text:
# Radio-Quiet Quasars in the Direction of the Northern Hubble Deep Field

## 1 Introduction

Nearly forty years after their discovery, it is still not clear what determines the degree of radio emission from quasars. Although quasars were first discovered at radio wavelengths (Schmidt, 1963), it has long been known that most quasars emit a very small fraction of their total power in the radio (Sandage, 1965). When radio observations had limited sensitivity, it made sense to talk about two populations: radio-loud and radio-quiet. However, Kellermann et al. (1989, 1994) detected about 90% of objects in the mostly low redshift Palomar-Green Bright Quasar Survey (BQS). This survey revealed that (a) the radio luminosity range of the BQS is almost disjoint with that of radio-selected quasars, (b) the ratio of radio to optical power is continuous and spans at least five orders of magnitude, and (c) while most quasars are radio-quiet, few if any are truly radio-silent.

In the absence of a physical understanding of the radio emission in most quasars, it is not clear how best to define radio-loudness. Many workers have used the ratio of radio-to-optical power, $`R`$, to characterize the degree of radio emission (Kellermann et al., 1989; Hooper et al., 1996; Bischof and Becker, 1997). This has an advantage as a distant-independent quantity, but its interpretation is only physically meaningful if radio and optical luminosity are correlated. Peacock et al. (1986) and Stocke et al. (1992) showed that this is unlikely to be the case. Another common definition of radio-loud is based on a radio luminosity boundary, $`L_\mathrm{r}>10^{25}h_{50}^1`$ W Hz-1 (Hooper et al., 1996; Bischof and Becker, 1997). Radio luminosity can be interpreted in terms of a physical model. The choice of log $`L_\mathrm{r}=25`$ for radio-loud is convenient since it corresponds to a typical $`1`$ mJy detection limit for a quasar with $`M_B=26`$ at $`z1`$. Radio-loudness is an arbitrary concept in the sense that no one has convincingly demonstrated that the distributions of either radio luminosity or radio-to-optical power are bimodal.

Demographic studies of the radio emission from quasars are affected by the fact that the upper bounds in a detection experiment are correlated with redshift. Different samples must therefore be combined to break the degeneracy between luminosity and redshift. The only way to study low luminosity quasars at high redshift is to combine a faint optical survey with extremely sensitive radio observations. We have chosen to do this in the direction of the northern Hubble Deep Field (HDF), a small region of sky which is at the locus of a wide range of extragalactic studies (Williams et al., 1996) . In §2 of this paper, we use a recently published deep radio survey to measure the radio luminosities of quasars found in a one square degree region centered on the HDF. In §3, we combine this sample with other quasar surveys to study the radio-loud fraction as a function of redshift and luminosity. We present conclusions in §4. Modelling of quasar evolution and speculation as to the nature of the radio emission mechanism is deferred to a future paper. We use $`H_0=50`$ kms-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0.5`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$) throughout for the calculation of luminosity.

## 2 Identifying Optically Faint Quasars with Weak Radio Sources

The northern Hubble Deep Field, along with its southern twin, has motivated a broad array of projects designed to measure the luminous content of the universe out to high redshift. We have been carrying out multi-color surveys of optically faint quasars in one square degree regions centered on each of the deep fields. The quasars will be used to thread these volumes with absorption sightlines, and to compare the location of the absorbers with the large scale structures measured by pencil beam redshift surveys of galaxies (Cohen et al., 1996; Steidel et al., 1996; Hogg et al., 1998). Our first paper reported 30 quasars in the magnitude range $`17.6<B<21.0`$ and the redshift range $`0.44<z<2.98`$ (Liu et al., 1999). An independent group is working on quasar selection in a smaller region centered on the HDF (Vanden Berk et al., 2000), and they find an additional 4 quasars with $`B21`$.

To complement the optical imaging with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), Richards et al. (1998) have carried out a deep radio survey of the HDF down to a 5$`\sigma `$ limit of 9 $`\mu `$Jy at 8.5 GHz. More recently, Richards (1999) presented a catalog of 372 radio sources (1.4 GHz) within 20 arcmin of the HDF, with a 3$`\sigma `$ sensitivity limit ranging from $`40\mu `$Jy at the center of the field to 230 $`\mu `$Jy at a radius of 20 arcmin. The strongest sources in the sky are radio galaxies and quasars in roughly equal numbers. At flux levels a million times lower, the radio source population is likely to be composed primarily of star-forming disk galaxies, with a relatively small component of quasars and other AGN (Richards et al., 1998). The advantage of such a sensitive radio survey for our purposes is the fact that quasars at redshifts of $`1<z<2`$ can be detected down to the traditional boundary between radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars.

Figure 1 shows the distribution of HDF radio sources from Richards (1999), plotted as open circles, along with the distribution of spectroscopically confirmed quasars, plotted as stars. There are 34 quasars within a one square degree area centered on the HDF, 30 of which come from Liu et al. (1999) and 4 of which are added from Vanden Berk et al. (2000). Since both studies used a UVX selection technique and found almost all their quasars in the magnitude interval $`19<B<21`$, it is appropriate to combine them.

In a detection experiment such as this, we must bear in mind the fact that the HDF is not a truly random patch of sky in terms of numbers of strong radio sources (Williams et al., 1996). To allow very deep radio observations, the field was chosen such that there was no source stronger than 1 mJy in the primary beam of the VLA at 8.5 GHz. The full sample of Richards et al. (1998) has 29 sources within 4.6 arcmin of the HDF center. However, our experiment is carried out over the substantially larger field of the 1.4 GHz observations (Richards, 1999). For the observed median spectral index of 0.63 (Richards, 1999), 1 mJy at 8.5 GHz corresponds to 3.1 mJy at 1.4 GHz. There are 9 sources stronger than 3.1 mJy over the 1.4 GHz field of view, or a surface density of 0.0072 sources per square arcminute. The expected number of sources in the smaller region of the 8.5 GHz data is therefore only 0.48. Thus the pre-ordained absence of a source in the central region is not a large perturbation on the statistics of our experiment. In addition, the central region is only 5.3% of the total area of our identification experiment.

A potentially more serious issue is incompleteness in the quasar surveys. The radio survey is uniform down to a particular flux limit, but multicolor quasar selection is not perfectly efficient, and not all candidates brighter than $`B=21`$ have had confirming spectroscopy. This means that the region could contain radio sources identified with unrecognized quasars, which would bias the identification process to lower radio-to-optical flux ratios. In practice, we believe this is not an important effect. The UVX technique is known to be efficient out to $`z2.5`$, which encompasses the quasars used in this study (Hewett and Foltz, 1994). The observed surface density of 34 deg-2 is in excellent agreement with the highest surface densities ever measured down to this magnitude level (Zitelli et al., 1992; Hall et al., 1996).

There are 12 quasars in the region sampled by the deep VLA observations, as outlined by the circle in Figure 1. These quasars can be identified by positional coincidence with the radio sources. The rms astrometric errors on the radio and optical positions are 0.03$`\mathrm{}`$ and 0.5$`\mathrm{}`$, respectively (Richards, 1999; Vanden Berk et al., 2000). With accurate positions and a low surface density of quasars and radio sources, there is a small probability of a chance coincidence within three times the rms positional error. However, Figure 1 shows that the HDF sources are centrally concentrated, due to attenuation by the primary beam pattern. A statistical test confirms that the radial distribution of radio sources departs from the expectation for a random distribution at more than the 99.9% confidence level. By contrast, the quasar distribution within one square degree is consistent with a random distribution. This means that the probability of a chance coincidence is higher towards the center of the HDF, and it indicates that we should carry out a more rigorous procedure before declaring a radio counterpart.

The results of the identification procedure are summarized in Table 1. For each of the 12 confirmed quasars within the circular region measured by the VLA, we select the nearest radio source as a potential counterpart. The first five columns of Table 1 give the name, J2000 position, $`B`$ magnitude and redshift of the 12 quasars. The simulation procedure takes into account the different surface densities of quasars and radio sources and the fact that the radio source distribution shows a radial gradient. We randomly reposition the 34 quasars within the one square degree and repeat this 1500 times. The radial distance to the field center, $`r`$, and the angular distance to the nearest neighbor radio source, $`\theta _{\mathrm{nn}}`$, are saved for each of these 51,000 random quasar placements. Then, for each of the 12 quasars, we form the distribution of $`\theta _{\mathrm{nn}}`$ for random quasars falling in an annulus 100 arcseconds wide centered on the radial distance of each quasar from the center of the HDF.

