format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the early days of investigations by physicists  of the unitary irreducible representations (UIRs) of SO($`d`$,2) (the $`d`$-dimensional conformal group), it was remarked that there exist special degenerate representations (“singletons”) which give rise to just a pair of UIRs when reduced to the subgroup SO($`d1`$,2).

These pairs of modules are “shadow pairs” , i.e., they have the same Casimir eigenvalues, and correspond to the so-called “conformally coupled fields”  in $`d`$ dimensions. We recall that SO($`d`$,2) can be viewed either as the isometry group of AdSd+1 or as the conformal group in $`d`$-dimensional Minkowski space Md. The two are related by the fact that a certain compactification of Md can be regarded as the boundary of AdSd+1.

In the present note we extend this analysis to superconformal symmetry. We show that four-(or five-)dimensional supersingleton multiplets are decomposed in an analogous way into pairs of three-(or four-)dimensional “mirror” supermultiplets corresponding to the superalgebra embedding OSp($`2N/4,`$) $``$ SU(2,2/$`2N`$) (or SU(2,2/1) $``$ F(4)). A similar result does not hold in the six-dimensional case because the superalgebra F(4) is not a subalgebra of OSp(8/4).

These exceptional representations appeared recently in the physics literature in different contexts. In the four-dimensional case (with $`N=4`$) it is the study of the AdS/CFT correspondence in the presence of “defects” . In the five-dimensional case, in IIB supergravity on AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$T1,1 the lowest-dimensional chiral primary operator $`\mathrm{Tr}(AB)`$ describes precisely a conformally coupled scalar, which means that it has an extension (together with its shadow) to a supersingleton representation of F(4) .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we explain how two scalar UIRs of the $`d`$-dimensional conformal group SO(d,2) of shadow conformal weights $`\mathrm{}_\pm =(d\pm 1)/2`$ merge together to form a scalar singleton UIR of the $`d+1`$-dimensional conformal group SO(d+1,2). In Section 3 we examine the possibilities to embed a $`d`$-dimensional conformal superalgebra in a $`d+1`$-dimensional one. We show that OSp($`N/4,`$) $``$ SU(2,2/$`N`$) and SU(2,2/$`1`$) $``$ F(4), but F(4) $`/`$ OSp($`8^{}/4`$). Next, in Section 4 we study the branching of $`d=4`$ scalar supersingletons into pairs of $`d=3`$ supermultiplets, corresponding to the embeddings OSp($`1/4,`$) $``$ SU(2,2/$`1`$) and OSp($`2N/4,`$) $``$ SU(2,2/$`2N`$). We show that the two $`d=3`$ “shadow” scalars obtained by breaking up the $`d=4`$ singleton, are found in two “mirror” $`d=3`$ supermultiplets of the same conformal dimension 2, but belonging to two complementary R symmetry irreps (self-dual and anti-self-dual tensors of SO(2N)). The $`d=3`$ multiplets obtained can be viewed as “supercurrents”, i.e., as squares of the two types of $`d=3`$ supersingletons. In Section 5 we perform a similar reduction from $`d=5`$ to $`d=4`$, corresponding to the embedding SU(2,2/$`1`$) $``$ F(4). We show that the $`d=5`$ supersingleton branches into a pair of $`d=4`$ chiral supermultiplets with “anomalous” dimension 3/2.

## 2 Relationship between scalar UIRs of SO($`d`$,2) and SO($`d+1`$,2)

In this section, following Fronsdal , we explain the basic phenomenon which underlies this work. The question we want to answer is how to upgrade a scalar111The same question can be asked about higher spin representations , but scalars are sufficient for our purpose. UIR of the conformal group in $`d`$ dimensions SO($`d`$,2) to a UIR of the conformal group in $`d+1`$ dimensions SO($`d+1`$,2). The answer is very simple: We have to take two UIRs of SO($`d`$,2), namely, scalars of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{}_1=(d1)/2`$ and $`\mathrm{}_2=(d+1)/2`$; together they form a massless scalar UIR of SO($`d+1`$,2) (or a “singleton” in the AdS sense ) of canonical conformal dimension $`(d2)/2`$. The explanation follows.

The algebra of SO($`d`$,2) contains SO($`d1`$,1) (Lorentz) generators $`M_{mn}=M_{nm}`$, translations $`P_m`$, boosts $`K_m`$ and dilatation $`D`$. Here $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},d1`$ is a vector index of SO($`d1`$,1). The commutation relations relevant to our discussion are

$$[P_m,K_n]=iM_{mn}+i\eta _{mn}D,[D,P_m]=iP_m,[D,K_m]=iK_m.$$
(1)
The group SO($`d`$,2) is non-compact, so its UIRs are infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces. To construct such a space, consider a ground state $`|\mathrm{},0`$ of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{}`$ and spin 0 (i.e., a singlet of the Lorentz subgroup SO($`d1`$,1)) defined by

$$M_{mn}|\mathrm{},0=K_m|\mathrm{},0=0,D|\mathrm{},0=i\mathrm{}|\mathrm{},0.$$
(2)
Here the boosts $`K_m`$ play the rôle of annihilators whereas the translations $`P_m`$ are the creators. Applying the latter to the ground state, we obtain the Hilbert space

$$_{\mathrm{},0}:|\mathrm{},0,P_m|\mathrm{},0,P_mP_n|\mathrm{},0,\mathrm{}.$$
(3)
In it we find states with spin 0 obtained by acting with the scalar $`P^mP_m`$:

$$|\mathrm{}+2k,0=(P^mP_m)^k|\mathrm{},0.$$
(4)
Note the absence of states $`|\mathrm{}+2k+1,0`$ in $`_{\mathrm{},0}`$.

Now, we wish to upgrade this SO($`d`$,2) UIR to a UIR of SO($`d+1`$,2). The algebra of SO($`d+1`$,2) contains $`d`$ additional Lorentz generators $`M_{md}`$, one boost (annihilator) $`K_d`$ and one translation (creator) $`P_d`$. If $`|\mathrm{},0`$ is to become the ground state of the SO($`d+1`$,2) UIR with spin 0 (a singlet of SO($`d`$,1)) that we want to build up, then it must be annihilated by $`M_{md}`$ and $`K_d`$:

$$M_{md}|\mathrm{},0=K_d|\mathrm{},0=0.$$
(5)
Further, the new creator $`P_d`$ applied to this ground state produces the state

$$|\mathrm{}+1,0=P_d|\mathrm{},0,$$
(6)
which is not present in $`_{\mathrm{},0}`$ (3). We must regard this state as the ground state of a new SO($`d`$,2) Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{}+1,0}`$. At the same time, it should be viewed as an excitation of the SO($`d+1`$,2) ground state. This explains why we need two UIRs of SO($`d`$,2) to form one UIR of SO($`d+1`$,2).

Next, applying $`P_d`$ twice we create the state $`|\mathrm{}+2,0=(P_d)^2|\mathrm{},0`$. This time, a similar state is contained in $`_{\mathrm{},0}`$ (3), namely $`P^mP_m|\mathrm{},0`$. Irreducibility then leads to the identification of these two states:

$$P^mP_m|\mathrm{},0=(P_d)^2|\mathrm{},0P^\mu P_\mu |\mathrm{},0=0,\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},d.$$
(7)
Thus, in $`d+1`$ dimensions we are dealing with a massless UIR of the conformal group SO($`d+1`$,2) (or a “singleton” in the AdS terminology).

Finally, the identification condition (7) should be compatible with the action of all the annihilators $`K_\mu `$ of SO($`d+1`$,2). This leads to the well-known result that the conformal dimension must take the canonical value for a $`d+1`$-dimensional massless scalar,

$$P^\mu P_\mu |\mathrm{},0=0\mathrm{}=\frac{(d+1)2}{2}=\frac{d1}{2}.$$
(8)
In summary, the two SO($`d`$,2) ground states $`|(d1)/2,0`$ and $`|(d+1)/2,0`$ create two Hilbert spaces $`_{(d1)/2,0}`$ and $`_{(d+1)/2,0}`$ which merge into the single Hilbert space $`_{(d1)/2,0}^{}`$ of an SO($`d+1`$,2) massless UIR of canonical dimension $`\mathrm{}=(d1)/2`$ and Lorentz spin 0.

Note that $`\mathrm{}_\pm =(d\pm 1)/2`$ are the “shadow dimensions”  corresponding to the same value of the quadratic Casimir of SO($`d`$,2) (or “AdS mass” )

$$C_2=M^2=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}d)=\frac{1}{4}(1d^2).$$

## 3 Embedding of superconformal algebras in diverse dimensions

In the preceding section we have seen that two shadow scalars in $`d`$ dimensions combine to form a singleton (massless) scalar in $`d+1`$ dimensions. In the supersymmetric case we would expect to find a similar relationship between scalar supersingletons in $`d+1`$ dimensions (massless scalar multiplets of the $`N`$-extended superconformal algebra $`𝒜_{d+1}^N`$) and pairs of scalar multiplets of the superconformal algebra $`𝒜_d^N`$ in $`d`$ dimensions. An obvious necessary condition for this to take place is the existence of the embedding $`𝒜_d^N𝒜_{d+1}^N`$.

