text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0304128 UCSD-PTH-03-02

The Exact Superconformal R-Symmetry Maximizes $`a`$

Ken Intriligator and Brian Wecht

Department of Physics

University of California, San Diego

La Jolla, CA 92093-0354, USA

An exact and general solution is presented for a previously open problem. We show that the superconformal R-symmetry of any 4d SCFT is exactly and uniquely determined by a maximization principle: it is the R-symmetry, among all possibilities, which (locally) maximizes the combination of ’t Hooft anomalies $`a_{trial}(R)(9\mathrm{Tr}R^33\mathrm{Tr}R)/32`$. The maximal value of $`a_{trial}`$ is then, by a result of Anselmi et. al., the central charge $`a`$ of the SCFT. Our $`a_{trial}`$ maximization principle almost immediately ensures that the central charge $`a`$ decreases upon any RG flow, since relevant deformations force $`a_{trial}`$ to be maximized over a subset of the previously possible R-symmetries. Using $`a_{trial}`$ maximization, we find the exact superconformal R-symmetry (and thus the exact anomalous dimensions of all chiral operators) in a variety of previously mysterious 4d $`𝒩=1`$ SCFTs. As a check, we verify that our exact results reproduce the perturbative anomalous dimensions in all perturbatively accessible RG fixed points. Our result implies that $`𝒩=1`$ SCFTs are algebraic: the exact scaling dimensions of all chiral primary operators, and the central charges $`a`$ and $`c`$, are always algebraic numbers.

April 2003

1. Introduction

The 4d $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal algebra is $`SU(2,2|1)`$, whose bosonic part is $`SO(4,2)\times U(1)_R`$. Thus every $`𝒩=1`$ superconformal field theory (SCFT) must have a conserved $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, whose current is in the same superconformal multiplet as the stress-energy tensor. There might be additional global flavor symmetries $``$; the full symmetry group of the $`𝒩=1`$ SCFT is then $`SU(2,2|1)`$. The additional global symmetry $``$ acts as a “non-R” symmetry (i.e. the supercharges are invariant). For example, $`𝒩=1`$ SQCD is believed to flow to an interacting SCFT for $`N_f`$ in the range $`3N_c>N_f>\frac{3}{2}N_c`$ , and the additional global symmetry of the SCFT is $`=SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)\times U(1)_B`$.

The $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry residing in $`SU(2,2|1)`$ yields important and exact results for SCFTs. For example, all operators $`𝒪`$ have dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒪)`$ which satisfy

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒪)\frac{3}{2}R(𝒪)\text{and}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒪)\frac{3}{2}R(𝒪),$$

with $`R(𝒪)`$ the $`U(1)_R`$ charge of $`𝒪`$. The first inequality is saturated for pure chiral primary operators, and the second for pure anti-chiral operators. Since the $`R`$ charge of composite operators is simply additive, so are the anomalous dimensions of composite chiral primary operators; this is the statement that they form a chiral ring, with non-singular mutual OPE.

The condition that the $`U(1)_R`$ global symmetry be free of ABJ type anomalies, i.e. that $`R`$-charge conservation must not be violated in any gauge field instanton backgrounds, is precisely the condition that the NSVZ exact beta functions  vanish for all gauge groups.

Another remarkable utility of the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry was found by Anselmi et. al. \[3,,4\]: the $`U(1)_R`$ ’t Hooft anomalies completely determine the $`a`$ and $`c`$ central charges of the superconformal field theory:

$$a=\frac{3}{32}(3\mathrm{Tr}R^3\mathrm{Tr}R),c=\frac{1}{32}(9\mathrm{Tr}R^35\mathrm{Tr}R).$$

Because of ’t Hooft anomaly matching, this means that these central charges can be computed simply in terms of the weakly coupled UV spectrum, even for highly interacting IR fixed points. It is believed that the central charge $`a`$ obeys the 4d analog of Zamolodchikov’s c-theorem : Under any renormalization group flow, perturbing away from any UV fixed point and flowing to a new IR fixed point reduces the central charge: $`a_{IR}<a_{UV}`$. This was verified to be the case in many supersymmetric examples by using (1.1), as in \[3,,4\]. See  for some more recent developments.

So the superconformal R-symmetry is extremely useful…provided that it can be found! The symmetry constraints generally do not uniquely determine $`U(1)_R`$ whenever $``$ is non-trivial. This is because if $`R_0`$ is some valid $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, then so is

$$R_t=R_0+\underset{I}{}s_IF_I,$$

where $`F_I`$ are all of the non-R flavor charges in the global symmetry group $``$ 1 We emphasize that all currents in (1.1) are bona fide symmetries, which are anomaly free and respected by all superpotential terms. In particular, we are not considering the situation discussed in e.g. \[3,,4\] of the RG flow of the $`R`$ current in the stress tensor supermultiplet between its weak coupling expression and that of the IR fixed point SCFT. We are not considering RG flows here, only aspects of the interacting SCFT RG fixed points. and $`s_I`$ are arbitrary real parameters. The superconformal $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ corresponds then to some particular choice $`\widehat{s}_I`$ of these parameters, and we need something beyond just symmetry considerations to determine what these are.

There are some physical expectations which sometimes help. For example, the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ is expected to commute with the non-Abelian flavor symmetries, so we can restrict the linear combination in (1.1) only to the Abelian flavor generators, which commute with all non-Abelian elements of $``$. Also, if there’s a charge conjugation symmetry, the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ should also commute with that (e.g. for SQCD, baryons and anti-baryons should have the same R-charge); then the $`F_I`$ in (1.1) can be restricted to those commuting with charge conjugation. For the case of SQCD, these constraints imply that $`U(1)_R`$ can not mix with any of the generators of the global flavor group $`SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)\times U(1)_B`$; they thus uniquely determine the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ of SQCD.

Another physical requirement (which actually does not help to determine the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry) is that unitarity implies that all gauge invariant, spinless operators must have dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$. An operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ saturates this bound, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Phi })=1`$, iff it is a free field, with $`_\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. Thus all gauge invariant, chiral primary operators must have $`U(1)_R`$ charge $`R\frac{2}{3}`$, with the bound saturated iff the operator is a free field. But this unitarity condition actually does not in any way constrain the R-charge assignment of the basic fields entering the Lagrangian. Indeed, it is possible that the R-charge assignments of the basic fields is such that some gauge invariant combinations appear to violate the $`R2/3`$ bound. Examples where this happens appear in the theories considered in , where the resolution of the apparent conflict with unitarity was also given: Any gauge invariant chiral operator, $`X`$, which apparently violates the $`R2/3`$ condition is actually a free field. Because $`X`$ is decoupled from the rest of the SCFT, there’s an accidental extra $`U(1)_X`$ symmetry, under which only $`X`$ is charged, which mixes with the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry to correct the superconformal R-charge of $`X`$ to be $`R(X)=2/3`$, with the R-charges of the other operators unaffected.

In general, the superconformal R-symmetry is not uniquely determined on symmetry grounds or the above considerations. One well-known example is $`𝒩=1`$ SQCD with an added adjoint and zero superpotential. Because no other condition to determine the superconformal R-symmetry had been previously known (as far as we are aware), it had not been possible to apply the above powerful constraints of superconformal invariance to generic $`𝒩=1`$ SCFTs.

We will here present and explore a simple prescription for uniquely and exactly determining the exact superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ for any 4d SCFT. The idea is to parametrize the most general possible R-symmetry as in (1.1). The subscript $`t`$ is for “trial.” The superconformal $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ then corresponds to some particular values, $`\widehat{s}_I`$,

$$R=R_0+\underset{I}{}\widehat{s}_IF_I;$$

our goal then is to determine the values of the $`\widehat{s}_I`$. What we show is that the $`\widehat{s}_I`$ can be uniquely determined by imposing the following conditions on the ’t Hooft anomalies:

$$9\mathrm{Tr}(R^2F_I)=\mathrm{Tr}F_I,$$

where $`R`$ is the $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ and $`F_I`$ are all flavor charges in $``$, and also

$$\mathrm{Tr}RF_IF_K<0.$$

Specifically, this matrix has all negative eigenvalues for all flavor symmetries. We will prove (1.1) and (1.1) using general properties of 4d $`N=1`$ SCFTs. Plugging (1.1) into (1.1) leads to a quadratic equation for each of the $`\widehat{s}_I`$. Then (1.1) uniquely determines which are the correct roots of the quadratic equations.

The identities (1.1) and (1.1) have a nice interpretation. Introduce

$$a_{trial}(s)\frac{3}{32}(3\mathrm{Tr}R_t^3\mathrm{Tr}R_t)$$

for the general trial $`R_t`$ symmetry (1.1) as a function of the parameters $`s_I`$. When the $`s_I`$ are the special values $`\widehat{s}_I`$, where $`R_t`$ becomes the $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$, the value of $`a_{trial}`$ is the central charge $`a`$ of the SCFT, as in (1.1). The conditions (1.1) and (1.1) can be equivalently stated: the $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ is precisely that which (locally) maximizes $`a_{trial}(s)`$! This is simply because

$$\frac{a(s)}{s_I}=\frac{3}{32}(9\mathrm{Tr}R_t^2F_I\mathrm{Tr}F_I)\text{and}\frac{^2a(s)}{s_Is_K}=\frac{27}{16}\mathrm{Tr}R_tF_IF_K.$$

So (1.1) and (1.1) together imply that, among all possible R-symmetries, the $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ is that which (locally) maximizes $`a`$.