The nearest neighbor distributions for this random experiment are shown in Figure 2. Each panel in the figure is labelled with four items. The first is the quasar name. The second is the radial distance of that quasar from the center of the HDF. The histograms show how the mean nearest neighbor distance depends on $`r`$ — the surface density of radio sources is highest near the HDF, so the nearest neighbor distances will on average be smallest. The overall number of trials was chosen so that there were at least 1000 measurements in each histogram. The third item labelled is the actual offset of that quasar from the nearest radio source, $`\theta _{\mathrm{nn}}`$ (column 8 in Table 1), marked by a vertical dotted line in the figure. The fourth item is the fraction of trials in the random placement experiment where the quasar had an angular distance of $`\theta _{\mathrm{nn}}`$ or smaller from the nearest radio source. Equivalently, it is the probability, $`p`$, that the actual nearest neighbor is a chance counterpart. This number can easily be converted into a percentage confidence limit on the identification, ($`1p`$)/100.

Three out of 12 of the quasars have weak radio sources within 1.5 arcseconds, or within three times the sum of the radio and optical position errors added in quadrature. These quasars are therefore identified with greater than 99.5% confidence. It is clear that the identification procedure is robust, since none of the other nine quasars have radio sources within 15 arcseconds. The probability $`p`$ is strongly bimodal; three quasars have $`p<0.002`$ (taking into account the statistical accuracy due to the number of points generated for each Monte Carlo histogram), and the other nine have $`p>0.18`$. To ensure uniqueness, we inspected the 2nd and 3rd nearest neighbors for the three quasars with close companions. The nearest neighbor is by far the most likely true counterpart with $`p>0.23`$ in all cases, except for the 2nd nearest neighbor to J123800+6213 which has $`p=0.02`$. Radio fluxes for the three new identifications are listed in the last column of Table 1. The other nine quasars are assigned a 3$`\sigma `$ upper bound based on the quoted formal completeness limit of $`40\mu `$Jy with a scaling by the instrumental gain as presented in Figure 3 of Richards (1999).

Richards et al. (1998) found no quasar or AGN identifications with sources from their 8.5 GHz survey. We can use our results to put an approximate upper bound on the quasar component of the 1.4 GHz survey. Only 3 out of 372, or about 1%, faint radio sources are identified with quasars. We can scale this number up by a factor of 6 to account for 50% incompleteness due to color selection, and at most a factor of 3 increase in optical quasar counts down to $`B24`$ (Boyle et al., 1988). Thus, we predict no more than $`5\%`$ of ultrafaint radio sources can be quasars of any optical brightness. This conclusion is firm because the optical survey is deep enough to have seen all the way through the quasar luminosity function for all reasonable cosmologies, and our existing identifications and limits are near the lower bound of the distribution of radio-to-optical flux ratios.

## 3 Radio-Loud Fraction as a Function of Redshift and Luminosity

As stated in the introduction, we prefer to characterize quasars by their radio luminosity rather than their radio-to-optical luminosity ratio, since emissions in the two wavelength regimes appear to not be closely related. Early workers suspected that there were distinct radio-loud and radio-quiet categories of quasars (Kellermann et al., 1989; Miller et al., 1990; Stocke et al., 1992; Visnovsky et al., 1992). However, the onset of the radio-quiet population happens to correspond to the typical flux limit of a VLA snapshot, so the evidence for bimodality was never compelling. As sample sizes have increased, the evidence for two populations has weakened (Hooper et al., 1996; Goldschmidt et al., 1999; Bischof and Becker, 1997). Kellermann et al. (1989) established the procedure that has become standard for most papers in this field, defining a monochromatic radio luminosity in the rest frame and assuming that the radio emission is isotropic, with units of W Hz-1. Radio luminosity is a continuous variable in the quasar population, but $`L_\mathrm{r}>10^{25}h_{50}^1`$ W Hz-1 is a useful definition of radio-loudness, because it corresponds to the beginning of the tail of the distribution. It is also roughly equivalent to the definition of Goldschmidt et al. (1999), $`L_\mathrm{r}>10^{24}h_{50}^1`$ W Hz-1 sr-1.

In this section, we combine the HDF quasar sample with other samples to explore the dependence of the radio-loud fraction on redshift and luminosity. The calculation of all distance-dependent quantities assumes $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0.5`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$). Rest frame radio luminosities are calculated for an observed flux at 5 GHz. This matches the frequency of BQS data; radio k-corrections for other samples assume a radio spectral index $`\alpha =0.5`$ ($`S_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$). Rest frame absolute magnitudes for the BQS are adopted from Kellermann et al. (1989). The calculation of rest frame absolute magnitude for all other samples uses the k-corrections calculated by Hooper et al. (1995) using a composite LBQS spectrum. The typical uncertainty in these derived quantities for a particular quasar are $`0.6`$ mag for $`M_B`$ (Hooper et al., 1995) and $`0.15`$ for log $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ (Aller et al., 1992). The large uncertainty in optical luminosity is due to source variability and the large dispersion in rest frame UV to optical spectral indices. We note that these uncertainties are small compared with the overall range of radio ($`\times 10^5`$) and optical ($`\times 10^3`$) luminosity.

Figure 3 shows the coverage of the various samples in terms of linear look-back time and optical luminosity. Equivalent values of redshift are also plotted. The diamonds show the 114 quasars of the optically bright BQS (Kellermann et al., 1989, 1994). The open circles show the 367 quasars with radio measurements from the LBQS (Visnovsky et al., 1992; Hooper et al., 1995, 1996). We choose not to augment this with additional matches in large area surveys like FIRST (White et al., 1997) and NVSS (Condon et al., 1998), because those surveys have 2-6 times lower sensitivity limits. The stars show 87 quasars from the Edinburgh survey (Goldschmidt et al., 1999), which covers a similar region of the redshift-luminosity plane to the LBQS. The twelve new HDF quasars are shown as filled circles in Figure 3. The dotted lines show the plane divided up into equal sized regions of look-back time and absolute magnitude. The highest redshift slice encompasses the epoch of maximum quasar space density. The lower redshift slices span the time over which the space density has declined by two orders of magnitude to the present epoch. The radio-loud fractions in these intervals of look-back time and optical luminosity are investigated in the subsequent analysis.

The intercomparison of samples with bright and faint optical limits allows us to break the degeneracy between redshift and luminosity which exists for any single, flux-limited sample. With a bright magnitude limit and wide area sky coverage, the BQS includes some of the most optically luminous quasars known. However, evidence that the BQS is incomplete (Goldschmidt et al., 1992; Grazian et al., 2000), along with the possibility that the incompleteness depends on radio properties (Peacock et al., 1986; Miller et al., 1993; Hooper et al., 1996), leads us to be cautious in drawing conclusions that depend only on the BQS. The LBQS is a homogeneous survey with a well understood selection function (Hewett et al., 1995). Compared to the BQS, the LBQS reaches lower optical luminosities at a given redshift and higher redshifts at a given optical luminosity. Even though the HDF sample is small, Figure 3 shows that it covers an important range of parameter space at low optical luminosity and moderate redshift.

Figure 4 shows absolute magnitude plotted against radio luminosity for the three samples that cover approximately the same redshift range: the HDF, LBQS and Edinburgh samples. Symbols are the same as in Figure 3. Upper limits are plotted as arrows for the HDF quasars; a box outlines the region containing the upper limits for LBQS and Edinburgh quasars. Two conclusions can be drawn from this plot. First, the HDF quasars are extremely weak radio emitters. All twelve are below the traditional threshold for a radio-loud quasar, $`L_\mathrm{r}=10^{25}`$ W Hz-1. In fact, all but one of the twelve are a factor of ten weaker than this limit, and 2 out of 12 are about a factor of 100 weaker than this limit. It is clear from Figure 4 that the great sensitivity of the HDF radio survey pushes the parameter space of radio luminosity for moderate redshift quasars. Also, there is no strong correlation between radio and optical luminosity for these samples.

