format: text

text:
# Kondo resonant spectra in coupled quantum dots

## I Introduction

Recently the Kondo effect has been observed in semiconductor quantum dots connected to external leads by tunneling barriers.  The Kondo effect makes a resonant state at the Fermi level in the leads when the number of electrons in the dot is odd.  The resonant width is given by the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$. This results in (i) the unitary limit of the linear conductance through the dot $`G=2e^2/h`$ at low temperatures ($`TT_K`$) (Ref. ) and (ii) the zero-bias peak of the differential conductance $`dI/dV_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ with the width of $`T_K`$ under finite source-drain voltages.

In this paper, we theoretically examine the Kondo resonant state in double quantum dots connected in a series, as will be shown in Fig. 1. We consider one level in each quantum dot, often referred to as an “artificial atom”.  At $`TT_K`$, the transport properties of such systems have been investigated by several experiments,  from a view point of the formation of an “artificial molecule.” The molecular orbitals between the two dots have been observed,  which reflect the coherent coupling between the dots ($`V_C`$ in Fig. 1). When the double dot system accommodates two electrons, the coherent coupling and intra-dot interaction $`U`$ make many-body states . The ground state is a spin singlet. The excitation energy to a spin-triplet state is given by

$$J=\frac{V_C}{2}\left[\sqrt{(U/V_C)^2+16}(U/V_C)\right]4V_C^2/U,$$
(1)
when $`UV_C`$. The ground state is an “entangled” state between two localized spins, which has attracted new interest for the application to quantum computing.  At $`TT_K`$, the two elements $`V_C`$ and $`J`$ would lead to rich structures of the Kondo resonant state in this system.

A useful tool to elucidate the Kondo resonance is the slave-boson formalism of the Anderson model with $`U\mathrm{}`$ In the case of a single quantum dot, the dot state is spin-up $`f_{}^{}|0`$, spin-down $`f_{}^{}|0`$, or empty $`b^{}|0`$ ($`f_{}^{}f_{}+f_{}^{}f_{}+b^{}b=1`$). In the mean-field approximation, $`b`$ and $`b^{}`$ are replaced by a real $`c`$-number, $`b^{}=b=b_0`$. The density of states for pseudo fermions per spin is

$$\rho _f(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{Im}}{\pi }\frac{1}{\omega \stackrel{~}{E}+\mathrm{i}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{(\omega \stackrel{~}{E})^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}.$$
(2)
In the Kondo regime where one electron exists in the dot ($`b_0^21`$, $`f_{}^{}f_{}+f_{}^{}f_{}1`$), the density of states $`\rho _f(\omega )`$ is half filled and, hence, the center of the resonant state $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$ is matched with the Fermi level. The width $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is the Kondo temperature

$$T_{K,1}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }\mathrm{exp}(\pi E^{}/\mathrm{\Delta }),$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the level broadening, $`\pi \rho |V|^2`$, with the density of states $`\rho `$ in the external leads and the dot lead tunneling coupling $`V`$. $`E^{}`$ is the renormalized dot-level, $`E^{}=V_g+\mathrm{\Delta }/\pi \mathrm{ln}\left(D\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ with the gate voltage $`V_g`$ and the bandwidth $`D`$ in the leads.  Therefore this method is suitable to examine how the Kondo resonant state is formed. When the number of electrons in the dot is less than unity (valence fluctuating regime), the center of the resonance moves above the Fermi level. The resonant width increases from $`T_K`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as the number of electrons in the dot decreases. However, the mean-field approximation is not quantitatively accurate in the valence fluctuating regime.

The Kondo effect on the transport properties in coupled dot systems have been studied by several theoretical methods.  In our previous paper,  we have applied the slave boson mean-field theory to the double dot system in the absence of the antiferromagnetic spin-spin coupling $`J`$. We have shown that the Kondo resonance is determined by the competition between the dot-dot tunneling coupling $`V_C`$ and dot-lead coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The resonant state has two peaks below and above the Fermi level for $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, whereas it has a single peak at the Fermi level for $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. In consequence, the linear-conductance $`G`$ through the double dots as a function of the gate voltage is qualitatively different between the two cases.

Extending our calculations, Georges and Meir have pointed out the importance of the spin-spin coupling $`J`$. At low-gate voltages, the coupling becomes relevant and makes a spin-singlet state in the two dots. Then the Kondo resonance between dots and leads is destroyed. Izumida and Sakai have examined the same problem using the numerical renormalization group (NRG) method. A similar situation was investigated for dilute magnetic systems, which is known as the two impurity Kondo problem.  When the antiferromagnetic coupling $`J`$, the origin of which is the Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida interaction, increases from zero, electronic states of two magnetic impurities exhibit the first-order phase transition from the Kondo state to the spin-singlet state at $`JT_{K,1}`$. The magnetic susceptibility diverges at the transition. The phase transition changes into a crossover in the case of $`V_C0`$ In coupled quantum dots, $`J`$ is given by Eq. (1) whereas $`T_{K,1}`$ increases as the gate voltage increases as in Eq. (3).

As indicated by the previous work , the interplay of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`V_C`$, and $`J`$ results in various transport properties. They are observable by experiments since these parameters can be controlled in quantum dot systems. The physical origins of the transport properties, however, are difficult to understand by the NRG method  and by the conventional argument using the phase shift.  In this paper, we look directly at the Kondo resonant state in the presence of spin-spin coupling $`J`$. The effect of $`J`$ can be understood in terms of the transmission spectrum, just as in our previous work in the absence of $`J`$. We will show that even for $`J0`$, electron transport is characterized by the competition between the dot-dot tunneling coupling $`V_C`$ and the dot-lead coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, the coupling $`J`$ is essentially important. $`G`$ has a sharp peak of $`2e^2/h`$ in height, as a function of gate voltage, which stems from the coexistence of the Kondo coupling and spin-singlet coupling. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, the transport properties are robust against $`J`$. These results are explained by only one criterion, whether the transmission spectrum has double peaks. Hence our argument is much simpler than the one based on the phase shift.  In addition, the transmission spectrum by itself is directly observable in the differential conductance under finite source-drain voltages, as suggested by Aguado and Langreth.  Further, we generalize our calculations to asymmetric double dot systems. Some preliminary results have been reported in Ref. .

The organization of this paper is as follows. In Sec. II, the model Hamiltonian for a coupled quantum dot system is introduced. We explain the slave boson mean-field theory and derive the expression of the conductance through the dots. In Sec. III, we briefly review electron transport through symmetric double dots in the absence of $`J`$. The transmission spectra are discussed in detail. In Sec. IV, we investigate electron transport through coupled dots in the presence of $`J`$. In Sec. V, the electron transport through asymmetric double dots is examined. Conclusions and discussion follow in Sec. VI.

## II Model and Method

### A Model

Let us consider coupled quantum dots as shown in Fig. 1. Two dots couple to each other with $`V_C`$, and to external leads with $`V`$. Each dot has a single energy level $`E_\alpha (\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R})`$. We denote the energy difference, $`E_LE_R`$, by $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. A common gate $`V_g`$ is attached to the dots to control $`E_\alpha `$; we define $`V_g=(E_L+E_R)/2`$. We assume that the intradot Coulomb interaction $`U`$ is sufficiently large so that (i) the double occupancy of electrons in each dot is forbidden, but (ii) the antiferromagnetic spin coupling exists between the quantum dots due to the virtual double occupancy in a dot, $`J𝑺_L𝑺_R`$ with $`J`$ ($`=4V_C^2/U`$) \[see Eq. (1)\] and the spin operator $`𝑺_\alpha (\alpha =L,R)`$. The interdot Coulomb interaction is neglected. The temperature is set to be zero.