As an example of how $`a_{trial}`$ maximization determines the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$, consider the case of a free theory of $`|𝒢|`$ vector multiplets and $`M`$ chiral multiplets $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, $`i=1\mathrm{}M`$, with trial charges $`R_t(\mathrm{\Phi }_i)=r_i`$. We then have

$$a_{trial}=\frac{3}{32}\left(2|𝒢|+\underset{i}{}[3(r_i1)^3(r_i1)]\right).$$

If we now extremize with respect to the $`r_i`$, we get

$$(r_i1)^2=\frac{1}{9},$$

with $`r_i=2/3`$ the root which is a local maximum and $`r_i=4/3`$ the root which is a local minimum. Our general identities (1.1) and (1.1) imply that the correct superconformal R-symmetry in this case is to take $`r_i=2/3`$ as the charge of all chiral superfields. This is indeed the correct result for the free theory and, at this local maximum,

$$a=a_{free}=\frac{3}{16}|𝒢|+\frac{1}{48}M.$$

Note that, because $`a_{trial}`$ is a cubic function of the $`r_i`$, there is no global maximum or minimum: $`a_{trial}\pm \mathrm{}`$ if we take $`r_i\pm \mathrm{}`$.

Several comments:

1. If a flavor symmetry $`F_I`$ has vanishing ’t Hooft anomaly, $`\mathrm{Tr}F_I=0`$, then the condition (1.1) becomes $`\mathrm{Tr}R^2F_I=0`$. Examples of such $`F_I`$ are non-Abelian flavor symmetries (which satisfy $`\mathrm{Tr}F_I=0`$ by tracelessness of the generators) and $`U(1)`$ symmetries, such as baryon number, which do not commute with a charge conjugation symmetry. For such $`F_I`$ the solution of $`\mathrm{Tr}R^2F_I=0`$ is to take $`R`$ to commute with $`F_I`$. So the condition (1.1) automatically ensures that the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ does not mix with non-Abelian flavor symmetries or baryon number, as was expected on physical grounds. For these non-Abelian or baryon number flavor symmetries $`F_I`$, the remaining condition (1.1) becomes $`(R(Q)1)\mathrm{Tr}F_IF_J<0`$, where $`R(Q)`$ is the superconformal R-charge of those fields $`Q`$, appearing in the Lagrangian, which are charged under such a symmetry $`F_I`$. Here $`R(Q)1`$ is the R-charge of the fermion component of $`Q`$ and we used the fact that the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ commutes with these symmetries to take the $`(R(Q)1)`$ outside the trace. (This is for the case of a single irreducible representation of the non-Abelian flavor symmetry with generators $`F_I`$. With several such fields $`Q_i`$, in representations $`𝐫_i`$, we’d have $`_i(R(Q_i)1)\mathrm{Tr}_{𝐫_i}F_IF_J<0`$.) Because all non-Abelian or baryon number flavor symmetries have positive $`\mathrm{Tr}F_IF_J`$, we obtain a non-trivial new constraint on SCFTs: all matter fields $`Q`$ in the Lagrangian which transform in non-Abelian flavor representations, or which are charged under a baryon number symmetry, must have superconformal R-charge $`R(Q)<1`$. It is satisfying to verify that this new constraint is indeed satisfied in all known examples of SCFTs, in all dual descriptions.

2. The $`a_{trial}`$ maximization principle almost immediately ensures the $`a`$ theorem: $`a_{IR}<a_{UV}`$ for any RG flow between UV and IR fixed points. The reason is that generally $`_{IR}_{UV}`$, since the relevant deformations of the UV theory break some of the flavor symmetries 2 This also applies to Higgsings, if we interpret $``$ as also containing the global component of the gauge group, which mixes with the flavor symmetries upon Higgsing. The previous comment ensures that $`R`$ commutes with the global component of the gauge group too.. Since at the IR fixed point $`a_{trial}`$ is maximized over a subspace of the parameter space of UV fixed point, the maximal value will be smaller, showing that $`a_{IR}<a_{UV}`$. The “almost” is because of two potential inadequacies in this argument. The first is that sometimes there are additional, accidental flavor symmetries of the IR fixed point, so sometimes $`_{IR}`$ isn’t a subset of $`_{UV}`$. The second caveat is that, since the $`a_{trial}`$ maximum is only a local maximum, it’s possible for the maximal value on a restricted subspace to actually exceed that of the larger parameter space, e.g. one could get a larger value than (1.1) if some added interaction restricts some of the R-charges to a subspace where they’re sufficiently large. So the $`a`$ theorem requires that those relevant deformations which can drive the theory to a new RG fixed point can’t possibly restrict the possible $`R`$ charges to a subspace where some are extremely large. This fits with the constraint mentioned in comment 1, and with the intuition that interactions generally reduce the dimensions of chiral primary operators.

3. The conditions (1.1) are quadratic equations for the $`\widehat{s}_I`$ appearing in (1.1). The sign of the discriminants of these equations must be such that the solutions $`\widehat{s}_I`$ are real, since the superconformal R-charge of all fields must be real.

4. Our approach relies on being able to identify the full symmetry group of the RG fixed point, e.g. via analyzing the UV Lagrangian away from the RG fixed point. But strongly interacting RG fixed points can also have enhanced symmetries, which are not visible in any weakly coupled Lagrangian description. In particular, the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ of a SCFT could be such a symmetry. This is the case, for example, in the $`𝒩=1`$ and $`𝒩=2`$ SCFTs presented in \[8,,9\]. Though our ’t Hooft anomaly identities should be applicable also at such RG fixed points, it remains to be seen whether or not they can be used to determine the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ in such cases.

5. The superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ charges determined by our procedure outlined above will always be algebraic numbers, i.e. rationals and roots of rationals. This is because they are found by solving quadratic equations with rational coefficients (which are the ’t Hooft anomalies). Thus, for any SCFT, the exact anomalous dimensions of all chiral primary operators, and the exact central charges $`a`$ and $`c`$, will always be algebraic numbers. (SCFTs of the type discussed in the previous comment could be exceptions to this general statement, though the known examples of this type actually have rational R-charges).

The outline of this paper is as follows. In the next section we will discuss some general aspects of currents, anomalies, and supersymmetry. After presenting some background material, we will argue for the result (1.1) by using a result due to Osborn : the 3-point function of two stress tensor supermultiplets and one flavor current supermultiplet is of a form completely determined by the superconformal symmetry with only a single overall multiplicative coefficient to be determined. The condition (1.1) will also be obtained, by relating the ’t Hooft anomalies to current-current correlators and using unitarity, as in . In section 3 we verify, in complete generality, that our $`a_{trial}`$ maximization precisely reproduces the known, leading order, anomalous dimensions in all perturbatively accessible RG fixed points of the type conjectured by \[11,,12\].

In section 4 we use $`a_{trial}`$ maximization to obtain the exact R-charge for some previously mysterious examples. In particular, we consider in complete generality theories with two different matter field representations and zero superpotential. A special case of this is $`SU(N)`$ with an adjoint chiral superfield and $`N_f`$ fundamental flavors, with $`W=0`$. This theory was argued to have a non-trivial RG fixed point in , and was further explored in , but the exact R-charges could not be determined before the present paper. We also discuss some chiral quiver $`𝒩=1`$ SCFT examples, both with and without superpotential, which gives another check of the a-theorem.

2. Currents, anomalies, and supersymmetry

In this section we argue for the result (1.1) by showing that a result due to Osborn  implies that $`\mathrm{Tr}R^2F_I`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}F_I`$ are necessarily proportional to each other. As we also discuss, following , the $`\mathrm{Tr}RF_IF_J`$ t’Hooft anomalies are proportional to the $`J_I^\mu J_J^\nu `$ current correlator, whose sign is constrained by unitarity. The reader need not get too bogged down with the numerical coefficients in the following section, since we only need to establish general proportionality relations. The constants of proportionality can then always be determined by considering the particular case of a free field theory.

2.1. Review of currents and anomalies

Let’s first review some basics of currents and anomalies in theories which aren’t necessarily supersymmetric. We’ll call the gauge group $`𝒢`$ and suppose, for illustrative purposes, that the flavor group is a product $`U(1)_1\times U(1)_2`$, with left-handed chiral currents $`J_\mu ^I`$ for $`I=1,2`$. (The generalization to non-Abelian flavor symmetries is straightforward, with the most interesting aspects for our discussions in the $`U(1)`$ factors anyway.)