We have identified six regions in Figure 3 for investigating the demographics of the radio-loud fraction. The sequence from 1 to 2 to 3 represents the cosmic evolution of the radio-loud fraction, in equal bins of one third of the look-back time, in the low luminosity range $`25<M_B<22.5`$. The sequence from 1 to 4 to 6 represents the change in the radio-loud fraction with increasing optical luminosity by a factor of a thousand, in the redshift range $`0.02<z<3.64`$. We include the BQS sample in this comparison, noting that these quasars only contribute to the bin at low redshift and low luminosity (region 3) and the bin at high redshift and high luminosity (region 6).

Table 2 shows the statistics from these four samples combined, for three different definitions of the radio-loud fraction: log $`L_\mathrm{r}>26`$, log $`L_\mathrm{r}>25`$, and log $`L_\mathrm{r}>24h_{50}^1`$ W Hz-1. All of the radio surveys have upper limits, but log $`L_\mathrm{r}>26`$ is above the limits in any of the surveys we are using. The criterion log $`L_\mathrm{r}>25`$ matches the most common definition in the literature, and it is immune from the nature of the radio non-detections for quasars less luminous than $`M_B=26.5`$ (see dashed box that defines upper limits in Figure 4). We note that all but one of the HDF quasars are radio-quiet at the level of log $`L_\mathrm{r}=24`$, but the nature of the upper limits becomes important above a luminosity of $`M_B=24`$. The footnotes in Table 2 give the number of quasars for which the designation radio-loud or radio-quiet is uncertain because the detection upper limit lies above the selected boundary in $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ . A lower limit on the radio-loud fraction can be estimated by assuming all of the uncertain quasars are radio-quiet — these values are also included in the footnotes to Table 2.

The data in the table show no trend for evolution in the radio-loud fraction of low luminosity quasars with cosmic time. A low radio-loud fraction of 0.05-0.10 is seen at all epochs (for $`L_\mathrm{r}>25`$). In agreement with Goldschmidt et al. (1999), we see an increase in the radio-loud fraction with increasing optical luminosity. In the redshift interval $`0.84<z<3.64`$, the radio-loud fraction rises by a factor of 3-4 over a span of a factor of a thousand in optical luminosity. The low luminosity HDF quasars provide the strongest tether on this result, because 1/9 are radio-loud at any of the three radio thresholds.

## 4 Conclusions

We have identified quasars selected from a multi-color survey with radio sources from a very deep catalog of a region centered on the northern Hubble Deep Field. The identification procedure accounts for the non-uniform radial distribution of radio sources over this region. Although limited by small number statistics, the result of the comparison is new information on the radio properties of low luminosity quasars at moderate redshift. We reach the following conclusions:

(1) Twelve optically selected quasars with $`B<21`$ and $`0.4<z<2.6`$ are in the region within 20 arcmin of the HDF, which was covered in the deep radio survey of Richards (1999). Three of the quasars are identified with weak radio sources at greater than a 99.9% confidence level. The remaining nine are below a $`3\sigma `$ limit of 40 to 230 $`\mu `$Jy at 1.4 GHz.

(2) The HDF quasars are extremely weak radio-emitters. All but one of the twelve have radio luminosities more than an order of magnitude below the traditional boundary between radio-loud and radio-quiet quasars, $`L_\mathrm{r}=10^{25}`$ W Hz-1. Two of the twelve are about two orders of magnitude below that boundary, and are the lowest radio luminosity quasars ever measured at these redshifts.

(3) There is no strong evidence that radio and optical luminosity are correlated, a conclusion that is essentially independent of the nature of the radio non-detections. If we make a plausible assumption about the completeness of the optical quasar selection, no more than $`5`$% of the radio source population above $`230\mu `$Jy can be quasars at any optical brightness level.

(4) The fraction of quasars more radio luminous than 1026 W Hz-1 is 3-5% (or 5-10% above $`10^{25}`$ W Hz-1), independent of redshift over the range $`0.02<z<3.64`$. The fraction of quasars above $`10^{24}`$ W Hz-1 in radio luminosity shows slight evidence for an increase with increasing redshift. While the quasar space density evolves over two orders of magnitude, the probability of a quasar being a strong radio source is independent of epoch.

(5) The radio-loud fraction of quasars shows a marginally significant increase by a factor of three, going from low to high optical luminosity. This modest effect, combined with the lack of any strong correlation between radio and optical luminosity, means that the quasar radio luminosity function cannot be much flatter than the optical luminosity function.

We acknowledge useful discussions with Pippa Goldschmidt, Eric Hooper, Charles Liu, and Eric Richards. We are grateful to the referee for pointing out a significant error in the first version of this paper. CDI is grateful to the NSF for support under grant AST-9803072.


format: text

text:
# Defect models of cosmic structure in light of the new CMB data11footnote 1To appear in the proceedings of the XXXVth Rencontres de Moriond “Energy Densities in the Universe”.

## 1 Introduction

The idea that a network of defects seeded the formation of cosmic structure has received intensive study, and for a long period was viewed as the only viable competitor for the popular inflation-based models. This idea has intrinsic appeal due to its basis in spontaneous symmetry breaking (one of the central features of modern particle physics) and because the correct amplitude of the cosmic structure can be naturally produced. (The right amplitude requires a Grand Unification scale for spontaneous symmetry breaking, a very natural prospect in high energy physics.)

More recently the defect models have faced a number of serious challenges in the face of data that increasingly favor the inflation-based models. However, recent results from the Boomerang98 and MAXIMA experiments do not show strong secondary peaks in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy power. The lack of these secondary oscillations has been established as a strong signature of cosmic defect models. It thus is natural to ask whether it is time to revisit the cosmic defect models. In this article I review the difficulties that face the defect models and discuss possible work-arounds. (The reader might also be interested in the recent reviews by Durrer and Magueijo and Brandenberger which provide a complementary discussion, and the excellent book by Vilenkin and Shellard for background information.) I conclude that Boomerang98 and MAXIMA data actually add to the case against the defect models, and that radical variations from the standard picture (or even from the already radical attempts to save the defect models) would be required if a defect-based model were to eventually give the favored description of the formation of cosmic structure.

## 2 Past challenges

### 2.1 Overview

Cosmic defect models are notoriously difficult to calculate because, unlike inflation-based models, they in principle require one to track highly non-linear behavior from very early epochs (essentially from the Grand Unification epoch until today). However, early researchers in this area were encouraged by the pioneering work of Kibble in which he argued that networks of cosmic defects might undergo a simple scaling behavior which would greatly simplify the required calculations.

The original numerical simulations focused on local cosmic strings. The first local cosmic string simulations supported the idea of scaling, but then subsequent higher resolution simulations called the earlier results into question. The new simulations always had very important dynamics occurring right at the scale of resolution, and these dynamics affected the behavior of the entire string network. This result violated the simple scaling picture, which held that one scale (proportional to the Hubble radius) dominated the defect dynamics at all times. While there seemed to be a physical basis for these multi-scale dynamics (namely the buildup of kinks on the string), the inability of the simulation results to decouple from processes at the limits of the numerical resolution cast doubt on the applicability of the numerical simulations to cosmology.

By contrast, “global” defects are the result of the breaking of global symmetries, and the defects are thus necessarily coupled to a massless particle (the Goldstone Boson). This coupling appears to damp out the small-scale dynamics sufficiently for global defects that their scaling behavior has been observed and has not been called into question.

