}e^{\frac{1}{3}(\stackrel{~}{x}+\gamma ^2l)^3}`$ (244)
$`\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{\gamma }}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle _{\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}_0\stackrel{~}{x}}{\gamma ^2}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lP^{}(\eta ,l)`$ (245)
where we have recognized the joint distribution of rescaled barrier $`\eta `$ and rescaled length $`l`$ of the Brownian landscape

$`P^{}(\eta ,l)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\left(i\lambda \right)^{1/2}}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(i\lambda \right)^{1/2}}}e^{i\lambda l\eta \left(i\lambda \right)^{1/2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\left(i\lambda \right)^{1/2}\right)}`$ (246)
The diffusion front has thus for Laplace transform in this regime

$`{\displaystyle _x^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_0e^{p(x_0x)}\overline{P(x,t|x_0,0)}\underset{\gamma 0}{}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑ye^{p\mathrm{\Gamma }^2y}{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑l{\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑\eta P^{}(\eta ,l){\displaystyle \frac{1e^{p\mathrm{\Gamma }^2l}}{p\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2p}}\left(1\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p}\right)`$ (247)
which is exactly the Laplace transform of the Kesten distribution for the Sinai model .

The diffusion front for $`x_0<x`$ can be obtained from the symmetry $`xx`$

$`\theta (xx_0)\overline{P(x,t|x_0,0)}`$ $`=\left(V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(x,+\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F{\displaystyle _{xx_0}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lV_L(x,F,l)\right)V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$ (249)
$`=\left(V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x,+\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F{\displaystyle _{xx_0}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑lV_R(x,F,l)\right)V_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(x)`$
## VII Results for stationary landscapes

In this section, we discuss the case of the stationary landscapes defined by (21) which belong to the class of solvable models with our method as discussed in Section (III A).

### A Explicit expressions for the blocks

We have seen in (53) how the functional integrals for the process $`dU/dx=dW[U]/dU+\eta (x)`$ could be recast into a functional integral of the Schrodinger-type up to boundary terms. The Fokker-Planck blocks read (53)

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,x_0,u_1,x_1)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(W[u_1]W[u_0])}\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,x_0,u_1,x_1)`$ (250)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,x_0,u_1,x_1)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(W[u_1]W[u_0])}\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_0,x_0,u_1,x_1)`$ (251)
in terms of the Schrodinger blocks $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ given in Laplace transform by

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u,p)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,u_0,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(u\mathrm{\Gamma },u,p)}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u_0}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑v_1\mathrm{ln}K(v,v+\mathrm{\Gamma },p))`$ (252)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_b,p)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_b,u,p)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _u^{u_b}}𝑑v_1\mathrm{ln}K(v,v+\mathrm{\Gamma },p))`$ (253)
The function $`K`$ (66) now corresponds to the problem with the Schrodinger potential $`V[U]=\frac{1}{2}W^{\prime \prime }[U]+\frac{1}{4}W^{}[U]^2`$.

For the special case $`p=0`$, two independent solutions of the Schrodinger equation are then known for an arbitrary potential $`W[U]`$

$`\varphi _1(u)=e^{\frac{1}{2}W(u)}`$ (254)
$`\varphi _2(u)=e^{\frac{1}{2}W(u)}{\displaystyle _0^u}e^{W(u^{})}𝑑u^{}`$ (255)
of wronskian $`w=1`$ and thus the function $`K`$ (66) simply reads :

$`K(u,v,p=0)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(W(u)+W(v))}{\displaystyle _u^v}e^{W(u^{})}𝑑u^{}`$ (256)
The Schrodinger blocks of the measure read (253)

$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u,p=0)=\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,u_0,p=0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{W(u_0)}{2}+\frac{W(u)}{2}}}{_{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}^ue^{W(u^{})}𝑑u^{}}}e^{_{u_0}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{dv}{_v^{v+\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{W(u^{})W(v)}𝑑u^{}}}`$ (257)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_b,u,p=0)=\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_b,p=0)=e^{\frac{W(u)}{2}\frac{W(u_b)}{2}_u^{u_b}\frac{dv}{_v^{v+\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{W(u^{})W(v)}𝑑u^{}}}`$ (258)
so that finally the blocks for the full measure (251) read in terms of the arbitrary potential $`W(u)`$

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u,p=0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{W(u_0)}}{_{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}^ue^{W(u^{})}𝑑u^{}}}e^{_{u_0}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{dv}{_v^{v+\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{W(u^{})W(v)}𝑑u^{}}}`$ (259)
$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u,u_0,p=0)={\displaystyle \frac{e^{W(u)}}{_{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}^ue^{W(u^{})}𝑑u^{}}}e^{_{u_0}^{u\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{dv}{_v^{v+\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{W(u^{})W(v)}𝑑u^{}}}`$ (260)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_b,p=0)=e^{W(u)W(u_b)_u^{u_b}\frac{dv}{_v^{v+\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{W(u^{})W(v)}𝑑u^{}}}`$ (261)
$`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_b,u,p=0)=e^{_u^{u_b}\frac{dv}{_v^{v+\mathrm{\Gamma }}e^{W(u^{})W(v)}𝑑u^{}}}`$ (262)
These expressions for the Laplace variable $`p=0`$ describe the properties of the extrema in the energy $`u`$ of the landscape after integration over the positions variables $`x`$.