We adopt the $`(N=2)`$-fold degenerate Anderson model with the antiferromagnetic SU($`N`$) spin interactions, represented by the slave-boson formalism.  We introduce the slave boson operator $`b_\alpha ^{}`$, which creates an empty state and fermion operator $`f_{\alpha m}^{}`$, which creates a singly occupied state with spin $`m=j,(j1),\mathrm{},j1,j(2j+1=N)`$ in dot $`\alpha =L,R`$, under the constraint of $`\widehat{Q}_\alpha n_\alpha +b_\alpha ^{}b_\alpha =1`$ with $`n_\alpha =_mf_{\alpha m}^{}f_{\alpha m}`$. The annihilation operator of an electron in dot $`\alpha `$ is rewritten as $`C_{\alpha m}=b_\alpha ^{}f_{\alpha m}`$

The Hamiltonian is

$$=_0+_{\mathrm{dot}\mathrm{lead}}+_{\mathrm{dot}\mathrm{dot}}+_J+\underset{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}\lambda _\alpha (\widehat{Q}_\alpha 1).$$
(4)
The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (4) represents electrons in the leads and dots;

$$_0=\underset{\stackrel{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{k,m}}{}E(k)c_{\alpha km}^{}c_{\alpha km}+\underset{\stackrel{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{m}}{}E_\alpha f_{\alpha m}^{}f_{\alpha m}.$$
(5)
The operator $`c_{\alpha km}^{}`$ creates an electron in lead $`\alpha `$ with energy $`E(k)`$ and spin $`m`$. The second and third terms on the right hand side of Eq. (4) describe the dot-lead tunneling coupling and the dot-dot tunneling coupling, respectively

$$_{\mathrm{dot}\mathrm{lead}}=\frac{V}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{\alpha ,k,m}{}c_{\alpha km}^{}f_{\alpha m}b_\alpha ^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(6)
$$_{\mathrm{dot}\mathrm{dot}}=\frac{V_C}{N}\underset{m}{}b_L^{}f_{Lm}f_{Rm}^{}b_R+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(7)
The term $`H_J`$ gives the antiferromagnetic spin-spin interaction

$$_J=\frac{J}{N}\underset{m,n}{}f_{Rm}^{}f_{Lm}f_{Ln}^{}f_{Rn}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(8)
The constraint of $`\widehat{Q}_\alpha =1`$ is taken into account by the last term on the right-hand side of Eq. (4) with the Lagrange multiplier $`\lambda _\alpha `$.

### B Mean-Field Approximation

Let us now make the following two assumption to treat the Hamiltonian (4) within the mean-field theory.  First, the slave-boson operators $`b_\alpha `$ and $`b_\alpha ^{}`$ are replaced by a constant c-number $`b_\alpha `$. This approximation is exact in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ when $`J=0`$; it corresponds to the calculation to the lowest order in the 1/N expansion.  Second, we also treat the spin-spin coupling (8) by the mean-field theory. It is decoupled by a parameter $`\kappa `$,

$$\kappa =\frac{J}{N}\underset{m}{}f_{Rm}^{}f_{Lm},$$
(9)
which characterizes the antiferromagnetic order between the spins in the dots. Then we obtain the following mean-field Hamiltonian;

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{k,m}}{}}E(k)c_{\alpha km}^{}c_{\alpha km}+{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(f_{Lm}^{}f_{Rm}^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{E}_L& \stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+\kappa \\ \stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+\kappa & \stackrel{~}{E}_R\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}f_{Lm}\\ f_{Rm}\end{array}\right)`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,k,m}{}}b_\alpha \left(c_{\alpha km}^{}f_{\alpha m}+f_{\alpha m}^{}c_{\alpha km}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}}\lambda _\alpha (b_\alpha ^21)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J}}\kappa ^2,`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\alpha =E_\alpha +\lambda _\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}=\overline{b}_L\overline{b}_RV_C`$ with $`\overline{b}_\alpha =b_\alpha /\sqrt{N}`$.

From this Hamiltonian, we can calculate the ground state energy. Minimizing the ground state energy, we determine five parameters $`b_\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha (\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R})`$ and $`\kappa `$ self consistently. (See Appendix A.) In general, the self-consistent equations have two solutions; one is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha =0(b_\alpha =0)`$ and $`\kappa =J/2`$, and the other is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha 0`$. The former means that electrons in the dots are isolated from the leads and make a spin-singlet state. The latter corresponds to the coherent couplings between dots and leads. We determine the ground state by comparing the energies of these solutions.

### C Conductance

Next we derive the expression of the conductance $`G`$. Current $`I`$ through the coupled dots under a source-drain voltage $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ is given by a charge transfer through the central tunneling barrier

$$I=\frac{ieV_C}{\mathrm{}}\underset{m}{}\left(c_{Lm}^{}c_{Rm}c_{Rm}^{}c_{Lm}\right),$$
(16)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represents the Keldysh-Green function. By the mean-field approximations, $`c_{Lm}^{}c_{Rm}=b_Lb_Rf_{Lm}^{}f_{Rm}`$, where $`f_{Lm}^{}f_{Rm}`$ can be calculated using the Hamiltonian (15). (See Appendix B.)

Evaluating the Keldysh-Green functions, we obtain the expression of the conductance $`Glim_{V_{\mathrm{sd}}0}I/V_{\mathrm{sd}}`$,

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}T(\omega =0),$$
(17)
formally in the same form as the Landauer formulae.  The transmission probability $`T(\omega )`$ through the two dots is

$$T(\omega )=\frac{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_Rt^2}{\left[(\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_Li\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L)(\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_Ri\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_R)t^2\right]\left[(\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_L+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L)(\omega \stackrel{~}{E}_R+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_R)t^2\right]},$$
(18)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha =\overline{b}_\alpha ^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`\alpha =L,R`$) and $`t=\stackrel{~}{V}_C+\kappa `$. We choose $`\omega =0`$ at the Fermi level in the leads.

## III Symmetric double dots without $`J`$

We begin with a symmetric double dot system $`E_L=E_R`$ in the absence of the spin-spin coupling $`J=0`$. Because of the symmetry between the two dots $`\overline{b}_L=\overline{b}_R\overline{b}`$, $`n_L=n_Rn/2`$, $`\lambda _L=\lambda _R`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_L=\stackrel{~}{E}_R\stackrel{~}{E}`$. $`\kappa =0`$ due to the absence of $`J`$. Then the expression of the transmission probability $`T(\omega )`$ in Eq. (18) is simplified to

$$T(\omega )=\frac{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}^2}{\left[\left(\omega (\stackrel{~}{E}+\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C})\right)^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\right]\left[\left(\omega (\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C})\right)^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\right]},$$
(19)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\overline{b}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}=\overline{b}^2V_C`$. The parameter $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}`$ characterizes the effective dot-dot coupling. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The line shape of $`T(\omega )`$ is determined by the parameter of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ In Fig. 2, $`T(\omega )`$ is plotted as a function of $`\omega /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, $`T(\omega )`$ has a single peak at $`\omega =\stackrel{~}{E}`$ \[Fig. 2(a)\], whereas when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, $`T(\omega )`$ has two maxima at $`\omega =\stackrel{~}{E}\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2}`$ \[Fig. 2(c)\]. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, $`T(\omega )`$ has a flat-topped single peak as shown in Fig. 2(b).

The dotted line in Fig. 3(a) represents the conductance as a function of the gate voltage when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. For sufficiently low gate voltages, the Fermi level in the leads is located at the peak of $`T(\omega )`$ \[the case of $`V_g/\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ is indicated by the arrow in Fig. 2(a)\]. In this case, each dot accommodates one electron and forms the Kondo resonant state with conduction electrons in a lead. The electron transport is determined by the hopping between the two Kondo resonant states. Thus $`G`$ is proportional to $`V_C^2`$ and independent of the gate voltage. As the gate voltage increases, the position of the Fermi level shifts downwards \[the cases of $`V_g/\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`1`$ in Fig. 2(a)\]. The number of electrons in the dots $`n`$ decreases monotonically from 2 to 0 (valence fluctuating regime). As a result, $`G`$ decreases with increasing the gate voltage.