In this section we discuss the structure of the superconformal algebras OSp($`N/4,`$) ($`d=3`$), SU(2,2/$`N`$) ($`d=4`$), F(4) ($`d=5`$) and OSp($`8^{}/2N`$) ($`d=6`$) . We show that the embeddings OSp($`N/4,`$) $``$ SU(2,2/$`N`$) ($`d=3d=4`$)  and SU(2,2/$`1`$) $``$ F(4) ($`d=4d=5`$) exist, but F(4) $``$ OSp($`8^{}/4`$) ($`d=5d=6`$) is not possible.

To do this, we examine the structure of the anticommutator of the odd generators case by case, starting from the highest dimension $`d=6`$ for which a standard superconformal algebra exists .

The $`d=6`$ superalgebra OSp($`8^{}/2N`$) has the even part $`\mathrm{SO}(6,2)\times \mathrm{USp}(2N)`$. Correspondingly, the odd generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a`$ carry two indices. The index $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},8`$ is in one of the two inequivalent spinor irreps of SO(6,2) (a non-compact form of SO(8)), e.g., 8s. The index $`a=1,\mathrm{},2N`$ is in the fundamental irrep of USp(2$`N`$). These generators satisfy the pseudoreality condition

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a=C_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{ab}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta ^b)^{},$$
(9)
where $`C_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the charge conjugation matrix and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{ab}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{ba}`$ is the USp(2$`N`$) symplectic matrix. The anticommutator of two odd generators has the following structure:

$$\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta ^b\}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{ab}\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^{\mu \nu }M_{\mu \nu }+𝕀_{\alpha \beta }T^{ab}.$$
(10)
Here $`M_{\mu \nu }=M_{\nu \mu }`$ are the generators of SO(6,2), $`𝕀_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the identity matrix in the appropriate Majorana-Weyl basis and $`T^{ab}=T^{ba}`$ are the generators of USp(2$`N`$). We also note the decomposition of a $`8\times 8`$ matrix $`A_{\alpha \beta }`$ in terms of antisymmetrized products of gamma matrices:

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=𝕀_{(\alpha \beta )}A^1+\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{28}+\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{35}.$$
(11)
Here we have indicated the symmetry properties of the gamma matrix products, as well as the dimension of each SO(6,2) irrep.

Now, consider the unique $`d=5`$ superconformal algebra F(4)  whose even part is $`\mathrm{SO}(5,2)\times \mathrm{USp}(2)`$. The odd generators and their anticommutator have the same form as in the case $`d=6`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},8`$ being an index of the unique spinor representation of SO(5,2) (a non-compact form of SO(7)) and $`a=1,2`$ being a USp(2) $``$ SU(2) index. What changes, however, is the decomposition (11):

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=𝕀_{(\alpha \beta )}A^1+\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^\mu A_\mu ^7+\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{21}+\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{35}.$$
(12)
We see that the 28 of SO(6,2) splits into a 7 and a 21 of SO(5,2), both being antisymmetric matrices. Consequently, trying to break up the OSp($`8^{}/4`$) anticommutator (10) so that the corresponding F(4) relation would emerge, we encounter a problem: It is not possible to keep only the 21 generators of SO(5,2) without the extra 7 generators of SO(6,2). We conclude that the embedding F(4) $``$ OSp($`8^{}/4`$) does not exist.

The next step is to move from $`d=5`$ to $`d=4`$. The $`d=4`$ superconformal algebra SU(2,2/$`N`$) has the even part $`\mathrm{SO}(4,2)\times (\mathrm{S})\mathrm{U}(N)`$ (in general, the R symmetry group is U($`N`$), except for $`N=4`$ where it is SU(4)). This time the odd generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a`$ (and their conjugates $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_a^\alpha `$) carry indices $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},4`$ and $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$ in the fundamental irreps of SU(2,2) $``$ SO(4,2) and of SU($`N`$), respectively:

$$\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a,\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_b^\beta \}=\delta _a^b(\gamma ^{\mu \nu })_\alpha ^\beta M_{\mu \nu }+\delta _\alpha ^\beta T_b^a.$$
(13)
The relevant matrix decomposition now concerns two kinds of matrices:

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^\mu A_\mu ^6+\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{10},A_\alpha ^\beta =\delta _\alpha ^\beta A^1+(\gamma ^{\mu \nu })_\alpha ^\beta A_{\mu \nu }^{15},$$
(14)
where $`(\gamma ^{\mu \nu })_\alpha ^\beta `$ is traceless. Let us now try to reduce F(4) to SU(2,2/1) (we set $`N=1`$ in order to match the numbers of odd generators). To this end we have to break up the $`d=5`$ generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a`$ into a pair of $`d=4`$ generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\beta `$ and then try to fit the pieces of the generators of the even part. We note that the 21 of SO(5,2) decomposes into 15 and 6 of SO(4,2). According to (14), the symmetry property of the 6 does not match that of the $`d=4`$ anticommutator $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta \}`$, so we have to set the latter to zero. Further, there is room for the 15 in the $`d=4`$ anticommutator $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\beta \}`$. Thus, we arrive at the SU(2,2/1) algebra:

$$\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta \}=0,\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ,\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^\beta \}=(\gamma ^{\mu \nu })_\alpha ^\beta M_{\mu \nu }+\delta _\alpha ^\beta T.$$
(15)
We conclude that the embedding SU(2,2/1) $``$ F(4) is possible.

Finally, consider the reduction from $`d=4`$ to $`d=3`$. The superalgebra OSp($`N/4,`$) has the even part $`\mathrm{SO}(3,2)\times \mathrm{SO}(N)`$. The odd generators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a`$ carry indices $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},4`$ in the spinor irrep of Sp($`4,`$) $``$ SO(3,2) and $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$ in the vector irrep of SO($`N`$). In addition, they satisfy the reality condition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}^{a\beta }`$. Their anticommutator is

$$\{\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha ^a,\mathrm{\Sigma }_\beta ^b\}=\delta ^{ab}(\gamma ^{\mu \nu })_{\alpha \beta }M_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }T^{ab},$$
(16)
where $`T^{ab}=T^{ba}`$ are the SO($`N`$) generators. Note also the matrix decomposition

$$A_{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }A^1+\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^\mu A_\mu ^5+\gamma _{(\alpha \beta )}^{\mu \nu }A_{\mu \nu }^{10},$$
(17)
where $`\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^\mu `$ is traceless, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{[\alpha \beta ]}^\mu =0`$. Now we can see how the reduction from SU(2,2/$`N`$) works: The $`d=3`$ odd generators are the real parts of the $`d=4`$ ones; U($`N`$) becomes SO($`N`$); SU(2,2) becomes Sp($`4,`$). At the last step the 15 of SU(2,2) breaks up into the 10 and the 5 of Sp($`4,`$), the former having the right symmetry property to fit in (16), the latter has to drop out.

## 4 The reduction of SU(2,2/$`N`$) scalar supersingletons to two OSp($`N/4,`$) mirror multiplets

In this section we explain the mechanism of the decomposition of the $`d=4`$ scalar supersingletons (massless scalar multiplets of SU(2,2/$`N`$)) into a pair of scalar multiplets of the $`d=3`$ superconformal algebra $`\mathrm{OSp}(N/4,)\mathrm{SU}(2,2/N)`$.

We start with the simplest case $`N=1`$ which illustrates the origin of the shadow scalars in $`d=3`$. The $`d=4`$ supersingleton multiplet consists of massless scalars and spinors. It is described by an ultrashort superfield (chiral in the case $`N=1`$). Its $`\theta `$ expansion contains a term with first-order derivatives of the scalars. Unlike standard trivial dimensional reduction to $`d=3`$, our procedure consists in keeping the derivative $`_3`$ of the scalars. It plays the rôle of the additional creation operator $`P_3`$ described in Section 2 and is thus responsible for the origin of the shadow scalars.

Next we discuss in detail the case with $`N=2`$ extended supersymmetry, as well as the generalization to an arbitrary even value of $`N`$. This time the $`d=4`$ supersingletons are not chiral, but Grassmann analytic ultrashort superfields in harmonic superspace . Here we see a new feature: The scalars in $`d=4`$ form an irrep $`R_4`$ of the $`d=4`$ R symmetry group SU($`N`$) which splits into two inequivalent halves under the $`d=3`$ group SO($`N`$), $`R_4=R_3^++R_3^{}`$. Accordingly, the $`d=4`$ supersingleton decomposes into two “mirror” $`d=3`$ supermultiplets. One of them has scalars of dimension 1 in, e.g., $`R_3^+`$ as its “ground state” and also contains scalars of dimension 2 in $`R_3^{}`$. The latter play the rôle of the “shadows” of the ground state scalars of the mirror multiplet.

Another peculiarity of the reduction SU(2,2/$`N`$) $``$ OSp($`N/4,`$) is that the $`d=3`$ supermultiplets can be viewed as “supercurrents”, i.e., as the squares of the $`d=3`$ scalar supersingletons. This implies that such representations correspond to “massless” fields in AdS4 . For $`N2`$ there are two inequivalent species of $`d=3`$ scalar supersingletons. Each of them gives rise to one of the mirror supercurrent multiplets obtained by decomposing the $`d=4`$ scalar supersingleton.