### B Normalization of the full measure

The normalization for left and right reflecting boundaries, corresponding to $`u(x_L)=u_L`$ and $`u(x_R)=u_R`$ with $`u(x_L^{})=+\mathrm{}`$ and $`u(x_R^+)=+\mathrm{}`$, is given by (47)

$`Z(u_L,x_L;u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle _{u(x_L)=u_L}^{u(x_R)=u_R}}DU\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{x_L}^{x_R}}𝑑x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dx}}F[U])^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F^{}[U]))`$ (263)
and the decomposition into blocks at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ reads (37)

$`Z(u_L,x_L,u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}du_idx_i}`$ $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,x_L;u_1,x_1)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)\mathrm{}`$ (265)
$`\mathrm{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n2},x_{2n2};u_{2n1},x_{2n1})E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_{2n1},x_{2n1};u_R,x_R)`$
$`=e^{\frac{1}{2}(W[U(x_R)]W[U(x_L)])}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}du_idx_i}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,u_1,x_1x_L)\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,u_2,x_2x_1)\mathrm{}`$ (267)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n2},u_{2n1},x_{2n1}x_{2n2})\stackrel{~}{E}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_{2n1},u_R,x_Rx_{2n1})`$
### C Example : Brownian landscape with drift

We rewrite the general expressions for the particular case $`W(u)=fu`$ corresponding to the Schrodinger potential

$`V(u)=f^2/4=\delta ^2`$ (268)
where we have introduced the notation $`\delta =f/2`$ to compare more straightforwardly with the papers . The functions $`\varphi _1(u,p)`$ and $`\varphi _2(u,p)`$ introduced in (66) and their wronskian $`w(p)`$ read

$`\varphi _1(u)=e^{u\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}`$ (269)
$`\varphi _2(u)=e^{u\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}`$ (270)
$`w(p)=2\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}`$ (271)
Thus the function $`K`$ introduced in (66) reads

$`K(u,v,p)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}}\mathrm{sinh}((vu)\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})`$ (272)
This leads to the expressions

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,u_2,p)`$ $`=e^{\delta (u_2u_1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})}}\mathrm{exp}((u_2u_1\mathrm{\Gamma })\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}))`$ (274)
$`=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})}}\mathrm{exp}((u_2u_1\mathrm{\Gamma })(\delta +\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})))`$
$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_1,u_2,p)`$ $`=e^{\delta (u_2u_1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})}}\mathrm{exp}((u_1u_2\mathrm{\Gamma })\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}))`$ (276)
$`=e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta }{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})}}\mathrm{exp}((u_1u_2\mathrm{\Gamma })(\delta +\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})))`$
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,u)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}((u_Lu)(\delta +\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})))`$ (277)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_R)`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}((u_Ru)(\delta +\sqrt{p+\delta ^2}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p+\delta ^2})))`$ (278)
in agreement with . We thus recover simply and from a more general perspective the RSRG fixed-point for the pure Brownian landscape .

### D Some further examples

One can study cases where the potential $`W(u)`$ (21) is a simple power law $`W(u)=ru^\gamma `$. This corresponds to the Schrodinger potential (54)

$`V(U)={\displaystyle \frac{r\gamma (\gamma 1)}{2}}u^{\gamma 2}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2\gamma ^2}{4}}u^{2(\gamma 1)}`$ (279)
which a priori contains two power-laws. Apart from the case $`\gamma =1`$ corresponding to the biased Brownian motion discussed above (268), there are two other simple cases $`\gamma =2`$ and $`\gamma =0`$, which we now briefly comment on.

#### 1 Landscape produced by a Brownian particle in a parabolic well

The parabolic potential $`W(u)=ru^2`$ corresponds to the quadratic Schrodinger potential

$`V(u)=r+r^2u^2`$ (280)
The functions $`\varphi _1(u,p)`$ and $`\varphi _2(u,p)`$ introduced in (66) and their wronskian $`w(p)`$ read

$`\varphi _1(u,p)=e^{\frac{r}{2}u^2}\sqrt{r}uU({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4r}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},ru^2)`$ (281)
$`\varphi _2(u,p)=e^{\frac{r}{2}u^2}uM({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p}{4r}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},ru^2)`$ (282)
$`w(p)={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{p}{4r}\right)}}`$ (283)
where $`U(a,b,z)`$ and $`M(a,b,z)`$ are the confluent hypergeometric functions. In particular for $`p=0`$, we have $`U(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},z)=1/\sqrt{z}`$ and (255) yields

$`\varphi _1(u,p=0)=e^{\frac{r}{2}u^2}=e^{\frac{1}{2}W(u)}`$ (284)
$`\varphi _2(u,p=0)=e^{\frac{r}{2}u^2}{\displaystyle _0^u}𝑑u^{}e^{ru^2}`$ (285)
$`w(p=0)=1`$ (286)
$`K(u,v,p=0)=e^{\frac{r}{2}(u^2+v^2)}{\displaystyle _u^v}𝑑u^{}e^{ru^2}`$ (287)
The above expressions allow to obtain the full joint distribution of wide excursions (extrema) of the trajectory $`U(x)`$ of a Brownian particle in a quadratic well, but we will not explore these results further here since this goes beyond the scope of this paper.