The dotted line in Fig. 4(a) represents the conductance as a function of the gate voltage when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$. For low gate voltages, the Fermi level in the leads is located at the center of $`T(\omega )`$ \[the case of $`V_g/\mathrm{\Delta }=7`$ in Fig. 2(c)\], and thus the conductance $`G`$ is considerably suppressed. As the gate voltage increases, the Fermi level shifts downwards \[the case of $`V_g/\mathrm{\Delta }=4`$ in Fig. 2(c)\], which increases $`G`$. At a gate voltage of $`V_g0`$, the Fermi level is just on the bonding peak and, thus, the conductance $`G`$ has the maximum value of $`2e^2/h`$. On increasing the gate voltage further, the Fermi level shifts downwards further \[the case of $`V_g/\mathrm{\Delta }=5`$ in Fig. 2(c)\], which leads to a decrease in $`G`$.

In summary, when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, the electron transport is characterized by electronic states in each dot below the Kondo temperature whereas, when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, it is characterized by the formation of molecular levels of the Kondo resonant states. In the recent work,  Aguado and Langreth have argued that these molecular levels are directly observable in the differential conductance under finite source-drain voltages.

We next mention $`V_g`$ dependence of the peak width $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of the Kondo resonances. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_\mathrm{K}\hfill & \text{(}V_g<0\text{)}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{VF}}\mathrm{\Delta }/2\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}(V_g/\mathrm{\Delta })\right)\hfill & \text{(}0<V_g\text{ )}\hfill \end{array},$$
(20)
where $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ is the Kondo temperature for the coupled dots,

$$T_\mathrm{K}=T_{K,1}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{V_C}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{V_C}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)/\sqrt{1+(V_C/\mathrm{\Delta })^2}.$$
(21)
$`T_{K,1}`$ is given by Eq. (3). $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ increases exponentially with $`V_g`$ or $`V_C`$ When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\{\begin{array}{cc}T_\mathrm{K}\hfill & \text{(}V_g<V_C/2\text{)}\hfill \\ \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2V_C}(V_g+V_C/2)\hfill & \text{(}V_C/2<V_g<V_C/2\text{)}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\mathrm{VF}}\hfill & \text{(}V_C/2<V_g\text{)}\hfill \end{array}.$$
(22)
(See Appendix C.)

## IV Symmetric double dots with $`J`$

Now we discuss a symmetric double dot system, $`E_L=E_R`$, in the presence of the spin-spin coupling $`J`$. When the coupling $`J`$ is strong enough, the Kondo coupling between a dot and lead is destroyed and a spin-singlet state appears between the dots. First we make a rough estimation of $`J=J_c`$, where the crossover between the Kondo and spin-singlet states takes places. The ground-state energy $`ϵ_{\mathrm{gs}}`$ in Eq. (A11) is given by

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{gs}}=V_g\frac{2}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\frac{\kappa ^2}{J}\frac{2\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{L,R}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{L,R}\stackrel{~}{E}`$, and $`n_{L,R}n/2`$. Here we have used the self-consistent equations in Appendix A. The last term is negligible when $`n2`$. We consider two simple situations; (i) Kondo state without spin-singlet ordering ($`\kappa =0`$), $`ϵ_{\mathrm{gs}}=V_g\frac{2}{\pi }\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, and (ii) spin-singlet state without the Kondo effect ($`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$ and $`\kappa =J/2`$), $`ϵ_{\mathrm{gs}}=V_gJ/4`$. The crossover between (i) and (ii) takes place at $`J_\mathrm{c}/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=8/\pi 2.54`$. If $`V_C0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}T_{K,1}`$ and thus $`J_\mathrm{c}/T_{K,1}=2.54`$. This is consistent with the NRG result of the two impurity Kondo problem, $`J_\mathrm{c}/T_{K,1}2.2`$ When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.11`$ and $`J_\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{\Delta }=2.1\times 10^3(U/\mathrm{\Delta }=21.2)`$, $`J_\mathrm{c}/\mathrm{\Delta }=2.55`$ is in good agreement with the recent NRG calculation of the coupled dot system  that gives $`J_\mathrm{c}/T_{K,1}=2.65`$.

In coupled quantum dots, $`J`$ is given by $`4V_C^2/U`$. $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }=4\times 10^2`$ is assumed in this paper. We investigate the gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ with fixed $`J`$. With decreasing $`V_g`$, the Kondo effect becomes weaker, as indicated in Eq. (3), and thus $`J`$ is relatively stronger compared with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. At sufficiently low gate voltages, a spin-singlet state appears that destroys the Kondo effect.

### A Transmission probability

In the present case, the transmission probability $`T(\omega )`$ is given by

$$T(\omega )=\frac{4\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2t^2}{\left[\left(\omega (\stackrel{~}{E}+t)\right)^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\right]\left[\left(\omega (\stackrel{~}{E}t)\right)^2+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2\right]},$$
(24)
where $`t=\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+\kappa `$, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}=\overline{b}^2V_C`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\overline{b}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This result is the same as the one without $`J`$ \[Eq. (19)\] if the dot-dot coupling $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}`$ is replaced by $`t`$. Then the line shape of $`T(\omega )`$ qualitatively depends on whether $`t/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }+\kappa /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is larger than unity.

### B Weak dot-dot coupling case

First we discuss electron transport when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. The solid line in Fig. 3(a) represents $`V_g`$ dependence of $`G`$, while the solid and dotted lines in Fig. 3(b) represent $`V_g`$ dependence of $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, respectively ($`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.3,J/\mathrm{\Delta }=9.0\times 10^4`$). For sufficiently low gate voltages, $`\kappa =J/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$, indicating a complete spin-singlet state, which results in $`G=0`$. With increasing $`V_g`$, the Kondo effect is stronger. As a consequence, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ becomes larger, whereas $`\kappa `$ becomes smaller. At high gate voltages, $`G`$ is identical to the one without $`J`$ (dotted line). Here the spin-spin coupling $`J`$ is weak enough compared with the Kondo effect. Between these two regions, $`G`$ has a sharp peak of $`2e^2/h`$ in height. At this peak, both of the Kondo effect $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ and spin-singlet coupling $`\kappa `$ coexist \[see the inset in Fig. 3(b)\]. This peak structure of $`G`$ is consistent with the NRG calculations.

The calculated results of the $`G`$-$`V_g`$ curve can be understood by Eq. (24). At high gate voltages, $`\kappa /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1`$ so that $`t/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }+\kappa /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$; the plot of $`G`$ is similar to the one of $`J=0`$. With decreasing $`V_g`$, $`\kappa /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ increases and thus $`t/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ becomes larger. On the right hand side of the sharp peak of $`G`$, $`t/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}<1`$ and hence $`T(\omega )`$ has a single peak. At $`\kappa /\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=1V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`t/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=1`$ and $`T(\omega =0)=1`$, resulting in $`G=2e^2/h`$. With decreasing $`V_g`$ further, split peaks of $`T(\omega )`$ suppress $`G`$. At a certain gate voltage, the Kondo states disappear and a spin-singlet state appears ($`\kappa =J/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$).

From the results given above, the origin of the peak of $`G`$ is explained as follows. The Kondo resonant state is formed by the coherent coupling between the dot and the lead while the spin-singlet state is formed by the coherent coupling between the two dots. When these two states coexist, the left and right leads are connected via a coherent channel. Electrons transfer through this channel and as a result, $`T(\omega =0)=1`$.

We find that the width of the sharp peak is roughly given by $`V_C`$. This implies that the crossover region between the spin-singlet state and the Kondo state becomes wider as $`V_C`$ increases. It is consistent with the results by Sakai et al.  for the two-impurity Kondo problem. (See also Refs. .)

