Creator

Date

2006-02-26

Description

Comment: 4 pages, 2 figures; v2: published form to appear in August 2007 issue

of Phys. Rev. Lett

of Phys. Rev. Lett

We study two double dot systems, one with dots in parallel and one with dots

in series, and argue they admit an exact solution via the Bethe ansatz. In the

case of parallel dots we exploit the exact solution to extract the behavior of

the linear response conductance. The linear response conductance of the

parallel dot system possesses multiple Kondo effects, including a Kondo effect

enhanced by a nonpertubative antiferromagnetic RKKY interaction, has

conductance zeros in the mixed valence regime, and obeys a non-trivial form of

the Friedel sum rule.

in series, and argue they admit an exact solution via the Bethe ansatz. In the

case of parallel dots we exploit the exact solution to extract the behavior of

the linear response conductance. The linear response conductance of the

parallel dot system possesses multiple Kondo effects, including a Kondo effect

enhanced by a nonpertubative antiferromagnetic RKKY interaction, has

conductance zeros in the mixed valence regime, and obeys a non-trivial form of

the Friedel sum rule.

Type

Database

Link to record

Show preview

Hide preview

ar
X

iv :c

on d-

m at

/0 60

26 17

v2 [

co nd

-m at.

me s-h

all ]

24 Ju

l 2 00

7 Kondo Physics and Exact Solvability of Double Dots Systems

Robert M. Konik1

1Condensed Matter Physics and Material Science Department,

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

(Dated: February 6, 2008)

We study two double dot systems, one with dots in parallel and one with dots in series, and argue they admit an exact solution via the Bethe ansatz. In the case of parallel dots we exploit the exact solution to extract the behavior of the linear response conductance. The linear response conductance of the parallel dot system possesses multiple Kondo effects, including a Kondo effect enhanced by a nonpertubative antiferromagnetic RKKY interaction, has conductance zeros in the mixed valence regime, and obeys a non-trivial form of the Friedel sum rule.

PACS numbers: 72.15Qm,73.63Kv,73.23Hk

The continual advance in the ability to engineer de- vices on the nanoscale level has led to the recent fabri- cation of double quantum dot (DQD) devices [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], both from semiconducting heterostructures [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and from carbon nanotubes [7, 8]. Like their single dot cousins [9, 10], these devices are highly tunable. This tunability makes DQDs both a leading candidate for a solid state realization of a quantum qubit and an ideal laboratory to observe strongly correlated Kondo phenomena.

Single dot devices have long been known to exhibit Kondo physics [9, 10]. By the use of a gate voltage, the number of electrons on the dot can be adjusted so that it is odd. By virtue of Kramers degeneracy, the dot, through hybridization with electrons in connecting leads, becomes a realization of a single impurity Kondo system. Transport measurements are the most striking signatures of Kondo physics in such devices, where, for example, the observed finite temperature linear response conductance [9] matches that predicted theoretically [11, 12].

With different possible dot geometries, Kondo physics in DQD devices is necessarily more rich. Dots arranged in series have been shown to exhibit Kondo physics in competition with an effective Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya- Yosida (RKKY) coupling between dots [1, 2, 13, 14, 15]. And in parallel dot systems, Kondo physics has been ob- served [5, 6] where it is expected to appear in conjunction with interference effects [15, 16, 17].

In this letter, we present a powerful theoretical ap- proach to DQD systems. We study two models of such systems, one with dots in parallel, one with dots in se- ries. We argue both models admit exact solutions via the Bethe ansatz. The model of dots in series possesses an SU(4) symmetry [18] and is relevant to the study of the Kondo effect in carbon nanotubes [19]. For the model of dots in parallel, we explicitly demonstrate that trans- port properties may be extracted from the exact solu- tion. Transport in the system of parallel dots exhibits two interesting features: i) at the particle-hole symmet- ric point, we find a cooperative combination of Kondo and RKKY physics where a non-perturbative antiferro-

magnetic RKKY effect serves to mediate the formation of a Kondo like singlet; and ii) in the dots’ mixed va- lence regime, we discover a form of the Friedel sum rule where contributions to the scattering phase come both from electrons in the dots and the leads. Models Defined: We examine two generalized Ander- son models coupling two leads (l = 1, 2) to two DQDs (α = 1, 2) in two distinct configurations. In the first configuration (denoted by PD), the dots are arranged in parallel. The corresponding Hamiltonian is taken to be H1 = H0 + H1int with H0 = −i

∑ lσ

∫∞ −∞

dxc†lσ∂xclσ +∑ σα ǫdαnσα and

H1int = ∑ lσα

Vlα(c † σldσα + h.c.) +

∑ αα′

Uαα′n↑αn↓α. (1)

Here the clσ/dασ specify electrons living in the leads and the dots. Vlα measures the tunneling strength between the dot α and lead l. Uαα′ characterizes the Coulom- bic repulsion between electrons of opposite spin living on dots α and α′.

Dots in Series (SD)

lead 1

V V

VV 2

1 11

12

21

22

lead 2lead 1 1

U12V1 2

V2

lead 2

t

Dots in Parallel (PD)

FIG. 1: A schematic of two DQD systems.

In the second model (denoted SD) the dots are ar- ranged in series. The corresponding Hamiltonian has a similar form to the first H2 = P (H0 + H2int)P . Here H2int is of the form

H2int = ∑ σ,l

Vl(c † lσdσl + h.c.) +

∑ (ασ) 6=(α′σ′)

nασnα′σ′

× ( U + i lim

a→0

∑ lσ

∫ a −a

dxc†lσ(x)∂xclσ(x)

) . (2)

P is a projection operator which forbids total occupancy of both dots from exceeding two electrons. In a regime

2 where fewer than two electrons sit on the dots, the role played by both the projection operator and the corre- lated hopping terms will be minimal. We note that the addition of an interdot hopping term, i.e. δH2 = t⊥(d

† 1d2 + d

† 2d1), does not spoil integrability [21].