#### 2 Landscape produced by a Brownian particle in a logarithmic well

We now consider the logarithmic potential $`W(u)=r\mathrm{ln}u`$ for $`u]0,+\mathrm{}[`$ corresponding to the Schrodinger potential

$`V(u)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^2}}`$ (288)
The functions $`\varphi _1(u,p)`$ and $`\varphi _2(u,p)`$ introduced in (66) and their wronskian $`w(p)`$ read

$`\varphi _1(u,p)=\sqrt{u}K_{\frac{1r}{2}}(\sqrt{p}u)`$ (289)
$`\varphi _2(u,p)=\sqrt{u}I_{\frac{1r}{2}}(\sqrt{p}u)`$ (290)
$`w(p)=1`$ (291)
where $`K_\nu (z)`$ and $`I_\nu (z)`$ are the Bessel functions. For the special case $`p=0`$, (255) yields for the function $`K`$

$`K(u,v,p=0)=e^{\frac{1}{2}(W(u)+W(v))}{\displaystyle _u^v}e^{W(u^{})}𝑑u^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1r}}\left[u^{r/2}v^{1r/2}u^{1r/2}v^{r/2}\right]`$ (292)
### E An example with a long-ranged constraint : Positive Brownian landscape

As an example of long-ranged constraint, we consider the process $`U(x)=|V(x)|`$ where $`V(x)`$ is a pure Brownian, i.e. $`U(x)`$ is constrained to remain positive by a reflecting wall at $`U=0`$. For fixed boundary conditions $`(u_L,x_L)`$ and $`(u_R,x_R)`$, the total normalization reads

$`Z(u_L,x_L;u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi (x_Rx_L)}}}\left(e^{\frac{(u_Ru_L)^2}{4(x_Rx_L)}}+e^{\frac{(u_R+u_L)^2}{4(x_Rx_L)}}\right)`$ (293)
In Laplace transform with respect to the length $`(x_Rx_L)`$, this leads to

$`Z(u_L,u_R;p)={\displaystyle _{x_L}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑x_Re^{p(x_Rx_L)}Z(u_L,x_L;u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{p}}}\left(e^{\sqrt{p}|u_Ru_L|}+e^{\sqrt{p}(u_Ru_L)}\right)`$ (294)
We again consider the convention $`U(x_R^{})=U(x_L^+)=+\mathrm{}`$ to define the renormalization procedure. The decomposition of the renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can then be written as

$`Z(u_L,u_R;p)={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{u_i>0}}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,u_1;p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,u_2;p)\mathrm{}E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_{2n1},u_R;p)`$ (295)
$`+E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,0;p)G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0;p)E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_R;p)`$ (296)
$`+E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,0;p)G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0;p)\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _{u_i>0}}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_1;p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_1,u_2;p)\mathrm{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_{2n1},0;p)\right)G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0;p)E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(0,u_R;p)+\mathrm{}`$ (297)
where the blocks ($`B`$,$`E`$) represents the ‘bulk’ blocks and are thus identical to the blocks for the pure Brownian motion (278) for $`\delta =0`$

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,u_2;p)`$ $`=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_2,u_1;p)=\theta ((u_2u_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{p}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p})}}e^{((u_2u_1)\mathrm{\Gamma })\sqrt{p}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p})}`$ (298)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_b;p)`$ $`=E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_b,u;p)=\theta (u_bu)e^{(u_bu)\sqrt{p}\mathrm{coth}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p})}`$ (299)
and where the notation $`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(u_1,u_2,p)`$ represents the measure of the Brownian paths that remain in $`[0,\mathrm{\Gamma }]`$ between $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$. Since $`U(x)=|V(x)|`$, this is equivalent to asking that the unconstrained Brownian $`V(x^{})`$ remains in the interval $`]\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma }[`$, and goes from $`u_1`$ to $`(+u_2)`$ or to $`(u_2)`$. With the notations of (C1,C14), its Laplace transform reads

$`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(u_1,u_2,p)`$ $`=F_{[u_a=\mathrm{\Gamma },u_b=\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u_1,u_2,p)+F_{[u_a=\mathrm{\Gamma },u_b=\mathrm{\Gamma }]}(u_1,u_2,p)`$ (301)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{K(\mathrm{\Gamma },min(u_1,u_2))K(max(u_1,u_2),\mathrm{\Gamma })}{K(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })}}+{\displaystyle \frac{K(\mathrm{\Gamma },u_2)K(u_1,\mathrm{\Gamma })}{K(\mathrm{\Gamma },\mathrm{\Gamma })}}`$
with the function $`K`$ given by $`K(u,v,p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\mathrm{sinh}((vu)\sqrt{p})`$ (272). Here we only need the case $`u_1=0=u_2`$

$`G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0,p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p})}{\sqrt{p}}}`$ (302)
This expression may also be found by solving the RSRG equation

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0;p)=G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0;p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,\mathrm{\Gamma },p)B_\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Gamma },0,p)G_\mathrm{\Gamma }(0,0;p)=G_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(0,0;p){\displaystyle \frac{p}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\sqrt{p}}}`$ (303)
In the limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$, the decomposition (297) becomes

$`Z(u_L,u_R;p)`$ $`={\displaystyle _0^{min(u_L,u_R)}}𝑑uE_{\mathrm{}}^+(u_L,u;p)E_{\mathrm{}}^{}(u,u_R;p)+E_{\mathrm{}}^+(u_L,0;p)G_{\mathrm{}}(0,0;p)E_{\mathrm{}}^{}(0,u_R;p)`$ (305)
$`={\displaystyle _0^{min(u_L,u_R)}}𝑑ue^{(u_Lu)\sqrt{p}}e^{(u_Ru)\sqrt{p}}+e^{u_L\sqrt{p}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}}e^{u_R\sqrt{p}}`$
which coincides with (294) as it should.

## A Explicit construction of the measure for renormalized landscape

This Appendix is dedicated to the precise definitions and properties of the joint probabilities of extrema introduced in Section II.