### C Strong dot-dot coupling case

Next we discuss electron transport when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$. The solid line in Fig. 4(a) represents $`V_g`$ dependence of $`G`$; the solid and dotted lines in Fig. 4(b) represent $`V_g`$ dependence of $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, respectively ($`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }=10.0,J/\mathrm{\Delta }=1.0`$). For this case, the gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ is fairly robust against $`J`$ except that the region of $`G=0`$ for low gate voltages. When $`G=0`$, $`\kappa =J/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=0`$ (spin-singlet state in the dots) as in the case of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. Both of $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ change gradually against the gate voltage (there is a simple relation of $`2\kappa /J=1/2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, see Appendix C). These results contrast to the ones for the weak dot-dot coupling case.

The robustness of $`G`$ against $`J`$ is explained as follows. At the top of the broad peak of $`G`$, $`n1`$ as seen in the previous section. On the right-hand side of the peak, $`n<1`$ and spin-spin coupling $`J`$ is not relevant. On the left-hand side of the peak, $`n>1`$ and the antiferromagnetic interaction becomes more effective with decreasing $`V_g`$. However, the transition from the Kondo states to the spin-singlet state takes place at quite a low gate voltage because the Kondo temperature $`T_\mathrm{K}`$ \[Eq. (21)\] is much larger than $`T_{\mathrm{K},1}`$ for strong dot-dot coupling. In addition, $`t/\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is always larger than unity when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$. Thus the spin coupling $`J`$ does not introduce qualitatively new features in expression (24).

### D Intermediate region of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$

Finally, we show $`V_g`$ dependence of $`G`$ by changing the magnitude of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Fig. 5. As $`V_C`$ increases, (i) the height of the plateau increases, (ii) the sharp peak of $`G`$ broadens, and (iii) the position of the sharp peak of $`G`$ shifts to larger $`V_g`$. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, the peak position is fixed at $`V_g0`$. At the peak of $`G`$, $`n=2`$ when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ while $`n=1`$ when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$; $`n`$ decreases gradually from 2 to 1 as $`V_C`$ increases. In conclusion, electron transport and electronic states in the dots change continuously from the weak to strong dot-dot coupling regions.

## V Asymmetric Double Quantum Dots

In this section, we discuss the effects of the energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_LE_R`$ between the dots. First we describe the case of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. In Fig. 6, the gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ is shown for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ (thin dotted line) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0`$ (thick dotted line) in the absence of $`J`$. These plots show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ has no effect on the height of $`G`$ when the gate voltage is low enough and both of the dots accommodate one electron. This is because the dot-lead coupling makes the Kondo resonant state at the Fermi level in the leads, irrespective of the position of the dot levels. The single peak of the transmission probability $`T(\omega )`$ is located at the Fermi level, as discussed in Fig. 2(a). As a result, $`G`$ is insensitive to $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. In the presence of $`J`$, the gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ is shown for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ (thin solid line) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0`$ (thick solid line). The sharp peak of $`G`$ appears, but the peak height is less than $`2e^2/h`$.

Next, we describe the case of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$. In Fig. 7, the gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ is shown for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ (thin dotted line) and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0`$ (thick dotted line) in the absence of $`J`$. For low gate voltages, $`n_L=n_R=1`$ and $`G`$ is independent of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ as in the case of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$. In the valence fluctuating regime, where $`n`$ decreases as $`V_g`$ increases, $`n_Ln_R`$, and hence, electron transport depends on $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ prominently. The broad peak of $`G`$ splits into two peaks. They are less than $`2e^2/h`$ in height. At the left-hand peak, $`n_L`$ decreases from unity to zero with increasing $`V_g`$ while $`n_R1`$. At the right-hand peak, $`n_R`$ decreases from unity to zero while $`n_L0`$. These peaks are understood by the Kondo resonance between a molecular orbital in the dimer and leads. One molecular orbital has the amplitude mainly in the left dot, and the other in the right dot. The peak heights of $`G`$ are determined by the amplitude of the orbitals in the other dot. Note that the gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ is fairly robust against $`J`$ as in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$ (compare the thick dotted and thick solid lines in Fig. 7).

Finally, we show the intermediate region of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Fig. 8. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$, $`G`$ has a sharp peak. As $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases, the sharp peak broadens and a weak peak develops at $`V_g\mathrm{\Delta }E/2`$. The width of the weak peak is $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The line shapes of these two peaks become similar to each other. Electron transport changes continuously from the weak to strong dot-dot coupling regions, as discussed in Fig. 5 in the case of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=0`$.

## VI Conclusions and Discussion

We have investigated the conductance through coupled quantum dots in series, as a function of the gate voltage, below the Kondo temperature. Electron transport is characterized by the ratio of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, a plateau of $`G`$ appears because each dot forms the Kondo resonant state with conduction electrons in a lead and $`G`$ is determined by the hopping between the Kondo states. For low gate voltages, they are replaced by the spin-singlet state and $`G=0`$. A sharp peak of $`G`$ appears with the height of $`2e^2/h`$, which is due to a coherent electron transport brought by the cooperation between the Kondo and spin-singlet states. When the energy levels are different in the dots, the sharp peak survives, but the peak height is less than $`2e^2/h`$. When $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }>1`$, the molecular levels between the Kondo resonant states appear. The gate voltage dependence of $`G`$ has a broad peak. The antiferromagnetic spin coupling is ineffective, compared with the case of $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1`$, because (i) the Kondo temperature of a coupled dot is large and (ii) the transmission probability always has two peaks. When the energy levels are different in the dots, the conductance $`G`$ has two peaks, reflecting asymmetric molecular levels.

We should mention the validity of the mean-field approximation. First, the mean-field theory predicts the first-order transition between the Kondo and spin-singlet states when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }<1/\pi `$ it is an artifact of the mean field theory, because the NRG results show that when $`V_C0`$, the transition is always smooth.  For the present problem of coupled dot systems, this artifact appears on the left-hand side of the sharp peak of $`G`$; a discontinuous jump of $`G`$ is seen for $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }=0.2`$ in Fig. 5. Second, in the valence fluctuating regime, the fluctuations around the mean field of the slave boson are not negligible. Hence, our calculations are not enough for quantitative discussion.

In real coupled quantum dots, the intersite Coulomb energy, $`U_{\mathrm{int}}n_Ln_R`$, is present. Then the ground-state energy $`E_{\mathrm{g},\mathrm{int}}`$ is given by

$`E_{\mathrm{g},\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`E_{\mathrm{gs}}+U_{\mathrm{int}}(1b_L^2)(1b_R^2),`$ (25)
in the mean-field approximation. Equation (25) indicates that the intersite Coulomb energy raises the dot levels $`E_L`$ and $`E_R`$ effectively. As a result, the valence fluctuating regime is extended and the Kondo regime shifts to lower $`V_g`$. Note that we have assumed that the on-site Coulomb interaction $`U`$ is infinite, and thus, $`U_{\mathrm{int}}U`$.

When $`U_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is large enough, the coupled dots cannot accommodate more than one electron. This situation has been investigated by Pohjola et al.. In this case, the coupled dots is regarded as a single quantum dot with two levels when the dot-dot tunneling is large. Pohjola et al. have found a splitting of the Kondo resonance due to the level difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ between the two dots. The one peak is on the Fermi level $`E_F`$ and the other is located at $`E_F+\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. This is in contrast to the present case in which the split peaks are located below and above $`E_F`$.

Finally, we comment on an asymmetric dot-lead coupling case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R`$. This asymmetry introduces the following two effects. First, the maximum of the conductance is less than $`2e^2/h`$ by a geometrical asymmetry $`4\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R/(\mathrm{\Delta }_L+\mathrm{\Delta }_R)^2`$ Second, the difference of dot-lead coupling $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_L\mathrm{\Delta }_R)/2`$ introduces a difference in the number of electrons between the dots, resulting in $`\stackrel{~}{E}_L\stackrel{~}{E}_R`$. Electronic states are, therefore, asymmetric; the situation is similar to the case of $`E_LE_R`$ discussed in Sec. V. \[Equation (A9) in Appendix A is modified by replacing $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0+\overline{b}_1^2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1+\overline{b}_0^2\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. The latter modification means that $`n_Ln_R`$ when $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }0`$.\]

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge Yu. V. Nazarov for fruitful comments. T.A. is supported by the Special Postdoctoral Researchers Program of RIKEN. Numerical calculations were performed on the workstation in the Computer Information Center, RIKEN.