Integrability of PD: To analyze PD (two dots in par- allel) we first map the problem to an Anderson model involving a single effective lead. To do so we need to assume the ratio of left/right lead couplings are equal, i.e. VLα/VRα = VLα′/VRα′ . Writing ce/o = (VL/RαcL ± VR/LαcR)/

√ 2Γα, with Γα = (V

2 Lα + V

2 Rα)/2, the Hamil-

tonian factorizes into an even and an odd sector, H1 = He + Ho. Only He couples to the dot and is given by He = He0 +Heint with He0 = −i

∑ lσ

∫∞ −∞

dxc†eσ∂xceσ +∑ σα ǫdαnσα and

Heint = ∑ σα

√ 2Γα(c

† eσαdσα+h.c.)+

∑ αα′

Uαα′n↑αn↓α. (3)

In contrast, Ho is trivial: Ho = He0(e → o, ǫdα = 0). The integrability of PD is then equivalent to the exact solvability of He. To determine under what conditions He admits eigen-

functions of the Bethe ansatz form, we begin by comput- ing both the one and two electron eigenstates. The one particle wave function appears as

|ψσ〉 = [ ∫ ∞

−∞

dx{gσ(x)c†σ(x)} + eασd†ασ ] |0〉. (4)

Solving the Schro¨dinger equation, He|ψ〉 = q|ψ〉, we find gσ(x) = θ(x)e

iqx+iδ/2 + θ(−x)eiqx−iδ/2 with δ(q), the impurity scattering phase, to be δ(q) = −2 tan−1(∑α(Γα/(q − ǫdα)). To compute the effective scattering between electrons, we study the two particle eigenfunction with spin projection, Sz = 0:

|ψ〉 = [∫ ∞

−∞

dx1dx2g(x1, x2)c † ↑(x1)c

† ↓(x2) +

∑ α

∫ ∞ −∞

dx

[ eα(x)(c

† ↑(x)d

† α↓ − c†↓(x)d†↑α)

] + ∑ αα′

fαα′d † ↑αd

† ↓α′

] |0〉. (5)

Again solving the Schro¨dinger equation He|ψ〉 = (q + p)|ψ〉 gives g(x1, x2) to be g(x1, x2) = gq(x1)gp(x2)φ(x12)+(x1 ↔ x2), with x12 = x1−x2. Here gq/p(x) are one particle wavefunctions with energies q/p. φ(x) governs the scattering when two electrons are in- terchanged. It takes the form φ(x) = 1 + iγ(q, p)sign(x). We find that γ(q, p) is consistently determined to be

γ(q, p) = 1

q − p ∑ α′

2Γα′Uαα′

ǫdα + ǫdα′ + Uαα′ − q − p, (6)

if either

Uαα′ = δαα′Uα; UαΓα = c, Uα + 2ǫdα = c ′; (7)

where c and c′ are α-independent constants or

Uαα′ = U ; Γα = Γα′ ; ǫα = ǫα′ . (8)

The first set of conditions describes single level dots ab- sent an interdot coupling while the second dots with de- generate levels but with a highly finely tuned interdot interaction. We will thus focus on the first. Exact solvability is predicated on how γ(q, p) deter-

mines the scattering matrix of the two electrons. The scattering matrix has the general spin (SU(2)) invariant form, Sa

′b′

ab = b(p, q)I a′b′

ab + c(p, q)P a′b′

ab , where a, b =↑, ↓ and I/P are the identity/permutation matrices. The co- efficients, b(p, q) and c(p, q), are determined by γ(p, q) from the relation, b(p, q)−c(p, q) = φ(x > 0)/φ(x < 0) = (1+iγ(p, q))/(1−iγ(p, q)), together with b(p, q)+c(p, q) = 1 which arises from considering the eigenfunction in Sz = ±1 sector where interactions are absent. In order for the Hamiltonian, He, to be integrable, a

minimal condition is that the above S-matrix satisfy the Yang-Baxter relation. The Yang-Baxter relation governs the scattering of three electrons and it enforces the equiv- alency of different scattering orders. It is well known in the case of an SU(2) symmetry that the validity of the Yang-Baxter relations is equivalent to the condition, b(p, q)/c(p, q) = i(g(p) − g(q)), where g(p) is an arbi- trary function [22]. In the case at hand, g(p) is given by g(p) = (p− ǫdα − Uα/2)2/(2ΓαUα). Having determined under what conditions the dot-lead

Hamiltonian is exactly solvable, we are now in a position to construct N -particle eigenstates in a controlled fash- ion. An eigenfunction with spin, Sz = N − 2M , is char- acterized by a sea of N electrons each carrying momenta {qi}Ni=1 and so total energy E =

∑ i qi. In a periodic sys-

tem of length L, integrability allows us to write down in a compact form the qi-quantization conditions (the Bethe ansatz equations):

eiqjL+iδ(qj) =

M∏ α=1

g(qj)− λα + i/2 g(qj)− λα − i/2;

N∏ j=1

λα − g(qj) + i/2 λα − g(qj)− i/2 = −

M∏ β=1

λα − λβ + i λα − λβ − i . (9)

These equations are identical to those for the ordinary Anderson model [22] but for the form of δ(q). The M λα’s appearing in the above equations are indicative of the spin degrees of freedom. There are two integrable generalizations of the PD

model: i) N-dots in parallel and ii) a pair of dots in a T-junction. These systems, to be integrable, must sat- isfy a set of constraints similar to Eqns. 7 and 8. Integrability of SD: We demonstrate the generic inte- grability of SD along similar lines – it was already known to be exactly solvable for infinite U [23]. Here, however, we do not transform to an even/odd sector. We thus have four different types of fermions/dot degrees of freedom.