Without scaling arguments it is truly impossible to achieve the dynamic range necessary for a calculation to confront the whole array of modern cosmological data. Thus, the global defects are at a significant practical advantage. However, arguments have also been made that the coupling of local strings to gravity, while weaker, ultimately has a similar effect to that of the Goldstone Boson, and creates a feedback mechanism that imposes scaling behavior after a sufficiently long period of time. A new generation of local defect simulations have been constructed that (like the originals) exhibit scaling behavior. This is not because they have incorporated gravitational back-reaction, but because they (again like the originals) have a sufficiently unprecise evolution of small scale features that the scaling behavior is recovered. The justification for this has been the idea that a full treatment including gravitational back-reaction would result in scaling behavior. A very interesting alternative approach used by Copeland et al. has been to use extensions to Kibble’s original phenomenological treatment

The history of attempts to calculate cosmic structure formation from defect models is a long one. While the earliest work looks remarkably simplistic by current standards, important tools were developed that are still in use today. I start my discussion with the more modern work that came out in 1997, when a number of groups produced complementary results using somewhat different approaches.

Allen et al. performed calculations based entirely on numerical simulations. Their strength was that the fewest additional assumptions needed to be made, but their weakest point was that with limited dynamic range, many important questions could not be addressed. My collaboration was at the other extreme. Over the years my concern had been growing that there were so many uncertainties surrounding numerical simulations that it was important to take a more flexible approach, where the impact of the uncertainties could be fed through to the final result. The possible uncertainties ranged from numerical uncertainties in the simulations to the fact that a great variety of defect models were possible. There was a growing tendency (among non-experts) to assume that a single defect simulation could be representative of the whole range of possible defect models. Our collaboration used parameterized forms for the defect two-point functions and imposed scaling “by hand” (a method originated by Albrecht and Stebbins) to achieve dynamic range. Our strength was that at last some of the defect uncertainties could be explored in a systematic way, but our weakness was that it was not clear that any given choice of our parameters would reproduce a given defect model exactly. In fact, we relied considerably on results from Allen et al. to set crucial parameters in our models. A similar approach was taken by Durrer and Kunz who focused on modeling global defects. Turok’s collaboration lay in between these two extremes. All the defect two-point functions were calculated from simulations, and then scaling arguments were used to produce dynamic range. Because they studied global defects, the scaling assumption was well justified. All the groups found their results showed serious problems when confronted with the data. These problems are the subject of the next subsection:

### 2.2 EDS Universe with “perfect” scaling

The major publications of 1997 all considered defects in an Einstein De Sitter (EDS) universe and “perfect” scaling. The most obvious problem that was observed by all the groups was the serious lack of power at moderate scales in the CMB anisotropies, when normalized to COBE. Figure 1 illustrates the problem.

Even with the relatively poor data of that time the defect models appeared to be in trouble. At this stage, many people outside the field came away with the impression that defect models were in trouble because of the low CMB power.

However, Albrecht et al. and Durrer et al. examined the effect of the various uncertainties on this conclusion. Our results showed that very modest deviations from perfect scaling would result in significant power in the CMB at the relevant scales. We emphasized the point that many defect networks are known to experience a transient deviation from scaling during the radiation-matter transition (a point that has been known for a long time). We found that modest uncertainties about this transient were enough to prevent the CMB power from being a problem for defect models at that time. (I note here that such transients are much less likely to occur in global defect models, because again the back-reaction from Goldstone Bosons drives the network more firmly toward the scaling solution.) Durrer et al. explored other uncertainties and also concluded that the CMB power could be increased. As an explicit illustration of the potential effect of of numerical uncertainties, contrast the results of Contaldi et al. with those of Allen et al.

The real problem for the EDS models was the matter power spectrum. When the perturbations were COBE normalized, the matter power was completely wrong. This result was so dramatic that there had been hints of this problem in earlier work, but the 1997 calculations were the first to have sufficient dynamic range to confront this problem head-on. The problem became known as the “b100 problem” because it was on scales of 100 Mpc where the matter power spectrum performed particularly badly (the predicted power was many times lower than the observations, as illustrated in Fig. 2). Earlier work might have revealed this problem more clearly if it had not focused on the matter power on 8 Mpc (a traditional point of comparison) which was not nearly as problematic as the power on 100 Mpc. The problem was so extreme, that few expected possible non-Gaussian effects could provide a resolution.

### 2.3 $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ models with Radiation-Matter transients

The uncertainties in the defect models that we explored were unable to significantly reduce the b100 problem. However, we soon realized that things were quite different for models with a cosmological constant . For these models the scales affected by the defects during the radiation-matter transition affected different scales today, and it turned out for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ the transition was perfectly placed for transients to resolve the b100 problem, as illustrated in Fig. 2.

In fact, we used a fit to the transients actually observed in one of the simulations  to produce a model that looked very realistic. The building evidence that there is a cosmological constant (or something similar) added support for this model, and for a while cosmic defects were again in the running as a realistic picture of cosmic structure formation.

## 3 The current picture

Figure 3 shows a compilation of the current data  along with two (dashed) curves from defect-based models, and one (solid) curve from a “best fit” inflation-based model.

The upper defect curve is from the “successful” model discussed in Section 2.3. Clearly in the face of new CMB data this model is in trouble. While the upper defect curve assumed the standard ionization history, the lower curves use a non-standard ionization history specifically designed to shift the peak in the curve .

Considering that the lower defect curve was calculated well before the new data came in, it is striking how it appears to give a best “smooth fit” to the data. However, there is no question that the inflation-based curve gives a much better fit to the same data. Using RADPACK  and using the COBE, Boomerang98 and MAXIMA data, (46 data points) we get $`\chi ^2=132.5`$ for the best defect model, and $`\chi ^2=47.9`$ for the inflation-based model. The new data has re-focused the problem back onto the CMB, were defect models have great difficulties reproducing the observed spectrum.

## 4 How much trouble are defects models in?

### 4.1 Coherence

Probably the most fundamental distinguishing difference between inflation-based models and defect models of cosmic structure is connected with “coherence”. Passive models of structure formation have a primordial spectrum of perturbations imposed at some very early time, which then experiences an extended period of linear evolution. Inflation-based models of structure formation are examples of passive models . Active models, such as the defect models, have non-linear processes figuring significantly in structure formation throughout time. The oscillating behavior (“Sakharov”, or “acoustic” oscillations) exhibited by the curve from the inflationary model in Fig. 3 is a characteristic of passive models, and no realistic active model has exhibited any oscillatory structure in the CMB anisotropy power222 There is one active model, the “mimic model” which achieves a peak structure just like that of a passive model (although the signal is not identical in the CMB polarization power). However, the mimic model requires the non-linear matter to exhibit extraordinary coherence itself, and to press hard against the limits set by causality. No one has offered a clear picture of how the mimic model could be realized. .

Considerable attention has been given to the suggestion in the new data that the 2nd acoustic peak is absent, or suppressed, compared with inflation models that are favored for other reasons. It is natural to ask whether this is an indication that defect models should be coming back into favor. Unfortunately for the defect models, the coherence issues are already showing up strongly in the first peak, which clearly does exist in the data. In particular, no realistic defect model has been able generate a first peak with anywhere near the sharpness exhibited in the data333Contaldi has speculated that defects could produce a sharp peak in a universe with supercritical density. However, this approach fails by producing large deficiencies in anisotropy power for $`l>350`$. .

The fundamental problem is that realistic defect models do not affect the cosmic structure on one scale with a single easily isolated defect motion. If this were possible, perhaps the defect physics could be specially designed to created peaks and dips in the CMB anisotropy power (it was necessary to assume this could be done to construct the “mimic model” referred to in footnote a) . The known defect models make contributions to a given scale of cosmic structure from many different defect motions occurring at many different times. Furthermore, the non-linearity of the defects gives the defect motion an effectively “random” component. This tends to wash out any attempts one might make to create a sharp peak. Also the work of Weller et al. attempted to doctor the ionization history (quite artificially) to produce a sharp first peak, but the degree of sharpness exhibited by real acoustic oscillations could not be duplicated. The result of our best efforts can been seen in Fig. 3.

So within the familiar scope of defect behavior, the shape of the observed CMB anisotropy power appears to be impossible to achieve. The contrast with the success of the passive (coherent) models in generating the first peak is certainly striking, and thus we are already seeing a serious failure of the defect models due to their decoherent behavior. Any concerns that might exist within the inflationary paradigm regarding the apparently low 2nd peak at this stage appear much more minor.