## A Derivation of the ground state energy

First, we review a single impurity model with the impurity level $`E`$ We start from the following mean-field Hamiltonian $``$

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}E(k)c_{km}^{}c_{km}+{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\stackrel{~}{E}f_m^{}f_m+{\displaystyle \frac{Vb}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k,m}{}}\left(c_{km}^{}f_m+f_m^{}c_{km}\right)+\lambda (b^21)`$ (A1)
with $`\stackrel{~}{E}=E+\lambda `$ and $`b`$ is the mean field value of the slave boson.

The free energy $`F`$ of the system is given by

$$F=\frac{2}{\beta }d\omega \mathrm{ln}(1+e^{\beta \omega })\overline{\rho }(\omega )+\lambda (b^21),$$
(A2)
where $`\overline{\rho }(\omega )`$ is the density of states, which is given by the retarded Green function $`G_r(\omega )`$ of electrons in the dot

$$\overline{\rho }(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{Im}}{\pi }G_r(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{Im}}{\pi }\frac{1}{\omega \stackrel{~}{E}\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )},$$
(A3)
with the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )=\frac{b^2V^2}{N}\underset{k}{}\frac{1}{\omega E(k)+i\eta }=i\pi \frac{b^2V^2}{N}\rho (\omega )i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega ).$$
(A4)
Here $`\rho (\omega )`$ is the density of states of conduction electrons in a lead, $`\rho =\rho (\omega =0)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )=\rho (\omega )/\rho `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\pi \rho b^2V^2/N`$. To derive Eq. (A4), we have assumed that $`\rho (\omega )`$ varies smoothly when compared with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

By the substitution of Eqs. (A3) and (A4) into Eq. (A2) and integration by parts, the free energy (A2) becomes

$$F=\frac{N}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}d\omega f(\omega )\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )\mathrm{ln}\left(\omega \xi \right)+\lambda (b^21),$$
(A5)
with $`\xi =\stackrel{~}{E}+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

If the leads has a wide flat band of width $`2D`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )=1(D<\omega <D)`$, the free energy is

$$F=\frac{N}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}_D^Dd\omega f(\omega )\mathrm{ln}\left(\omega \xi \right)+\lambda (b^21).$$
(A6)
At zero temperature, this yields

$$F=\frac{N}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\left\{\xi \left(\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\xi }{D}\right)1\right)\right\}+\lambda (b^21).$$
(A7)
An extension to the coupled dot system is straightforward. The free energy is

$$F=\frac{N}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\underset{P=\pm }{}_D^Dd\omega f(\omega )\mathrm{ln}\left(\omega \xi _P\right)+\underset{\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}}{}\lambda _\alpha (b_\alpha ^21)+\frac{N}{J}\kappa ^2,$$
(A8)
with

$$\xi _P=\stackrel{~}{E}_0+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0+P\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)^2+t^2}.$$
(A9)
Here $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{0,1}=(\stackrel{~}{E}_L\pm \stackrel{~}{E}_R)/2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{0,1}=\overline{b}_{0,1}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\overline{b}_{0,1}^2=(\overline{b}_L^2\pm \overline{b}_R^2)/2`$, and $`t=V_C\sqrt{\overline{b}_0^4\overline{b}_1^4}+\kappa `$. $`\xi _P`$ are the eigenvalues of the matrix given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{E}_L+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_L& \stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+\kappa \\ \stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+\kappa & \stackrel{~}{E}_R+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_R\end{array}\right).$$
(A10)
Then the ground-state energy $`E_{\mathrm{gs}}=Nϵ_{\mathrm{gs}}`$\[$`=F(T=0)`$\] is written as

$$ϵ_{\mathrm{gs}}=2(\stackrel{~}{E}_0E^{})(\overline{b}_0^21/2)+2(\stackrel{~}{E}_1\mathrm{\Delta }E)\overline{b}_1^2+\frac{1}{J}\kappa ^2+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{P=\pm }{}\mathrm{Im}\left[\xi _P\left(\mathrm{ln}\frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1\right)\right],$$
(A11)
where $`E^{}=V_g+\mathrm{\Delta }/\pi \mathrm{ln}\left(D\pi /\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$ with the bandwidth $`D`$ in the leads.  In experiments, $`E^{}`$ can be controlled by the gate voltage $`V_g`$ (we redefine $`E^{}`$ as $`V_g`$).

Minimizing the ground-state energy (A11), we determine five parameters, $`b_\alpha ,\lambda _\alpha (\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R})`$, and $`\kappa `$, self-consistently. The self-consistent equations are

$`2\left(\stackrel{~}{E}_0V_g\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(i\mathrm{\Delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{P\overline{b}_0^2tV_C}{\sqrt{\overline{b}_0^4\overline{b}_1^4}\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)^2+t^2}}}\right)\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]=0,`$ (A12)
$`2\left(\stackrel{~}{E}_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }E}{2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\stackrel{~}{E}_1\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{b}_0^2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }^2+V_C^2+\kappa V_C/\sqrt{\overline{b}_0^4\overline{b}_1^4}\right)}{\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)^2+t^2}}}P\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]=0,`$ (A13)
$`2\left(\overline{b}_0^21/2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]=0,`$ (A14)
$`2\overline{b}_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)}{\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)^2+t^2}}}P\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]=0,`$ (A15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{J}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{t}{\sqrt{(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1)^2+t^2}}}P\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right]=0.`$ (A16)
## B Expression of current

In this appendix, we derive the expression of the current using the real-time functional integral method. The alternative derivation is given in Ref. , which is based on the equation of motions for the Green functions. We take $`\mathrm{}=1`$ in this appendix.

All of the physical quantities can be obtained in principle by calculating the time evolution of the density matrix $`\rho (t)`$

$$\rho (t)=U^{}(t)\rho _{\mathrm{init}.}U(t),$$
(B1)
where $`\rho _{\mathrm{init}.}`$ is the initial density matrix and $`U(t)`$ is the time evolution kernel of the Hamiltonian $`H`$

$$U(t)=T\mathrm{exp}\left(iH(t)\right),$$
(B2)
using the time ordering product $`T`$.

Corresponding to Eq. (B1), we introduce the generating functional $`W[𝒋_1,𝒋_2]`$

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(W[𝒋_1,𝒋_2]\right)=\mathrm{Tr}U^{j_1}(t)\rho _{\mathrm{init}.}U^{j_2}(t),$$
(B3)
where $`U^j(t)`$ is the time evolution kernel of the Hamiltonian $`H^j=H\overline{𝒋}𝒇\overline{𝒇}𝒋`$ with $`\overline{𝒋}=(\overline{j}_{Lm},\overline{j}_{Rm})`$, $`\overline{𝒇}=(\overline{f}_{Lm},\overline{f}_{Rm})`$ and their conjugates $`𝒋`$ and $`𝒇`$. Equation (B3) is evaluated using the real-time functional integral method, which is the functional integral on the Keldysh contour;  the suffix “1” and “2” in $`j`$ correspond to the upper and lower branches of the Keldysh contour, respectively.