The currents $`J_\mu ^I`$ must not have ABJ anomalies, i.e. the triangle diagram with a current insertion at one vertex and $`𝒢`$ gauge fields at the other two must vanish. Suppose that there are $`n_i`$ chiral fermions $`\psi _\alpha ^i`$, all in $`𝒢`$ representation $`𝐫_i`$, with $`U(1)_I`$ flavor charge $`q_i^I`$, which all run in the loop. The vanishing ABJ anomaly condition is

$$\underset{i}{}q_i^In_i\mu (𝐫_i)=0,$$

where the $`\mu (𝐫_i)`$ are the quadratic Casimirs from the coupling to the two $`𝒢`$ gauge fields,

$$\mathrm{Tr}_{𝐫_i}(T_𝒢^AT_𝒢^B)=\mu (𝐫_i)\delta ^{AB},2h\mu (Ad),$$

and with $`T_𝒢^A`$ the $`𝒢`$ generators in representation $`𝐫_i`$. The anomaly free condition (2.1) can equivalently be stated as the condition that the fermion zero modes of the $`𝒢`$ instanton’s ’t Hooft vertex must be flavor neutral. The $`𝒢`$ instanton has $`n_i\mu (𝐫_i)`$ of the $`\psi _{\alpha ,i}`$ fermion zero modes. (Our normalization is e.g. $`\mu (\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ })=1`$ for $`SU(N)`$.)

We now consider current correlators. In any conformal field theory, the current two-point functions are completely determined by conformal invariance, up to the overall coefficient:

$$J_\mu ^I(x)J_\nu ^K(0)=\frac{\tau ^{IK}}{16\pi ^4}(_\rho ^\rho \delta _{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu )(\frac{1}{x^4}).$$

In any unitary theory, $`\tau _{IK}`$ should be a matrix with all positive definite eigenvalues.

The form of the current 3-point functions are also highly constrained. The aspect of interest to us here is the anomalous violation of the current conservation in contact terms. For example,

$$\frac{}{z_\rho }J_\mu ^I(x)J_\nu ^I(y)J_\rho ^I(z)=\frac{k_{III}}{48\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \kappa \sigma }\frac{}{x^\kappa }\frac{}{y^\sigma }\delta (xz)\delta (yz),$$

where the coefficient $`k_{III}`$ is the $`\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_I^3`$’t Hooft anomaly

$$k_{III}=\underset{i}{}n_i|𝐫_i|(q_i^I)^3.$$

Here $`|𝐫_i|`$ is the dimension of the representation $`𝐫_i`$.

Similarly, there are current conservation violating contact terms in current correlators involving mixtures of the two currents, such as $`J_\mu ^L(x)J_\mu ^L(y)J_\rho ^I(z)`$ with $`IL`$, which has an anomalous contact term proportional to the mixed ’t Hooft anomaly

$$k_{LLI}\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_L^2U(1)_I=\underset{i}{}n_i|𝐫_i|q_i^I(q_i^L)^2.$$

Another anomalous contact term, violating current conservation, occurs in the 3-point functions involving the current at one vertex of the triangle diagram and stress energy tensors at the other two, e.g. $`T_{\mu \nu }(x)T_{\rho \sigma }(y)J^I(z)`$, which has anomalous contact terms proportional to the ’t Hooft anomaly

$$k_I\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_I=\underset{i}{}n_i|𝐫_i|q_i^I$$

The contact terms in the above mentioned three point functions can be conveniently expressed in terms of a lack of current conservation when the currents $`J_\mu ^I`$ are coupled to general background gauge fields $`A_\mu ^I`$, and the stress tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is coupled to a general metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. For example, we have

$$\frac{}{z_\mu }J_\mu ^I(z)=\frac{k_{III}}{48\pi ^2}F_I\stackrel{~}{F}_I+\frac{k_{IIL}}{16\pi ^2}F_I\stackrel{~}{F}_L+\frac{k_{LLI}}{16\pi ^2}F_L\stackrel{~}{F}_L+\frac{k_I}{384\pi ^2}R\stackrel{~}{R}$$

where $`LI`$, $`F\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu }F^{\rho \sigma }`$, and $`R\stackrel{~}{R}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\lambda \nu \rho \sigma }R_{\lambda \nu \kappa \eta }R_{\rho \sigma }^{\kappa \eta }`$. The first term comes from the descent formalism on $`\frac{1}{3!}(F/2\pi i)^3`$. On the other hand, the third term comes directly from the index theorem, as in the ABJ anomaly, involving $`\frac{1}{2!}(F/2\pi i)^2`$; this is one way to understand the relative factor of three between these two terms (one can also see it directly from the symmetry factors with the two corresponding triangle diagrams). The last term in (2.1) is the Pontrjagin density; it can be written in terms of the Weyl tensor (the Riemann tensor minus all non-zero contractions of indices), so it vanishes in any conformally flat background.

2.2. Supersymmetric Theories

Consider a general 4d $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric gauge theory, with gauge group $`𝒢`$, which we’ll take to be simple to streamline the present discussion (the generalization to product gauge groups is easy). The theory has chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the $`𝒢`$ representation (which, of course, must be gauge anomaly free): $`_{i=1}^sn_i𝐫_𝐢`$. If there is no added superpotential, the full symmetry group of anomaly free global symmetries is

$$U(1)_R\times U(1)^{s1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}SU(n_s).$$

(E.g. for SQCD we have $`s=2`$, with $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟏}=\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }`$, $`𝐫_\mathrm{𝟐}=\overline{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}`$, and $`n_1=n_2=N_f`$.)

In the flavor group (2.1), we have already eliminated one $`U(1)`$ classical global symmetry by the vanishing ABJ anomaly condition (2.1). The chiral $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry in (2.1) assigns charge $`1`$ to the gauginos, charge $`R_i`$ to the scalar components of the chiral superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, and charge $`R_i1`$ to the fermion components of the chiral superfields; thus the general condition (2.1) of vanishing ABJ anomaly becomes

$$2h+\underset{i}{}n_i(R_i1)\mu (𝐫_i)=0.$$

The remaining flavor symmetries in (2.1) are not R-symmetries, so the gauginos are neutral and all components of the chiral superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$, in representation $`𝐫_i`$, carry the same charge $`q_i`$. According to (2.1), these must satisfy

$$\underset{i}{}n_iq_i\mu (𝐫_i)=0.$$

The non-Abelian part of the currents in (2.1) is always anomaly free since their generators are traceless, so (2.1) only constrains the overall $`U(1)`$ flavor symmetries in (2.1), which commute with the non-Abelian flavor symmetries. Any superpotential terms will further constrain the above flavor symmetries and charges, which could be easily incorporated into this discussion.

The anomalous contact terms in current three point functions or equivalently the lack of current conservation when the global symmetries are coupled to non-trivial backgrounds are as described in the previous subsection, with the ’t Hooft anomalies

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}R^3k_{RRR}& =|𝒢|+\underset{i}{}n_i(R_i1)^3|𝐫_i|\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}Rk_R& =|𝒢|+\underset{i}{}n_i(R_i1)|𝐫_i|\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}R^2Fk_{RRF}& =\underset{i}{}n_i(R_i1)^2q_i|𝐫_i|\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}F^3k_{FFF}& =\underset{i}{}n_iq_i^3|𝐫_i|\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}Fk_F& =\underset{i}{}n_iq_i|𝐫_i|\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}RF^2k_{RFF}& =\underset{i}{}n_i(R_i1)q_i^2|𝐫_i|.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`𝒢`$ is the dimension of the gauge group, and $`|𝐫_i|`$ is that of $`𝐫_i`$.

The flavor currents and their anomalies in general backgrounds can be expressed in terms of current superfields. One is the super-stress tensor $`T_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$, whose $`\theta =0`$ component is the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry, components linear in $`\theta _\beta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\beta }}`$ are the supersymmetry currents, and terms quadratic in the $`\theta `$ and $`\overline{\theta }`$ are the stress-energy tensor. The other, non-R, flavor currents reside in current superfields

$$J_I(x,\theta )=\frac{1}{4}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}T_I\mathrm{\Phi },\text{with current component}J_I^\mu =\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu [^\alpha ,^{\dot{\alpha }}]J_I|_{\theta =0}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ are the chiral and anti-chiral matter fields and $`T_I`$ is the appropriate flavor generator, labeled by $`I`$. The super-stress tensor $`T_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$ couples to the metric in terms of the metric superfield $`H^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$, while the non-R current superfields (2.1) couple to background superfield vector multiplets $`V_I`$. See \[15,,16\] for background material and references.