### 4.1 $`N=1`$

The $`d=4`$ $`N=1`$ scalar supersingleton (the massless Wess-Zumino multiplet) is described by a chiral superfield $`W(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ subject to the massless field equation:

$$\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}W=D^\alpha D_\alpha W=0.$$
(18)
The component expansion of this superfield has the form

$$W=\varphi (x)+\theta ^\alpha \psi _\alpha (x)+i\theta ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}_\mu \varphi (x),$$
(19)
where the complex scalar $`\varphi (x)`$ and the left-handed spinor $`\psi _\alpha (x)`$ fields are massless:

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_\mu ^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }^\mu \psi _\alpha =0.$$
(20)
Note that the space-time coordinates $`x^\mu `$ in (19) are real. The derivative term originates from the nilpotent shift defining the complex chiral basis $`x_L^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, in which $`W`$ depends on $`\theta `$ only. This property is called “chirality”, which is a particular case of “Grassmann analyticity”(or “1/2 BPS shortness”). In fact, the superfield (19) is even “ultrashort”, since the term $`\theta ^\alpha \theta _\alpha `$ is missing. This is a characteristic feature of the supersingleton superfields.

The reduction to three dimensions is achieved by identifying the two conjugate Grassmann variables

$$\theta _\alpha =\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}$$
(21)
and by taking, e.g., the real part of the superfield $`W`$, $`J=\text{Re}W`$. We stress the important difference between the procedure we follow here and the standard trivial dimensional reduction. In the latter case we would also set $`_3\varphi =0`$. Then, since the $`d=4`$ sigma matrices $`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu `$ split into the $`d=3`$ ones $`\sigma _{(\alpha \beta )}^m`$ (symmetric) and $`\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^3=iϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$, the derivative term in (19) would drop out and we would get the short real $`d=3`$ superfield $`J=A+i\theta ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha `$, where $`A=\text{Re}\varphi `$, $`\lambda =\text{Im}\psi `$. Such a superfield satisfies the superspace constraint $`D^\alpha D_\alpha J=0`$, which is easily shown to be superconformal only if the conformal dimension of the superfield $`J`$ equals 1/2 and not 1 (the dimension of $`W`$). This is an indication that we have to proceed differently.

The correct dimensional reduction procedure which preserves conformal invariance, consists in keeping $`_3\varphi `$. According to the discussion in Section 2, this corresponds to considering $`_3`$ as the component of the raising operator $`P_3`$ which is responsible for creating a new scalar state. In terms of fields this means defining a new $`d=3`$ field $`B=\text{Im}_3\varphi `$. Thus, we obtain a generic long real222This is the reason why we had to expand the chiral superfield $`W`$ (19) in the real basis in superspace, and not in the complex chiral basis. $`d=3`$ superfield:

$$J=A(x)+i\theta ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha (x)+i\theta ^\alpha \theta _\alpha B(x),$$
(22)
$$A=\text{Re}\varphi ,\lambda _\alpha =\text{Im}\psi _\alpha ,B=\text{Im}_3\varphi .$$

In the process the first scalar $`A`$ keeps the original conformal dimension 1 of $`\varphi `$, but the new scalar $`B`$ acquires the “shadow” dimension $`31=2`$.

Instead of the real part of $`W`$, we could have taken its imaginary part, thus obtaining an alternative (“mirror”) $`d=3`$ supermultiplet:

$$J^{}=A^{}(x)+i\theta ^\alpha \lambda _\alpha ^{}(x)+i\theta ^\alpha \theta _\alpha B^{}(x),$$
(23)
$$A^{}=\text{Im}\varphi ,\lambda _\alpha ^{}=\text{Re}\psi _\alpha ,B^{}=\text{Re}_3\varphi .$$

The only difference between $`J`$ and $`J^{}`$ has to do with the fact that real part of $`\varphi `$ is a scalar while its imaginary part is a pseudoscalar. Later on we shall see that the difference between the mirror $`d=3`$ multiplets becomes more significant for $`N>1`$.

Finally, $`J`$ can be viewed as a “supercurrent” obtained from $`d=3`$ supersingletons $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta )`$ defined by the massless superfield equation

$$D^\alpha D_\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }=0\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega (x)+\theta ^\alpha \chi _\alpha ,\mathrm{}\omega =^{\alpha \beta }\chi _\beta =0.$$
(24)
Note that this time the dimensions of the $`d=3`$ fields are canonical, $`\text{dim}\omega =1/2`$, $`\text{dim}\chi =1`$, so that equation (24) can be superconformal. Then we can write the “supercurrent” $`J=(\mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ which has the same content as (22). The term “supercurrent” will become more clear when we move to $`N>2`$, where we will find conserved currents among the components of $`J`$.

### 4.2 $`N=2`$

The $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ scalar supersingleton is the hypermultiplet. Its adequate description as a Grassmann analytic superfield is given in harmonic superspace . To this end one introduces harmonic variables $`u_i^I`$ (and their complex conjugates $`u_I^i`$) parametrizing the coset SU(2)/U(1). They form a matrix of the R symmetry group SU(2) whose index $`i`$ transforms under the fundamental representation of SU(2), whereas the index $`I`$ is a collection of U(1) charges. With the help of the harmonics we can covariantly project any SU(2) representation with respect to the subgroup U(1). For instance, the Grassmann variables $`\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^i`$ and $`\theta _{i\alpha }`$ in the fundamental irrep of SU(2) can be projected onto the highest-weight states (HWS) $`\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^1=\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^iu_i^1`$, $`\theta _{2\alpha }=\theta _{i\alpha }u_2^i`$, etc. Note the existence of a particular conjugation (real structure) which combines ordinary complex conjugation with the antipodal map on the sphere $`S^2\text{SU(2)/U(1)}`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{2\alpha }=\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^1.$$
(25)
The on-shell hypermultiplet can now be described by a Grassmann analytic superfield:

$$W^1(x_A,\overline{\theta }^1,\theta _2,u)=\varphi ^i(x_A)u_i^1+\theta _2^\alpha \psi _\alpha (x_A)+\overline{\theta }^{1\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\kappa }_{\dot{\alpha }}(x_A)+i\theta _2\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^1_\mu \varphi ^i(x_A)u_i^2,$$
(26)
where the component fields are massless,

$$\mathrm{}\varphi ^i=\stackrel{~}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\psi _\alpha =_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\kappa }^{\dot{\alpha }}=0.$$
(27)
The space-time variables $`x_A^\mu `$ in (26) are obtained from the real ones $`x^\mu `$ by a nilpotent shift, $`x_A^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta _2\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^2i\theta _1\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^1`$. In this basis the Grassmann analytic superfield manifestly depends only on half of the odd variables. In this respect the Grassmann analytic superfields resemble the chiral ones, although the half of $`\theta `$’s they depend on is chosen with regard to the R symmetry instead of the Lorentz group. We can also say that this is another type of 1/2 BPS short superfield.

In addition to Grassmann analyticity, $`W^1`$ is subject to the constraint of SU(2) irreducibility (harmonic analyticity), which makes the harmonic dependence in (26) linear and puts the physical fields on shell. As in the case $`N=1`$, the supersingleton (26) is an “ultrashort” superfield, in the sense that a number of components in its $`\theta `$ expansion are missing.

One final remark concerns the derivative term $`i\theta _2\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^1_\mu \varphi ^i(x_A)u_i^2`$. It is not the analog of the coordinate shift term in the $`N=1`$ chiral superfield (19), but is due to the ultrashortness of the supersingleton. This term will play an important rôle in the dimensional reduction.

Now we proceed to the reduction to three dimensions. There the $`N=2`$ R symmetry group SU(2) becomes SO(2) and the Grassmann variables belong to the vector representation, $`\theta ^{\pm \pm \alpha }`$.333We use spinor units of charge, so the charge of a vector is $`\pm 2`$. Thus, to reduce the $`d=4`$ superfield (26) we have to identify the two conjugate (in the sense of eq. (25)) $`\theta `$’s,

$$\theta _2^\alpha =\overline{\theta }^{1\dot{\alpha }}\theta ^{++\alpha }.$$
(28)
Further, we define the scalar field $`A^{++}\varphi ^iu_i^1`$ and the spinor field $`\lambda ^\alpha 1/2(\psi ^\alpha +\overline{\kappa }^{\dot{\alpha }})`$. Finally, much like in the case $`N=1`$, from the derivative term in (26) only the component $`B^{}_3\varphi ^iu_i^2`$ survives, giving rise to a new scalar field of shadow dimension 2. The result is

$$J^{++}=A^{++}+\theta ^{++\alpha }\lambda _\alpha +\theta ^{++\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^{++}B^{}.$$
(29)
Unlike the case $`N=1`$, this time we obtain a 1/2 BPS short (or Grassmann analytic) superfield depending only on half of the odd variables.444The space-time variables in (29) include the nilpotent shift $`x_A^m=x^m+i\theta ^{++}\sigma ^m\theta ^{}`$ which originates from the corresponding shift in $`d=4`$. However, this short superfield is off shell, unlike its $`d=4`$ counterpart (26).