3 This will ultimately lead to the model having an exact SU(4) symmetry at all energy scales. Constructing the two particle eigenfunctions as before

leads to an SU(4) S-matrix provided Vl = V for all l and ǫdα = ǫd for all α. (This latter constraint can be relaxed enabling one to study non-degenerate dots where the SU(4) symmetry is broken, say by a magnetic field or a gate voltage.) The S-matrix takes the same form as Eq. 7 but with a, b one of four values, (1, ↑), (1, ↓), (2, ↑ ), (2, ↓). Again we have b(p, q)/c(p, q) = i(g(p) − g(q)), sufficient for the Yang-Baxter relation to be satisfied, but with g(p) = (p− ǫd − U/2)2/(V 2U). To construct the N-particle eigenfunctions, we again

employ a nested Bethe ansatz [22]. Crucial to these eigen- functions being of the Bethe form are both the projec- tors, P , and the correlated hopping term (Eq. 2) of H2. This demonstrates that in the case of dot systems with orbital degeneracies and a finite U Coulomb repulsion, and unlike Hubbard models with orbital degeneracies, it is possible to find a simple Hamiltonian which is exactly solvable. As was demonstrated in Ref. [24], the (N > 2)- particle wavefunctions of any simple finite U orbitally degenerate Hubbard model are not of the Bethe type. The quantization conditions of an N-electron state car-

rying momenta {qi}Ni=1 are of the form

eiqjL+iδ2(qj) = M∏ α=1

λ0j−λ1α+ i2 λ0j−λ1α− i2

;

Mk−1∏ λk−1γ

λkα−λk−1γ + i2 λkα−λk−1γ − i2

=

Mk∏ β 6=α

λkα−λkβ+i λkα−λkβ−i

Mk+1∏ δ=1

λkα−λk+1δ − i2 λkα−λk−1δ + i2

.

Here δ2(q) = −2 tan−1(V 2/2(q − ǫd)). The quantum numbers, {λkα}, k = 0, 1, 2, 3 (with λ0 = g(q)) correspond to both spin and orbital degrees of freedom. In a prelim- inary analysis of Eqns. [21], we have verified the SU(4) Kondo physics expected in a regime where one electron sits on the dots [18]. Thus the marginal correlated hop- ping term in Eqn. (2) does not influence the universality class into which the physics falls. We also note that the integrability of SD can be generalized to N-dots arranged in triangles (N=3), squares (N=4), etc. T=0 Conductance of PD: In the remainder of the paper, we focus on extracting the features of the T = 0 linear response conductance of the parallel dots (PD). The structure of the linear response conductance, G, for the parallel dots is much richer than that of a single dot containing distinct Kondo effects, novel applications of the Friedel sum rule, and quantum critical behavior. To compute the linear response conductance of the

dots we closely follow Ref. [12]. The approach is based on the observation [20] that the impurity scattering phase, δimp, of an electron is determined by the shift in the elec- tron’s momentum due to the presence of the impurity, i.e p→ p+ δimp/L. From the Bethe ansatz the full momen- tum of the excitations are readily extracted. Then isolat-

ing the term in the momentum scaling as the inverse sys- tem size, L−1, allows the δimp to be computed. In the ge- ometry we have chosen, G is given by 2e2/h sin2(δimp/2). For a detailed description in the context of PDs see Ref. [12].

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 εd1/Γ1, εd2/Γ1 − 5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

displaced electrons G (e2/h)

U1 = 1, U2 = 0.5 Γ1 = 0.05U1 Γ2 = 0.1U1 ∆ε = 0.25U1

1 2

Standard Kondo

1 2

RKKY Kondo

RKKY Kondo

Standard Kondo

Friedel sum rule non−trivial

FIG. 2: The total conductance and number of displaced elec- trons per spin species vs. ǫd1, ∆ǫ fixed, for two dots in parallel.

We plot an example of the linear response conductance for two dots in parallel in Fig. 2. We consider the asym- metric case where ∆ǫ = ǫd1 − ǫd2 ≫ Γ1,Γ2. The con- ductance is plotted as a function of ǫd1 keeping ∆ǫ fixed from the particle-hole symmetric (p.h.s.) point of the system (i.e. Uα = −2ǫdα) where two electrons sit on the dots to a point where both dot levels are well above the Fermi level and the dots are nearly empty. In this plot, the structure of the linear response conductance, in com- parison with that for a single level dot, is more complex. This reflects both the presence of interference [17] as well as distinct types of Kondo physics. At the p.h.s point, (i.e. ǫd1/Γ1 = −10 in Fig. 2)

the two electrons residing on the dots together with elec- trons in the leads form a singlet. With no bare di- rect exchange, singlet formation is mediated solely by virtual hopping processes which here promote antiferro- magnetic correlations. We thus term this formation the RKKY-Kondo effect to mark the role of electron itiner- ancy. This phenomena is distinct from the ferromagnetic RKKY effect arising in fourth order perturbation theory for two closely spaced dots and is thought to compete with Kondo physics. In particular, the RKKY-Kondo ef- fect is non-perturbative in virtual hopping processes. We find that the RKKY-Kondo effect is generically present provided ǫd1 6= ǫd2 and so there are unequal numbers of electrons on each dot (as indicated in the cartoon in Figure 2). This antiferro-RKKY Kondo effect is, in a sense, un-

surprising. The Friedel sum rule (FSR) dictates that the at the p.h.s. point, the scattering phase equal π and G vanish. If we were instead to have a ferro-RKKY ef- fect, and so an underscreened spin 1 impurity, G would be maximal and so violate the FSR. Our finding of a