### 1 Initial landscape

The joint probabilities defined in Section II A are precisely defined as follows in terms of the initial landscape measure (24)

$`N_{\text{init}}^{(2n)}(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)={\displaystyle DU𝒫[U]\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}\delta (U_{x_j}u_j)}`$ (A1)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{x_11}{}}}\theta (U_iU_{i+1}){\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}\theta (U_{i+1}U_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=x_2}{\overset{x_31}{}}}\theta (U_iU_{i+1})..{\displaystyle \underset{i=x_{2n1}}{\overset{N1}{}}}\theta (U_{i+1}U_i)`$ (A2)
The normalization (27) can be checked by inserting the identity

$`1={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\theta (U_{i+1}U_i)+\theta (U_iU_{i+1}))`$ (A3)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{1x_1<x_2<x_3<..<x_{2n2}<x_{2n1}N}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{x_11}{}}}\theta (U_iU_{i+1}){\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}\theta (U_{i+1}U_i){\displaystyle \underset{i=x_2}{\overset{x_31}{}}}\theta (U_iU_{i+1})..{\displaystyle \underset{i=x_{2n1}}{\overset{N1}{}}}\theta (U_{i+1}U_i)`$ (A4)
(with $`K=(N+1)/2`$, $`N`$ is odd) into the initial measure (25).

### 2 Renormalized landscape

To define explicitly the measure of renormalized landscapes defined in Section II B, it is convenient to introduce the following notation for an ascending bond with $`x_1<x_2`$

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=i+1}{\overset{x_2}{}}}\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }U_i+U_j)\theta (U_jU_{x_1})\theta (U_{x_2}U_i)`$ (A5)
when $`U_{x_2}U_{x_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. It expresses that $`U_{x_1}`$ is the minimum potential over the segment $`[x_1,x_2]`$, $`U_{x_2}`$ is the maximum and all descending barriers in the segment with $`i<j`$ satisfy $`U_iU_j<\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Similarly, for a descending bond one defines

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=i+1}{\overset{x_2}{}}}\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }U_j+U_i)\theta (U_{x_1}U_j)\theta (U_iU_{x_2})`$ (A6)
when $`U_{x_1}U_{x_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`0`$ otherwise. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$ we recover the extrema of the initial landscape

$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }=0}^{}(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}\theta (U_{i+1}U_i)`$ (A7)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mathrm{\Gamma }=0}^+(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}\theta (U_iU_{i+1})`$ (A8)
As a technicality, to treat the edges we must also introduce

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=i+1}{\overset{x_2}{}}}\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }U_j+U_i)\theta (U_iU_{x_2})`$ (A9)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=x_1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=i+1}{\overset{x_2}{}}}\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }U_i+U_j)\theta (U_jU_{x_1})`$ (A10)
with no other constraints, since outside the edge sites the potential is at $`+\mathrm{}`$. We may now express the probabilities of renormalized landscape in terms of the initial landscape as

$`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x_L,u_L;u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n1},x_{2n1};x_R,u_R)={\displaystyle DU𝒫[U]\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n1}{}}\delta (U_{x_j}u_j)}`$ (A11)
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(1,x_1;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,x_2;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_2,x_3;U)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_{2n2},x_{2n1};U)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_{2n1},N;U)`$ (A12)
The normalization (29) can be checked by using the following identity for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`1={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{1x_1<x_2..<x_{2n1}N}{}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(1,x_1;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,x_2;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_2,x_3;U)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_{2n2},x_{2n1};U)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_{2n1},N;U)`$ (A13)
When $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is varied, the following important property of renormalization

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,x_2;U)={\displaystyle \underset{y_1=x_1+1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{y_2=y_1+1}{\overset{x_21}{}}}\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,y_1;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(y_1,y_2;U)\delta (U_{y_1}U_{y_2}\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(y_2,x_2;U)`$ (A14)
leads to the renormalization of the full measure (34).

### 3 Block product measures

For the case of block product measure (37), the explicit expressions for the bond measures and for the right edge read

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (u_2,x_2;u_3,x_3)={\displaystyle \underset{k=x_2}{\overset{x_3}{}}dU_k\delta (U_{x_2}u_2)\delta (U_{x_3}u_3)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm (x_2,x_3;U)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{i=x_2}{\overset{x_31}{}}S_i[U_{i+1},U_i])}`$ (A15)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_R;u_1,x_1)={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{x_1}{}}dU_k\delta (U_{x_1}u_1)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(1,x_1;U)\mathrm{exp}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{x_11}{}}S_i[U_{i+1},U_i])\mathrm{\Phi }_0(U_1)}`$ (A16)
with a symmetric expression for the left edge.

## B Renormalization procedure for periodic landscape

In the Section II, we have described the renormalization procedure for an interval $`(x_L,x_R)`$ with fixed boundary conditions. In this Appendix, we briefly describe the changes that are necessary for the case of a periodic landscape $`U_1,\mathrm{}U_N`$ with $`U_{N+1}=U_1`$. The number of extrema is necessarily even in the initial landscape as well as in the renormalized landscape. The renormalized landscape at scale $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can thus contain $`2n`$ extrema at positions $`1x_1<x_2<..<x_{2n}N`$ and $`x_1`$ can be either a minimum or a maximum. As $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ increases there are also samples such that all barriers in the systems are smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, corresponding to $`n=0`$.