For the Hamiltonian (15), Eq. (B3) is given by the following functional integral on the degrees of freedom of electrons in the dots;

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(W[J]\right)=𝒟𝒇𝒟\overline{𝒇}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{m=\pm 1/2}{}d\omega \overline{𝑭}G^1𝑭𝑱\overline{𝑭}\overline{𝑭}𝑱\right)$$
(B4)
$`\overline{𝑭}=(\overline{f}_{+;Lm}(\omega ),\overline{f}_{;Lm}(\omega ),\overline{f}_{+;Rm}(\omega ),\overline{f}_{;Rm}(\omega ))`$ and $`\overline{𝑱}=(\overline{j}_{;Lm}(\omega ),\overline{j}_{+;Lm}(\omega ),\overline{j}_{;Rm}(\omega ),\overline{j}_{+;Rm}(\omega ))`$ with $`f_+=(f_1+f_2)/2`$, $`f_{}=f_1f_2`$, $`j_+=(j_1+j_2)/2`$, $`j_{}=j_1j_2`$. The matrix $`G^1`$ is the inverse of the Green functions:

$$G^1(\omega )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& G_{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{L}}^1(\omega )& 0& t\\ G_{\mathrm{a},\mathrm{L}}^1(\omega )& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_Lf_L(\omega )& t& 0\\ 0& t& 0& G_{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{R}}^1(\omega )\\ t& 0& G_{\mathrm{a},\mathrm{R}}^1(\omega )& \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_Rf_R(\omega )\end{array}\right),$$
(B5)
with the Fermi function $`f_\alpha (\omega )`$ of the electrodes with the chemical potential $`\mu _\alpha `$ and the retarded and advanced Green function $`G_{\mathrm{r},\mathrm{a},\alpha }^1(\alpha =\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R})`$ of electrons in the dots:

$`G_{\mathrm{r},\alpha }^1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +\stackrel{~}{E}_\alpha +i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha ,`$ (B6)
$`G_{\mathrm{a},\alpha }^1(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\omega +\stackrel{~}{E}_\alpha i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha .`$ (B7)
After integrating over the degrees of freedom of electron in the dots, the generating functional $`W`$ is finally given by $`G(\omega )`$,

$$W=\underset{m=\pm 1/2}{}𝑑\omega \overline{𝑱}G(\omega )𝑱.$$
(B8)
The current $`I`$ (16) is rewritten as

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`ie\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \left(\overline{f}_{+;Lm}f_{+;Rm}(\omega )\overline{f}_{+;Rm}f_{+;Lm}(\omega )\right)}.`$ (B9)
This is represented using the generating functional $`W`$

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`ie\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \left(\frac{\delta }{\delta J_{;Lm}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{J}_{;Rm}}\frac{\delta }{\delta J_{;Rm}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{J}_{;Lm}}\right)\mathrm{exp}(W[J_+,J_{}])}`$ (B10)
$`=`$ $`2ie\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \left[G_{1,3}(\omega )G_{3,1}(\omega )\right]},`$ (B11)
where $`G_{n,m}(\omega )`$ is the $`(n,m)`$ component of $`G`$. $`I`$ is finally given by

$$I=2e𝑑\omega T(\omega )\left[f_L(\omega )f_R(\omega )\right]$$
(B12)
with $`T(\omega )`$ in Eq. (18).

To derive Eq. (B12), we have assumed $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_\alpha `$, and $`\kappa `$ are determined by the self-consistent equations for the thermal equilibrium case $`\mu _L=\mu _R`$. Thus, the present calculation is valid only in the limit of $`\mu _L\mu _R`$. Extensions to the case of finite $`V_{\mathrm{sd}}`$ is possible within the framework of the present method. See Refs. .

## C Kondo temperature when $`V_C/\mathrm{\Delta }1`$

In this appendix, we derive the gate voltage dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ when $`J=0`$. The self-consistent equations are given by

$`(\overline{b}_0^21/2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (C1)
$`(\stackrel{~}{E}V_g)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{P}{}}\mathrm{Im}\left[\left(PV_C+i\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)\right]`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (C2)
where $`\xi _P=\stackrel{~}{E}+P\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{V}_C=\overline{b}_0^2V_C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\overline{b}_0^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

When $`V_g<V_C/2`$, the Kondo state is formed in each dot and lead and thus $`\stackrel{~}{E}=0`$. Then Eq. (C2) is reduced to

$`V_g{\displaystyle \frac{V_C}{\pi }}\mathrm{arctan}(V_C/\mathrm{\Delta })+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}^2+\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}^2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (C3)
resulting in the first line of Eq. (22).

When $`V_C/2<V_g<V_C/2`$, the broad peak of $`G`$ appears. For this case, the bonding level is located near the Fermi level in the leads and the antibonding level is far away from the Fermi level. Then we can use the following two conditions: (i) $`\stackrel{~}{E}\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}`$ ( $`\mathrm{Re}\xi _{}0`$) and (ii) $`_P\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right]_P\mathrm{Im}\left[P\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right]\mathrm{Im}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi \xi _{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right]`$. Then substituting Eq. (C1) into Eq. (C2) yields

$$2\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}\left(V_g+\frac{1}{2}V_C\right)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\pi }\underset{P}{}\mathrm{Re}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{i\pi \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi \left(2\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}+i\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right]=0.$$
(C4)
The logarithmic terms are negligible because $`n1`$ so that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\mathrm{C}V_C/2`$. Thus the gate voltage dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ reduces to the second line in Eq. (22).

When $`V_C/2<V_g`$ where $`n<1`$, the coupled dot system is essentially the same as the noninteracting system; $`n`$ is determined by the position of the energy level:

$$n=1\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\left(V_g/\mathrm{\Delta }\right).$$
(C5)
This result yields the third line of Eq. (22), because $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\mathrm{\Delta }(1n/2)/2`$.

Finally, we mention the relation between $`\kappa `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ when $`J0`$ (Sec. V). The self-consistent equation for $`\kappa `$, Eq. (A16),

$$\frac{2\kappa }{J}+\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{P}{}\mathrm{Im}\left[P\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\pi \xi _P}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)\right]=0,$$
(C6)
is simplified for $`V_C/2<V_g<V_C/2`$. Using the conditions (i) and (ii), we obtain

$$\frac{2\kappa }{J}+\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\mathrm{\Delta }}1/2=0.$$
(C7)
T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 1

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 2

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 3

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 4

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 5

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 6

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 7

T. Aono and M. Eto, Figure 8


text:
# Deep Infrared Imaging of the Microquasars 1E1740-2942 and GRS 1758-2581footnote 11footnote 1Based in part on observations obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated by the California Association for Research in Astronomy, a scientific partnership among the California Institute of Technology, the University of California, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

## 1 Introduction

The discovery of Galactic relativistic jet systems – the “microquasars” \[(Mirabel & Rodríguez,, 1994); (Tingay et al.,, 1995)\] – promises to revolutionize the study of jets in black hole systems. Due to their proximity and smaller mass, these X-ray binaries reveal smaller/fainter features and vary more rapidly than their extragalactic cousins, the quasars. Thus, patterns of variability which repeat on timescales of decades to centuries for the quasars can be observed on timescales of minutes to days in their Galactic counterparts. This property makes the microquasars excellent test laboratories for investigating the black-hole/relativistic-jet connection.

Based on their X-ray and radio properties, 1E1740-2942 and GRS 1758-258 are both considered strong microquasar candidates (in fact, the term “microquasar” was first used to describe 1E1740-2942). They are the two brightest hard X-ray sources near the Galactic Center at energies $`>50`$ keV, and their hard X-ray tails make them likely black hole candidates (Sunyaev et al.,, 1991). Furthermore both objects display radio lobes, indicating the presence of collimated jet outflows \[(Mirabel et al.,, 1992); (Rodríguez et al.,, 1992)\]. In their hard X-ray spectra and variability, both objects closely resemble the black hole candidate Cyg X-1 (e.g. Kuznetsov et al., (1996)), suggesting that they may be black-hole/O-star binaries. Both objects lie in the Galactic Plane with high optical obscuration ($`A_V10`$ for GRS 1758-258 and $`A_V2550`$ for 1E1740-2942), so IR searches for companions/counterparts have been performed. However, initial searches have returned negative results, with upper limits of $`K>17`$ (e.g. Djorgovski et al., (1992)), and Mirabel et al., (1991) failed to detect the expected radio emission from the compact HII region an O-star would form.