4 Fermi liquid fixed point is supported indirectly by earlier work on the two impurity Anderson model [26]. Although there the focus is upon two electron channels coupled to two impurities, the finding is both that the physics is Fermi liquid and that the one to two channel crossover is smooth. We have verified singlet formation both by demonstrating from the Bethe ansatz equations that the entropy vanishes in the zero temperature limit and, sep- arately, from a slave boson mean field analysis. The Abrikosov-Suhl resonance associated with this

RKKY-Kondo effect can be computed along the lines of Ref. [12] (up to a multiplicative constant):

ρ(ǫ) = cos(βπ)(T−1RK(ǫ˜ 2 + 1))/(2ǫ˜2 cos(2βπ) + ǫ˜4 + 1),

where ǫ˜ = ǫ/TRK and TRK is the RKKY Kondo tempera- ture, TRK ∼

√ U1Γ1 exp(−πU/8Γ1). The parameter β is

0 if ∆ǫ≫ Γ1,2 and is 1/2 if 0 < ∆ǫ≪ Γ1,2. As ∆ǫ→ 0, the resonance evolves from a Lorentzian centered at zero energy to a structure with split peaks. The scale TRK governs the leading corrections to the conductance as a function of Zeeman field (H) and temperature (T). For ∆ǫ≫ Γ1,2, we compute these at the p.h.s. point to have the Fermi-liquid form (in units of 2e2/h): G(T/TRK) = π4(T/TRK)

2/4 and G(H/TRK) = π 2(H/TRK)

2/4. As we move away from the p.h.s. point through in-

creasing the gate voltage, we begin to empty the dots. With the assumed asymmetry in ǫd1 and ǫd2, we arrive at a point where the dot system has roughly one electron sitting predominantly on dot 1. At this value of the gate voltage, we expect ordinary Kondo physics to be opera- tive. Defining TK via its relation to the static impurity susceptibility, i.e. χimp = (4TK)

−1, the corresponding leading contributions to the conductances (in units of 2e2/h) are G(T/TK) = 1− (π4/16)(T/TK)2 [11, 12] and G(H/TK) = 1 − (π2/16)(H/TK)2 [12]. From a numeri- cal analysis, we know that TK has a single dot form, i.e. TK ∼

√ UΓ1/2 exp(πǫd1(ǫd1 + U)/2U1Γ1) [22, 25].

As ǫd1 is further increased, we see both a vanishing of the conductance and an unusual form of the FSR, a mark of the effects of interference. The vanishing of the conductance may reflect interference alone: it is present as well in the non-interacting case. However the form the FSR takes reflects both interference and interactions. The FSR relates the scattering phase to the number of displaced electrons, i.e. δeσ = πndisσ. ndisσ is defined to be

ndisσ ≡ ndσ + ∫

dx

[ 〈c†eσ(x)ceσ(x)〉 − ρbulkσ

] , (10)

and contains contributions from both the occupancy of the dots, ndσ, and deviations in the lead electron density from coupling the dots to the leads [27]. As is evident in Figure 2, we have an unusual situation where both contributions to ndisσ, and not merely ndσ, are finite: ndσ is always manifestly positive while ndisσ is negative over a range of ǫd1.

One last feature to the linear response conductance we wish to point out is the disappearance of the Abrikosov- Suhl resonance at precisely ǫd1 = ǫd2. The transition is first order as TRK itself does not vanish as ǫd1 → ǫd2. The origin of this critical point lies in the decoupling of one dot degree of freedom (d.o.f) if ǫd1 = ǫd2 (and only if), as can be seen via a change of basis de/o =

(Γ1/2d1 ± Γ2/1d2)/(Γ21 + Γ22)1/2. This discontinuous be- havior at ǫd1 = ǫd2 however can be transformed into a smooth crossover by weakly coupling a second channel of electrons to the dot [28] and so recoupling the odd dot d.o.f.

Apart from the behavior at ǫd1 = ǫd2, we generally expect the above physics to be robust against small vi- olations of the integrability constraints (Eqn. 9) for a number of reasons [21]: i) the ground state of the dot- lead system is already robustly established (unlike when perturbation theory in V is done for a single dot-lead); and ii) a Schrieffer-Wolfe transformation in the Kondo regime is unaffected by (weak) violations of Eqn. (7).

RMK acknowledges support from the US DOE (DE- AC02-98 CH 10886) together with useful discussions with A. Tsvelik and F. Essler.

[1] H. Jeong et al., Science 293 2221 (2001). [2] N. J. Craig et al., Science 304, 565 (2004). [3] J. Petta et al., Science 309 2180 (2005). [4] F. Koppens, et al., Science 309, 1346 (2005). [5] J.C. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 176801 (2004). [6] M. Sigrist et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 066802 (2004). [7] N. Mason et al., Science 303 655 (2004). [8] S. Sapmaz et al., cond-mat/0602424. [9] D. Goldhaber-Gordon et al. PRL 81, 5225 (1998); [10] S. Cronenwett et al., Science 281, 540 (1998). [11] T. Costi et al., J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 6, 2519 (1994). [12] R. Konik, H. Saleur, A. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,

236801 (2001); ibid, Phys. Rev. B 66, 125304 (2002). [13] M. Vavilov, L. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett 94, 086805

(2005). [14] P. Simon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086602 (2005). [15] R. Lo´pez et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 136802 (2002). [16] A. Georges, Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3508 (1999). [17] Y. Tanaka and N. Kawakami, cond-mat/0503341. [18] L. Borda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 026602 (2003). [19] P. Jarillo-Herrero et al., Nature 434, 484 (2005); M. Choi

et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 95 067204 (2005). [20] N. Andrei, Phys. Lett. 87A, 299 (1982). [21] R. M. Konik, in preparation.; ibid, cond-mat/0701670. [22] A. Tsvelik and P. Wiegmann, Adv. Phys. 32, 453 (1983);

