text:
# Star Formation in Tidal Dwarf Galaxies

## 1. What are Tidal Dwarf Galaxies?

TDGs are small galaxies which are currently in the process of formation. They are forming from material ejected from the disks of spiral galaxies through galactic collisions. Their properties are very similar to classical dwarf irregulars and blue compact dwarf galaxies, except for their metallicities which are higher and lie in a narrow range of 12+log(O/H)$`8.48.6`$ (Duc et al. 2000). These metallicities are typical of the material found in the outer spiral disks of the interacting galaxies and which is most easily lost to form TDGs.

TDGs are interesting objects because they allow us to observe the process of galaxy formation, similar to what occurred in the early universe, but in local objects at high sensitivity and resolution. Their age can be constrained via numerical simulations of the collision. Their discovery has raised the question how large a fraction of the current dwarf galaxy population could have formed as TDGs, and how these could be distinguished from the population of what are believed to be field dwarf galaxies. A possible way to distinguish between a field or tidal dwarf galaxy is via their Dark Matter content. According to simulations, TDGs should contain no dark matter (Barnes & Hernquist 1992), whereas most classical dwarfs have a high dark matter fraction (see Hunter et al. 2000).

## 2. CO in Tidal Dwarf Galaxies

TDGs have a high SFR, their metallicities are not as low as in many classical dwarfs and they possess high atomic hydrogen column densities. Therefore, large amounts of molecular gas should be present and, assuming that the conversion factor between the CO emission and molecular gas mass is similar to the Galactic value, it should be detectable. Surprisingly, first attempts to detect CO in Arp 105 (Duc & Mirabel 1994) and the Antennae (Smith & Higdon 1994) failed.

Between June 1999 and September 2000 we observed a sample of 9 TDGs with the IRAM 30m telescope in CO(1–0) and CO(2–1). Two further TDGs, NGC 5291N and NGC 5291S, were observed with the SEST telescope in the same transitions. The main motivations for these observations were (i) to find out whether molecular gas can be detected in TDGs or whether their molecular gas content is much lower than would be expected from simple estimates, (ii) to study the formation of molecular gas from atomic gas, (iii) and to to check whether star formation is going on in the same way as in other galaxies. The details of the observations and a broader discussion of the results can be found in Braine et al. (2000, 2001).

We searched for CO at the peaks of the HI emission and detected 8 of the objects. In Table 1 the observed TDGs, the measured molecular mass and further data are listed.

## 3. What is the origin of the molecular gas?

At the scales sampled by the CO and HI observations, 1 – 10 kpc, the CO is detected at the HI column density peak and shares the same kinematics in terms of line widths and velocity. This is very different to what is found in spiral galaxies, where CO is only detected within the optical radius whereas HI is much more broadly distributed (e.g. NGC 891, García–Burillo 1992). This suggests that the molecular gas that we are observing in the TDGs is not torn from the parent galaxies but formed in situ. In the following we will give some more arguments why we think this is so and present counterarguments why we consider it unlikely that the molecular gas has been torn as such from the parent galaxies, together with the atomic gas.

First of all, based on the standard dust model (Mathis, Rumpl & Nordsieck 1977), the timescales to transform, say 20% of HI into $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ is of order $`t_{20\%}=10^7/n_{\mathrm{HI}}`$ yr. At HI volume densities of typically $`>`$ 1 at cm-3 this is much shorter than the timescale of the interaction which is of order $`10^8`$ yr. Secondly, if the molecular gas were torn from the outer disks of the interacting galaxies we need to assume that there exist large quantities of $`\mathrm{H}_2`$ beyond the optical radius of a typical spiral galaxy which is hidden from view, either because: (i) the gas has a too low density, (ii) it is too cold or (iii) its metallicity is too low. All three possibilities seem unlikely:

(i) If the molecular gas had very low density, CO could be dissociated. However, CO becomes self-shielding at CO column densities of a few $`10^{14}`$ cm-2, corresponding to typical H2 column densities of several 1020 cm-2. Absorption measurements towards stars indicate that at total (atomic and molecular) hydrogen column densities of order a few 1020 cm-2 the molecular hydrogen fraction is very small (Federman et al. 1979). Thus, if the gas is dense enough to form molecular clouds, it is also dense enough to have a normal CO content.