The normalization identity analogous to (A13) which allows to treat the periodic case reads

$`1=G_0(\mathrm{\Gamma },U)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{1x_1<x_2<..<x_{2n}N}{}}(\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_1,x_2;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_2,x_3;U)..\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_{2n1},x_{2n};U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_{2n},x_1;U)+`$ (B1)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_1,x_2;U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_2,x_3;U)..\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(x_{2n1},x_{2n};U)\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(x_{2n},x_1;U))`$ (B2)
where

$`G_0(\mathrm{\Gamma },U)={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }U_j+U_i)\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }U_i+U_j)`$ (B3)
is non zero if all barriers in the systems are smaller than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Integrating over the measure $`DU𝒫(U)`$, normalized by $`Z`$, each term yields:

$`Z=N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}{\displaystyle _{u_1,..u_{2n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{1x_1<x_2<..<x_{2n}N}{}}(N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n,)}(u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n},x_{2n})+N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n,+)}(u_1,x_1;\mathrm{}u_{2n},x_{2n}))`$ (B4)
where the symbols $`\pm `$ denote whether the bond $`[x_{2n},x_1]`$ is $`\pm `$. RSRG recursion relations analogous to (34) may then be written, the only new RSRG equation being the growing of $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ upon the decimation of the samples with only two extrema left.

Block product measure, involving only $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm `$ can be also written in an obvious way as in (37), and the above normalization identity can be written:

$`Z=N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}Tr(B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})^n+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{K}{}}}Tr(B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+)^n`$ (B5)
each term, all integrations excluded, giving the desired $`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2n,\pm )}`$.

Note that although the starting landscape here can be the same as the one considered in Section II by imposing $`U_1=U_N`$ in (25), the definition of the renormalized landscape here is different from the one in Section II for fixed boundary conditions. Here one allows consideration of a bond $`[x_{2n},x_1]`$, which can be decimated, whereas in the case with infinite left and right boundaries, the decimation of the leftmost and rightmost bonds is not possible. In the periodic case, all the bonds can be decimated, resulting eventually in the $`G_0(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ factor.

## C Derivation of the explicit solutions for a Schrodinger measure

This Appendix contains the technical details of Section (III).

### 1 Solution by a path-integral method

#### a Basic Path-integral

We first consider the following path integral

$`F_{[u_a,u_b]}(u_0,x_0,u,x)={\displaystyle _{U_{x_0}=u_0}^{U_x=u}}DUexp({\displaystyle }dx({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{dU}{dx}})^2+V[U])`$ (C1)
where the sum is over paths which remain in the interval $`]u_a,u_b[`$ for $`x_0<x<x_1`$. Seen as a function of $`(u,x)`$, it satisfies the Schrodinger equation

$`_xF=_u^2FV(u)F`$ (C2)
with the initial condition at $`x=x_0`$

$`F(u,x_0)=\delta (uu_0)`$ (C3)
and the absorbing boundary conditions at $`u=u_a`$ and $`u=u_b`$

$`F(u_a,x)=0`$ (C4)
$`F(u_b,x)=0`$ (C5)
The Laplace transform with respect to $`(xx_0)`$

$`F(u,p)={\displaystyle _{x_0}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑xe^{p(xx_0)}F(u,x)`$ (C6)
satisfies the system

$`_u^2FV(u)F=pF\delta (uu_0)`$ (C7)
$`F(u_a,p)=0`$ (C8)
$`F(u_b,p)=0`$ (C9)
In terms of (66), we construct two solutions of the equation (67) which vanish respectively at $`u_a`$ and $`u_b`$ as:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u,p;u_a)=K(u_a,u,p)`$ (C10)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u,p;u_b)=K(u,u_b,p)`$ (C11)
Their wronskian (also independent of $`u`$) read:

$`W(p;u_a,u_b)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}(u_0,p;u_a)\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u_0,p;u_b)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u_0,p;u_a)\mathrm{\Phi }_+^{}(u_0,p;u_b)=K(u_a,u_b,p)`$ (C12)
The solution of the above equations (C9) now read:

$`\widehat{F}_{[u_a,u_b]}(u,p|u_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{W(p;u_a,u_b)}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u,p;u_a)\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u_0,p;u_b)={\displaystyle \frac{K(u_a,u,p)K(u_0,u_b,p)}{K(u_a,u_b,p)}}\text{if}u_auu_0`$ (C13)
$`\widehat{F}_{[u_a,u_b]}(u,p|u_0)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{W(p;u_a,u_b)}}\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u,p;u_b)\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u_0,p;u_a)={\displaystyle \frac{K(u_a,u_0,p)K(u,u_b,p)}{K(u_a,u_b,p)}}\text{if}u_0uu_b`$ (C14)
The probability that the path has remained in the interval $`]u_a,u_b[`$ at time $`x`$

$`S_{[u_a,u_b]}(x|u_0,x_0)={\displaystyle _{u_a}^{u_b}}𝑑uF_{[u_a,u_b]}(u,x|u_0,x_0)`$ (C15)
satisfies

$`_xS_{[u_a,u_b]}(x|u_0,x_0)=r_{[u_a,u_b]}^a(x|u_0,x_0)+r_{[u_a,u_b]}^b(x|u_0,x_0)`$ (C16)
where $`r^{(u_a)}`$ and $`r^{(u_b)}`$ represent the probability to be absorbed between ”time” $`x`$ and $`x+dx`$ at the boundary $`u=u_a`$ and $`u=u_b`$ respectively. They read:

$`r_{[u_a,u_b]}^a(x|u_0,x_0)=\left[_uF_{[u_a,u_b]}(u,x|u_0,x_0)\right]|_{u=u_a}`$ (C17)
$`r_{[u_a,u_b]}^b(x|u_0,x_0)=\left[_uF_{[u_a,u_b]}(u,x|u_0,x_0)\right]|_{u=u_b}`$ (C18)
In Laplace transform with respect to $`(xx_0)`$, they have the simple form

$`\widehat{r}_{[u_a,u_b]}^a(p;u_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u_0,p;u_b)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_+(u_a,p;u_b)}}`$ (C19)
$`\widehat{r}_{[u_a,u_b]}^b(p;u_0)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u_0,p;u_a)}{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(u_b,p;u_a)}}`$ (C20)
We are now in position to evaluate the constrained path-integral $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)`$ (63).