The super-stress tensor’s anomaly can be expressed in the general form \[15,,16\]

$$\overline{}^{\dot{\alpha }}T_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=_\alpha L_T,$$

where $`L_T`$ is the trace anomaly, which can be written in terms of the variation of the action with respect to the chiral compensator superfield of supergravity. For example, in a theory with non-vanishing beta function we’d have $`L_T\beta _1\mathrm{tr}W_g^2`$, giving $`T_\mu ^\mu \beta _1\mathrm{Tr}F_g^2`$, with $`F_g`$ the gauge field strength and $`W_g`$ its chiral superfield. We’re interested in conformal field theories, so $`\beta =0`$ and $`L_T=0`$ when in flat space and trivial background gauge fields. When coupled to non-trivial backgrounds, however, we have

$$L_T=\frac{c}{24\pi ^2}𝒲^2\frac{a}{24\pi ^2}\mathrm{\Xi }\frac{1}{96\pi ^2}\underset{IK}{}\tau _{IK}\mathrm{Tr}W_IW_K.$$

The coefficients $`c`$ and $`a`$ are the central charges, $`𝒲^2\frac{1}{2}W_{\alpha \beta \gamma }W^{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ is the square of the super-Weyl tensor, and $`\mathrm{\Xi }𝒲^2+(\overline{}^2+R)(G^2+2R\overline{R})`$ is the chirally projected super Euler density; see appendix A of  for a discussion of these terms. Taking components of the first two terms in (2.1) is how  obtained the relations (1.1). The remaining terms in (2.1) are the contributions to the scaling anomaly proportional to the super field strengths $`W_I`$ of the background gauge fields $`V_I`$, which couple to the flavor supercurrents $`J_I`$. The coefficients $`\tau _{IK}`$ are the same as those in (2.1), following the discussion in .

2.3. The flavor super-anomaly

We now turn to the anomaly of the non-R flavor currents $`J_I`$ in general backgrounds. The divergence of the current in (2.1) is proportional to $`D^2J\overline{D}^2J`$, so the super-anomaly can be written as a non-zero chiral contribution to $`\overline{D}^2J`$. We were not able to find a discussion of this in the literature or supersymmetry textbooks so, as far as we’re aware, our result of $`\overline{D}^2J`$ in a general background is new. It’s clear how to proceed: since $`\overline{D}^2J`$ is a chiral object, its non-zero anomaly must involve chiral field strengths of the background fields. Further, the current anomaly component of the result must reproduce the terms in (2.1). The result is

$$\overline{D}^2J_I=\frac{k_{III}}{48\pi ^2}W_I^2+\underset{LI}{}\left(\frac{k_{IIL}}{16\pi ^2}W_IW_L+\frac{k_{ILL}}{16\pi ^2}W_LW_L\right)+\frac{k_I}{384\pi ^2}𝒲^2.$$

(In a curved background, we replace  $`\overline{D}^2\widehat{\overline{}}^2\overline{}^2+R`$ in (2.1). We’ll continue to just call this $`\overline{D}^2`$; the implicit curvature term does not contribute to our final result.)

The crucial aspect of (2.1) for our purposes is that the gravitational contribution only involves $`𝒲^2`$, with no additional term proportional to the chiral Euler/Pontrjagin density $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. This differs from the super-stress tensor anomaly (2.1), which involves both chiral field strengths. To motivate the absence of an additional term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in (2.1), we note that $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ has a component which is the Euler density, which is non-vanishing even for a conformally flat metric. On the other hand, $`𝒲^2`$ does vanish in a conformally flat background. The absence of a term proportional to $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in (2.1) is related to the fact that supercurrents should be conserved in a conformally flat background, since there is no unavoidable charge violation by particle production in conformally flat backgrounds. For example, in conformally flat AdS space, with unbroken supersymmetry, the $`J^\mu `$ component of $`J`$ is conserved because the Pontrjagin density vanishes. Supersymmetry then implies that the holomorphic quantity $`\overline{D}^2J`$ identically vanishes.

The gravitational part of (2.1) can equivalently be described in terms of an anomalous contribution to the current superfield 3-point function

$$\overline{D}_3^2T_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(1)T_{\beta \dot{\beta }}(2)J_I(3)=\text{contact terms},$$

where $`(1)`$ etc. label the superspace coordinates at the three points. The fact that there is only one independent gravitational term in (2.1), as opposed to the two terms in (2.1), is related to a result of Osborn  for the relevant 3-point function:

$$T_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(1)T_{\beta \dot{\beta }}(2)J_I(3)=K_II_{\alpha \dot{\alpha },\beta \dot{\beta }}(1,2,3).$$

Here $`I_{\alpha \dot{\alpha },\beta \dot{\beta }}(1,2,3)`$ is a completely determined function on superspace , and the only dependence on the theory is in a single overall coefficient $`K_I`$. Taking $`\overline{D}_3^2`$ of (2.1) gives the contact terms indicated in (2.1). This would then lead3 Rather than directly showing that the contact terms indeed lead to (2.1), we note that, because the function $`I_{\alpha \dot{\alpha },\beta \dot{\beta }}(1,2,3)`$ in (2.1) is completely determined, the possible gravitational contributions to $`\overline{D}^2J`$, namely $`𝒲^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, must appear with a fixed ratio. Then a free-field calculation would suffice to show that the coefficient of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is actually zero, as in (2.1). to (2.1), with the single overall normalization constant $`K_I`$, needed to fix the three-point function (2.1), thus proportional to the $`\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_I`$ ’t Hooft anomaly $`k_I`$.

In contrast, it was also shown in  that the $`TTT`$ 3-point function depends on two overall coefficients, which is related to the fact that both $`𝒲^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ appear in (2.1). The fact that the 3-point function involving two stress tensors and one flavor current $`T_{\mu \nu }(1)T_{\rho \sigma }(2)J_{I,\lambda }(3)`$ is completely fixed up to a single overall normalization coefficient also holds in non-supersymmetric conformal field theories, as shown by . There, too, we can say that the single undetermined overall coefficient must be proportional to the $`\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_I`$ ’t Hooft anomaly.

2.4. Why $`a`$ is maximized for the correct superconformal R-symmetry

In this section we prove (1.1) and (1.1), from which $`a_{trial}`$ maximization follows.

Consider (2.1), with the background gauge fields $`W_I`$ set to zero and only the non-trivial backgrounds those in $`𝒲^2`$, namely the metric and the $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ background gauge field strength, which we denote by $`F_R`$. The divergence of the $`U(1)_I`$ flavor current is

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ^\rho J_\rho ^I& =\frac{i}{4}[^2,\overline{^2}]J_I|_{\theta =0}=\frac{ik_I}{384\pi ^2}(^2𝒲^2\overline{}^2\overline{𝒲}^2)|_{\theta =0}\hfill \\ & =\frac{k_I}{384\pi ^2}\left(R\stackrel{~}{R}+\frac{8}{3}F_R\stackrel{~}{F}_R\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Comparing with (2.1), the first term is the expected result involving the anomaly proportional to the $`k_I=\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_I`$ ’t Hooft anomaly multiplied by the Pontrjagin density. The second term in (2.1) is the anomaly which, as in (2.1), should be proportional to the $`k_{IRR}=\mathrm{Tr}U(1)_IU(1)_R^2`$ ’t Hooft anomaly, but we see in (2.1) that it’s instead also proportional to $`k_I`$. Taking into account the coefficients in (2.1), as compared with (2.1), we have thus shown the result (1.1). As a check of eqns. (2.1) and (1.1), we note that (2.1) suffices to show that the ratio $`k_I/k_{IRR}`$ is some fixed number for all currents, independent of the theory; so it can be evaluated for the case of free fields, where the matter fermions have $`R=1/3`$, showing that the ratio is 9. We can write the result (1.1) as

$$\underset{i}{}n_i|𝐫_i|q_i\left(9(R_i1)^21\right)=0.$$

To prove (1.1), suppose that we take trivial metric and $`F_R`$ backgrounds but turn on background gauge fields coupled to the currents $`J_I`$. Then (2.1) and (2.1) imply, as in , that the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry has a divergence given by

$$_\mu R^\mu =\frac{\tau _{IJ}}{48\pi ^2}F_I\stackrel{~}{F}_J,\text{and hence}k_{RIJ}\mathrm{Tr}RF_IF_J=\frac{\tau _{IJ}}{3},$$

where $`\tau _{IJ}`$ are the same coefficients as in (2.1). Since $`\tau _{IJ}`$ must be a matrix with all positive definite eigenvalues in any unitary theory, we see that supersymmetry, along with unitarity, requires $`\mathrm{Tr}RF_IF_J`$ to be negative, as in (1.1). It is easy to see this in for example a free field theory, where the R-charge of any matter fermion field is $`1/3`$.

3. A check: comparing with perturbative RG fixed points.

Let’s write the beta function as:

$$\beta (g)=\beta _1g^3+\beta _2g^5+\mathrm{}.$$

As pointed out in \[11,,12\], there can be a RG fixed point in the perturbative regime if the one loop beta function is negative and the two loop beta function positive, so $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ in (3.1) are both positive, and the coupling $`g_{}^2\beta _1/\beta _2`$ where they cancel is sufficiently small. The expectation is that, in this case, higher order corrections might shift the fixed point value $`g_{}`$ a bit, but not wipe out the qualitative feature of a RG fixed point. This is the case when $`\beta _1`$ is very small, so the theory is just barely asymptotically free. In terms of a large $`N_c`$ expansion, where $`\beta _1`$ is order $`N_c`$ and $`\beta _2`$ is order $`N_c^2`$ (corresponding to the expansion in ’t Hooft coupling $`g^2N_c`$) we get a small $`\beta _1`$ by adding matter flavors with total quadratic index $`\mu _T`$ proportional to $`N_c`$, to make $`\beta _1`$ order $`N_c^0`$. The $`\beta _2`$ is still order $`N_c^2`$, so we get $`g_{}^2N_c1/N_c`$: the ’t Hooft coupling is parametrically small, so the existence of the RG fixed point is on fairly solid ground.