N. Kawakami and A. Okiji, Phys. Lett. A 86, 483 (1981). [23] P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. Lett 50, 1697 (1983). [24] D. Haldane, T. Choy, Phys. Lett. A 90, 83 (1981). [25] D. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 416 (1978). [26] B. A. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. B. 39, 3415 (1989). [27] D. Langreth, Phys. Rev. 150, 516 (1966). [28] V. Meden, F. Marquardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 146801

(2006).

iv :c

on d-

m at

/0 60

26 17

v2 [

co nd

-m at.

me s-h

all ]

24 Ju

l 2 00

7 Kondo Physics and Exact Solvability of Double Dots Systems

Robert M. Konik1

1Condensed Matter Physics and Material Science Department,

Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973

(Dated: February 6, 2008)

We study two double dot systems, one with dots in parallel and one with dots in series, and argue they admit an exact solution via the Bethe ansatz. In the case of parallel dots we exploit the exact solution to extract the behavior of the linear response conductance. The linear response conductance of the parallel dot system possesses multiple Kondo effects, including a Kondo effect enhanced by a nonpertubative antiferromagnetic RKKY interaction, has conductance zeros in the mixed valence regime, and obeys a non-trivial form of the Friedel sum rule.

PACS numbers: 72.15Qm,73.63Kv,73.23Hk

The continual advance in the ability to engineer de- vices on the nanoscale level has led to the recent fabri- cation of double quantum dot (DQD) devices [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], both from semiconducting heterostructures [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and from carbon nanotubes [7, 8]. Like their single dot cousins [9, 10], these devices are highly tunable. This tunability makes DQDs both a leading candidate for a solid state realization of a quantum qubit and an ideal laboratory to observe strongly correlated Kondo phenomena.

Single dot devices have long been known to exhibit Kondo physics [9, 10]. By the use of a gate voltage, the number of electrons on the dot can be adjusted so that it is odd. By virtue of Kramers degeneracy, the dot, through hybridization with electrons in connecting leads, becomes a realization of a single impurity Kondo system. Transport measurements are the most striking signatures of Kondo physics in such devices, where, for example, the observed finite temperature linear response conductance [9] matches that predicted theoretically [11, 12].

With different possible dot geometries, Kondo physics in DQD devices is necessarily more rich. Dots arranged in series have been shown to exhibit Kondo physics in competition with an effective Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya- Yosida (RKKY) coupling between dots [1, 2, 13, 14, 15]. And in parallel dot systems, Kondo physics has been ob- served [5, 6] where it is expected to appear in conjunction with interference effects [15, 16, 17].

In this letter, we present a powerful theoretical ap- proach to DQD systems. We study two models of such systems, one with dots in parallel, one with dots in se- ries. We argue both models admit exact solutions via the Bethe ansatz. The model of dots in series possesses an SU(4) symmetry [18] and is relevant to the study of the Kondo effect in carbon nanotubes [19]. For the model of dots in parallel, we explicitly demonstrate that trans- port properties may be extracted from the exact solu- tion. Transport in the system of parallel dots exhibits two interesting features: i) at the particle-hole symmet- ric point, we find a cooperative combination of Kondo and RKKY physics where a non-perturbative antiferro-

magnetic RKKY effect serves to mediate the formation of a Kondo like singlet; and ii) in the dots’ mixed va- lence regime, we discover a form of the Friedel sum rule where contributions to the scattering phase come both from electrons in the dots and the leads. Models Defined: We examine two generalized Ander- son models coupling two leads (l = 1, 2) to two DQDs (α = 1, 2) in two distinct configurations. In the first configuration (denoted by PD), the dots are arranged in parallel. The corresponding Hamiltonian is taken to be H1 = H0 + H1int with H0 = −i

∑ lσ

∫∞ −∞

dxc†lσ∂xclσ +∑ σα ǫdαnσα and

H1int = ∑ lσα

Vlα(c † σldσα + h.c.) +

∑ αα′

Uαα′n↑αn↓α. (1)

Here the clσ/dασ specify electrons living in the leads and the dots. Vlα measures the tunneling strength between the dot α and lead l. Uαα′ characterizes the Coulom- bic repulsion between electrons of opposite spin living on dots α and α′.

Dots in Series (SD)

lead 1

V V

VV 2

1 11

12

21

22

lead 2lead 1 1

U12V1 2

V2

lead 2

t

Dots in Parallel (PD)

FIG. 1: A schematic of two DQD systems.

In the second model (denoted SD) the dots are ar- ranged in series. The corresponding Hamiltonian has a similar form to the first H2 = P (H0 + H2int)P . Here H2int is of the form

H2int = ∑ σ,l

Vl(c † lσdσl + h.c.) +

∑ (ασ) 6=(α′σ′)

nασnα′σ′

× ( U + i lim

a→0

∑ lσ

∫ a −a

dxc†lσ(x)∂xclσ(x)

) . (2)

P is a projection operator which forbids total occupancy of both dots from exceeding two electrons. In a regime

2 where fewer than two electrons sit on the dots, the role played by both the projection operator and the corre- lated hopping terms will be minimal. We note that the addition of an interdot hopping term, i.e. δH2 = t⊥(d

† 1d2 + d

† 2d1), does not spoil integrability [21].