#### b Expression of $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)`$ for the case $`u_2=u_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

We first consider the function $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)`$ for an ascending bond with $`u_2=u_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Setting $`u_1=u_a`$, the distribution of $`x_2`$ is the distribution of the exit time at the boundary $`u_b=u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ starting from $`u_0=u_a+ϵ`$ without being absorbed by the boundary at $`u_a`$. We thus have to consider the exit probability $`r_{[u_a,u_b]}^b(x|u_0,x_0)`$ computed in (C20), for the particular case $`u_0=u_a+ϵ`$, $`u_b=u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}r_{[u_a,u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }]}^b(x|u_a+ϵ,x_0)\right)=B_{[u_a,u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }]}^{}(xx_0)`$ (C21)
where the function $`B_{[u_a,u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }]}^{}(xx_0)`$ is defined by its Laplace transform

$`\widehat{B}_{[u_a,u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma }]}^{}(p)`$ $`=_{u_0}\widehat{r}_{[u_a,u_b]}^b(p;u_0)|_{u_0=u_a,u_b=u_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{K(u_a,u_a+\mathrm{\Gamma },p)}}`$ (C22)
#### c Expression of $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)`$ for the case $`u_2>u_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

We now consider the function $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_1,x_1;u_2,x_2)`$ for an ascending bond with $`u_2>u_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. To take into account the constraint of no returns of more than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we write the recursion equation

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,x_0;u+\mathrm{\Delta }u,x)={\displaystyle _{x_0}^x}𝑑x^{}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,x_0;u,x^{})r_{[u_a=u\mathrm{\Gamma },u_b=u+\mathrm{\Delta }u]}^b(x|u,x^{})`$ (C23)
i.e. we obtain in Laplace with respect to $`(xx_0)`$ the differential equation

$`_u\widehat{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,;u;p)=\widehat{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,;u;p)_{u_b}r_{[u_a,u_b]}^b(p,u)|_{u_a=u\mathrm{\Gamma },u_b=u}=\widehat{B}_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,;u;p)Z^{}(p,u\mathrm{\Gamma },u)`$ (C24)
with

$`Z^{}(p,u_1,u_2)={\displaystyle \frac{_{u_2}K(u_1,u_2,p)}{K(u_1,u_2,p)}}`$ (C25)
Thus using the initial condition at $`u_1=u_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (C22), we get

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u,p)`$ $`=B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u_0,u_0+\mathrm{\Gamma },p)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }}^u}𝑑u^{}Z^{}(p,u^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },u^{}))`$ (C26)
leading to (65) given in the text.

#### d Edge bonds

We now consider the function $`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,x;u_R,x_R)`$ for the ascending edge bond near the boundary condition $`U(x=x_R^+)=+\mathrm{}`$. Given $`u_R`$, the only constraint is that $`uu_R`$ is the deepest minimum with no descending return of more than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in between. If $`u=u_R`$, we simply have $`x=x_R`$, whereas for $`u<u_R`$ we may again write an equation similar to (C23) and we finally obtain in Laplace variable with respect to $`(x_Rx)`$ the result (69) given in the text.

### 2 Solution from the RSRG equations : Factorized Ansatz and Liouville equation

The factorized Ansatz (74) for $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ leads to the following RG equation

$`_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{ln}B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)={\displaystyle _u^{u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}(B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u^{};u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma };p))^2`$ (C27)
i.e. from the knowledge of $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u+\mathrm{\Gamma };p)`$ for all $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },u)`$ one can reconstruct $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)`$ for all $`(\mathrm{\Gamma },u,u^{\prime \prime })`$. This RG equation can be integrated if we introduce an auxiliary function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)`$ defined by (75) since it yields

$`{\displaystyle _u^{u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}}𝑑u^{}_1_2\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{},u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma })={\displaystyle _{u+\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{u^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑v_1_2\mathrm{\Phi }(v\mathrm{\Gamma },v)`$ (C28)
$`=_\mathrm{\Gamma }({\displaystyle _{u+\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{u^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑u^{}_2\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },u^{}))_\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Phi }(u,u+\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ (C29)
and thus, integrating (C27) over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ one gets

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(p;u;u^{\prime \prime })`$ $`=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Phi }(u,u+\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u+\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{u^{\prime \prime }}}𝑑u^{}_2\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },u^{}))`$ (C31)
$`=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma },u^{\prime \prime }))\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }}^u}𝑑u^{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{},u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$
which is indeed of the form (74) with

$`A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u)=\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle ^u}𝑑u^{}_1\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{},u^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }))`$ (C32)
$`A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^R(u^{\prime \prime })=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Phi }(u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma },u^{\prime \prime })){\displaystyle \frac{1}{A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma })}}`$ (C33)
The consistency of (75) now requires the famous Liouville equation (76) for the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,u_2)`$.