(ii) Liszt & Lucas (1998 and references therein) observed Galactic CO in emission and in absorption towards quasars. In virtually all cases where absorption was measured, they also found CO emission. This shows that there is no substantial population of molecular clouds in the Galaxy where the CO is present but too cold to be detected in emission.

(iii) Is it possible that TDGs are formed from molecular gas of the very outer regions of spirals where low metallicity inhibits any CO emission? If this were the case, star formation in TDGs would have had to enrich the gas to its present metallicity. We think that this scenario is unlikely because firstly, it does not explain the common metallicity of TDGs. Secondly, star formation is occurring in many dwarf galaxies of sizes comparable to TDGs (e.g. Taylor et al. 1998) at rates at least as high as in our TDG sample. Were star formation capable of enriching gas considerably, dwarf galaxies would not have such low metallicities. Finally, it is hard to see how molecular gas supposedly coming from the parent galaxies can survive the star formation necessary to increase its metallicity.

Thus we conclude that if large quantities of molecular gas had been present in the outer parts of spiral galaxies – from where the material forming TDGs comes from – it should be observable. This fact together with the spatial and dynamical coincidence of atomic and molecular gas suggests that we are seeing molecular gas formation. The CO emission furthermore coincides with the position of H$`\alpha `$ emission tracing star formation. Thus, we are witnessing the entire process of star formation: The formation of molecular from atomic gas and the subsequent star formation.

## 4. Star formation in TDGs, classical dwarfs and spirals

Is star formation proceeding in the same way in TDGs as in classical dwarfs and in spiral galaxies? In order to discuss this question we compare some properties of our TDG sample to samples of classical dwarfs and spirals. The data for spirals are taken from Kennicutt (1998). We calculated median values and dispersions from his Table 1 and assumed a metallicity of 12+log(O/H) =8.9 for this average spiral. Details of the data of the classical dwarf sample are given in Braine et al. (2001), except for the HI data which is taken from Stil & Israel (priv. communication, NGC 1569), Melisse & Israel (1994, NGC 4214), Israel et al. (1996, NGC 6822), Hunter & Thronson (1996, NGC 4449), Cohen et al. (1988, LMC) and Rubio et al. (1991, SMC). The HI masses refer to the area in which molecular gas was detected. The molecular gas mass for all objects was calculated or scaled to the same conversion factor given in Table 1.

In Fig. 1 the molecular gas fraction versus metallicity is shown. The molecular gas fractions of TDGs are higher than for classical dwarfs and lie within or only slightly below the typical range of spiral galaxies. There seems to be a trend of Mmol/MHI with metallicity, although with a large scatter. This trend most likely reflects a decrease of the CO-molecular-gas-mass conversion factor with decreasing metallicity as indicated by observational (e.g. Wilson 1995) and theoretical (Maloney & Black 1988) studies.

This means that the molecular gas in TDGs is easier to detect than in classical dwarfs due to the higher metallicity of TDGs. Whereas classical dwarfs follow a luminosity-metallicity relation, the metallicities of TDGs lie all in a narrow range between 8.4 and 8.6 (Duc et al. 2000). As a consequence we are able to observe molecular gas in TDGs of lower luminosities than classical dwarfs. In the latter objects no CO is detected for metallicities lower than 12+log(O/H) = 7.9 (Taylor et al. 1998), corresponding to galaxies fainter than $`M_B15`$ mag (Skillman et al. 1989). TDGs of comparable luminosity can be observed in CO, as the detections of NGC 7252W, NGC4038S and NGC7319E, all with blue magnitudes between -14 and -15, show.