We will be completely general, letting the gauge group be $`𝒢`$ and there be matter chiral superfields in representations $`_in_i𝐫_i`$. To be in the perturbative RG fixed point regime, we want to have

$$\beta _1=3h\frac{1}{2}\mu _Thϵ,\text{with}0<ϵ1,$$

and $`\mu _T_in_i\mu (𝐫_i)`$ the total of the matter field’s quadratic Casimirs (2.1). We first compute the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry via $`a_{trial}`$ maximization, and then compare the result to a direct perturbative computation of the anomalous dimensions at the RG fixed point.

We assign the fields R-charge $`R_i`$ subject to the vanishing anomaly constraint (2.1); to order $`ϵ`$ we do this as

$$R_i=\frac{2}{3}+R_i^{(1)}ϵ+𝒪(ϵ^2),\text{where}\underset{i}{}n_i\mu (𝐫_i)R_i^{(1)}=\frac{2}{3}h.$$

We now compute

$$9\mathrm{Tr}R^2F\mathrm{Tr}F=6ϵ\underset{i}{}R_i^{(1)}n_i|𝐫_i|q_i+𝒪(ϵ^2);$$

this must vanish for the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$. This vanishing must hold for all possible choices of flavor charges $`q_i`$ which satisfy the anomaly free condition (2.1). This requires that $`R_i^{(1)}=\alpha \mu (𝐫_i)/|𝐫_i|`$, and we can fix the overall normalization $`\alpha `$ via (3.1) to obtain

$$R_i=\frac{2}{3}ϵ\frac{2h}{3}\left(\underset{j}{}n_j\mu (𝐫_j)^2|𝐫_j|^1\right)^1\frac{\mu (𝐫_i)}{|𝐫_i|}+O(ϵ^2).$$

Of course, we could just as well obtain the exact answer via $`a_{trial}`$ maximization, but the result will be complicated, and we’re only interested here in comparing the order $`ϵ`$ term to a perturbative computation.

We now check that the result (3.1) agrees with an explicit perturbative computation of the anomalous dimension, using

$$R_i=\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\frac{2}{3}(1+\frac{1}{2}\gamma _i(g_{})),$$

with $`\gamma _i(g_{})`$ the anomalous dimensions, evaluated at the RG fixed point coupling $`g_{}`$ where $`\beta (g_{})=0`$. Working to one-loop, which corresponds to order $`ϵ`$, we have

$$\gamma _i(g)=\frac{g^2}{8\pi ^2}\frac{|𝒢|\mu (𝐫_i)}{|𝐫_i|}+O(g^4).$$

This can be seen by considering the matter field propagator, with a single gluon (plus gluino) loop. The group theory factor comes from the sum over gluons coupling to the matter field in representation $`𝐫_i`$:

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{|𝒢|}{}}T_{𝐫_i}^aT_{𝐫_i}^a=\frac{|𝒢|\mu (𝐫_i)}{|𝐫_i|}\mathrm{𝟏}_{|𝐫_i|\times |𝐫_i|},$$

with $`T_{𝐫_i}^a`$ the $`𝒢`$ generators in representation $`𝐫_i`$, with $`a`$ the adjoint index. The group theory factors in (3.1) are seen by comparing the trace of (3.1) with (2.1).

The RG fixed point coupling $`g_{}`$ is determined by requiring that the NSVZ beta function vanish, which is equivalent to the condition that the $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry (3.1) satisfy the anomaly free condition (2.1), i.e.

$$2h+\underset{i}{}n_i\mu (𝐫_i)(\frac{1}{3}\frac{g_{}^2}{16\pi ^2}|𝒢|\mu (𝐫_i)|𝐫_i|^1)+𝒪(g_{}^4)=0,$$

which gives

$$\frac{g_{}^2|𝒢|}{8\pi ^2}=(6h\mu _T)\left(\underset{j}{}n_i\mu (𝐫_j)^2|𝐫_j|^1\right)^1.$$

Recalling that $`6h\mu _T2hϵ`$, we see that (3.1), together with (3.1) and (3.1) indeed agree with (3.1). It would be interesting to compare higher orders in $`ϵ`$, where our exact results make predictions about the higher loop anomalous dimensions.

4. Some previously mysterious examples

4.1. General case where $`U(1)_R`$ mixes with a single flavor $`U(1)`$.

In this section, we will explicitly determine the superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ for cases where there is a single flavor current $`J`$ which can mix non-trivially with $`U(1)_R`$. This is the case, for example, for theories with two types of representations (e.g. $`SU(N)`$ with $`N_f`$ fundamental flavors and an adjoint chiral superfield) and $`W=0`$.

$`a`$ maximization leads to the $`U(1)_RSU(2,2|1)`$ as given by

$$R=R_0+\widehat{s}J,$$

where using (1.1) we have that $`\widehat{s}`$ is determined by

$$\widehat{s}^2\mathrm{Tr}J^3+2\widehat{s}\mathrm{Tr}R_0J^2+\mathrm{Tr}R_0^2J\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{Tr}J=0.$$

This quadratic equation can be solved, with the correct root for maximizing $`a`$, i.e. satisfying (1.1), given by

$$\widehat{s}=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}R_0J^2\sqrt{(\mathrm{Tr}R_0J^2)^2\mathrm{Tr}J^3(\mathrm{Tr}R_0^2J\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{Tr}J)}}{\mathrm{Tr}J^3}.$$

Of course $`\widehat{s}`$ must be real, so the quantity in the $`\sqrt{}`$ must be positive in order for the theory to be superconformal.

Let’s apply this to a general theory with two kinds of matter representations and $`W=0`$. Consider a theory with gauge group $`𝒢`$, $`n_1`$ matter fields in representation $`𝐫_1`$ and $`n_2`$ matter fields in representation $`𝐫_2`$. We can take our initial $`R_0`$ to be one under which all chiral superfields have the same charge, with value determined from (2.1), and choose our current $`J`$ to be one satisfying (2.1). Then the superconformal R-symmetry is $`R=R_0+\widehat{s}J`$:

$$R(𝐫_1)=1\frac{2h}{\mu _T}+\frac{\widehat{s}}{n_1\mu (𝐫_1)},R(𝐫_2)=1\frac{2h}{\mu _T}\frac{\widehat{s}}{n_2\mu (𝐫_2)},$$

where $`\mu _Tn_i\mu (𝐫_i)`$. The value of $`\widehat{s}`$ is found by just plugging into (4.1) with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}R_0J^2& =\frac{2h}{\mu _T}\left(\frac{|𝐫_1|}{n_1\mu (𝐫_1)^2}+\frac{|𝐫_2|}{n_2\mu (𝐫_2)^2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}R_0^2J\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{Tr}J& =\left(\frac{4h^2}{\mu _T^2}\frac{1}{9}\right)\left(\frac{|𝐫_1|}{\mu (𝐫_1)}\frac{|𝐫_2|}{\mu (𝐫_2)}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}J^3& =\frac{|𝐫_1|}{n_1^2\mu (𝐫_1)^3}\frac{|𝐫_2|}{n_2^2\mu (𝐫_2)^3}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Asymptotic freedom, $`\mu _T<6h`$, is sufficient to ensure that $`\widehat{s}`$, as given by (4.1), is indeed real.

This general discussion can be applied, e.g. to the case of $`SU(N_c)`$ with $`N_f`$ fundamental flavors and an adjoint chiral superfield. We just plug in $`n_1=2N_f`$ (counting fundamentals and anti-fundamentals together, since they have the same R-charge, as in comment 1 in the introduction), $`|𝐫_1|=N_c`$, $`\mu (𝐫_1)=1`$, $`n_2=1`$, $`|𝐫_2|=N_c^21`$, $`\mu (𝐫_2)=2N_c`$. This yields

$$R(Q)=R(\stackrel{~}{Q})=\frac{N_f}{N_c+N_f}+\frac{\widehat{s}}{2N_f},R(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{N_f}{N_c+N_f}\frac{\widehat{s}}{2N_c},$$

where $`\widehat{s}`$ is determined by (4.1) with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Tr}R_0J^2& =\frac{N_c}{N_c+N_f}\left(\frac{N_c}{2N_f}+\frac{N_c^21}{4N_c^2}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}R_0^2J\frac{1}{9}\mathrm{Tr}J& =\left(\frac{N_c^2}{(N_c+N_f)^2}\frac{1}{9}\right)\left(\frac{N_c^2+1}{2N_c}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Tr}J^3& =\frac{N_c}{4N_f^2}\frac{N_c^21}{8N_c^3}.\hfill \end{array}$$