As is well known its most general local solution is of the form (Liouville 1850)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(u_1,u_2)=\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{f_L(u_1)f_R(u_2)}{(f_L^{}(u_1)f_R^{}(u_2))^{1/2}}})`$ (C34)
where $`f_L(u)`$ and $`f_R(u)`$ are two arbitrary analytic functions. The alternative form (77) can be obtained by noting that the Liouville equation (76) implies

$`_1(e^\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2e^\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$ (C35)
$`_2(e^\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2e^\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$ (C36)
and thus there must exist two functions $`V_L(u)`$ and $`V_R(u)`$ such that $`e^\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies the two corresponding Schrodinger equations . The connexion between the two representations is made by noting that $`f_L(u)=\psi _L^{(1)}(u)/\psi _L^{(2)}(u)`$. $`f_R(u)=\psi _R^{(1)}(u)/\psi _R^{(2)}(u)`$ and

$`\psi _L^{(1)}(u)=(w_L)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{f_L(u)}{\sqrt{f_L^{}(u)}}}`$ (C37)
$`\psi _L^{(2)}(u)=(w_L)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{f_L^{}(u)}}}`$ (C38)
and similarly for $`\psi _R`$ and $`f_R`$. One also has $`V_L(u)=\frac{1}{2}(\frac{f_L^{\prime \prime \prime }(u)}{f_L^{}(u)}\frac{3}{2}(\frac{f_L^{\prime \prime }(u)}{f_L^{}(u)})^2)`$ and in general a second solution of the Schrodinger equation can be obtained from a first one $`\psi _L^{(2)}(u)`$ as $`\psi _L^{(1)}(u)=\psi _L^{(2)}(u)^u(\psi _L^{(2)}(u))^2`$. Finally one finds that one can rewrite (C31) as

$`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(p;u;u^{\prime \prime })`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(f_L^{}(u)f_R^{}(u^{\prime \prime }))^{1/2}}{f_L(u)f_R(u+\mathrm{\Gamma })}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{f_R(u+\mathrm{\Gamma })}^{f_R(u^{\prime \prime })}}{\displaystyle \frac{df_R}{f_L(u(f_R)\mathrm{\Gamma })f_R}})`$ (C40)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(f_L^{}(u)f_R^{}(u^{\prime \prime }))^{1/2}}{f_L(u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma })f_R(u^{\prime \prime })}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle _{f_L(u)}^{f_L(u^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma })}}{\displaystyle \frac{df_L}{f_Lf_R(v(B_L)+\mathrm{\Gamma })}})`$
where $`u(B_R)`$ is the inverse function of $`f_R(u)`$, i.e. $`f_R(u(y))=y`$ and $`v(f_L)`$ the inverse function of $`f_L(u)`$.

Finally, assuming that $`B_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u;u^{\prime \prime };p)=A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}(u)A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}(u^{\prime \prime })`$ together with delta function initial conditions, yields for the edge blocks

$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^+(u_L,u,p)={\displaystyle \frac{A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u)}{A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u_L)}}`$ (C41)
$`E_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(u,u_R,p)={\displaystyle \frac{A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u)}{A_\mathrm{\Gamma }^L(u_R)}}`$ (C42)
## D Configurations presenting two nearly degenerate minima

### 1 Distribution of the absolute minimum for the toy model on an arbitrary interval

The absolute minimum of the toy model on a arbitrary interval $`[x_L,x_R]`$ with fixed boundary conditions $`(u_L,u_R)`$ is given by the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$ limit of the renormalized landscape containing only one valley left (109)

$`Z(u_L,x_L,u_R,x_R)={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{min(u_L,u_R)}}𝑑u{\displaystyle _{x_L}^{x_R}}𝑑xN_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,u_Lu,x,u_Ru,x_R)`$ (D1)
where

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,u_Lu,x,u_Ru,x_R)=`$ (D2)
$`e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_L^3\frac{\mu }{2}x_L(u_Lu)}\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}^+(u_Lu,0,xx_L)e^{+\frac{\mu }{2}x_R(u_Ru)\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_R^3}\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}^{}(0,u_Ru,x_Rx)`$ (D3)
describes the statistical properties of the position $`x`$ and the energy $`u`$ of the absolute minimum of the interval given the boundary conditions $`(u_L,x_L)`$ and $`(u_R,x_R)`$. To obtain the edge blocks $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ (111) in the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$, we need the function $`K(u_1,u_2)`$ in the regime $`u_2=u_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}`$, with $`u_1`$ fixed. Using the asymptotic expressions of Airy functions (F5), we thus have

$`K(u_1,u_2)\underset{u_2\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{a}}Ai(au_1+bp)Bi(au_2+bp)`$ (D4)
and the edge blocks at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{}`$ are simply given by

$`\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}^+(F,0,p)=\stackrel{~}{E}_{\mathrm{}}^{}(0,F,p)={\displaystyle \frac{Ai(aF+bp)}{Ai(bp)}}`$ (D5)
The function $`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}`$ (D3) describing the distribution of the minimum thus reads

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,u_Lu,x,u_Ru,x_R)=e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}(x_L^3x_R^3)+\frac{\mu }{2}x_R(u_Ru)\frac{\mu }{2}x_L(u_Lu)}`$ (D6)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda _1(xx_L)}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(a(u_Lu)+bi\lambda _1)}{Ai(bi\lambda _1)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda _2(x_Rx)}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(a(u_Ru)+bi\lambda _2)}{Ai(bi\lambda _2)}}`$ (D7)
### 2 Probability to have two nearly degenerate minima

To study the measure of configurations with two degenerate minima, we need to consider (D7) for the special case where the absolute minimum $`u`$ coincides with the left boundary energy $`u_L`$