A widely used parameter to study star formation is the star formation efficiency (SFE) which is defined as SFR per molecular mass. Here, we use the H$`\alpha `$ luminosity as a tracer of the SFR as: $`\mathrm{SFR}=5\times 10^8(L_{H\alpha }/L_{})M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (Hunter & Gallagher 1986). In Fig. 2 (left) we show the SFE versus metallicity. There is a clear difference between TDGs and classical dwarfs: Whereas the SFE of most TDGs falls in the same range as for spirals, classical dwarfs possess a higher ratio. This difference persists even when considering a possible underestimate of up to 50% of the $`L_{H\alpha }`$ in some TDGs for which only long-slit measurements are available. Most likely the apparently high SFE of classical dwarfs is caused by an underestimate of the molecular gas due to their low metallicities. This assumption is supported by Fig. 2 (right) where we plot the SFR devided by the total gas mass. In this case the whole sample falls in a much narrower range. The SFR normalized to the total gas mass of some TDGs is somewhat lower than the range of values of the spiral galaxy sample. This could be due to an overestimate of their HI content due to insufficient resolution of the data. Alternatively, it could imply that TDGs possess a reservoir of atomic gas that is not used (yet) for star formation, reflecting the fact that TDGs are in the process of formation and the star formation is just starting.

Schmidt (1959) has suggested a relation between the SFR per surface area, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}`$ and the gas mass surface density, $`\sigma _{\mathrm{gas}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{SFR}}\sigma _{\mathrm{gas}}^\alpha `$. Kennicutt (1998) showed that indeed a tight correlation between these two quantities holds for different types of galaxies and spans many orders of magnitude. In Fig. 3 we show this relation for our sample. We include the best-fit line of the Kennicutt-sample. The entire sample follow the same relation, indicating that star formation proceeds in a normal fashion.

## References

Barnes, J. E., Hernquist, L., 1992, Nature, 360, 715

Braine, J., Lisenfeld, U., Duc, P.–A., Leon, S., 2000, Nature, 403, 867

Braine, J., Duc, P.–A., Lisenfeld, U., Charmandaris, V., Vallejo,O., Leon, S., Brinks, E., in preparation

Cohen, R. S., Dame, T. M., Garay, G., Rubio, M., 1988, ApJ, 331, L95

Duc, P.–A., Mirabel, I. F., 1994, A&A, 289, 83

Duc, P.–A., Brinks, E., Springel, V., Pichardo, B., Weilbacher, P., Mirabel, I. F., 2000, AJ, 120 1238