### 4.2 Scaling

Recall that in most calculations the scaling property (or modest deviations from it) was put in by hand. In some cases there was only indirect evidence that scaling was a realistic assumption. Could certain cosmic defect models save themselves by dramatically violating the scaling assumption? The problem here is that overall a scaling spectrum of perturbations is just what is needed to account for the observed cosmic structure over many scales. It appears that any violation of scaling would have to be localized specifically to generate a peak in the CMB anisotropy power, rather than be a general property of the defect evolution. Then we are back facing the problem mentioned in Section 4.1, that the impact of the defects is not highly time-localized, so it is unlikely that a sharp peak could be produced by any “glitch” in the defect network.

### 4.3 Numerical Uncertainties

There are many places where numerical uncertainties significantly detract from our understanding of cosmic defects, especially in the case of local defects where the numerical work has hardly converged. However, much has been done to model the possible numerical uncertainties, and the problems defect models have in fitting the apparent first acoustic peak do not seem to be resolved by assuming any particular type of numerical error.

### 4.4 Filling out the picture

The reader may have noticed that the above discussion uses words like “appears” and “seems” extensively. Exactly why am I not taking a more concrete stand? The fact is that despite the progress and simplification that has been made over the last several years, working out the predictions from defect models remains a pretty complicated business. Instead of saying “it is unlikely that that a sharp peak could be produced by any ‘glitch’ in the defect network” it would be nice to be able to say that all possible glitches have been checked and it is 100% certain that none could produce a sharp peak. Similar comments apply to other discussions throughout this section.

The fact is that given the effort involved, and the declining fortunes of the defect models in the face of new data, there is less and less interest in undertaking the effort to check out all possibilities. Of course that situation could change if the passive models run into serious problems.

It should also be clear from this paper that my years of experience have built up certain prejudices about how defects behave. Perhaps someone free of these prejudices will discover some new defect behavior out there in the vast non-linear world of the different types of defects. This remains to be seen.

One last comment on this topic: When modeling different possible defect behaviors, one of the great problems is coming up with models of the defect stress-energy that are consistent with known constraints (especially those imposed by causality). If someone were starting from scratch to explore the possibilities, my advice would be to use the excellent techniques developed by Pen et al.. Pen et al. applied their techniques to calculate the implications of particular numerical simulations, but the same techniques could also be combined with the parameterized approach similar to those of Albrecht et al.. I suspect this would be the most effective way of moving forward.

### 4.5 Other roles for defects

The entire discussion thus far has been about models where the universe started in a completely homogeneous state and defects were solely responsible for the formation of cosmic structure. I have concluded that all known models of this type have failed to reproduce the observed cosmic structure. However, reducing the mass scale of the defects slightly would make them completely irrelevant for cosmic structure, but they could still have many interesting observable effects as sources of cosmic rays, gravitational waves (see Fig. 4), or as players in the out of equilibrium processes that produce baryon asymmetry. The only things that have been ruled out are the defect models of cosmic structure formation.

There also has been much discussion recently of the “middle ground”, where the defects have a partial role in cosmic structure. While my gut reaction is quite negative to this idea, the reason for this reaction is purely due to the prejudice that nature should do things in a simpler way. If nature goes through all the trouble to produce passive perturbations, why bother adding defects to the mix? I suppose this argument can be countered by the fact that if defects are formed by symmetry breaking at the grand unification scale (a likely enough prospect), they will naturally have masses around values that will contribute noticeably to structure formation without requiring that they account for everything. Fortunately, on this point we should eventually be in a position where experiment, rather than prejudice, determines the outcome.

## 5 Conclusions

In this brief review a have addressed three different aspects of the defect models of cosmic structure. First of all, I have shown how the defect models, as they have long been understood to behave, are clearly ruled out by the modern CMB data. Then I discussed whether some gap in our understanding could mean that the defect models are not really in as much trouble as they appear to be. I have argued that it is hard to see how any of the uncertainties in defect scenarios could come around to save defect-based structure formation. I have also tried to be frank about the limitations inherent to this type of argument. Finally, I have emphasized that there are a host of other potentially interesting cosmological effects from defects. The failure of defect models of structure formation only serves to place a modest constraint on the overall amplitude of these other effects.

I wish to thank Yong-Seon Song for calculating the $`\chi ^2`$’s using RADPACK and Ben Gold for comments on this manuscript. This work was supported by DOE grant DE-FG03-91ER40674, and UC Davis.


text:
# Transport properties of quantum dots with hard walls

## I Introduction

The electronic transport properties of quantum dots, defined in two-dimensional electron gases in semiconductor heterostructures, have received considerable theoretical as well as experimental attention.  In the Coulomb blockade regime, where the quantum dot is only weakly coupled to reservoirs via tunnel barriers, the conductance through the dot shows striking oscillations as a function of a gate voltage which tunes the electrochemical potential inside the dot. The separation between these so-called Coulomb blockade (CB) resonances contains information not only on the single electron charging energy of the dot, but also on its internal energy structure. Within the widely used constant-interaction approximation, the addition spectrum can be decomposed into an electrostatic component given by the total capacitance of the dot, and a chemical component, which reflects the dot’s single particle energy spectrum. The Fock-Darwin spectrum has been successfully employed in many experiments to describe the energy level spectrum of quantum dots. These experiments are thus consistent with a harmonic confinement potential in two dimensions; to our knowledge, transport signatures of non-parabolic confinement in quantum dots have not been reported yet. However, it should be emphasized that quantum dots with a hard-wall potential have been fabricated by cleaved-edge overgrowth and by self-assembly.
The option of patterning quantum dots (and other nanostructures) with hard walls by lithographical means is of interest from both a technological as well as from a physical point of view. One consequence of steep walls is, for example, only a small reduction of the Fermi energy in quantum dots as compared to the bulk value. Electrostatic considerations have established a relation between the potential steepness and the depletion length. Thus, steeper confinement is a prerequisite for higher pattern densities. Also, changes in size and shape are reduced as a gate voltage is tuned. This is of particular importance for statistical properties of quantum dots.  In addition, recent theoretical results on conductance fluctuations in quantum dots at small magnetic fields are valid only for a hard-wall confinement. We also mention the generalized Kohn theorem, which states that in parabolic potentials, the far infrared conductivity exhibits only a single resonance that corresponds to the characteristic frequency of the bare potential, independent of electron-electron interactions.
In the present paper, we report the fabrication and characterization of quantum dots with super-parabolic confinement potentials. The steepness of the walls is increased by combining local oxidation using an atomic force microscope (AFM) with an additional top gate electrode. Magnetotransport experiments are used to map out the dots’ addition spectra, from which the energy levels are reconstructed. The essential idea is to detect a super-parabolic confinement via the dots’ energy spectrum in magnetic fields applied perpendicular to the two-dimensional electron gas (Fig. 1): for small Landau level filling factors, a parabolic confinement and a hard-wall confinement generate quite different energy spectra.
We have patterned two quantum dots of different size and fabrication parameters for the present study: for the smaller dot (labelled “dot S”), the spectrum measured is in qualitative agreement with the Fock-Darwin model. However, a quantitative analysis reveals inconsistencies, which dissolve by assuming a hard-wall confinement. For the larger dot (referred to as “dot L”), the energy spectrum differs qualitatively from a Fock-Darwin spectrum, and indicates a super-parabolic confinement.
It is well known that in the regime of small filling factors, a single-particle picture fails to explain the full phenomenology of quantum dots, and charge-density model calculations are used instead.  Therefore, we demonstrate that within a charge-density model, our observations can be explained by a steep-wall confinement as well.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section II, the theoretical energy spectra of parabolic dots and hard-wall dots are compared. In Section III, we describe the sample preparation, the experimental setup, and the electronic characterization of two quantum dots. In Section IV, the energy level spectra of the dots are reconstructed from magnetotransport measurements and the results are discussed. In addition, we estimate the steepness of the walls. A summary and conclusion is given in Section V.