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,0,x,u_Ru_L,x_R)=e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}(x_L^3x_R^3)+\frac{\mu }{2}x_R(u_Ru_L)}\delta (xx_L){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda _2(x_Rx)}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai(a(u_Ru_L)+bi\lambda _2)}{Ai(bi\lambda _2)}}`$ (D8)
For the case $`u_R=u_L+ϵ`$ with $`ϵ0`$, this yields for $`x_L<x_R`$

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,0,x,ϵ,x_R)=`$ $`\delta (xx_L)e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}(x_L^3x_R^3)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{2}}x_Rϵ+O(ϵ^2)\right)`$ (D11)
$`\left(\delta (x_Rx)+aϵ{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda _2(x_Rx)}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}(bi\lambda _2)}{Ai(bi\lambda _2)}}+O(ϵ^2)\right)`$
$`=aϵ\delta (xx_L)e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}(x_L^3x_R^3)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}e^{i\lambda _2(x_Rx_L)}{\displaystyle \frac{Ai^{}(bi\lambda _2)}{Ai(bi\lambda _2)}}`$
For the case $`x_R\mathrm{}`$, after integration over the barrier $`(u_Ru_L)`$, the formula (D8) becomes using (D5,124,131)

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,0,x,+\mathrm{})\underset{x_R+\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{u_L}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑u_RN_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(x_L,0,x,u_Ru_L,x_R)=e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_L^3}\delta (xx_L)g_{\mathrm{}}(x_L)`$ (D12)
and similarly

$`N_{\mathrm{}}^{(2)}(+\mathrm{},x,0,x_R)=e^{\frac{\mu ^2}{12}x_R^3}\delta (xx_R)g_{\mathrm{}}(x_R)`$ (D13)
Putting together the three results (D11,D12, D13), we get the formula (158) for the configurations with two nearly degenerate minima.

## E Study of two valleys configurations in the toy model

This Appendix is dedicated to the study of the two valleys configurations described by (205). Since the barriers $`F_1`$ and $`F_3`$ are larger than $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfying $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$, we may use the asymptotic expression (F5) for the $`B_i`$ to get

$`N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,F_1,x_2,F_2,x_3)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{\mu }{2}x_2(F_1F_2)}}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _3}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _4}{2\pi }}`$ (E1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)x_1+i(\lambda _3\lambda _2)x_2i(\lambda _2+\lambda _3)x_3}}{Ai(bi\lambda _1)Ai(b\lambda _2)Ai(b\lambda _3)Ai(bi\lambda _4)}}(aF_1+bi\lambda _2^{})^{1/4}(aF_3+bi\lambda _3^{})^{1/4}e^{\frac{2}{3}(aF_1+bi\lambda _2^{})^{3/2}\frac{2}{3}(aF_3+bi\lambda _3^{})^{3/2}}`$ (E2)
At large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the scaling region for the barrier is thus

$`F=\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{a\sqrt{a\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}`$ (E3)
with $`\eta 0`$ of order 1. The barriers are thus concentrated in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Integration over the two barriers $`F_1,F_2`$ yields at leading order after the rescaling (E3)

$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_1{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_2N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,F_1,x_2,F_2,x_3)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}`$ (E4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{a^2(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2}}{\pi }}e^{\frac{4}{3}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\frac{(a^2x_2)^2}{a\mathrm{\Gamma }}}}g_{\mathrm{}}(x_1)g_{\mathrm{}}(x_1x_2+b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})g_{\mathrm{}}(x_2x_3+b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})g_{\mathrm{}}(x_3)`$ (E5)
in terms of (131).

We now integrate over the maximum $`x_2`$. The constraints of integration $`x_1<x_2<x_3`$ may be forgotten since the domains $`x_2<x_1`$ and $`x_2>x_3`$ are highly suppressed with the functions $`g_{\mathrm{}}(x_1x_2+b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})`$ and $`g_{\mathrm{}}(x_2x_3+b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})`$. The measure for the two minima thus read

$`M_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,x_3)`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_3}}𝑑x_2{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_1{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\mathrm{}}𝑑F_2N_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(4)}(x_1,F_1,x_2,F_2,x_3)\underset{\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{}}(x_1)g_{\mathrm{}}(x_3)}{a^2}}e^{\frac{4}{3}(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{3/2}}`$ (E7)
$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _1(x_1+b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})}}{Ai(bi\lambda _1)}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\lambda _2}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\lambda _2(x_3+b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2})}}{Ai(bi\lambda _2)}}e^{b(a\mathrm{\Gamma })^{1/2}|\lambda _1\lambda _2|}`$
which yields (158) for $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }1`$.

## F Useful properties of Airy functions

The Airy functions $`Ai`$ and $`Bi`$ are two independent solutions of the differential equation

$`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(z)=z\varphi (z)`$ (F1)
of Wronskian

$`AiBi^{}BiAi^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}`$ (F2)
An immediate consequence is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Bi(x)}{Ai(x)}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi Ai(x)^2}}`$ (F3)
The asymptotic expressions of the Airy functions at large argument read

$`Ai(z)\underset{Re(z)+\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}z^{\frac{1}{4}}e^{\frac{2}{3}z^{3/2}}`$ (F4)
$`Bi(z)\underset{Re(z)+\mathrm{}}{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }}}z^{1/4}e^{\frac{2}{3}z^{3/2}}`$ (F5)
Another useful property is

$`\underset{x\pm \mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{Bi(ix)}{Ai(ix)}}=\pm i`$ (F6)