Federman, S. R., Glassgold, A. E., Kwan, J., 1979, ApJ, 227, 466

García–Burillo, S., Guélin, M., Cernicharo, J, Dahlem, M., 1992, A&A, 266, 21

Hollenbach, D.J., Werner, M.W., Salpeter, E.E., 1971, ApJ, 163, 165

Hunter, D. A., Gallagher, J. S., 1986, PASP, 98, 5

Hunter, D. A., Hunsberger, S. D., Roye, E. W., 2000, ApJ, 542, 137

Hunter, D. A., Thronson, H. A., 1996, ApJ, 461, 202

Israel, F. P., Bontekoe, T. R., Kester, D. J.M., 1996, A&A, 308, 723

Kennicutt. R. C., 1998, ApJ, 344, 685

Liszt, H. S., Lucas, R., 1998, A&A, 339, 561

Maloney, P., Black, J. H., 1988, ApJ, 325, 389

Mathis, J. S., Rumpl, W., Nordsieck, K.H., 1977, ApJ, 217, 425

Melisse, J. P. M., Israel, F. P., 1994, A&A, 285, 51

Rubio, M., Garay, G., Montani, J., Thaddeus, P., 1991, ApJ, 368, 173

Schmidt, M., 1959, ApJ, 129, 243

Skillman, E. D., Kennicutt, R. C., Hodge, P. W., 1989, ApJ, 347, 875

Smith, B. J., Higdon, J. L., 1994, AJ, 108, 837

Taylor, C. L., Kobulnicky, H., Skillman, E. D., 1998, AJ, 116, 2746

Wilson, C., 1995, ApJ, 448, L97


format: text

text:
# Zeeman smearing of the Coulomb Blockade

\[

## Abstract

Charge fluctuations of a large quantum dot coupled to a two-dimensional lead via a single-mode good Quantum Point Contact (QPC) and capacitively coupled to a back-gate, are investigated in presence of a parallel magnetic field. The Zeeman term induces an asymmetry between transmission probabilities for the spin-up and spin-down channels at the QPC, producing noticeable effects on the quantization of the grain charge already at low magnetic fields. Performing a quantitative analysis, I show that the capacitance between the gate and the lead exhibits — instead of a logarithmic singularity — a reduced peak as a function of gate voltage. Experimental applicability is discussed.

\]

Recent research on mesoscopic quantum dots has led to a revival of Kondo physics. There is an extensive literature on the (one-channel) Kondo behavior of small dots with an odd number of electrons and a finite level spacing $`ϵ`$, attached to two leads. In such an arrangement, the dot acts as an Anderson impurity. In addition, it was shown by Matveev that the Hamiltonian of a large dot ($`ϵ0`$) in the Coulomb blockade regime, coupled to a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) via a good single-mode Quantum Point Contact (QPC) and capacitively coupled to a back-gate, is mathematically equivalent to the two-channel Kondo model in the Emery-Kivelson limit (Fig. 1). The two channels of the Kondo problem correspond to the two spin channels for tunneling through the QPC. For recent reviews, see Refs..

The non-Fermi-liquid nature of the ground state of the two-channel Kondo model is here reflected by the non-analyticity of the capacitance measured between the gate and the reservoir near the points where the dot charge Q is half-integer $`(C=Q/V_G)`$

$$C(N)=C_obC_{gd}|\lambda |^2\mathrm{cos}(2\pi N)\mathrm{ln}\frac{1}{|\lambda |^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi N)}$$
(1)
N is a parameter proportional to the gate voltage $`eN=V_GC_{gd}`$, $`C_{gd}`$ denotes the gate-dot capacitance, $`C_o`$ is the total dot capacitance and $`|\lambda |^21`$ is the small reflection probability at the QPC. Here, $`b>0`$ is proportional to the Euler constant $`\gamma =e^𝐂`$, with $`𝐂0.5772`$. The second term describes the cross-over from the linear charge-voltage dependence to the “Coulomb staircase” behavior (inset in Fig. 3). This effect has been observed by Berman et al., in AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures.

Below, I investigate how the capacitance $`C(N)`$ evolves if a magnetic field B is applied parallel to the 2DEG. I will show that the logarithmic divergence in the differential capacitance $`\delta C(N)=C(N)C_o`$ with $`N1/2`$ gets already cutoff by a small magnetic field (Fig. 3)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta C}{C_{gd}}}(N)`$ $`=`$ $`b|\lambda |^2(1\widehat{\delta }^2)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi N)\times `$ (3)
$`\mathrm{ln}\text{Max}\text{[}|\lambda |^2\widehat{\delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi N);|\lambda |^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi N)\text{]},`$
$`0<\widehat{\delta }1`$, being proportional to the Zeeman energy, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=g\mu _BB`$. This results from a Zeeman-like asymmetry between reflection probabilities for the spin-up and spin-down channels at the QPC. For a high field $`(\widehat{\delta }1)`$, only the spin-up channel will be transmitted producing a one-channel QPC model. The capacitance (or charge Q) only exhibits periodic oscillations as a function of N,

$$C(N)=C_obC_{gd}|\lambda |\mathrm{cos}(2\pi N).$$
(4)
The Coulomb staircase behavior gets completely smeared out (inset in Fig. 3). An experiment using AlGaAs/GaAs heterostructures is presumably appropriate to probe this effect in the capacitance. Indeed, Zeeman splitting at the QPC in an in-plane magnetic field has been confirmed by Thomas et al via conductance measurements, and for few conducting modes at the QPC the Landé factor is enhanced $`g1`$ (the bulk value is $`|g|=0.4`$).