Integrability of PD: To analyze PD (two dots in par- allel) we first map the problem to an Anderson model involving a single effective lead. To do so we need to assume the ratio of left/right lead couplings are equal, i.e. VLα/VRα = VLα′/VRα′ . Writing ce/o = (VL/RαcL ± VR/LαcR)/

√ 2Γα, with Γα = (V

2 Lα + V

2 Rα)/2, the Hamil-

tonian factorizes into an even and an odd sector, H1 = He + Ho. Only He couples to the dot and is given by He = He0 +Heint with He0 = −i

∑ lσ

∫∞ −∞

dxc†eσ∂xceσ +∑ σα ǫdαnσα and

Heint = ∑ σα

√ 2Γα(c

† eσαdσα+h.c.)+

∑ αα′

Uαα′n↑αn↓α. (3)

In contrast, Ho is trivial: Ho = He0(e → o, ǫdα = 0). The integrability of PD is then equivalent to the exact solvability of He. To determine under what conditions He admits eigen-

functions of the Bethe ansatz form, we begin by comput- ing both the one and two electron eigenstates. The one particle wave function appears as

|ψσ〉 = [ ∫ ∞

−∞

dx{gσ(x)c†σ(x)} + eασd†ασ ] |0〉. (4)

Solving the Schro¨dinger equation, He|ψ〉 = q|ψ〉, we find gσ(x) = θ(x)e

iqx+iδ/2 + θ(−x)eiqx−iδ/2 with δ(q), the impurity scattering phase, to be δ(q) = −2 tan−1(∑α(Γα/(q − ǫdα)). To compute the effective scattering between electrons, we study the two particle eigenfunction with spin projection, Sz = 0:

|ψ〉 = [∫ ∞

−∞

dx1dx2g(x1, x2)c † ↑(x1)c

† ↓(x2) +

∑ α

∫ ∞ −∞

dx

[ eα(x)(c

† ↑(x)d

† α↓ − c†↓(x)d†↑α)

] + ∑ αα′

fαα′d † ↑αd

† ↓α′

] |0〉. (5)

Again solving the Schro¨dinger equation He|ψ〉 = (q + p)|ψ〉 gives g(x1, x2) to be g(x1, x2) = gq(x1)gp(x2)φ(x12)+(x1 ↔ x2), with x12 = x1−x2. Here gq/p(x) are one particle wavefunctions with energies q/p. φ(x) governs the scattering when two electrons are in- terchanged. It takes the form φ(x) = 1 + iγ(q, p)sign(x). We find that γ(q, p) is consistently determined to be

γ(q, p) = 1

q − p ∑ α′

2Γα′Uαα′

ǫdα + ǫdα′ + Uαα′ − q − p, (6)

if either

Uαα′ = δαα′Uα; UαΓα = c, Uα + 2ǫdα = c ′; (7)

where c and c′ are α-independent constants or

Uαα′ = U ; Γα = Γα′ ; ǫα = ǫα′ . (8)

The first set of conditions describes single level dots ab- sent an interdot coupling while the second dots with de- generate levels but with a highly finely tuned interdot interaction. We will thus focus on the first. Exact solvability is predicated on how γ(q, p) deter-

mines the scattering matrix of the two electrons. The scattering matrix has the general spin (SU(2)) invariant form, Sa

′b′

ab = b(p, q)I a′b′

ab + c(p, q)P a′b′

ab , where a, b =↑, ↓ and I/P are the identity/permutation matrices. The co- efficients, b(p, q) and c(p, q), are determined by γ(p, q) from the relation, b(p, q)−c(p, q) = φ(x > 0)/φ(x < 0) = (1+iγ(p, q))/(1−iγ(p, q)), together with b(p, q)+c(p, q) = 1 which arises from considering the eigenfunction in Sz = ±1 sector where interactions are absent. In order for the Hamiltonian, He, to be integrable, a

minimal condition is that the above S-matrix satisfy the Yang-Baxter relation. The Yang-Baxter relation governs the scattering of three electrons and it enforces the equiv- alency of different scattering orders. It is well known in the case of an SU(2) symmetry that the validity of the Yang-Baxter relations is equivalent to the condition, b(p, q)/c(p, q) = i(g(p) − g(q)), where g(p) is an arbi- trary function [22]. In the case at hand, g(p) is given by g(p) = (p− ǫdα − Uα/2)2/(2ΓαUα). Having determined under what conditions the dot-lead

Hamiltonian is exactly solvable, we are now in a position to construct N -particle eigenstates in a controlled fash- ion. An eigenfunction with spin, Sz = N − 2M , is char- acterized by a sea of N electrons each carrying momenta {qi}Ni=1 and so total energy E =

∑ i qi. In a periodic sys-

tem of length L, integrability allows us to write down in a compact form the qi-quantization conditions (the Bethe ansatz equations):

eiqjL+iδ(qj) =

M∏ α=1

g(qj)− λα + i/2 g(qj)− λα − i/2;

N∏ j=1

λα − g(qj) + i/2 λα − g(qj)− i/2 = −

M∏ β=1

λα − λβ + i λα − λβ − i . (9)

These equations are identical to those for the ordinary Anderson model [22] but for the form of δ(q). The M λα’s appearing in the above equations are indicative of the spin degrees of freedom. There are two integrable generalizations of the PD

model: i) N-dots in parallel and ii) a pair of dots in a T-junction. These systems, to be integrable, must sat- isfy a set of constraints similar to Eqns. 7 and 8. Integrability of SD: We demonstrate the generic inte- grability of SD along similar lines – it was already known to be exactly solvable for infinite U [23]. Here, however, we do not transform to an even/odd sector. We thus have four different types of fermions/dot degrees of freedom.