A characteristic feature of the $`d=3`$ supermultiplet (29), common for all even values of $`N`$, is that its “ground state” $`A^{++}`$ corresponds to half of the $`d=4`$ scalars $`\varphi ^i`$. It is obtained by splitting the R symmetry $`n`$-fold antisymmetric irrep of SU(2$`n`$) into two inequivalent irreps (self-dual and anti-self-dual) of SO(2$`n`$). The other half reappears at the level of $`(\theta )^2`$, but this time with shadow dimension 2.

Choosing the other half of the scalars as the “ground state” of the supermultiplet, we find an alternative (“mirror”) reduction of the $`d=4`$ supersingleton. It is obtained from the complex conjugate superfield $`\overline{W}_2(\theta _1,\overline{\theta }^2)=\overline{\varphi }_iu_2^i+\mathrm{}`$ by the identifications $`\theta _1^\alpha =\overline{\theta }^{2\dot{\alpha }}\theta ^\alpha `$, $`A^{}=\overline{\varphi }_iu_2^i`$, $`\rho ^\alpha 1/2(\psi ^\alpha \overline{\kappa }^{\dot{\alpha }})`$ and $`B^{++}_3\overline{\varphi }_iu_2^i`$:

$$J^{}=A^{}+\theta ^\alpha \rho _\alpha +\theta ^\alpha \theta _\alpha ^{}B^{++}.$$
(30)
Notice the important fact that the “shadow” scalar $`B^{++}`$ in (30) carries the same R symmetry quantum numbers as the “ground state” scalar $`A^{++}`$ in (29). In other words, the pair of $`d=3`$ scalars which gives rise to a singleton scalar representation of SO(4,2) (recall Section 2), is composed of states belonging to the two “mirror” $`d=3`$ supermultiplets (29) and (30). We conclude that this pair of $`d=3`$ supermultiplets is equivalent to the $`d=4`$ supersingleton multiplet (26). As we show below, the same phenomenon takes place for all even values of $`N`$.

Finally, we remark that the $`d=3`$ $`N=2`$ supermultiplet we have obtained is a “supercurrent”, i.e., it can be viewed as the square of a $`d=3`$ supersingleton. The latter is described by an ultrashort analytic superfield,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^+=\omega ^++\theta ^{++\alpha }\chi _\alpha ^{},\mathrm{}\omega ^+=^{\alpha \beta }\chi _\beta ^{}=0J^{++}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^+)^2,$$
(31)
or, alternatively, by $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\omega ^{}+\theta ^\alpha \chi _\alpha ^+`$, $`J^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})^2`$.

### 4.3 Arbitrary even $`N`$

The above discussion is easily generalized to the case of an arbitrary even value $`N=2n`$. Two examples of $`d=4`$ supersingletons of physical interest are the on-shell multiplets of $`N=4`$ super Yang-Mills and of $`N=8`$ supergravity .

#### 4.3.1 Scalar supersingletons in $`d=4`$

The $`d=4`$ $`N=2n`$ scalar supersingleton is described by an ultrashort analytic superfield. It depends on half of the Grassmann variables:

$$\overline{\theta }^{1,2,\mathrm{},n\dot{\alpha }}=\overline{\theta }^{i\dot{\alpha }}u_i^{1,2,\mathrm{},n},\theta _{n+1,\mathrm{},2n}^\alpha =\theta _i^\alpha u_{n+1,\mathrm{},2n}^i,$$
(32)
obtained with the help of the harmonic variables $`u_i^I`$ (and their conjugates $`u_I^i`$) on the coset SU(2$`n`$)/$`[\text{U}(1)]^{2n1}`$ . They form an SU($`2n`$) matrix and are used to project the fundamental irrep of SU($`2n`$) (index $`i`$) onto $`[\mathrm{U}(1)]^{2n1}`$ (index $`I=1,2,\mathrm{},2n`$).

Below we list some of the terms in the $`\theta `$ expansion of the supersingleton:

$`W^{12\mathrm{}n}(\overline{\theta }^{1,2,\mathrm{},n},\theta _{n+1,\mathrm{},2n})`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{[i_1\mathrm{}i_n]}u_{i_1}^1\mathrm{}u_{i_n}^n`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`\overline{\theta }^{n\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{[i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}]}u_{i_1}^1\mathrm{}u_{i_{n1}}^{n1}+\text{perm.}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta _{2n}^\alpha \kappa _{[i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}]\alpha }u_{2n1}^{i_1}\mathrm{}u_{n+1}^{i_{n1}}+\text{perm.}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }_1}^1\mathrm{}\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }_n}^nF^{(\dot{\alpha }_1\mathrm{}\dot{\alpha }_n)}+\theta _{2n}^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\theta _{n+1}^{\alpha _n}G_{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n)}`$
$`+`$ $`i\theta _{2n}\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^n_\mu \varphi ^{[i_1\mathrm{}i_n]}u_{i_1}^1\mathrm{}u_{i_{n1}}^{n1}u_{i_n}^{2n}+\text{perm.}`$
$`+`$ other derivative terms
These include: the scalars in the $`n`$-fold antisymmetric irrep $`[0\mathrm{}01_n0\mathrm{}0_{2n1}]`$ of SU(2$`n`$); the spin 1/2 fields in the $`n1`$-fold antisymmetric irrep $`[0\mathrm{}01_{n1}0\mathrm{}0_{2n1}]`$; the SU(2$`n`$) singlets $`F`$ and $`G`$ with the top Lorentz spins $`(0,n)`$ and $`(n,0)`$; the derivative terms relevant to the dimensional reduction. All of these fields are massless,

$$\mathrm{}\varphi =_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}=\stackrel{~}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha }\kappa _\alpha =\mathrm{}=_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }_1}F^{(\dot{\alpha }_1\mathrm{}\dot{\alpha }_n)}=\stackrel{~}{}^{\dot{\alpha }\alpha _1}G_{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n)}=0.$$
(34)
The harmonic projections of the fields displayed in (33) correspond to the HWS of each SU(2$`n`$) irrep, the rest are obtained by permutation of the indices $`1,2,\mathrm{},2n`$. The conjugation rules compatible with Grassmann analyticity are as follows:

$$\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{n+1}=\overline{\theta }^1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\theta }_{2n}=\overline{\theta }^n.$$
(35)
Using these rules, we can impose a reality condition on the multiplet (33) if $`N=2n=4k`$.

To be more explicit, let us give the particular example of the $`N=4`$ SYM multiplet in detail:

$`W_{N=4\mathrm{SYM}}^{12}(\overline{\theta }^{1,2},\theta _{3,4})`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^{[ij]}u_i^1u_j^2`$
$`+`$ $`(\overline{\theta }^{2\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^iu_i^112)+(\theta _4^\alpha \psi _{\alpha i}u_3^i34)`$
$`+`$ $`\overline{\theta }^{1\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }^{2\dot{\beta }}F_{(\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta })}^{}+\theta _4^\alpha \theta _3^\beta F_{(\alpha \beta )}^+`$
$`+`$ $`((i\theta _4\sigma ^\mu \overline{\theta }^2_\mu \varphi ^{[ij]}u_i^1u_j^4+34)12)+\text{other derivative terms}.`$
It consists of six scalars $`\varphi ^{ij}=1/2ϵ^{ijkl}\overline{\varphi }_{kl}`$ in the real irrep $`[010]`$ of SU(4), four spinors $`\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^i`$ in the fundamental irrep $`[100]`$ (and their conjugates $`\psi _{\alpha i}`$ in $`[001]`$) and the self-dual $`F_{(\alpha \beta )}^+`$ and anti-self-dual $`F_{(\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta })}^{}`$ parts of the YM field strength (SU(4) singlets).

In eqs. (33) and(4.3.1) we have displayed only one of the numerous derivative terms. The remainder contains either derivatives of the spinors or higher-order derivatives of the scalars. They are irrelevant for the dimensional reduction because of the field equations (34). Indeed, a term like $`_\mu \psi _\alpha `$ will only generate derivative terms (descendants) in $`d=3`$, since $`_3\psi _\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_3^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\sigma _{\dot{\alpha }\beta }^m_m\psi ^\beta `$. Similarly, since $`_3^2\varphi =_m^2\varphi `$, derivative terms like $`_\mu _\nu \varphi `$ either give rise to descendants of the $`d=3`$ field $`A\varphi `$ or of the new $`d=3`$ field $`B_3\varphi `$ (see below).