Let me emphasize that below a quantitative analysis of the smearing out of the logarithmic peak for the capacitance $`\delta C(N)`$ is performed (which has not been previously done in Ref.). The crossover from the two- to the one-channel QPC model is carefully investigated. First, it is useful to compute reflection probabilities at the QPC in presence of a magnetic field parallel to the 2DEG, and to discuss the necessary magnetic-field dependent adjustment of the QPC potential $`V_a(B)`$. In the close vicinity of the contact, the (smooth) confining potential will be approximated as a harmonic one.

An electron with spin-projection $`\alpha =,`$ (or $`\alpha =\pm 1`$) along the magnetic field axis, is then subjected to the total potential $`V_a(B)m\omega _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}x^2/2+m\omega _{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}y^2/2\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }/2`$. Here, $`\omega _x`$ and $`\omega _y`$ are the curvatures of the potential, and $`m`$ the mass of an electron. The transverse part of the Hamiltonian produces “n transverse modes”. Then, the one-dimensional (1D) wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^n(x)`$ for motion along $`x`$ is determined by the effective potential

$$V_n^\alpha (x)=V_a(B)\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}+\mathrm{}\omega _y(n+\frac{1}{2})\frac{1}{2}m\omega _{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}x^2,$$
(5)
the explicit form of which is of no interest here. The height of the barrier potential at the QPC for a spin-down electron is enhanced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. From now on, I adjust $`V_a(B)=V_a(B=0)+\mathrm{\Delta }/2`$, because I want field-independent reflection probabilities for spin-up channels.

Near the saddle-point $`(x0)`$, the threshold energies of the mode $`n`$ are then spin-splitted, as follows

$`E_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E_n=V_a(B=0)+\mathrm{}\omega _y(n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$ (6)
$`E_n^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E_n+\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ (7)
Classically, modes with threshold energy below the Fermi energy $`E_F`$ are perfectly open and the others remain closed. But, quantum mechanically transmission and reflection at the saddle are neither completely open nor completely closed. Here, I fix the voltage $`V_a(B=0)`$ such that $`E_0E_F<E_1`$. In Fig. 2, this corresponds to adjust $`\xi `$ such that $`0.5\xi <1.5`$ $`(\omega _y/\omega _x=1)`$. Then, the spin-up channel of the transverse mode n=0 remains at almost perfect transmission whatever the applied magnetic field. Moreover, I can disregard modes $`n1`$ which are almost perfectly reflected, because I am interested only in transport through the constriction.

The reflection/transmission amplitude of a 1D particle passing through an inverted parabolic barrier has been studied in detail by Connor. Taking $`n=0`$, small reflection probability for the spin-up channel reads

$$_0^{}=|\lambda |^2=\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}(2\pi _0^{})}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi _0^{}),$$
(8)
where $`_0^{}=[E_FE_0^{}]/\mathrm{}\omega _x0`$. Below, I will focus on low magnetic field effects. Using Eq. (6), similarly I obtain $`(\delta =\mathrm{\Delta }/2\mathrm{}\omega _x0.4)`$

$$_0^{}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi _0^{})_0^{}(1+4\pi \delta ).$$
(9)
Both channels are transmitted but $`1_0^{}>_0^{}`$ (See Fig. 2). Applying an in-plane magnetic field, one gets what I call a two-channel anisotropic QPC model; This is defined, below. The limit of strong fields will be reached when the Zeeman energy approaches the curvature energies of the potential: $`E_0^{}=E_1`$ and $`𝒯_0^{}=1_0^{}0`$. A single channel will subsist in the constriction.