## II Energy spectra of parabolic dots and hard-wall dots

### A The Fock-Darwin model

For a circular dot with a parabolic confinement, characterized by the confining strength $`\omega _0`$, the energy spectrum is the well-known Fock-Darwin spectrum (Fig. 1a):

$$E_{N,k}=\mathrm{}(N+k)\sqrt{\omega _0^2+\frac{1}{4}\omega _C^2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}(Nk1)\omega _C$$
(1)
Here, we have transformed the radial quantum number m and the angular momentum quantum number $`\mathrm{}`$ from the standard representation into the Landau level index N (N=1,2,3,…) and the level index k of the state within a Landau level (k=0,1,2,…), $`k=(m+\frac{|\mathrm{}|+\mathrm{}}{2})`$ and $`N=(m+\frac{|\mathrm{}|\mathrm{}}{2}+1)`$. Furthermore, $`\omega _C`$ denotes the cyclotron frequency, and each level is assumed to be two-fold spin-degenerate. Throughout the paper, we restrict ourselves to magnetic fields in which only two spin-degenerate Landau levels are occupied, and label the spin-degenerate Landau level N as LL(N), N = 1,2. Consequently, the spin-resolved filling factor $`\nu `$ is always in the regime 2 $`<\nu <`$ 4.
A corresponding section of the Fock-Darwin spectrum is shown in Fig. 1a. We have chosen typical experimental numbers: a dot radius of r = 200 nm, and $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ = 1 meV. As the magnetic field is tuned, the Fermi level varies in zigzag lines, representing the transfer of electrons between the two Landau levels. The energies of LL(1)-states drop as B is increased, while those of LL(2)-states increase. A quasi-periodic level crossing between LL(1)-states and LL(2)-states is obtained. Furthermore, the density of states is identical in both Landau levels. For $`\omega _0<\frac{1}{2}\omega _C`$, the separation between adjacent states with identical N can be estimated as $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N=E_{N,k+1}E_{N,k}\mathrm{}\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega _C}`$, and the period in B is approximated to first order by $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _C})^2B`$, as can be seen from eq.(1). These approximations are in reasonable agreement with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ in Fig. 1a. Note in particular that $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ is significantly larger than the “bulk value”, which corresponds to the magnetic field needed to change the number of magnetic flux quanta through the dot area A by one, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{bulk}=\frac{h}{eA}`$ = 33 mT. Furthermore, the difference in slope between LL(1)-states and LL(2)-states has an upper limit of $`\frac{dE_2}{dB}\frac{dE_1}{dB}=`$ 2$`\mathrm{}\omega _C/B`$.

### B The hard-wall potential

The spectrum of a dot with a hard-wall potential (Fig. 1c) is obtained by numerical calculation of the zeroes of the hypergeometric function $`{}_{1}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$, and looks quite different : most strikingly, the density of states at the Fermi level in LL(2) is higher than in LL(1), provided the Fermi energy is not far above $`\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _C`$ (Figs. 1c,d). Second, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ is well approximated by $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{bulk}`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N`$, however, depends sensitively on N, k and the magnetic field.
We note that in the model considerations above, we have neglected spins for clarity. Inclusion of the twofold occupation of each orbital state due to spin is necessary for a quantitative comparison of the models with the experimental data below, and reduces all the above average energy level separations and magnetic field periods by a factor of two.

## III Fabrication and characterization of the dots

### A Sample fabrication by local oxidation

The samples are patterned out of a shallow Ga\[Al\]As heterostructure with the two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) $`34`$ nm below the surface. The quantum dots are defined by local oxidation with an AFM. The height of the oxide lines is roughly equal to the penetration depth of the oxidation into the heterostructure. An oxidation depth of approximately 6 nm depletes the 2DEG underneath. We find that the lateral depletion length $`\mathrm{}_d`$ can be tailored by the oxidation parameters: $`\mathrm{}_d`$ increases as the height of the oxide line is increased. The details of this mechanism are still under investigation. In a simple picture, however, the oxidation can be understood as a shallow removal of the semiconductor layers, starting at the surface. Removing the oxidized material selectively by a wet etching step does not change the electronic properties of the AFM defined nanostructures. We conclude that the patterned surfaces behave pretty much like a free GaAs (or AlxGa1-xAs, respectively) surface, i.e., the Fermi energy is pinned about mid-gap. Below the oxidized line, the sample surface has moved closer to the 2DEG, which can lead to a depletion of the mobile electrons. Crucial for the magnitude of the lateral depletion length is the depth of the oxidation process. In shallow 2DEGs it is well known that most of the electrons originating from the Si donors charge surface states, while only a small fraction of them (typically 10 %) go to the heterointerface and lead to the mobile carriers. The oxidized sample surface requires additional electrons per area. If the donor layer remains intact after the oxidation process, these additional electrons are taken from the underlying 2DEG, which is consequently depleted. The lateral depletion length is therefore roughly determined by the distance between the donor layer and the 2DEG. If, however, the oxidation process penetrates down to the donors (a Si $`\delta `$-layer located 16 nm below the surface), they become electronically inactive in this area, and charges from the neighboring, still intact Si-donors have to compensate the surface potential in the oxidized regions. Consequently, these electrons are now missing for the population of the 2DEG in the vicinity of the oxide lines, and an increased depletion length results. We estimate that $`\mathrm{}_d`$ is now roughly given by the distance between the 2DEG and the unpatterned sample surface. This line of thought is sketched in Figs. 2c, d. Furthermore, the depletion process is supported by the generation of additional surface states at the edges of the oxidized trenches.
Dot S is defined by oxide lines with an average height of roughly 20 nm and a width of 100 nm. Its lithographic size is 280 nm$`\times `$280 nm (Fig. 2a). The oxide penetrates about 20 nm into the heterostructure and most likely reaches the donor layer. Dot L has a lithographic area of 400 nm$`\times `$420 nm. Here, the oxide lines are kept as shallow as possible (height 10 nm).
After the local oxidation, the samples are covered with a homogeneous top gate (tg) electrode. In Figs. 2c and d, schematic cross sections through the dots are shown.