#### 4.3.2 Reduction to $`d=3`$

By analogy with the case $`N=2`$, after the reduction to $`d=3`$ we expect to find an $`\mathrm{SO}(2`$n$`)`$ covariant analytic superfield. In order to define it we have to introduce harmonic variables on the coset SO(2$`n`$)/$`[\text{U}(1)]^n`$. 555We did not need harmonics in the case $`N=2`$ since the group SO(2) is too small to admit a harmonic coset. A characteristic feature of the orthogonal groups SO(2$`n`$) (more precisely, of their covering groups Spin(2$`n`$)) is the existence of two inequivalent spinor representations (left- and right-handed), denoted by undotted and dotted indices $`a,\dot{a}=1,\mathrm{},2^{n1}`$. Correspondingly, we introduce two sets of spinor harmonics,

$$u_a^{\pm _1\mathrm{}\pm _{n2}[\pm ]},w_{\dot{a}}^{\pm _1\mathrm{}\pm _{n2}\{\pm \}}.$$
(37)
Their U(1) charges denoted by $`\pm _p`$, $`p=1,\mathrm{},n2`$ correspond to the first $`n2`$ U(1) factors from the coset SO(2$`n`$)/$`[\text{U}(1)]^n`$. The last two charges, denoted by $`[\pm ]`$ and $`\{\pm \}`$, are used to distinguish the two spinor representations whose HWS correspond to the projections

$$[0\mathrm{}010_n]:u_a^{+_1\mathrm{}+_{n2}[+]};[0\mathrm{}01_n]:w_{\dot{a}}^{+_1\mathrm{}+_{n2}\{+\}}.$$
(38)
Further, in $`d=4`$ the Grassmann variables $`\theta _i`$ and $`\overline{\theta }^i`$ belong to the fundamental irrep of SU(2$`n`$), but after reducing to $`d=3`$ and taking the real part, we find them in the vector irrep of SO(2$`n`$). The corresponding vector harmonics are composite variables made out of the left- and right-handed spinor harmonics,

$$v_r^R=u_a^{\pm _1\mathrm{}\pm _{n2}[\pm ]}\gamma _r^{a\dot{a}}w_{\dot{a}}^{\pm _1\mathrm{}\pm _{n2}\{\pm \}},$$
(39)
where $`\gamma _r`$, $`r=1,\mathrm{},2n`$ are the gamma matrices of SO(2$`n`$). The projection (charge) $`R`$ takes one of the following $`2n`$ values: $`\pm \pm _1`$ or $`\pm \pm _2`$, …, or $`\pm \pm _{n2}`$, or $`[\pm ]\{\pm \}`$. The HWS of the vector irrep $`[10\mathrm{}0_n]`$ corresponds to the projection $`v_r^{++_1}`$ (if $`n>2`$) or to $`v^{[+]\{+\}}`$ (if $`n=2`$).

Using the composite vector harmonics, we can choose a subset of the odd variables suitable for defining a $`d=3`$ analytic superspace. One such subset is obtained by identifying the left- and right-handed $`d=4`$ analytic $`\theta `$’s as follows:

$$\theta _{n+1}=\overline{\theta }^1\theta ^{++_1},\mathrm{},\theta _{2n2}=\overline{\theta }^{n2}\theta ^{++_{n2}},\theta _{2n1}=\overline{\theta }^{n1}\theta ^{[+]\{+\}},\theta _{2n}=\overline{\theta }^n\theta ^{[+]\{\}}.$$
(40)
These new odd variables are real, as follows from the conjugation rules (35). Another analytic subset is obtained by swapping $`\theta ^{[+]\{\pm \}}\theta ^{[\pm ]\{+\}}`$.

The next step in the reduction is to split the scalars in eq. (33) into irreps of SO(2$`n`$). In fact, all other fields in (33) belong to SU(2$`n`$) irreps of the type $`[0\mathrm{}01_p0\mathrm{}0_{2n1}]`$, $`1pn1`$, which remain irreducible when restricted to SO(2$`n`$) (more precisely, to Spin($`2n`$)). The only exception are the scalars in the $`[0\mathrm{}01_n0\mathrm{}0_{2n1}]`$ of SU(2$`n`$) which split into the left- and right-handed irreps $`[0\mathrm{}020_n]`$ and $`[0\mathrm{}02_n]`$ of SO(2$`n`$) (corresponding to self-dual and anti-self-dual $`n`$-fold antisymmetric tensors). We can take, e.g., the self-dual half $`[0\mathrm{}020_n]`$ (i.e., the HWS charges $`++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}[++]`$) and define the $`d=3`$ “ground state” scalar fields

$$\varphi ^{[i_1\mathrm{}i_n]}u_{i_1}^1\mathrm{}u_{i_n}^nA^{++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}[++]}=A^{[r_1\mathrm{}r_n]}v_{r_1}^{++_1}\mathrm{}v_{r_{n2}}^{++_{n2}}v_{r_{n1}}^{[+]\{+\}}v_{r_n}^{[+]\{\}}.$$
(41)
Here $`A^{[r_1\mathrm{}r_n]}`$ is an $`n`$-fold antisymmetric self-dual tensor of SO(2$`n`$). If $`n=2k`$ it can be made real by applying the appropriate harmonic conjugation.

In a similar fashion, the remaining terms in the $`d=4`$ expansion (33) give rise to $`d=3`$ fields. For instance, the spin 1/2 terms become

$$\overline{\theta }^{n\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{12\mathrm{}n1}+\theta _{2n}^\alpha \kappa _{2n1\mathrm{}n+1\alpha }\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\lambda _\alpha ^{++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}[+]\{+\}},$$
(42)
where $`\lambda _\alpha ^{++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}[+]\{+\}}=\lambda _{\alpha [r_1\mathrm{}r_{n1}]}v_{r_1}^{++_1}\mathrm{}v_{r_{n2}}^{++_{n2}}v_{r_{n1}}^{[+]\{+\}}`$ is a spinor filed corresponding to the HWS of the $`n1`$-fold antisymmetric irrep $`[0\mathrm{}011_n]`$ of SO(2$`n`$).

This process goes on until we reach the top spin fields:

$$\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }_1}^1\mathrm{}\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }_n}^nF^{(\dot{\alpha }_1\mathrm{}\dot{\alpha }_n)}+\theta _{2n}^{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}\theta _{n+1}^{\alpha _n}G_{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n)}\theta _{\alpha _1}^{++_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{\alpha _{n2}}^{++_{n2}}\theta _{\alpha _{n1}}^{[+]\{+\}}\theta _{\alpha _n}^{[+]\{\}}j^{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n)}.$$
(43)
Note that the spin $`n`$ filed $`j^{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n)}`$ (as well as all other fields with spin greater than 1/2) is a conserved spin-tensor:

$$\sigma _{\alpha _1\alpha _2}^m_mj^{(\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _n)}=0.$$
(44)
The reason for this will become clear in subsection 4.4.

The derivative term shown in (33) deserves particular attention, because it gives rise to the new scalars of shadow dimension 2:

$$i\theta _{2n}\sigma ^3\overline{\theta }^n_3\varphi ^{1\mathrm{}n1;2n}\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^{[+]\{\}}B^{++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}\{++\}},$$
(45)
where $`B^{++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}\{++\}}=B_{[r_1\mathrm{}r_n]}v_{r_1}^{++_1}\mathrm{}v_{r_{n2}}^{++_{n2}}v_{r_{n1}}^{[+]\{+\}}v_{r_n}^{[]\{+\}}`$ is a scalar filed corresponding to the HWS of the $`n`$-fold antisymmetric anti-self-dual irrep $`[0\mathrm{}02_n]`$.

As in the case $`N=2`$, the “ground state” scalars $`A`$ and the “shadow” scalars $`B`$ belong to the two complementary SO(2$`n`$) irreps $`[0\mathrm{}020_n]`$ and $`[0\mathrm{}02_n]`$ which constitute the SU(2$`n`$) irrep $`[0\mathrm{}01_n0\mathrm{}0_{2n1}]`$. This means that the shadows of the $`A`$ fields (41) are not the $`B`$ fields (45) from the analytic superfield $`J^{[0\mathrm{}020_n]}(\theta ^{++_1},\mathrm{},\theta ^{++_{n2}},\theta ^{[+]\{\pm \}})`$ that we have constructed. They can be found in the “mirror” superfield $`J^{[0\mathrm{}02_n]}(\theta ^{++_1},\mathrm{},\theta ^{++_{n2}},\theta ^{[\pm ]\{+\}})`$ obtained by swapping the irreps of the “ground state” and of the shadow scalars (in practice, this means swapping the charges $`[\pm ]`$ and $`\{\pm \}`$). We conclude that the $`d=4`$ supersingleton decomposes into two “mirror” $`d=3`$ multiplets, each of them containing the shadow scalars for the other.

Concluding this subsection, we give as an example the complete expansion of the $`d=3`$ $`N=4`$ analytic superfield obtained from the $`d=4`$ $`N=4`$ SYM supersingleton:

$`J_{N=4\mathrm{SYM}}^{[++]}`$ $`=`$ $`A^{[++]}`$ (46)
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\lambda _\alpha ^{[+]\{+\}}\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\lambda _\alpha ^{[+]\{\}}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^{[+]\{\}}B^{\{++\}}\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^{[+]\{+\}}B^{\{+\}}+\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^{[+]\{+\}}B^{\{\}}`$
$`+`$ $`\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^m\theta ^{[+]\{\}\beta }j_m`$
$`+`$ derivative terms
where the vector $`j_m`$ is conserved, $`^mj_m=0`$.