As I am interested in the dynamics of the system at energies much smaller than $`E_F`$, I may linearize the spectrum of the 1D-fermions in state $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{n=0}(x)`$. One can always write $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha (x)=\mathrm{exp}(ik_Fx)\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }(x)+\mathrm{exp}(ik_Fx)\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }(x)`$; $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }`$ respectively describe left- and right moving fermions, and $`E_F=k_{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/2m`$. Finite reflection in the channel $`\alpha =,`$ then can be simply accounted for by adding a backscattering term

$$H_{bs}=v_F\sqrt{_0^\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }^{}(0)\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }(0).$$
(10)
$`v_F`$ denotes the Fermi velocity. One must also include the kinetic energy through the constriction,

$$H_{kin}=iv_F_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\text{{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }^{}_x\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }^{}_x\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }\text{}}.$$
(11)
At almost perfect transmission, the electronic wave function is shared between the reservoir and the dot. I can neglect finite size effects in a dot at the micron scale $`(ϵ0)`$. Note that $`(H_{kin}+H_{bs})`$ with $`1_0^{}>_0^{}`$ describes a two-channel anisotropic QPC model. Again, I ignore higher modes confined to the reservoir, and also neglect the Pauli contribution of the 2DEG. The charging process is described by the following usual term

$$H_c=E_c\text{(}QN\text{)}^2,$$
(12)
with $`E_c=e^2/(2C_{gd})E_F`$ the (charging) energy that it costs to transfer a particle from the lead to the dot. The charge Q (of the dot) in $`H_c`$ is now normalized to e,

$$Q=_0^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\text{{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{L\alpha }+\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{R\alpha }\text{}}.$$
(13)
At low energies, I can proceed with this model by bosonizing the 1D Fermi fields,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{p\alpha }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi a}}\mathrm{exp}\text{(}i\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{2}}\left[p(\varphi _c+\alpha \varphi _s)(\theta _c+\alpha \theta _s)\right]\text{)}.$$
(14)
$`a`$ is a short-distance cutoff, again $`\alpha =\pm `$ for spin up and spin down, and $`p=\pm `$ for right and left movers. The spectrum of 1D free electrons yields separation of spin and charge. Resulting Hamiltonians are plasmon-like

$$H_{kin}=\underset{j=c,s}{}\frac{v_F}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x\text{[}(_x\varphi _j)^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{]}.$$
(15)
$`_x\varphi _j`$ with $`j=(c,s)`$ measures fluctuations of charge/spin density in the constriction and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_j=_x\theta _j`$ being its conjugate momentum. In this representation, the charging Hamiltonian $`H_c`$ reads

$$H_c=E_c\text{[}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\varphi _c(0)N\text{]}^2.$$
(16)
To minimize energy, the charge in the dot is pinned at the classical value $`Q_c=\varphi _c(0)\sqrt{2/\pi }N`$.

Now, one has to examine the quantum corrections to the charge entering the constriction, in presence of a small (parallel) magnetic field. For energies smaller than $`E_c`$ and $`|\lambda |1`$, I can replace $`\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _c(0)]`$ by the averaged value $`\sqrt{\gamma E_ca/\pi v_F}\mathrm{cos}(\pi N)`$ (similarly for the sinus). The prefactor comes from the average of the cosine term over the ground state of $`H_{kin}`$. Using Eqs. (8),(9) and (14) the backscattering term then reads