### B Experimental setup and electronic characterization

The measurements were carried out in the mixing chamber of a 3He/4He-dilution refrigerator with a base temperature of $`90mK`$. The electron density of the ungated two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) was 5.5 $``$ 1015m-2, and its mobility was 90 m2/Vs. DC bias voltages of 20 $`\mu `$V were applied across the dot from source to drain, and the current was measured with a resolution of 500 fA. The measurements were performed in the weak coupling regime, where the quantum point contacts are adjusted to the tunneling regime by voltages applied to the qpc gates in Figs. 2a,b. The conductance is measured as a function of $`V_I`$, the gate voltage applied to gate I, and Coulomb blockade (CB) oscillations are observed (Figs. 2e,f). Fits of single CB resonances to the lineshape expected for coherent single-level transport, i.e., $`G[4k_BTcosh^2(\frac{EE_r}{2k_BT})]^1`$, reveal an electron temperature of $`T_e`$ = 140 mK ($`E_r`$ denotes the resonance frequency). Magnetic fields up to B = 12 T could be applied perpendicular to the 2DEG.
From measurements of the CB diamonds, we determine the single electron charging energies of $`E_C^S=e^2/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }^S`$ = 1.22 meV for dot S, and $`E_C^L`$ = 180 $`\mu `$eV for dot L. By measuring the Coulomb blockade period as a function of the top gate voltage and using the parallel plate capacitor expression, dot S can be modelled as a circular disc with a radius of r $``$ 90 nm, which corresponds to $`\mathrm{}_d`$ $``$ 50 nm at $`V_{tg}`$ = +100 mV, the working point for this device. The average single-particle energy level spacing can thus be estimated to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ = 140 $`\mu `$eV. The bulk electron density for this top gate voltage was $`n_{2DEG}=5.910^{15}m^2`$. At B = 8.8 T, the second Landau level is depleted inside the dot, which manifests itself in a sudden transition of the phase diagram structure (not shown). Thus, the electron density inside the dot is reduced by $`20\%`$, compared to the two-dimensional value.
For dot L, the single electron charging energy is $`E_C^L`$ = 180 $`\mu `$eV, and from the capacitance between the top gate and the dot, we deduce an electronic dot area of $``$ 400 nm $``$ 400 nm. The shallow oxidation, in combination with a large positive top gate voltage of +390 mV (such that the second two-dimensional subband is still empty) generates extremely small depletion lengths of $`\mathrm{}_d`$ 15 nm  and is expected to maximize the steepness of the walls (Fig. 2d) as well. Corrspondingly, the single-particle energy level spacing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }_S`$ 22 $`\mu `$eV. At $`V_{tg}`$ = +390 mV, we measure $`n_{2DEG}`$ = 6.3 $``$ 1015 m-2. At B = 11 T, LL(2) becomes depleted inside the dot, which means that its electron density is only slightly smaller than $`n_{2DEG}`$.
The parameters of the two dots are summarized in Table I.
It is well established that in quantum dots in the regime of filling factors 2 $`\nu `$ 4, the conductance as a function of B and a gate voltage shows periodic patterns over wide ranges of magnetic fields and gate voltages. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the energy level spectrum of the dot can be reconstructed from such measurements, which yields information on the confining potential. We therefore characterize our dots by magnetotransport experiments in this regime of filling factors.
Figs. 2e,f compare the corresponding measurements for dot S and L. The small dot (Fig. 2e) shows structures similar to those reported in earlier experiments: as the magnetic field is changed, the CB resonances move in zigzag lines. Their average separation in gate voltage corresponds to one Coulomb blockade oscillation period. Here, the lever arm $`\eta `$ = $`\frac{dE}{dV_I}`$ is $``$ 0.11 eV/V, and changes with $`V_I`$. We have determined $`\eta `$ from measurements of the Coulomb blockade diamonds at B = 0. In regions where the levels move downwards in energy, their amplitude is high, while in regions where they move upwards in energy, their amplitude is strongly suppressed. Regions of high conductance occur when a state belonging to LL(1) aligns with the Fermi level in source and drain. As the magnetic field increases, their energy is reduced. On the other hand, states belonging to LL(2) will move upwards in energy as B is increased, leading to their depopulation. Since the LL(2) states are residing in the inner region of the dot (Fig. 1b), their coupling to the leads is small, which results in a strongly suppressed peak amplitude.
A similar measurement for dot L, Fig. 2f, reveals a different structure. The CB period at $`B=0`$ in this sample is $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_I`$ = 4.2 mV. For dot L, we found $`\eta `$ = 0.043 eV/V. In contrast to dot S, the separation between successive stripes of high conductance in $`V_I`$ \- direction does not correspond to one CB period at B=0, but rather to 2.5 CB periods on average. It is not straightforward to see how the conductive LL(1) states are connected by LL(2) states, i.e., how the zigzag lines run. We will discuss this point in detail in the next Section. Furthermore, there is an overlap between adjacent regions of high conductance along the $`V_I`$ \- direction, which we attribute to thermal activation, since in dot L, the level separation is comparable to $`k_BT`$ (see Table I).
We emphasize that the structures observed in dots S and L are characteristic for the whole region of $`2\nu 4`$, and change only slightly as B is varied.

## IV Reconstruction of the energy spectra

In this Section, we construct the energy level spectra of the two dots from the measurements of Figs. 2e and f. While this is straightforward for dot S, it requires a more detailed understanding of the addition spectrum measured for dot L, which we gather from activated transport experiments. The spectra obtained will be compared to the model potentials described in Section II, with the spin splitting included.

### A Energy spectrum of dot S

In Fig. 3a, the occupation numbers of LL(1) and LL(2) and the corresponding “phase diagram” are compared to the measurement. Here, a phase is given by ($`n_1,n_2`$), where $`n_i`$ denotes the number of electrons in LL(i). The gaps between the zigzag lines in energy (gate voltage) direction correspond to the charging energy $`e^2/C_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, plus the separation between the single-particle energy levels inside the dot. From Fig. 3a, we use the lever arm $`\eta `$ (see Table I) to subtract $`E_C^S`$, and obtain bright lines, Fig. 3b, which correspond to the magnetic field dependence of adjacent LL(1) states. The slightly alternating separations reflect the Zeemann splitting. An average spacing between neighboring LL(i) - states of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^S`$ = 310 $`\mu `$eV, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^S`$ 400 $`\mu `$eV is extracted. Note that since the LL(2) states are not directly visible, their position can only be guessed from the point where the bright lines corresponding to the LL(1) states overlap, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^S`$ can be no more than a rough estimate.
The Fock-Darwin model in the limit of strong magnetic fields states that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^S=\mathrm{\Delta }_2^S\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\frac{\omega _0^2}{\omega _C}`$ (the factor of $`\frac{1}{2}`$ takes the spin splitting into account), from which we obtain $`\mathrm{}\omega _0`$ 2.75 meV, an at first sight reasonable, although large value. Further analysis, however, reveals problems with the interpretation in terms of a Fock-Darwin model:
(i) Since $`r=90`$ nm, we can calculate $`E_F`$ inside the dot from $`E_F=\frac{1}{2}m^{}\omega _0^2r^2`$, which would result in $`E_F=27`$ meV, larger than in the 2DEG.
(ii) We observe $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$B = 75 mT. Within the Fock-Darwin model in strong magnetic fields, however, $`\mathrm{\Delta }B\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\omega _0}{\omega _C})^2B`$ 180 mT, is expected.
(iii) The slope of the energy levels, $`\frac{dE_i}{dB}`$ (i denotes the LL index) deviates from the Fock-Darwin values: here, $`\frac{dE_2}{dB}\frac{dE_1}{dB}2\mathrm{}\omega _C/B`$, as observed experimentally in previous work. However, we estimate $`\frac{dE_2}{dB}\frac{dE_1}{dB}5\mathrm{}\omega _C/B`$, which is much too large, even considering the experimental uncertainty in $`\frac{dE_2}{dB}`$.
These inconsistencies can be significantly reduced by assuming a hard-wall potential. We measure $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }B_{bulk}`$ 80 mT, in reasonable agreement with the $`\mathrm{\Delta }B_{bulk}`$ expected for r = 90 nm. Also, both the energy level separation and $`\frac{dE_2}{dB}\frac{dE_1}{dB}`$ can be much larger than in a parabolic dot.
Hence, although the behavior of dot S is in qualitative agreement with a parabolic confinement, a quantitative analysis suggests that its confinement resembles a hard-wall potential.