### 4.4 Supercurrent multiplets

In the cases $`N=1,2`$ we have seen that the two $`d=3`$ supermultiplets obtained by reducing the $`d=4`$ scalar supersingleton can be regarded as “supercurrents”, i.e., as the squares of the $`d=3`$ supersingletons. The same is true for any $`N=2n`$. For instance, in the case $`N=4`$ there are two types of such $`d=3`$ supersingletons, differing by the SO(4) assignments of the scalars and the spinors. The supersingleton corresponding to the supermultiplet (46) is described by the following ultrashort analytic superfield:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{[+]}=\omega _au_a^{[+]}+\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\chi _{\alpha \dot{a}}w_{\dot{a}}^{\{+\}}\theta ^{[+]\{+\}\alpha }\chi _{\alpha \dot{a}}w_{\dot{a}}^{\{\}}+\theta ^{[+]\{+\}}\sigma ^m\theta ^{[+]\{\}}i_m\omega _au_a^{[]},$$
(47)
where $`\mathrm{}\omega _a=^{\alpha \beta }\chi _\beta =0.`$ Then the “supercurrent” (46) is simply the square of the supersingleton (47), $`J^{[++]}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{[+]})^2`$. The alternative supersingleton $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\{+\}}`$ has the mirror SO(4) assignments and gives rise to the mirror supercurrent $`J^{\{++\}}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\{+\}})^2`$. This realisation of the supermultiplet (46) explains why the vector $`j_m`$ is conserved: It is simply the current $`j_m=i\omega ^a_m\omega _a+\chi ^{\dot{a}}\sigma _m\chi _{\dot{a}}`$.

The generalization to any $`N=2n`$ is straightforward. The supermultiplet $`J^{[0\mathrm{}020_n]}`$ can be viewed as a “supercurrent”, i.e., as the square of the corresponding $`d=3`$ supersingleton

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{+_1\mathrm{}+_{n2}[+]}=\omega _au_a^{+_1\mathrm{}+_{n2}[+]}+\left(\theta ^{[+]\{\}\alpha }\chi _{\alpha \dot{a}}w_{\dot{a}}^{+_1\mathrm{}+_{n2}\{+\}}+\text{perm.}\right)+\text{der. terms}$$
(48)
$$J^{[0\mathrm{}020_n]}J^{++_1\mathrm{}++_{n2}[++]}=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{+_1\mathrm{}+_{n2}[+]}\right)^2$$

(and similarly for the mirror multiplet).

## 5 Reducing the F(4) supersingleton to SU(2,2/1) multiplets

As explained in Section 2, the unique $`d=5`$ superconformal algebra F(4) can be reduced to the $`d=4`$ $`N=1`$ superalgebra SU(2,2/1). In this case we find that the $`d=5`$ scalar supersingleton (“hypermultiplet”) is reduced to a pair of $`d=4`$ scalar supermultiplets with “anomalous” dimension 3/2. Here are the details.

The $`d=5`$ pseudo-Majorana spinors $`\theta _\alpha ^i=\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \beta }ϵ^{ij}(\theta _\beta ^j)^{}`$ carry two kinds of indices: $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},4`$ is a spinor index of USp(2,2) $``$ SO(4,1) and $`i=1,2`$ is a doublet index of SU(2). The scalar supersingleton is very similar to the $`d=4`$ $`N=2`$ hypermultiplet described in Section 4.2. Introducing the same SU(2)/U(1) harmonic variables and projecting $`\theta _\alpha ^{1,2}=\theta _\alpha ^iu_i^{1,2}`$, we can write down the ultrashort analytic superfield

$$W^1(x_A,\theta ^1,u)=\varphi ^i(x_A)u_i^1+\theta _\alpha ^1\psi ^\alpha (x_A)+i\theta ^1\gamma ^\mu \theta ^1_\mu \varphi ^i(x_A)u_i^2,$$
(49)
where the component fields are massless,

$$\mathrm{}\varphi ^i=\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu _\mu \psi ^\alpha =0.$$
(50)
Correspondingly, they have the canonical dimensions

$$\mathrm{}_\varphi =3/2,\mathrm{}_\psi =2.$$
(51)
The space-time variables $`x_A^\mu `$ in (49) are obtained from the real ones $`x^\mu `$ by a nilpotent shift, $`x_A^\mu =x^\mu +i\theta ^1\gamma ^\mu \theta ^2`$. The $`d=5`$ gamma matrices have the properties $`\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu =\gamma _{\beta \alpha }^\mu `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta }\gamma _{\alpha \beta }^\mu =0`$.

The reduction to $`d=4`$ is obtained by splitting the four-component USp(2,2) spinor $`\theta _\alpha ^1`$ into left- and right-handed spinors of SL(2,$``$), $`\theta _\alpha ^1\theta _\alpha ^+,\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^+`$, both carrying charge $`+1`$ under the $`d=4`$ R symmetry group U(1). 666Note that in Section 4.2 the odd variables were vectors of SO(2) and carried charges $`\pm 2`$, while here they are treated as spinors of SO(2) with charges $`\pm 1`$. In order to obtain an irreducible $`d=4`$ supermultiplet, we keep only, e.g., the left-handed half. Further, the $`d=5`$ fields in (49) become $`d=4`$ fields $`\varphi ^iu_i^1A^+`$, $`\psi ^\alpha \lambda ^\alpha `$ of non-canonical dimensions 3/2 and 2, respectively. The derivative term in (49), when restricted to left-handed $`\theta `$’s only, gives rise to the scalar $`B^{}_4\varphi ^iu_i^2`$ of shadow dimension $`43/2=5/2`$. Finally, the analytic basis variables $`x_A^\mu `$ in (49) become the left-handed chiral basis variables $`x_L^m=x^m+i\theta ^+\sigma ^m\overline{\theta }^{}`$. The end result is the $`d=4`$ chiral superfield

$$J^+(x_L)=A^+(x_L)+\theta ^{+\alpha }\psi _\alpha (x_L)+\theta ^{+\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^+B^{}(x_L)$$
(52)
with “anomalous” dimension 3/2.

Alternatively, starting with the complex conjugate supersingleton and retaining the right-handed halves of the odd variables, we can obtain the mirror $`d=4`$ chiral multiplet

$$J^{}(x_R)=A^{}(x_R)+\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}\overline{\rho }\dot{\alpha }(x_R)+\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}B^+(x_R).$$
(53)
As before, the two pairs of shadow $`d=4`$ scalars $`A^\pm ,B^\pm `$ needed to form the two $`d=5`$ singletons are distributed over the two mirror supermultiplets.

The case $`d=5d=4`$ differs from $`d=4d=3`$ in that the supermultiplets $`J^\pm `$ are not “supercurrents”, i.e., they are not obtained as bilinears in the $`d=4`$ supersingletons (otherwise they would have dimension 2 instead of 3/2).

## Acknowledgements

The work of S.F. has been supported in part by the European Commission RTN network HPRN-CT-2000-00131 (Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, INFN) and by the D.O.E. grant DE-FG03-91ER40662, Task C. S.F. is grateful to M. Porrati for useful discussions. E.S. acknowledges discussions with G. Arutyunov and A. Petkou.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Many theoretical predictions on the Kondo physics in a quantum dot (QD) have been experimentally observed. However, the use of a standard Anderson Hamiltonian does not allow a complete understanding of some other experiments as those devoted to measure the phase-shift of electrons passing through the QD or those presenting a chessboard aspect of the QD conductance in the quantum Hall regime. Correlation effects within the QD are probably essential for the understanding of the experimental results.

This paper is devoted to the theoretical analysis of the experimental Kondo-like conductance of a QD in the quantum Hall regime. For a given number $`N`$ of electrons in the QD, the system presents alternating high and low conductance regions as a function of an external magnetic field $`B`$. When $`N`$ is varied in $`\pm 1`$, the high and low conductance valleys are interchanged. Therefore, the representation of the conductance (in a grey scale) as a function of both $`B`$ and a gate potential which allows to vary $`N`$, takes the aspect of a chessboard. An interesting piece of experimental information on the density of states is obtained from the differential conductance measured when a source-drain bias is applied. In such experiment, one observes a double peak with a separation which remains practically constant when the magnetic field is varied. This suggests that two (split) states are playing an important role in the conduction process.

Our description for the Kondo physics in a QD in the presence of a high magnetic field is valid for any number of electrons (even or odd without restriction to 1 or 2) and any value of the QD spin $`S_z`$ (not restricted to 0, 1 for even $`N`$ or 1/2 for odd $`N`$). Instead of describing spin-flip scattering in terms of spin-ladder operators $`S^{(\pm )}`$, we find a set of spin-flip Hubbard operators describing a collective spin effect of all the $`N`$ electrons contained in the QD. Despite both $`N`$ and $`S_z`$ can be very large, the scattering of carriers only produces transitions between two many-body states of the QD with $`S_z`$ differing in $`\pm 1`$. These many-body states are of two types: some of them are ”practically” just one Slater determinant, i.e. not presenting correlation effects, while some others are a linear combination of many configurations, i.e. involving strong correlation effects. This is going to produce strong oscillations in the Kondo temperature. We find this is the physical reason of the appearance of the chessboard aspect of the conductance instead of the other obvious possibility of having alternating ferro and antiferro exchange couplings. In fact, we find that the spin-flip process can be described by a Kondo Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic couplings which depend on both tunneling amplitudes and correlation effects.

The steps of our description are the following:

1. Hamiltonian for N interacting electrons in a QD coupled to two leads.
2. Numerical calculation of the spectrum of N electrons in the isolated QD which involves three energy scales: confinement, Zeeman and interaction.
3. Two alternating types of ground states (GS): strong correlation and weak correlation.
4. Projection onto the subspace of the (two) lowest eigenstates and coupling to the leads.
5. An effective Kondo Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic exchange couplings depending on the QD properties (Spectral amplitudes) is obtained.
6. Strong oscillations of the Kondo temperature due to strong oscillations of the spectral amplitude for strongly and weakly correlated states.
7. Experiment at finite temperature $``$ oscillations (Chessboard aspect) of the conductance.