As an example, we consider the case of $`N_c1`$, with fixed $`N_f/N_cϵ1`$. We then get, to leading order in $`ϵ`$, $`\widehat{s}2N_f(3\sqrt{5})/3`$, which gives

$$R(Q)=R(\stackrel{~}{Q})\frac{3\sqrt{5}}{3},R(\mathrm{\Phi })\frac{\sqrt{5}N_f}{3N_c}.$$

We note that $`R(Q)`$ satisfies the $`R<1`$ constraint needed for fields transforming non-trivially under non-Abelian flavor symmetries, as mentioned in comment 1 of the introduction. There are gauge invariant operators, such as $`Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^2`$ which apparently violate the $`R2/3`$ constraint but, as mentioned in the introduction, this just means that these particular operators are actually free, and their R-charge gets corrected to $`2/3`$ by additional accidental symmetries. (This is similar to the situation when these theories are deformed by a $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+1}`$ superpotential \[7,,14\].) Note that (4.1) implies that the $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }^{k+1}`$ superpotential of \[7,,14\] is a relevant deformation of the $`W=0`$ RG fixed point for $`k+1<6N_c/\sqrt{5}N_f`$ in the above $`N_c1`$, $`N_fN_c`$ limit. This fits with the qualitative discussion of  on how this superpotential can affect the IR physics, even when $`k2`$, despite the fact that it naively appears to be irrelevant. Also, as expected, we find that $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{\Phi }Q\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is a relevant superpotential deformation of the $`W=0`$ fixed point (driving the theory to $`𝒩=2`$ SQCD).

4.2. A quiver example and connection to AdS/CFT

As an interesting example of a theory with more than one flavor current, we consider the theory given by the quiver in Figure 1 with gauge group $`U(N)^4`$. This quiver arises naturally in string theory as the IR worldvolume theory of $`N`$ coincident D3-branes placed at the tip of a noncompact Calabi-Yau $`X_6`$, where $`X_6`$ is a complex cone over the first del Pezzo surface $`dP_1`$. This string theory construction leads to a non-zero superpotential, and the large $`N`$ limit of that theory is an $`𝒩=1`$ SCFT which is dual to IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times H_5`$ with $`H_5`$ the horizon of the complex cone over $`dP^1`$. This $`H_5`$ is a $`U(1)`$ fibration over $`dP^1`$. We will discuss this SCFT, for all $`N`$, shortly.

First, let’s consider the theory with the quiver diagram of Fig 1 and with no superpotential, $`W=0`$. This theory has no known string theory construction and is hence more mysterious than the theory with non-zero $`W`$. We expect that the $`W=0`$ theory also flows to an interacting $`N=1`$ SCFT in the IR, and we use the $`a_{trial}`$ maximization to determine the exact $`U(1)_R`$ charges and hence the exact anomalous dimensions and central charges at this new RG fixed point.

Figure 1: The $`U(N)^4`$ quiver diagram.

The IR SCFT has symmetry group $`SU(2,2|1)\times `$, with flavor group $`=U(1)_1\times U(1)_2\times SU(2)\times SU(2)\times SU(3)`$. The non-Abelian symmetries rotate the multiple bi-fundamental flavors and classically there’s an additional flavor $`U(1)^6`$, one for each of the six legs of the quiver. Enforcing the anomaly free condition for each of the four gauge groups reduces this $`U(1)^6`$ down to $`U(1)^2`$. As discussed in the introduction, $`a_{trial}`$ maximization implies that only the $`U(1)^2`$ can mix non-trivially with $`U(1)_R`$. Without loss of generality, we can assign $`U(1)`$ charges as:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& J_1& J_2& R_0\\ X_{21}& 2/3& 1/3& 3/4\\ X_{14}& 1& 0& 1/2\\ X_{43}& 2& 1& 1/4\\ X_{32}& 1& 0& 1/2\\ X_{13}& 0& 1& 3/4\\ X_{42}& 0& 1& 3/4.\end{array}$$

These charges form a basis of the solutions of the appropriate anomaly-free conditions at each node. (Of course, any non-degenerate linear combinations of these would be an equally valid basis choice.) For completeness we include all relevant ’t Hooft anomalies here (omitting an overall factor of $`N^2`$ for each): $`\mathrm{Tr}R_0=0,\mathrm{Tr}R_0^3=3,\mathrm{Tr}J_1=\mathrm{Tr}J_2=0,\mathrm{Tr}J_1^3=\frac{44}{9},\mathrm{Tr}J_2^3=\frac{8}{9},\mathrm{Tr}J_1^2J_2=\frac{40}{9},\mathrm{Tr}J_1J_2^2=\frac{20}{9},\mathrm{Tr}R_0^2J_1=\frac{1}{4},\mathrm{Tr}R_0^2J_2=\frac{1}{2},\mathrm{Tr}R_0J_1^2=\frac{16}{3},\mathrm{Tr}R_0J_2^2=\frac{4}{3},\mathrm{Tr}R_0J_1J_2=\frac{5}{3}.`$

We write the exact superconformal $`U(1)_R`$ symmetry as $`R=R_0+\widehat{s}_1J_1+\widehat{s}_2J_2`$, and determine the values of $`\widehat{s}_I`$ by imposing $`9\mathrm{Tr}R^2J_I=\mathrm{Tr}J_I`$, for $`I=1,2`$, and use (1.1) to determine the correct roots of the resulting quadratic equations; the result is $`\widehat{s}_1=\frac{2+\sqrt{5}}{6}`$ and $`\widehat{s}_2=\frac{7+2\sqrt{5}}{12}`$. We thus obtain for the exact R-charges

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill R(X_{21})& =\frac{7\sqrt{5}}{6},R(X_{14})=R(X_{32})=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{6},\hfill \\ \hfill R(X_{43})& =\frac{3\sqrt{5}}{2},R(X_{13})=R(X_{42})=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{6}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the $`R`$ charges of all gauge invariant chiral operators, such as $`X_{21}X_{14}X_{42}`$, satisfy the condition $`R>2/3`$, these operators are not free fields. The value of the central charge $`a`$, found by plugging (4.1) into (1.1) is

$$a=\frac{3+5\sqrt{5}}{16}N^20.886N^2.$$

One final comment on our proposed RG fixed point for the $`W=0`$ theory. Some of the nodes of the quiver have $`N_f=3N_c`$, and are thus not asymptotically free (the one loop beta function vanishes, and the two loop beta function is positive). Their gauge couplings would flow to zero in the IR, in the absence of other interactions. Our claim is that, upon including the gauge interactions of the other nodes, the theory flows to an IR fixed point SCFT, where all gauge groups are interacting. The NSVZ beta function for each gauge group vanishes, since (4.1) is anomaly free. We have not proven that the fixed point exists, since we haven’t proven that the dynamics can actually realize the R-charges (4.1), but the various consistency checks give us confidence that the fixed point SCFT exists.

Let’s now consider the theory with the non-trivial superpotential, as obtained via $`D3`$ branes at the singularity of a local CY which is a complex cone over $`dP1`$:

$$W=X_{21}X_{14}X_{42}+X_{21}X_{13}X_{32}+X_{21}X_{14}X_{43}X_{32}.$$

Since we only care about the symmetries, we’ve suppressed the coefficients and flavor indices; see  for the precise superpotential. We can think of the resulting SCFT as the IR limit of a RG flow, where the UV limit of the RG flow is the above described $`W=0`$ SCFT, deformed by the relevant perturbation (4.1). We now obtain the exact R-charges of this IR SCFT.

The superpotential (4.1) reduces the $`U(1)^2`$ flavor symmetry of the $`W=0`$ theory to $`U(1)`$: the superpotential respects the $`R_0`$ symmetry in (4.1) (since all terms in the superpotential have R-charge 2) but is only neutral under $`J=2J_1+J_2`$. So rather than maximizing $`a_{trial}`$ with respect to $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ independently, as before, we now maximize subject to the constraint that $`s_1=2s_2s`$. We can impose (1.1) by simply plugging into (4.1), which gives $`\widehat{s}=0`$. Thus the $`R_0`$ charges in (4.1) are the exact R-charges for the theory with superpotential (4.1). Using these charges, one finds $`a=27N^2/320.844N^2`$. This is less than the value (4.1) which we found in the $`W=0`$ case, which is consistent with the a-theorem.

String theory gives another way to determine the exact central charge $`a`$, and also the exact R-charges, in terms of the $`H_5`$ geometry. In particular, the baryonic operators such as $`B_{12}=detX_{12}`$ correspond to particles in $`AdS_5`$, which arise from D3 branes wrapped on 3-cycles of $`H_5`$. The R-charges of the baryons, and hence the bi-fundamentals, are then related to the volume of the $`H_5`$ 3-cycles which the D3 wraps. This can be computed and shown to agree perfectly with the above results .

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank T. Banks, M. Gross, J. Kumar, D. Kutasov, H. Osborn, M. Rocek, I. Rothstein, and C. Vafa for discussions and correspondence. This work was supported by DOE-FG03-97ER40546.