### B Energy spectrum of dot L

The period in $`V_I`$ of the conductive regionsin dot L does not correspond to the Coulomb blockade oscillation period at B=0, as it does in dot S. In order to obtain more information on the states with suppressed conductance, we measured the Coulomb diamonds, i.e. the conductance as a function of both $`V_I`$ and the source-drain voltage $`V_{sd}`$, at B = 8T (Fig. 4). At large bias voltages, i.e. for $`|V_{sd}|>200\mu V`$, an average CB oscillation period of $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_I=e/C_I=3.5`$ mV is observed, slightly smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_I`$ observed at B=0. As $`|V_{sd}|`$ is reduced, the conductance gets suppressed for 70 $`\%`$ of the CB resonances, corresponding to a ratio between suppressed peaks and visible peaks of 2.5:1. The conductance doublets in $`V_g`$-direction, Fig. 2f, remain visible at small $`|V_{sd}|`$. Furthermore, the shape of the diamonds with suppressed conductance tends to follow the shape of the nearest diamond in which the conductance outside the Coulomb blockade is not suppressed, which indicates that the activated current flows predominantly via LL(1) states. These observations lead us to conclude that the density of LL(2) states at the Fermi level is about 2.5 times the density of LL(1) states. LL(2) states get occupied when aligned with the Fermi energy, but since their coupling to the leads is negligible, transport via these states is not measurable, even at large $`V_{sd}`$. Rather, transport occurs via excitation of LL(1) states.
With this information, we are now able to reconstruct the energy level spectrum of dot L by subtracting the $`E_C`$ from the addition spectrum of Fig. 2f. The phase diagram is shown in Fig. 3c. Here, we have determined the phase boundaries due to LL(2) states from the activated transport measurements of Fig. 4, concluding that we must cross $``$ 2.5 LL(2)-states on average between adjacent LL(1)-states. The zigzag lines obtained are again separated by one Coulomb period in $`V_I`$, and it can be seen that the different structure originates in the fact that most states at the Fermi level couple extremely poorly to the leads. We point out that alternative choices of the phase boundaries are inconsistent not only with the activated transport measurements, but also with other considerations: if we were to assume that the LL(2) states run like the white, dashed line connecting point 1 and 2 in Fig. 3c, we would cross 3.5 LL(2) states on average between adjacent LL(1) states. In addition, all energy levels would run downwards in energy as B is increased, which would lead to an unphysical population of the dot with electrons by increasing B. If we, on the other hand, were to assume that the LL(2) states run parallel to the line between point 1 and 3, we would cross equally many LL(2) states as LL(1) states as $`V_I`$ is tuned, in clear contradiction to the activated transport experiments. Also, the slope of the LL(2) states would be 25 meV/T, which is approximately one order of magnitude larger than their maximum slope of $`\frac{3}{2}\mathrm{}\omega _C/B`$, and we would obtain an unphysically small period for the “Magneto-Coulomb blockade oscillations”, which means that a change in magnetic field of only 10 mT would be sufficient to change the total number of electrons in the dot by one.
Performing the same procedure as before, we reconstruct the energy spectrum of dot L, Fig. 3d. An energy level separation between LL(1) states of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^L`$ = 160 $`\mu `$eV, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^L`$ = 60 $`\mu `$eV for LL(2) is found. Hence, the density of LL(2) states at the Fermi level is 2.5 times greater than the density of LL(1) states, which indicates a significant deviation from a Fock-Darwin potential. In addition, note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }B`$ = 13 mT = $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }B_{bulk}`$. This is expected for a hard-wall dot, since for each additional flux quantum, two LL(1) states are generated.
We thus conclude that the energy spectrum of dot L deviates even qualitatively from the Fock-Darwin model, but agrees well with a hard-wall confinement. In Table I, we compare the parameters of the two dots.

### C Hard walls and the charge density model

So far, we have discussed the energy level spectra within a single-particle picture, and found strong evidence for super-parabolic confinement. It is, however, well-known that certain aspects of the energy spectrum of quantum dots cannot be understood in such a simple picture, but are rather interpreted in terms of a charge-density model. This is particularly true when strong magnetic fields are present,  and therefore raises the question whether our observations hint towards steep walls also within a charge-density model. To answer this issue, we study the depletion of dot L along the vertical arrow in Fig. 3c, i.e., as we proceed from point A to point E. For comparison, we first look at the depletion process within the single-particle picture. The corresponding changes in the energies $`E_i`$ of LL(i) are depicted in Fig. 5a. At our starting point A, we have removed an electron from LL(1) into the reservoirs. At point B, a LL(2)-electron is transferred into the leads. This, however, does not lead to significant conductance, since the coupling of the LL(2)-states to the leads is poor. In point B, the energy of LL(2) drops by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^L`$ \+ $`E_C`$, and that one of LL(1) by just $`E_C`$. The same process takes place at points C and D, with the corresponding energy shifts. At point E, the next LL(1)-electron is removed from the dot. Consequently, 3 electrons have been removed from LL(2) and one from LL(1). In order to repeat this process cyclically, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^L`$ has to be larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2^L`$. This is what we have already established above. At increased source - drain bias voltages, we would start to see activated transport via nearby LL(1)-states at some points between A and E. The magnitude of $`V_I`$ at such activated processes is given by the points where the black, dashed lines intersect with the arrow. The separation between the phase boundary and the arrow is a measure of the activation energy necessary. These varying activation energies give rise to the observed “meta-diamonds” in Fig. 4.
Within a charge-density model, the measured phase diagram gets a different interpretation: For filling factors $`2\nu 4`$, LL(1) forms a compressible ring at the dot edge, Fig. 5b. At the Fermi level, LL(2) is spatially separated from this ring by an incompressible region and forms a compressible disk in the dot center; $`n_i`$ in Fig. 3c now denotes the number of electrons in the outer ring (i=1) and in the center disc (i=2) . Here, we assume that spin splitting does not generate an additional electrostatic structure. The two compressible regions are coupled via an intra-dot capacitance $`C_{12}`$; charging the outer ring will now change the electrostatic energy of the inner dot by $`E_{12}=e^2/C_{12}`$. If we perform a gate sweep similar to the one indicated by the arrow in Fig. 3b, a removal of an electron from the outer ring would change the energy of the ring by $`E_{C,1}`$, and the one of the inner dot by $`E_{12}`$. Similarly, removing an electron from the inner dot changes its energy by $`E_{C,2}`$, and that one of the ring by $`E_{12}`$, which gives rise to the energy ladder depicted in Fig. 5c. Within this picture, $`E_{C,i}`$, i=1,2 reflect the single electron charging energies of the two compressible regions, and hence the size, of the outer ring and the inner dot, respectively. Since $`E_{C,1}>E_{C,2}`$, the area of the ring must be smaller than the area of the inner dot. This means that the width of the outer compressible stripe, $`w_1`$, is small compared to the dot radius. In previous work, the relation between the width of the compressible regions and the potential profile has been well established: $`w_1(dn(x)/dx)^1`$, where n(x) is the local electron density and x the distance from the edge of the dot. Since $`dn(x)/dx`$ is proportional to the electric field at x, we conclude that also within the charge-density model, the potential walls are steep.

### D Estimation of the wall steepness

While we observe clear signatures of super-parabolic confinement, it is not straightforward to determine the actual steepness of the walls. We can give no more than an order of magnitude estimate for the edge steepness $`\frac{dE}{dx}`$. According to Sivan and Imry , one can approximate $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ in a hard-wall dot by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{}\omega _C\mathrm{}_B/L`$, where $`\mathrm{}_B`$ denotes the magnetic length and L the dot diameter. Our measurements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ are in good agreement with this expression, which indicates that the level separation is not strongly reduced by a finite wall steepness. We can estimate the steepness at the Fermi level in dot S from the Fock-Darwin model, despite its shortcomings, to $`\frac{dE}{dx}`$ = $`m^{}\omega _0^2r`$, which gives $`\frac{dE}{dx}`$ 0.6 meV/nm. Furthermore, the charge-density model can be quantified in some more detail for dot L. Since $`E_{12}`$ corresponds to the separation between adjacent conductive regions in Fig. 3c, we estimate $`C_{12}60aF`$. We denote the width of the outermost compressible stripe by $`w_1`$, and the width of the incompressible stripe as $`a_1`$ (see Fig. 5b). The ratio between the area of center region and the outer ring is about 2.5, since we have 2.5 times more levels in the inner region than in the outer ring. We use the formula for a planar capacitor to estimate the ratio $`\frac{w_1}{a_1}\frac{1}{4}exp(C_{12}/4ϵϵ_0r)`$ 0.5, leading to $`w_1`$ 25 nm and $`a_1`$ 50 nm. The Fermi energy drops completely over the distance $`a_1`$. Hence, we can estimate $`[\frac{dE}{dx}]_L\frac{E_F}{a_1}`$ 400 $`\mu `$eV/nm. This is the average wall steepness. The edge of dot L is thus about one order of magnitude steeper than in conventional dots, as estimated from self-consistent charge-density functional calculations. Since the lateral depletion length is smaller in dot L than in dot S, one might qualitatively expect that the wall steepness is larger. This, however, is not clearly supported by our data.

## V Summary

In conclusion, we have demonstrated that by local oxidation of semiconductor heterostructures with an atomic force microscope, nanostructures with steep walls can be fabricated. Empirically, the height of the oxidized lines determines the lateral depletion length. Using quantum dots as an example, we have shown via magnetotransport experiments that the confinement can be super-parabolic, i.e., it resembles more a hard-wall potential than a parabolic potential. The deviations from a parabolic confinement become more pronounced as the dot size is increased. The average wall steepness is of the order of 0.4 meV/nm.
We would like to thank T. Ihn an enlightening discussion. Financial support by the Swiss National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.