3 This will ultimately lead to the model having an exact SU(4) symmetry at all energy scales. Constructing the two particle eigenfunctions as before

leads to an SU(4) S-matrix provided Vl = V for all l and ǫdα = ǫd for all α. (This latter constraint can be relaxed enabling one to study non-degenerate dots where the SU(4) symmetry is broken, say by a magnetic field or a gate voltage.) The S-matrix takes the same form as Eq. 7 but with a, b one of four values, (1, ↑), (1, ↓), (2, ↑ ), (2, ↓). Again we have b(p, q)/c(p, q) = i(g(p) − g(q)), sufficient for the Yang-Baxter relation to be satisfied, but with g(p) = (p− ǫd − U/2)2/(V 2U). To construct the N-particle eigenfunctions, we again

employ a nested Bethe ansatz [22]. Crucial to these eigen- functions being of the Bethe form are both the projec- tors, P , and the correlated hopping term (Eq. 2) of H2. This demonstrates that in the case of dot systems with orbital degeneracies and a finite U Coulomb repulsion, and unlike Hubbard models with orbital degeneracies, it is possible to find a simple Hamiltonian which is exactly solvable. As was demonstrated in Ref. [24], the (N > 2)- particle wavefunctions of any simple finite U orbitally degenerate Hubbard model are not of the Bethe type. The quantization conditions of an N-electron state car-

rying momenta {qi}Ni=1 are of the form

eiqjL+iδ2(qj) = M∏ α=1

λ0j−λ1α+ i2 λ0j−λ1α− i2

;

Mk−1∏ λk−1γ

λkα−λk−1γ + i2 λkα−λk−1γ − i2

=

Mk∏ β 6=α

λkα−λkβ+i λkα−λkβ−i

Mk+1∏ δ=1

λkα−λk+1δ − i2 λkα−λk−1δ + i2

.

Here δ2(q) = −2 tan−1(V 2/2(q − ǫd)). The quantum numbers, {λkα}, k = 0, 1, 2, 3 (with λ0 = g(q)) correspond to both spin and orbital degrees of freedom. In a prelim- inary analysis of Eqns. [21], we have verified the SU(4) Kondo physics expected in a regime where one electron sits on the dots [18]. Thus the marginal correlated hop- ping term in Eqn. (2) does not influence the universality class into which the physics falls. We also note that the integrability of SD can be generalized to N-dots arranged in triangles (N=3), squares (N=4), etc. T=0 Conductance of PD: In the remainder of the paper, we focus on extracting the features of the T = 0 linear response conductance of the parallel dots (PD). The structure of the linear response conductance, G, for the parallel dots is much richer than that of a single dot containing distinct Kondo effects, novel applications of the Friedel sum rule, and quantum critical behavior. To compute the linear response conductance of the

dots we closely follow Ref. [12]. The approach is based on the observation [20] that the impurity scattering phase, δimp, of an electron is determined by the shift in the elec- tron’s momentum due to the presence of the impurity, i.e p→ p+ δimp/L. From the Bethe ansatz the full momen- tum of the excitations are readily extracted. Then isolat-

ing the term in the momentum scaling as the inverse sys- tem size, L−1, allows the δimp to be computed. In the ge- ometry we have chosen, G is given by 2e2/h sin2(δimp/2). For a detailed description in the context of PDs see Ref. [12].

-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 εd1/Γ1, εd2/Γ1 − 5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

displaced electrons G (e2/h)

U1 = 1, U2 = 0.5 Γ1 = 0.05U1 Γ2 = 0.1U1 ∆ε = 0.25U1

1 2

Standard Kondo

1 2

RKKY Kondo

RKKY Kondo

Standard Kondo

Friedel sum rule non−trivial

FIG. 2: The total conductance and number of displaced elec- trons per spin species vs. ǫd1, ∆ǫ fixed, for two dots in parallel.

We plot an example of the linear response conductance for two dots in parallel in Fig. 2. We consider the asym- metric case where ∆ǫ = ǫd1 − ǫd2 ≫ Γ1,Γ2. The con- ductance is plotted as a function of ǫd1 keeping ∆ǫ fixed from the particle-hole symmetric (p.h.s.) point of the system (i.e. Uα = −2ǫdα) where two electrons sit on the dots to a point where both dot levels are well above the Fermi level and the dots are nearly empty. In this plot, the structure of the linear response conductance, in com- parison with that for a single level dot, is more complex. This reflects both the presence of interference [17] as well as distinct types of Kondo physics. At the p.h.s point, (i.e. ǫd1/Γ1 = −10 in Fig. 2)

the two electrons residing on the dots together with elec- trons in the leads form a singlet. With no bare di- rect exchange, singlet formation is mediated solely by virtual hopping processes which here promote antiferro- magnetic correlations. We thus term this formation the RKKY-Kondo effect to mark the role of electron itiner- ancy. This phenomena is distinct from the ferromagnetic RKKY effect arising in fourth order perturbation theory for two closely spaced dots and is thought to compete with Kondo physics. In particular, the RKKY-Kondo ef- fect is non-perturbative in virtual hopping processes. We find that the RKKY-Kondo effect is generically present provided ǫd1 6= ǫd2 and so there are unequal numbers of electrons on each dot (as indicated in the cartoon in Figure 2). This antiferro-RKKY Kondo effect is, in a sense, un-

surprising. The Friedel sum rule (FSR) dictates that the at the p.h.s. point, the scattering phase equal π and G vanish. If we were instead to have a ferro-RKKY ef- fect, and so an underscreened spin 1 impurity, G would be maximal and so violate the FSR. Our finding of a

4 Fermi liquid fixed point is supported indirectly by earlier work on the two impurity Anderson model [26]. Although there the focus is upon two electron channels coupled to two impurities, the finding is both that the physics is Fermi liquid and that the one to two channel crossover is smooth. We have verified singlet formation both by demonstrating from the Bethe ansatz equations that the entropy vanishes in the zero temperature limit and, sep- arately, from a slave boson mean field analysis. The Abrikosov-Suhl resonance associated with this

RKKY-Kondo effect can be computed along the lines of Ref. [12] (up to a multiplicative constant):