## 2 QD spectrum (Steps 1 to 3)

We consider $`N`$ electrons in the presence of a magnetic field and confined in a QD coupled to leads. The Hamiltonian is

$`H=H_{QD}+H_L+H_{TUN}.`$ (1)
The first term in Eq. (1) describes an isolated QD. For a parabolic QD in the presence of a magnetic field and including interaction between the electrons, the QD Hamiltonian is described by (hereafter we take $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`H_{QD}={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\epsilon _{i,\sigma }d_{i,\sigma }^{}d_{i,\sigma }+g\mu _BBS_z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_j,\sigma _j}{}}V_{i_1i_2i_3i_4}d_{i_1,\sigma _1}^{}d_{i_2,\sigma _2}^{}d_{i_3,\sigma _3}d_{i_4,\sigma _4}.`$ (2)
The first term in (2) involves the energy scale related with potential and magnetic confinement. $`i=\{n,m\}`$ is an index containing both the Landau level index $`n`$ and the third component of the angular momentum $`m`$.

$`\epsilon _{i,\sigma }=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\gamma }{2}}n+{\displaystyle \frac{1\gamma }{2}}m\right]\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (3)
is the single particle eigenvalue depending on both the QD confinement $`\omega _0`$ and cyclotron $`\omega _c`$ frequencies through $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\sqrt{\omega _c^2+4\omega _0^2}`$ and $`\gamma =\omega _c/\mathrm{\Omega }`$. $`d_{i,\sigma }^{}`$ creates an electron with Landau index $`n`$, angular momentum $`m`$ and spin $`\sigma `$ in the QD. The second term in Eq. (2) introduces the Zeeman energy scale with $`g`$ being the Landé $`g`$-factor. The interaction energy scale appears in the last term, electron-electron repulsion. The Coulomb interaction matrix elements $`V_{i_1i_2i_3i_4}`$ have a typical energy scale $`e^2/\epsilon l_B`$, where $`\epsilon `$ is the dielectric constant and $`l_B=1/\sqrt{m\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ the magnetic length.

The second term in Eq. (1)

$`H_L={\displaystyle \underset{k,\sigma }{}}\epsilon _{k,\sigma }c_{k,\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }`$ (4)
describes, in a single-particle approach, the leads having electrons with quantum numbers $`k,\sigma `$ occupying states up to the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$.

Finally the tunneling part of the Hamiltonian (1)

$`H_{TUN}={\displaystyle \underset{k,i,\sigma }{}}V_i\left(d_{i,\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }+c_{k,\sigma }^{}d_{i,\sigma }\right)`$ (5)
is written without any dependence on $`k`$ of the tunneling amplitudes $`V_i`$ (taken as real positive) but retain the dependence on $`i`$ because is going to produce physical consequences.

$`H_{QD}`$ can be numerically diagonalized for a significantly broad range of $`N`$ and $`B`$, as discussed in many theoretical papers. We have performed calculations including $`n=0,1`$ which means we are able to analyze filling factors $`\nu `$ below 4, i.e. the regime of experimental interest . Fig. 1 shows results for the GS of $`N=8`$ for $`B`$ large enough to have electrons occupying states only with the lowest Landau index $`n=0`$, i.e. $`\nu 2`$. Dashed lines in Fig. 1 depict, for two different values of $`\omega _0`$, the evolution of the GS for a GaAs QD within the range of magnetic fields (perpendicular to the QD) given at the edges of the lines. The first observation is that there are two type of regions: 5 regions, labelled as weak correlation, correspond to GS which are practically just one single Slater determinant (or configuration). The other regions correspond to GS which are a linear combination of many configurations. In other words, there are regions with GS having weak correlation and regions with GS having strong correlations. This trend also occurs for calculations in other situations of $`N`$ and $`B`$. In the particular case of Fig. 1, GS’s in the weak correlation regions are compact states of the form

$`|C_{NK}^K={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{K1}{}}}d_{n=0,m,}^{}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{NK1}{}}}d_{n=0,m,}^{}|0`$ (6)
where $`|0`$ is the vacuum state. In going from left to right, one finds successively the states $`|C_4^4`$ ($`\nu =2`$), $`|C_5^3`$, $`|C_6^2`$, $`|C_7^1`$ and $`|C_8^0`$ ($`\nu =1`$). In the case of Fig. 1, strongly correlated states have a very peculiar shape: they are skyrmion-like states of topological charge 1 . While the occurrence of compact states is general in the calculations we have performed, in many of such calculations we have not been able to identify the particular nature of the highly correlated GS that always exist.

Fig. 2 shows the evolution of the GS properties with increasing $`B`$ for the system of Fig. 1 for a typical value  $`\omega _0=5.4`$meV. The GS energy $`E_{GS}`$ has a kink any time a crossing of states occurs. The relevant information on these crossings is the energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=E_{exc}E_{GS}`$ between the lowest excited state and the GS as shown in part (a) of the figure. The spin $`S_z`$ and the third component $`M`$ of the total angular momentum of the GS are also given in (b) and (c) respectively. The general trend of interest for us is that GS changes many times when $`B`$ is varied. For many values of the field, the energy difference between the two lowest states is very small. Moreover, in almost all the cases, these two states have spins differing in 1 while they have different $`M`$.

## 3 Kondo Hamiltonian (steps 4 to 5)

As we mentioned in the introduction, experiments  show that the density of states presents a double peak very stable with $`B`$. As a consequence of both this experimental fact and the above numerical results, we consider that the main physics of the problem is captured by a two level system approach . We project the problem of a $`N`$ electrons in a QD affected by a high magnetic field onto the subspace subtended by the two lowest energy states $`|N,`$ and $`|N,`$ with $`M_{}M_{}`$ and spins differing in 1, i.e. $`N,|S_z|N,=N,|S_z|N,+1`$. $`H_{TUN}`$ mixes these states with states $`|N\pm 1`$ in which $`N\pm 1`$ electrons are in the QD. In our two level system description, the tunneling Hamiltonian is projected onto the subspaces subtended by the two states for $`N`$ electrons and the connecting $`|N\pm 1`$ electron states. In this process, we consider the connecting $`|N\pm 1`$ states as non-degenerate which is the most common case. If either $`|N+1`$ or $`|N1`$ is also degenerate, the algebra is more complicated but the physics is the same. Using the notation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\{,\}`$, we introduce the tunneling spectral amplitudes

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}V_iN1|d_{i,\sigma }|N,\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \underset{i,\sigma }{}}V_iN+1|d_{i,\sigma }^{}|N,\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (7)
and the spin-flip Hubbard operators

$`X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=|N,\mathrm{\Sigma }N,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|.`$ (8)
The projected tunneling Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}_{TUN}`$ describes the interaction between the QD with $`N`$ electrons and the leads. An effective coupling is obtained by a standard scattering description  including all the possible intermediate states $`|I`$ up to second order:

$`H_{eff}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{H}_{TUN}|II|\overline{H}_{TUN}}{E_{GS}^NE_I}}`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{},\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2\delta _{k,k^{}}X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }}}{E^NE^{N1}\epsilon _F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2c_{k^{},\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }}{E^NE^{N+1}+\epsilon _F}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}{E^{N+1}\epsilon _FE^N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}}{E^{N1}+\epsilon _FE^N}})X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}c_{k^{},\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{k,\sigma }],`$
where we have neglected the energy difference between the two states of $`N`$ electrons. Due to spin conservation, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the same direction than $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ the same than $`\sigma ^{}`$. The first term is simply a constant. The second term (involving $`c_{k^{},\sigma }^{}c_{k,\sigma }`$) represents a potential scattering which does not involve any spin flip. These two terms are identical to the ones appearing when building up an $`sd`$ Hamiltonian from the Anderson Hamiltonian in the case of $`N=1`$ . As it is usually done in that case, one can forget about these two terms which do not contain anything important for the physics we want to address.

The interesting physics is included in the third term of (9) which is a Kondo Hamiltonian

$`H_K={\displaystyle \underset{k,k^{}}{}}\left[J\left(X_,c_k^{}^{}c_{k,}+X_,c_{k^{},}^{}c_{k,}\right)+J_{}X_,c_{k^{},}^{}c_{k,}+J_{}X_,c_{k^{},}^{}c_{k,}\right],`$ (10)
with exchange couplings

$`J={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}}{E^{N+1}\epsilon _FE^N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_,\mathrm{\Delta }_,}{E^{N1}+\epsilon _FE^N}}`$ (11)
$`J_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2}{E^{N+1}\epsilon _FE^N}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}^2}{E^{N1}+\epsilon _FE^N}}.`$ (12)
$`H_K`$ is a spin-flip scattering Hamiltonian in which the the two possible states of the scatterer flip their spins by means of $`X_,`$ and $`X_,`$ and, at the same time, they change their total angular momentum. Both the difference between $`M_{}`$ and $`M_{}`$, and the correlation effects included in the tunneling spectral amplitudes, are the reason why one must use spin-flip Hubbard operators instead of the usual spin-ladder operators $`S^{(\pm )}`$.