Recently, faint IR candidate counterparts for both systems have been reported. For GRS 1758-258, Marti et al., (1998) have found 3 obscured optical stars in or near the radio error circle. Similarly, Marti et al., (2000) have reported 1 or more faint IR stars inside the error circle for 1E1740-2942. However, due to the crowded nature of the fields, none of the candidates can be singled out as a certain microquasar counterpart.

In order to identify such counterparts, we obtained deep $`K_s`$-band images of both microquasar fields using the Keck 10-m telescope in June 1998. In Section 2, we describe the observations and data reduction we performed. In Section 3, we present our astrometric solutions for the locations of the microquasars on the IR images. In Section 4, we present photometry of the candidate counterparts and limits on potential undetected counterparts. In Section 5, we discuss the implications of these results, and in Section 6 we present our conclusions.

## 2 Observations and Data Reduction

### 2.1 Keck IR Observations

#### 2.1.1 June 1998

We observed the fields of both microquasars on June 1-2, 1998 UTC using the Keck Observatory’s Near-Infrared Camera (NIRC – Matthews & Soifer, (1994)) on the Keck I telescope. NIRC has a 256x256-pixel InSb array with a 0.15 $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{pixel}`$ plate scale, giving a $`38\mathrm{}`$ field of view. Due to the high extinction expected given the X-ray absorption towards these objects, we used a $`K_s`$ filter, centered at $`2.15\mu `$m. Conditions were not perfectly photometric on either night, with high thin cirrus clouds present, and monitoring of standard stars throughout the observing run indicated that the atmospheric absorption losses were variable at the $`10\%`$ level. The seeing conditions were exceptionally good, ranging from $`0.35\mathrm{}`$ to $`0.55\mathrm{}`$, with extended periods of seeing $`<0.5\mathrm{}`$.

For both objects, we used a random, non-repeating dither pattern, moving the telescope in $`10\mathrm{}`$ steps on the sky around the radio positions of the microquasars. We took 12 coadded 5-second exposures at each position, for a total of 60 seconds on-source per position. We repeated this dithering for a total of 94 minutes of exposure on GRS 1758-258 on June 1 and 99 minutes on June 2. For 1E1740-2942, we obtained 104 minutes of total exposure on each night.

We created a sky background frame by median-combining the dithered images for each object and each night separately. We then subtracted the sky background from each frame, divided by a flatfield created from the dithered sky frame, and interpolated over bad pixels and cosmic ray events. For GRS 1758-258, we then measured the centroid position of several bright stars in each frame and used them to determine its shift relative to a reference frame. We then shifted the frames accordingly and averaged them to obtain a master image of the field of GRS 1758-258 (see Figure 1).

We treated the images of 1E1740-2942 similarly up to the shifting and adding stage. Here the extremely crowded nature of the 1E1740-2942 field necessitated a different procedure. Rather than simply shifting and adding the images, we first measured the full-width half-maximum (FWHM) of the stellar point spread function (PSF) using several bright stars in the field. We then combined the images as above, but rejecting any images with FWHM greater than certain values. We tried several trial values for the FWHM cut, and found that $`0.45\mathrm{}`$ FWHM provided the best compromise between good resolution (low FWHM) and total exposure time (high FWHM). We present the resulting master image of 1E1740-2942 in Figure 2.

We also observed the UKIRT photometric standard star FS28. We took five dithered images of this star, which we used to create a sky frame. We subtracted the sky frame, divided by a flatfield, and interpolated over bad pixels and cosmic rays.

#### 2.1.2 April 1994

We also observed 1E1740-2942 using NIRC on Keck I on 5 April 1994. We operated in a very similar mode to that described above, but with a total integration time of 720 seconds. While conditions were photometric on this night, the seeing was rather inferior ($`1.0\mathrm{}`$ FWHM in $`K_s`$), providing limited utility in this crowded field.

### 2.2 CCD Observations

In order to accurately calibrate the astrometric reference frame of the IR images of GRS 1758-258, we obtained wide-field ($`8\mathrm{}\times 8\mathrm{}`$) CCD images of its field in the I band on June 29, 1998 using the Palomar 60-inch telescope. The total exposure time in each band was 300 seconds, and the typical stellar PSF had FWHM $`1.2\mathrm{}`$. We subtracted the CCD bias from each frame, divided by a flatfield, and interpolated over bad pixels and cosmic rays.

## 3 Astrometric Calibration of IR Images

### 3.1 1E1740-2942

In the case of 1E1740-2942, we identified 4 stars in Figure 2 which are listed in the USNO-A2.0 astrometric catalog (Monet et al.,, 1998). One of them is a close double, which complicates the astrometry sufficiently that we dropped it from our analysis. We used the remaining 3 stars to determine the “best-fit” astrometric solution for Figure 2 and locate the radio position for 1E1740-2942 on Figure 2 (marked by an “X”). We use the VLA position $`\alpha _{\mathrm{J2000}}=17^h43^m54^s.83`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{J2000}}=29^o44\mathrm{}42\mathrm{}.60`$ (Marti et al.,, 2000). We then calculated the RMS residuals for the USNO star positions from this solution, which we find to be $`\pm 0.37\mathrm{}`$. Note that this includes the internal uncertainties in the USNO positions, which are typically $`0.25\mathrm{}`$. Including the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties in the radio position ($`0.1\mathrm{}`$Rodríguez et al., (1992)) and in the radio-optical frame tie ($`<0.1\mathrm{}`$da Silva Neto, et al., (2000)), we arrive at a 90% positional uncertainty of $`\pm 0.65\mathrm{}`$. Figure 3 shows a section of Figure 2 close to the position of 1E1740-2942, including the 90% error circle. Comparison of this position to similar results obtained independently by Marti et al., (2000) show a close match between them, to better than $`0.2\mathrm{}`$.

### 3.2 GRS 1758-258

In the case of GRS 1758-258, we could not identify any suitable USNO-A2.0 stars in the field of Figure 1, and thus turned to the larger-field CCD image as a secondary astrometric reference. We identified 12 USNO stars within $`1.5\mathrm{}`$ of the approximate radio position for GRS 1758-258. We use the VLA position $`\alpha _{\mathrm{J2000}}=18^h01^m12^s.395`$ and $`\delta _{\mathrm{J2000}}=25^o44\mathrm{}35\mathrm{}.90`$ (Mirabel & Rodríguez,, 1993). We then obtained an astrometric solution for the CCD image in this region using these stars. We then transferred these coordinates onto 5 stars near the position of GRS 1758-258 which were visible in both the I-band CCD image and the K-band NIRC image, and used them to derive a secondary astrometric solution for the NIRC image. The resulting position is indicated on Figure 1 by an “X”. The RMS residuals to the CCD astrometric solution were $`0.22\mathrm{}`$, and the RMS residuals of the IR stars to the CCD solution were $`0.06\mathrm{}`$. Including the $`0.1\mathrm{}`$ $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties in both the radio position of GRS 1758-258 (Mirabel & Rodríguez,, 1993) and the optical-radio frame tie (da Silva Neto, et al.,, 2000), we obtain a 90% positional uncertainty of $`0.50\mathrm{}`$ for our position. Figure 4 shows a section of Figure 1 close to the position of GRS 1758-258, including the 90% error circle. Comparison of this position to similar results obtained independently by Marti et al., (1998) show a $`1.5\mathrm{}`$ offset between the two positions, which is large enough that the two 90% error circles just barely touch. The approximate location of the Marti et al. astrometric solution for GRS 1758-258 is also indicated in Figure 4.

## 4 Photometry of Candidates and Limits on Counterparts

### 4.1 1E1740-2942

In Figure 3, we can see several stars near the position of 1E1740-2942, which we have identified by the numbering system introduced by Marti et al., (2000). We do not detect any objects other than the stars identified by Marti et al., nor do we fail to detect any objects identified by Marti et al. In addition, with our improved $`0.45\mathrm{}`$ angular resolution, we confirm the suggestion of Marti et al., (2000) that “Star 4” is an extended object. However, we cannot determine whether the extended appearance is due to truly diffuse emission or simply the overlap of several stellar images in this crowded field.