ρ(ǫ) = cos(βπ)(T−1RK(ǫ˜ 2 + 1))/(2ǫ˜2 cos(2βπ) + ǫ˜4 + 1),

where ǫ˜ = ǫ/TRK and TRK is the RKKY Kondo tempera- ture, TRK ∼

√ U1Γ1 exp(−πU/8Γ1). The parameter β is

0 if ∆ǫ≫ Γ1,2 and is 1/2 if 0 < ∆ǫ≪ Γ1,2. As ∆ǫ→ 0, the resonance evolves from a Lorentzian centered at zero energy to a structure with split peaks. The scale TRK governs the leading corrections to the conductance as a function of Zeeman field (H) and temperature (T). For ∆ǫ≫ Γ1,2, we compute these at the p.h.s. point to have the Fermi-liquid form (in units of 2e2/h): G(T/TRK) = π4(T/TRK)

2/4 and G(H/TRK) = π 2(H/TRK)

2/4. As we move away from the p.h.s. point through in-

creasing the gate voltage, we begin to empty the dots. With the assumed asymmetry in ǫd1 and ǫd2, we arrive at a point where the dot system has roughly one electron sitting predominantly on dot 1. At this value of the gate voltage, we expect ordinary Kondo physics to be opera- tive. Defining TK via its relation to the static impurity susceptibility, i.e. χimp = (4TK)

−1, the corresponding leading contributions to the conductances (in units of 2e2/h) are G(T/TK) = 1− (π4/16)(T/TK)2 [11, 12] and G(H/TK) = 1 − (π2/16)(H/TK)2 [12]. From a numeri- cal analysis, we know that TK has a single dot form, i.e. TK ∼

√ UΓ1/2 exp(πǫd1(ǫd1 + U)/2U1Γ1) [22, 25].

As ǫd1 is further increased, we see both a vanishing of the conductance and an unusual form of the FSR, a mark of the effects of interference. The vanishing of the conductance may reflect interference alone: it is present as well in the non-interacting case. However the form the FSR takes reflects both interference and interactions. The FSR relates the scattering phase to the number of displaced electrons, i.e. δeσ = πndisσ. ndisσ is defined to be

ndisσ ≡ ndσ + ∫

dx

[ 〈c†eσ(x)ceσ(x)〉 − ρbulkσ

] , (10)

and contains contributions from both the occupancy of the dots, ndσ, and deviations in the lead electron density from coupling the dots to the leads [27]. As is evident in Figure 2, we have an unusual situation where both contributions to ndisσ, and not merely ndσ, are finite: ndσ is always manifestly positive while ndisσ is negative over a range of ǫd1.

One last feature to the linear response conductance we wish to point out is the disappearance of the Abrikosov- Suhl resonance at precisely ǫd1 = ǫd2. The transition is first order as TRK itself does not vanish as ǫd1 → ǫd2. The origin of this critical point lies in the decoupling of one dot degree of freedom (d.o.f) if ǫd1 = ǫd2 (and only if), as can be seen via a change of basis de/o =

(Γ1/2d1 ± Γ2/1d2)/(Γ21 + Γ22)1/2. This discontinuous be- havior at ǫd1 = ǫd2 however can be transformed into a smooth crossover by weakly coupling a second channel of electrons to the dot [28] and so recoupling the odd dot d.o.f.

Apart from the behavior at ǫd1 = ǫd2, we generally expect the above physics to be robust against small vi- olations of the integrability constraints (Eqn. 9) for a number of reasons [21]: i) the ground state of the dot- lead system is already robustly established (unlike when perturbation theory in V is done for a single dot-lead); and ii) a Schrieffer-Wolfe transformation in the Kondo regime is unaffected by (weak) violations of Eqn. (7).

RMK acknowledges support from the US DOE (DE- AC02-98 CH 10886) together with useful discussions with A. Tsvelik and F. Essler.

[1] H. Jeong et al., Science 293 2221 (2001). [2] N. J. Craig et al., Science 304, 565 (2004). [3] J. Petta et al., Science 309 2180 (2005). [4] F. Koppens, et al., Science 309, 1346 (2005). [5] J.C. Chen et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 176801 (2004). [6] M. Sigrist et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 066802 (2004). [7] N. Mason et al., Science 303 655 (2004). [8] S. Sapmaz et al., cond-mat/0602424. [9] D. Goldhaber-Gordon et al. PRL 81, 5225 (1998); [10] S. Cronenwett et al., Science 281, 540 (1998). [11] T. Costi et al., J. Phys.: Cond. Mat. 6, 2519 (1994). [12] R. Konik, H. Saleur, A. Ludwig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,

236801 (2001); ibid, Phys. Rev. B 66, 125304 (2002). [13] M. Vavilov, L. Glazman, Phys. Rev. Lett 94, 086805

(2005). [14] P. Simon et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 086602 (2005). [15] R. Lo´pez et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 136802 (2002). [16] A. Georges, Y. Meir, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3508 (1999). [17] Y. Tanaka and N. Kawakami, cond-mat/0503341. [18] L. Borda et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 026602 (2003). [19] P. Jarillo-Herrero et al., Nature 434, 484 (2005); M. Choi

et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 95 067204 (2005). [20] N. Andrei, Phys. Lett. 87A, 299 (1982). [21] R. M. Konik, in preparation.; ibid, cond-mat/0701670. [22] A. Tsvelik and P. Wiegmann, Adv. Phys. 32, 453 (1983);

N. Kawakami and A. Okiji, Phys. Lett. A 86, 483 (1981). [23] P. Schlottmann, Phys. Rev. Lett 50, 1697 (1983). [24] D. Haldane, T. Choy, Phys. Lett. A 90, 83 (1981). [25] D. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 416 (1978). [26] B. A. Jones et al., Phys. Rev. B. 39, 3415 (1989). [27] D. Langreth, Phys. Rev. 150, 516 (1966). [28] V. Meden, F. Marquardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 146801

(2006).

Comments