A crucial question is the sign of the exchange couplings (11) and (12). With our definitions (7), all the tunneling spectral amplitudes are positive. The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}`$ is the same than the one of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}`$, and the same happens for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_,`$. Therefore, the signs of the exchange couplings are determined by the denominators. As, in the considered situation, the lowest energy corresponds to having $`N`$ electrons in the QD, all the intermediate states $`|I`$, with $`N\pm 1`$ electrons in the QD and $`1`$ electron at the Fermi level of the leads, have higher energy. Therefore, we have a very important result: $`H_K`$ has positive effective exchange couplings. So, a Kondo Hamiltonian (10) with antiferromagnetic couplings (11) and (12) has been obtained. The conclusion is: for any values of both $`N`$ and $`S_z`$, the QD in the the presence of high $`B`$, presents Kondo physics.

## 4 Exchange couplings and Kondo temperature (step 6)

The Hamiltonian (10) is equivalent to the standard Kondo Hamiltonian for $`N=1`$. Any other measurable property deduced from Hamiltonian (10) as the temperature dependence of the conductance must present characteristics similar to the one found in the experiments involving just one electron .

The important issue to be discussed in the general case of any $`N`$ is the characteristic energy scale, $`T_K`$, which is determined by the antiferromagnetic couplings. $`J`$ and $`J_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ depend on both the energy difference $`E^NE^{N\pm 1}\epsilon _F`$, and tunneling spectral amplitudes $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. The former is practically independent on both $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Therefore, it does not imply any significant difference with respect to the well known case of $`N=1`$. However interesting physical differences appear, through $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm ,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, depending on the weak or strong correlation nature of the states $`|N,\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let us analyze the different situations as far as correlations are concerned:

i) Weak correlation

In order to simplify the discussion, let us consider the simple case of Fig. 1 where the weak correlation states are compact states

$`|N,=|C_{NK}^K;|N,=|C_{NK1}^{K+1}.`$ (13)
This is the simplest case in which

$`X_,=(1)^Kd_{n=0,NK1,}^{}d_{n=0,K,}`$ (14)
and similarly for the other Hubbard operators. We have also assumed, $`|N1=|C_{NK1}^K`$ and $`|N+1=|C_{NK}^{K+1}`$. In other case the quantum numbers of the $`d^{}`$ operators must be changed accordingly. Moreover, the signs are taken according with definitions (8). Due to the lack of correlation effects in the states, the tunneling spectral amplitudes are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_,=\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}=V_{NK1};\mathrm{\Delta }_,=\mathrm{\Delta }_{+,}=V_K.`$ (15)
There is a difference between the antiferromagnetic couplings $`J`$, $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ due to the fact that $`NK1>K`$. It is easier to tunnel from the leads to spin up states ($`m=NK1`$) within the QD because they are in the outer region of the QD while the first available spin down state ($`m=K`$) is in the inner region of the QD. This tunneling amplitude effect is not described by previous models of Kondo at finite B for $`N=1,2`$ , but has long been more broadly recognized both experimentally and theoretically for QD in the quantum Hall regime.

In this weak correlation regime the QD does not present any correlation effects, but the antiferromagnetic couplings are still a function of total energies and tunneling amplitudes. Since the Kondo temperature depends exponentially on $`J`$, it is a very sensitive magnitude with respect to many parameters as $`\omega _0`$, $`B`$, $`V_i`$ etc. However, this is not different from the case of just one electron in the QD in which experiments  show $`T_K`$ to be in the range of 1K. In any case, one can predict variations in $`T_K`$ when the regime changes as discussed below.

ii) Strong correlation

In this case the discussion is much more complicated because for magnetic fields implying $`\nu 2`$ we have not been able to find an analytical expression for the states. Therefore, we are going to make the discussion restricting us to the particular case of Fig. 1 in which the strongly correlated states skyrmion-like states of topological charge one . In this case, The Hubbard operators $`X_{\mathrm{\Sigma },\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}`$ have complicated, but analytical, expressions .

In some of the experiments showing chessboard conductance  $`N`$ is of the order of 50. For such a large number of electrons, correlation effects provoke that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ tends to zero. For instance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}[NlnN]^{1/2}`$ for the skyrmion with the smallest size. This implies a quenching of the antiferromagnetic couplings due to the orthogonalization catastrophe. As a consequence, Kondo effect should not be observed when the number of electrons within the QD is large because the Kondo temperature is extremely small in this case.

In some other experiments showing chessboard conductance  $`N`$ is lower than 10. In this case, correlation effects do not destroy Kondo effect but reduce $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ up to a factor of two . The reduction of $`J`$ and $`J_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ implies that Kondo temperatures are significantly smaller than for the case i) of compact states. In practice, one can move from the strong correlation regime ii) (lower part of Fig 1) to the weak correlation regime i) (upper part of Fig 1) by increasing an inplane component of the magnetic field. As a consequence of the above analysis, one should detect a clearly measurable increase of $`T_K`$ during this process.

iii) There is a rather unusual case, for instance in the last step to the right in Fig. 2, in which the two lowest energy states with $`N`$ electrons have spins differing in more than 1. Therefore, they can not be obtained from the same $`|N1`$ by creating one electron with spin either up or down. In other words, one of the two states has a tunneling spectral amplitude equal to zero so that, for tunneling effects there is only a non degenerate GS and Kondo effect does not occur.

## 5 Chessboard behavior of the conductance (step 7)

A very characteristic feature of some experiments  is an alternating high-low conductance sequence as a function of $`B`$ for a given temperature and number of electrons. When $`N`$ is varied in $`\pm 1`$, the high and low conductance regions are interchanged. Since a common way of representing the experimental results is to use a color-intensity scale for the conductance as a function of both $`B`$ and a gate potential which varies $`N`$, the data present a chessboard aspect. This occurs in a broad range of filling factors and number of electrons.

In the two level system approach in which the two lowest states are separated by an energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, Kondo-like behavior appears only when the experimental temperature is between $`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2/T_K`$ and $`T_K`$ (provided $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<T_K`$) in order to have significant occupation of the two states. The quantitative application of the model would require the computation of both the energy splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ and Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ which are very sensitive to many experimental parameters. Instead, a general understanding of the chessboard is obtained from the following qualitative explanation: as mention before, the main ingredient of our description is the alternation, when varying $`B`$, of weak and strong correlated GS of $`N`$ within the QD. The second crucial point is that for weak correlation states, spectral amplitudes are much higher than for strong correlated states. These two features are depicted in the upper part of Fig. 3 where we have labelled the weak correlated states as compact states $`|C_{1,2}`$ while we have not given any name to the strongly correlated state. The important consequence of the alternation of high and low spectral functions is the alternation of high and low exchange couplings and consequently the same alternation of Kondo temperatures $`T_K`$ which depends exponentially on the exchange coupling . Since the experiment is performed by fixing a temperature $`T`$, the strong oscillations of $`T_K`$ imply that $`T`$ alternates being lower (for weak correlation regions) and higher (for strong correlation regions) than $`T_K`$. In other words, $`T<T_K`$ for weak correlation regions, which means a high Kondo-like conductance. On the contrary, $`T>T_K`$ for strong correlation regions, which implies a quenching of the conductance. This is depicted in the lower part of Fig. 3. This explains the alternating behavior experimentally observed for fix gate voltage (i. e. number of electrons in the QD) and varying magnetic field.

The chessboard aspect also implies alternating low-high conductance regions for fix $`B`$ and varying gate voltage. This is due to the fact that crossings for $`N\pm 1`$ electrons occur for magnetic fields roughly midway from crossings for $`N`$ electrons as depicted qualitatively in Fig. 4. By repeating the previous argument, one obtains the whole chessboard aspect of the conductance schematically shown in lower part of Fig. 4.

Since Kondo-like behavior only occurs when the experimental temperature is in the range between $`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2/T_K`$ and $`T_K`$, a clear prediction of our scheme is that the highly conducting regions of the chessboard would become narrower for decreasing temperature due to the lower limit condition.

## 6 Summary

We present a theoretical analysis of the chessboard aspect of the conductance through a QD in the Kondo regime. We perform a numerical calculation of the spectrum of N electrons in the isolated QD. Two alternating types of GS are found: strongly correlated and weakly correlated. By projecting onto the subspace of the two lowest eigenstates and coupling to the leads, we get an effective Kondo Hamiltonian with antiferromagnetic exchange couplings depending on the QD properties. The main result of our description is the appearance of strong oscillations of the Kondo temperature due to strong oscillations of the spectral amplitude for strongly and weakly correlated states. This explains the chessboard oscillations of the experimental conductance measured at a fix temperature.

We make two predictions that can be experimentally checked:

1- The application of an inplane magnetic field provokes the transition from the regime of strong correlation to that of weak correlation. As a consequence, one should detect a clearly measurable increase of $`T_K`$ during this process.

2- Since Kondo-like behavior only occurs when the experimental temperature is in the range $`(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^2/T_K<T<T_K`$, the highly conducting regions of the chessboard would become narrower for decreasing temperature due to the lower limit condition.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to J. Weis for useful discussions and providing us with experimental information. This work was supported in part by MEC (Spain) under contract No. PB96-0085, and CAM (Spain) under contract No. 07N/0064/2001.