In Table 1, we present photometric results for the numbered stars in Figure 3, using FS28 as the photometric standard. This star has $`m_K=10.597`$ mag and $`m_H=10.644`$ mag, based on which we estimate $`m_{Ks}=10.62\pm 0.03`$ mag. Comparing the PSF-weighted photometry of the 5 images of FS28, we find an RMS variation of $`\pm 0.02`$ mag in the measured flux levels. We performed photometry of the stars in the 1E1740-2942 field using the same PSF-weighted algorithm and assuming an average value for the sky background in the field. Due to the extreme crowding of the field, we find significant gradients in the apparent background level in this region of the field, and we estimate our uncertainty in the background level per pixel to be 20%. In addition, we include an estimated 10% uncertainty in the photometry due to transparency variations on these non-photometric nights.

All of the photometric results for the stars in Table 1 match the photometry of Marti et al., (2000) within the uncertainties, indicating that none of them varied significantly between June 1998 and May 1999. If we consider the exact center of our astrometric error circle for 1E1740-2942, we can place an upper limit on the presence of any stellar image of $`m_{Ks}=19.9`$ mag at the 95% confidence level. Note that the noise in the image is dominated by pixel-to-pixel background variations which are repeatable between the individual subimages we combined to make Figure 3. This indicates that these variations are due to background gradients from the crowded field rather than photon statistics.

Due to the poor seeing of the April 1994 data, only Stars 1-3 are detectable, and Stars 1 and 2 are badly blended, preventing accurate photometry. However, by comparison with nearby field stars, we determine that Stars 1 and 3 did not vary by more than $`0.8`$ mag between April 1994 and June 1998. Furthermore, the non-detection of the other stars implies that they were all fainter than $`K_s17.5`$ mag in April 1994.

### 4.2 GRS1758-258

In Figure 4, we cannot detect any sources inside our error circle for GRS 1758-258. We do detect 3 stars near this position which were seen in I-band images by Marti et al., (1998) – labelled A, b, and c. Star A is the source identified as a candidate counterpart for GRS 1758-258 by Marti et al., (1998), and for which they obtained an infrared spectrum. We present photometry of these 3 stars in Table 2, following the same procedures described above for the field of 1E1740-2942. Note that our $`K_s`$-band photometry of Star A is $`2\sigma `$ brighter than the $`K`$-band photometry of Marti et al., (1998). While the two filters do differ somewhat, this is a heavily reddened star ($`IK=5.0`$ mag, according to Marti et al.), so we would expect the $`K_s`$-band flux to be fainter than the $`K`$-band flux. Thus, we have some marginal evidence for variability in Star A between 1994-1997 and June 1998. At the exact center of our astrometric solution for the position of GRS 1758-258, we can place an upper limit on any stellar image of $`m_{Ks}=20.3`$ mag at the 95% confidence level.

## 5 Discussion

### 5.1 1E1740-2942

Our observations of 1E1740-2942 above essentially confirm those of Marti et al., (2000). We find virtually identical astrometric positions for the microquasar on the infrared sky, with the same candidates nearby, and very similar brightness for each of the candidates. The lack of apparent variability in the candidates, however, may indicate that none of them are in fact associated with the microquasar, given the known X-ray variability over the 1998-1999 time span (e.g. Main et al., (1999)).

The infrared extinction towards 1E1740-2942 is currently poorly constrained, but based on the estimated X-ray column density of $`N_H0.51.0\times 10^{23}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (Chen et al.,, 1994), we arrive at $`A_{Ks}3.06.0`$ mag. This in turn allows us to (very loosely) constrain the ranges of absolute magnitudes and thus spectral types for the stars in this field (see Table 1). As can be seen in Table 1, all of the 8 candidate counterparts in the field are consistent with both high-mass (early B or late O) main sequence stars, as well as low-mass (K-type) giants, for example. Thus, even if we choose to associate one of these candidates with 1E1740-2942, we unfortunately cannot place any interesting constraints on the nature of the binary system.

### 5.2 GRS1758-258

Our analysis of GRS 1758-258 presents two possible conclusions, depending on which astrometric calibration of its position is correct – the one we present above, or that of Marti et al., (1998). In the latter case, then Star A or one of the two stars near the “M” in Figure 4 is likely to be the IR counterpart to GRS 1758-258. Assuming $`A_{Ks}=0.9`$ mag based on $`N_H=1.5\pm 0.1\times 10^{22}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ from Mereghetti et al., (1997), and a distance of 8.5 kpc, we derive absolute magnitudes for the three stars of $`K_s=1.9,+1.35,+1.20`$ mag, respectively. These are roughly consistent with an early K-type giant for Star A (as proposed by Marti et al., (1998)), and early A-type main sequence stars for the other two stars. Any of these is inconsistent with a high-mass binary companion scenario for GRS 1758-258, and instead indicates that the system is an intermediate- or low-mass binary.

However, as noted above, our own astrometric solution would rule out all three of these stars as counterparts to GRS 1758-258. Since our solution is based on and consistent with the astrometric positioning of 12 USNO field stars with small internal scatter, the only possibility which would explain such a discrepancy is that the optical/radio frame tie is inaccurate for this region of sky at the $`1\mathrm{}`$ level. Since the USNO frame is tied to the International Coordinate Reference Frame via HIPPARCOS, with a claimed accuracy of $`<1`$ mas (Perryman et al.,, 1997), this seems to be unlikely. Thus, we conclude that the error circle in Figure 4 is in fact the most accurate positional determination for GRS 1758-258.

In that case, the lack of an IR counterpart to $`m_{Ks}>20.6`$ mag is particularly intriguing. Taking the same extinction and distance values as above, we place a limit on the absolute magnitude of any counterpart of $`K_s>+4.9`$ mag. This rules out any companion more luminous than a K7 main-sequence star. If this is correct, then GRS 1758-258 must be a (very) low-mass X-ray binary.

As a final alternative, it may be that the radio position is for some reason incorrect at the $`12`$ arcsecond level, which would leave several candidates for IR counterparts to GRS 1758-258.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented deep infrared ($`2.2\mu `$m) imaging of the fields of the Galactic microquasars 1E1740-2942 and GRS 1758-258, along with astrometric positioning to the $`0.50.6\mathrm{}`$ level. We summarize our results as follows:

* For 1E1740-2942, our astrometric position agrees with that of Marti et al., (2000).
* We find all 8 candidate counterparts to 1E1740-2942 identified by Marti et al., (2000), and no new candidates.
* None of the candidate IR counterparts show significant variability from June 1998 to May 1999, while the X-rays from 1E1740-2942 do show variability over that epoch.
* For GRS 1758-258, our astrometric position, based on 12 nearby USNO reference stars, disagrees with that of Marti et al., (1998) by $`1.5\mathrm{}`$.
* We find no IR counterpart inside our 90% confidence level error circle down to a $`3\sigma `$ limit of $`m_{Ks}>20.3`$ mag. For assumed $`A_{Ks}=0.9`$ mag and $`d=8.5`$ kpc, this limits any companion to be fainter than a main-sequence K5 star, implying that GRS 1758-258 is a low-mass binary.
* Alternately, if the astrometric position of Marti et al., (1998) is correct, we see only marginal evidence for variability from the brightest star in their error circle between June 1998 and the 1994-1997 photometry of Marti et al., (1998).

The authors thank L. Armus and R. Gal for help in obtaining the CCD images at Palomar Observatory, and M. Pahre for help in obtaining the 1994 Keck data. We also thank the staffs of Palomar and Keck Observatories for their expert help during our observing runs. SSE is supported in part at Cornell by an NSF CAREER award (NSF-9983830) and was supported at Caltech by the Sherman Fairchild Postdoctoral Fellowship in Physics. WJF was supported at Cornell by the NSF REU summer fellowship program. SGD acknowledges partial support from the Bressler Foundation.