References

relax N. Seiberg, “Electric - magnetic duality in supersymmetric nonAbelian gauge theories,”Nucl. Phys. B 435, 129 (1995)\[arXiv:hep-th/9411149\]. relax V. A. Novikov, M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein and V. I. Zakharov, “Exact Gell-Mann-Low Function Of Supersymmetric Yang-Mills Theories From Instanton Calculus,” Nucl. Phys. B 229, 381 (1983). relax D. Anselmi, D. Z. Freedman, M. T. Grisaru and A. A. Johansen, “Nonperturbative formulas for central functions of supersymmetric gauge theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 526, 543 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9708042\]. relax D. Anselmi, J. Erlich, D. Z. Freedman and A. A. Johansen, “Positivity constraints on anomalies in supersymmetric gauge theories,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 7570 (1998) \[arXiv:hep-th/9711035\]. relax A. B. Zamolodchikov, “’Irreversibility’ Of The Flux Of The Renormalization Group In A 2-D Field Theory,” JETP Lett. 43, 730 (1986) \[Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 43, 565 (1986)\]. relax D. Anselmi, “Inequalities for trace anomalies, length of the RG flow, distance between the fixed points and irreversibility,”arXiv:hep-th/0210124. relax D. Kutasov and A. Schwimmer, “On duality in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Phys. Lett. B 354, 315 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9505004\]. relax P. C. Argyres and M. R. Douglas, “New phenomena in SU(3) supersymmetric gauge theory,” Nucl. Phys. B 448, 93 (1995) \[arXiv:hep-th/9505062\]. relax P. C. Argyres, M. Ronen Plesser, N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “New N=2 Superconformal Field Theories in Four Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 461, 71 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9511154\]. relax H. Osborn, “N = 1 superconformal symmetry in four-dimensional quantum field theory,” Annals Phys. 272, 243 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9808041\]. relax D. J. Gross and F. Wilczek, “Asymptotically Free Gauge Theories. 2,” Phys. Rev. D 9, 980 (1974). relax T. Banks and A. Zaks, “On The Phase Structure Of Vector - Like Gauge Theories With Massless Fermions,” Nucl. Phys. B 196, 189 (1982). relax K. A. Intriligator and N. Seiberg, “Phases of N=1 supersymmetric gauge theories in four-dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 431, 551 (1994) \[arXiv:hep-th/9408155\]. relax D. Kutasov, A. Schwimmer and N. Seiberg, “Chiral Rings, Singularity Theory and Electric-Magnetic Duality,” Nucl. Phys. B 459, 455 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-th/9510222\]. relax S. J. Gates, M. T. Grisaru, M. Rocek and W. Siegel, “Superspace, Or One Thousand And One Lessons In Supersymmetry,” Front. Phys. 58, 1 (1983) \[arXiv:hep-th/0108200\]. relax I. L. Buchbinder and S. M. Kuzenko, “Ideas And Methods Of Supersymmetry And Supergravity: Or A Walk Through Superspace,” IOP Publishers (1998. Bristol, UK). relax J. Erdmenger, “Gravitational axial anomaly for four dimensional conformal field theories,” Nucl. Phys. B 562, 315 (1999) \[arXiv:hep-th/9905176\]. relax B. Feng, S. Franco, A. Hanany and Y. H. He, “Symmetries of toric duality,” JHEP 0212, 076 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205144\]. relax K. Intriligator and B. Wecht, “Baryon charges in 4D superconformal field theories and their AdS duals,” arXiv:hep-th/0305046.


format: text

text:
# High-finesse optical quantum gates for electron spins in artificial molecules

## Abstract

A doped semiconductor double-quantum-dot molecule is proposed as a qubit realization. The quantum information is encoded in the electron spin, thus benefiting from the long relevant decoherence times; the enhanced flexibility of the molecular structure allows to map the spin degrees of freedom onto the orbital ones and vice versa, and opens the possibility for high-finesse (conditional and unconditional) quantum gates by means of stimulated Raman adiabatic passage.

Quantum bits or qubits are the building block for future quantum computers Bouwmeester et al. (2000); Bennett and DiVincenzo (2000). The requirements for such quantum hardware are manifold: first, qubits should consist of at least two long-lived states, usually referred to as $`0`$ and $`1`$; second, it should be possible to modify the state of a single qubit unconditionally or dependent on the setting of a second qubit (one- and two-qubit quantum gates); finally, one should be able to measure the final qubit states. Evidently, the main challenge in identifying physical systems as qubits is to bridge between the two complementary requirements of long quantum memory and fast quantum gates: while the first point requires excitations well protected from environment, the latter one calls for strong and well-controllable interacting channels between the qubits and the external control.

To overcome this difficulty, in their seminal work Cirac and Zoller Cirac and Zoller (1995) proposed to pursue a mixed strategy in which the quantum information is stored in metastable atomic states and the light coupling to additional auxiliary states is used to perform the quantum gates. The recent progress in the fabrication and control of semiconductor quantum dots Jacak et al. (1998), sometimes referred to as ‘artificial atoms’, suggested that similar schemes could be identified also in the technologically more promising solid state: indeed, in Refs. Troiani et al. (2000); Biolatti et al. (2000) optical excitations (excitons) in artificial atoms were proposed as qubits, with Coulomb interactions between the optically excited electrons and holes providing a means to perform conditional quantum gates. However, it was soon realized that the radiative lifetime of excitons ($``$ns) is too short to comply with the exceptional requirements for quantum memory. Around the same time different work proposed spin of excess electrons as a viable quantum memory Loss and DiVincenzo (1998); Imamoglu et al. (1999), and estimated lifetimes of the order of microseconds. Apparently, a combination of such long spin memory with ultrafast optical gating provides a likely candidate for the first proof-of-principle solid state quantum computer, in particular in view of the superb standards of presentday sample growth and coherent-carrier control. In turn, a diversity of strategies for such a mixed approach was put forward, e.g., based on cavity quantum electrodynamics Imamoglu et al. (1999), charged excitons paz ; Cortez et al. (2002), or RKKY interactions Piermarocchi et al. (2002a). Yet, the shortcomings of these proposals are either lacking strategies for performing conditional or unconditional gates, or possible environment losses during gating, issues which might become limiting in view of the exceptional quantum-computation requirements.

It is the purpose of this paper to propose a quantum computation scheme based on long spin memory and ultrashort optical quantum gates which does not suffer from radiative losses during gating. Most importantly and in contrast to all existing proposals based on electron spin in quantum dots, we consider a vertically coupled double dot (‘artificial molecule’) as the building block for a single qubit. The quantum hardware then consists of laterally arranged quantum-dot molecules (e.g., through seeded growth Ishida et al. (1998)) which can be individually addressed through frequency selective laser pulses. Besides, in order for the qubits to be correctly defined, the interdot tunneling in the lateral directions has to be suppressed Loss and DiVincenzo (1998). Our central observation concerns the fact that these artificial molecules host besides the spin-degenerate electron state (used as the qubit) further long-lived auxiliary states which can be exploited during gating to map the information stored in the spin degrees of freedom onto the orbital ones and vice versa, and optically switch on and off qubit-qubit interactions on an ultrashort timescale. As will be shown below, with this strategies it becomes possible to perform all quantum gates efficiently by means of stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) Bergmann et al. (1998) and to hereby suppress environment losses during gating.

1. Qubit identification. We start by considering two vertically-coupled quantum dots (see Fig. 1) inside a field-effect structure. The electric field in the growth direction has two consequences: first, it transfers a single excess electron from a nearby $`n`$-type reservoir to the artificial molecule, where further charging is suppressed because of the Coulomb blockade; second, it enhances the electron localization in one of the two dots (labeled as large, $`L`$, as compared to the small one, $`S`$). Although in the following we shall not be too specific about the details of this quantum-dot molecule (model calculations will be presented at the end), we assume that in presence of a uniform magnetic field along $`x`$ the electron eigenstates become a direct product of orbital and spin degrees of freedom, respectively:

$`|0`$ $`=`$ $`|L|S_x=\frac{1}{2}`$ (1a)
$`|1`$ $`=`$ $`|L|S_x=+\frac{1}{2}`$ (1b)
$`|2`$ $`=`$ $`|S|S_x=\frac{1}{2},`$ (1c)
with $`|L`$ ($`|S`$) the orbital part associated to localization in the large (small) dot, and $`|S_x=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ the spin part; states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ will serve us for encoding the qubit, whereas state $`|2`$ is an auxiliary state which will be used during gating.

Next, we introduce as a fourth (auxiliary) state $`|3`$, which allows optical coupling between the electrons states of Eq. (1), the negatively charged exciton state $`|X^{}`$ Warburton et al. (2000); Hartmann et al. (2000); Findeis et al. (2001), i.e., an electron-hole complex consisting of two electrons and a single hole; besides, we assume that in presence of the strong confinement along $`z`$ the hole acquires a well-defined symmetry because of the splitting of heavy- and light-hole states. Thus, in the qubit manipulation by means of external laser pulses the light polarization allows to control the spin degrees of freedom (e.g., to individually address the 0–3 and 1–3 transitions), whereas the light frequency serves as a control for the orbital part Imamoglu et al. (1999) (e.g., to individually address 0–3 and 2–3). The resulting optical selection rules are sketched in Fig. 1.

2. Quantum gates. As a major improvement, we propose to perform all quantum gates solely by means of STIRAP processes. This technique was originally developed in the field of atomic physics Bergmann et al. (1998) as an optimal quantum control strategy to channel the system between two long-lived states (here $`|0`$ and $`|1`$) through optical coupling to an interconnecting state (here $`|3`$): to avoid radiative environment losses of 3, one exploits the renormalized radiation-matter states (trapped state) for the transfer process, which is achieved by slowly (adiabatically) varying the exciting laser fields and keeping the population of state 3 negligible throughout. As a further advantage, such control does not require a detailed knowledge of the system parameters (i.e., oscillator strengths) and therefore is of very robust nature, thus rendering this scheme ideal for quantum control in the solid state Hohenester et al. (2000); Brandes and Renzoni (2000); Pazy et al. (2001); Hohenester et al. (2002).

Unconditional gates. Recently, Ki$`\stackrel{ˇ}{\mathrm{s}}`$ and Renzoni Kis and Renzoni (2002) extended this original STIRAP level scheme to an additional long-lived auxiliary state (here $`|2`$), and showed that within the resulting model it becomes possible to perform generic quantum gates. For the sake of clarity, let us briefly rephrase the main steps of this control within the present scheme: suppose that initially the system wavefunction is

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|L\left(\alpha |S_x=\frac{1}{2}+\beta |S_x=+\frac{1}{2}\right).$$
(2)
Next, the quantum dot structure is subject to a first STIRAP process, consisting of a sequence of three laser pulses: the first one (Stokes pulse) couples the states 2 and 3; the second ones (pump pulses) affect the 0–3 and 1–3 transitions, with Rabi frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\mathrm{cos}\chi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(t)=\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\mathrm{exp}(i\eta )\mathrm{sin}\chi `$, respectively Kis and Renzoni (2002) (here $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ is the envelope, and $`\chi `$ and $`\eta `$ are phase factors); such selective coupling can be achieved by the abovementioned selection of the light polarizations and frequencies. Incidentally, with a specific choice of the laser parameters ($`\chi =\pi /2`$ and $`\eta =0`$) this first sequence maps the information stored in the electron spin onto the orbital degrees of freedom:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\alpha |L+\beta |S\right)|S_x=\frac{1}{2}:$$
(3)
as discussed in the following, this possibility is crucial to the implementation of the conditional dynamics within the present scheme. The single-qubit rotation is completed by a second, reversed STIRAP process (pump pulses before the Stokes one): any unitary transformation of the $`SU_2`$ group can be performed through an appropriate choice of $`\chi `$ and $`\eta `$. Note that the different energies of the involved electron states, Eq. (1), result in additional dynamic phase factors, which should be incorporated into the quantum algorithm.

Conditional gates. The conditional (controlled) dynamics can be implemented within the present scheme by exploiting the electrostatic interaction changes resulting from intermediate population of 2. As an illustrative example, let us consider a controlled–NOT gate in a structure consisting of two quantum-dot molecules, Fig. 2, where the system is initially in state $`|1_c|0_t`$, with $`c`$ and $`t`$ denoting the control and target qubit, respectively. At the beginning the information of both qubits is encoded in the respective electron spins: a first STIRAP process applied to the control qubit then maps the $`|S_x=+\frac{1}{2}`$ component onto the orbital degrees of freedom, Fig. 2b, independent of the target qubit setting. In what follows, we shall exploit the fact that this modified charge distribution exerts a potential change on the target qubit and leads to different transition frequencies. Thus, in the next step, Fig. 2c, the double STIRAP pulse sequence discussed above is applied to the target qubit with the modified laser frequencies; apparently, this procedure rotates the target qubit dependent on the control qubit setting. Finally, the quantum information of the control qubit is mapped back to the spin degrees of freedom, Fig. 2d.

By now the strength of our present proposal should have become obvious: its ability to map the quantum information between spin and orbital degrees of freedom. On the one hand, this allows for a high-finesse gating through stimulated Raman adiabatic passage. On the other hand, it becomes possible to turn on selectively qubit-qubit interactions only during gating; this inter-qubit control emerges naturally for the double-dot structure under investigation without requiring additional switching of external electric or magnetic fields, and appears advantageous over related proposals Biolatti et al. (2000); paz  where a compromise between optical and interdot coupling had to be taken. Thus, the present scheme fully benefits from the long spin coherence and the ultrafast optical gating.

3. Double dot structure. As a final step, we comment on the possibility to design a quantum dot structure with the desired level scheme of Fig. 1. Quite generally, the relevant features for the implementation of such a scheme are: (i) single-electron wavefunctions sufficiently localized in either dot (to minimize environment losses during gating and to maximize electrostatic potential changes); (ii) a charged-exciton state with the hole delocalized over the double-dot structure (such that all transitions between 0–3, 1–3, and 2–3 aquire comparable oscillator strengths); (iii) energetically well separated transition frequencies $`\omega _0`$ and $`\omega _2`$ (in order to energetically resolve the 0–3 and 2–3 transitions, that are induced by optical fields with the same polarization). Model calculations were performed to demonstrate that such manifold requirements can indeed be simultaneously fulfilled. We adopt the framework presented in Refs. Troiani et al. (2002); Rontani et al. (2001) where we calculated single- and few-particle states for prototypical GaAs/AlGaAs double-dot structures within the envelope-function and effective-mass approximations, assuming a prototypical confinement potential which is double-well like along $`z`$ and parabolic in the inplane directions. In addition, we consider: a slight asymmetry in the double-dot structure (well widths of $`l_L=3.5`$nm and $`l_S=3.6`$nm, respectively, and an interdot distance $`d=7`$nm); an applied electric field; the consideration of a charged-exciton state with light-hole character (to enhance the interdot tunneling of holes; alternatively, it might be advantegeous to use type-II quantum dots where the hole is only Coulomb-bound and its wavefunction becomes strongly delocalized Janssens et al. (2002)).

Results of our calculations are shown in Fig. 3. Panel (a) shows the carrier distributions along $`z`$: the two lower plots represent the single-electron densities $`\rho _i^e(z)=|\varphi _i^e(z)|^2`$; the small overlap between $`\varphi _{0,1}^e`$ and $`\varphi _2^e`$ allows to almost completely suppress environment losses due to phonon-assisted tunneling during gating, as discussed in more detail by Pazy et al. Pazy et al. (2001) where lifetimes of the order of nanoseconds where estimated; in the upper part of panel (a) we report the electron (light gray) and hole (dark gray) densities $`\rho _3^{e,h}(z)`$ of the inter-connecting charged exciton state 3, with $`\rho _3^{e,h}(z)=𝑑x𝑑y3|\widehat{\psi }_{e,h}^{}(𝒓)\widehat{\psi }_{e,h}(𝒓)|3`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_{e,h}(𝒓)`$ the field operator for electrons and holes, respectively. While the use of light fields with linear polarizations allows the coupling of the charged exciton with electron states sharing the orbital state and with opposite spins, the present overlap of $`\rho ^h(z)`$ with both $`\rho _{0,1}^e(z)`$ and $`\rho _2^e(z)`$ ensures comparable oscillator strengths to transitions to states where electrons are localized in opposite dots (irrespective of their spin orientations). This indeed can be seen in Fig. 3(b) where we plot the absorbtion spectra associated to the three initial states, with the transitions 0–3 (1–3) and 2–3 indicated by the shaded regions. The additional peaks with larger oscillator strength are attributed to additional intradot transitions; however, the energetic separation between the peaks is of the order of a few meV and is thus certainly large enough to suppress such undesired transitions by use of laser pulse widths of the order of tens of picoseconds (for the polarizability of the single- and few-particle states in artificial molecules see Ref. tro ; see also Refs. Piermarocchi et al. (2002b); bor  for more sophisticated quantum control strategies). Thus, although more realistic calculations including finer details of the material and dot parameters, e.g., strain distributions or piezoelectric fields Bimberg et al. (1998), might introduce moderate modifications, we believe that our model calculations clearly demonstrate that the level scheme of Fig. 1 can be designed in state-of-the-art quantum dot samples and could open the possibility for much more efficient and sophisticated quantum gates.

In conclusion, we have proposed a novel semiconductor-based implementation scheme for quantum information processing, where the qubit is identified with the spin of an excess electron in a vertically coupled double-dot structure. By use of further auxiliary states it becomes possible to perform all quantum gates by means of stimulated Raman adiabatic passage and to hereby almost completely suppress environment losses during gating. In addition, an efficient mechanism for turning on and off qubit-qubit interactions, as requested for conditional quantum gates, has been proposed. We think that our present work constitutes an important step forward for the implementation of a first proof-of-principle solid-state quantum computer and could open the possibility for highly efficient quantum gates.

This work has been supported in part by the EU under the IST programme “SQID” and by the Austrian science fund FWF under project P15752.