$`H_{bs}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |}{2\pi a}}\sqrt{\gamma v_FE_ca}\mathrm{cos}(\pi N)\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)]`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\lambda |\widehat{\delta }}{2\pi a}}\sqrt{\gamma v_FE_ca}\mathrm{sin}(\pi N)\mathrm{sin}[\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)].`$ (18)
The previous anisotropy parameter $`\widehat{\delta }1`$ is equal to $`\pi \delta `$. As in Ref. (page 417), I introduce the symmetric combination of the spin Bose fields with respect to the QPC, $`\varphi _s(x)=[\mathrm{\Phi }_s(x)+\mathrm{\Phi }_s(x)]/\sqrt{2}`$. The kinetic part is

$$H_{kin}[\mathrm{\Phi }_s]=v_F_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑x(_x\mathrm{\Phi }_s)^2.$$
(19)
In the absence of the magnetic field, i.e. $`\widehat{\delta }=0`$, the Hamiltonian $`H_{kin}[\mathrm{\Phi }_s]+H_{bs}`$ is equivalent to the two-channel Kondo model at the Emery-Kivelson line

$$H_{EK}=H_{kin}[\mathrm{\Phi }_s]+\frac{J_x[N]}{\pi a}\mathrm{cos}[\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)]\widehat{S}_x,$$
(20)
with the Kondo exchange $`J_x=|\lambda |\sqrt{\gamma v_FE_ca}\mathrm{cos}(\pi N)`$. $`\widehat{S}_x`$ describes the x-component of a fictitious quantum impurity. This equivalence occurs because $`\widehat{S}_x`$ commutes with $`H_{EK}`$. One can set $`\widehat{S}_x=1/2`$ (or $`\widehat{S}_x=1/2`$). $`H_{EK}`$ can be exactly refermionized and diagonalized. The backscattering contribution to the ground state energy then takes the form $`\delta E(N)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)}{2\pi }\mathrm{ln}(E_c/\mathrm{\Gamma }(N))`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(N)=J_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/\pi v_Fa`$ is the Kondo resonance. The quantum correction $`\delta Q`$ to the charge in the dot, becoming equal to $`\delta Q=\delta E/(E_cN)`$. This results explicitly in $`\delta Qb_0^{}\mathrm{sin}(2\pi N)\mathrm{ln}(E_c/\mathrm{\Gamma }(N))`$.

The charge fluctuations get “strongly” influenced by the spin ones; The logarithmic factor in $`\delta Q`$ comes from spin fluctuations at the QPC. For $`\widehat{\delta }=0`$, these get pinned at the time $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ at which the screening of $`\widehat{S}_x`$ takes place and the Kondo coupling $`J_x`$ diverges. For N=1/2, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0`$: There is a degeneracy between the dot states with Q=0 and Q=1 \[See Fig. 3; $`Q=Q_c+\delta Q`$\]. The capacitance displays a logarithmic divergence at this degeneracy point \[Eq. (1)\]. If $`N<1/2`$ one gets $`\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)\pi `$, and $`\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)2\pi `$ if $`N>1/2`$. For $`\widehat{\delta }0`$ the backscattering contributions to the ground state energy can now be calculated using the two-channel anisotropic Kondo model at the Emery-Kivelson line

$$H_{EK}^A=H_{EK}\frac{J_y[N]}{\pi a}\mathrm{sin}[\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)]\widehat{S}_y.$$
(21)
The extra magnetic exchange is (See Ref., page 394)

$$J_y[N]=|\lambda |\widehat{\delta }\sqrt{\gamma v_FE_ca}\mathrm{sin}(\pi N),$$
(22)
$`\widehat{S}_y`$ being the y-component of the fictitious impurity. The equivalence between $`H_{kin}[\mathrm{\Phi }_s]+H_{bs}`$ and $`H_{EK}^A`$ can be understood, as follows. Starting with low-magnetic fields and at almost perfect transmission, the following commutators can be neglected whatever $`N[0;1]`$ (for frequencies larger than $`\omega _{min}`$; See discussion below)

$`[H_{EK}^A,\widehat{S}_x]`$ $``$ $`i\widehat{\delta }|\lambda |\widehat{S}_z1`$ (23)
$`[H_{EK}^A,\widehat{S}_y]`$ $``$ $`i|\lambda |\widehat{S}_z1.`$ (24)
This implies that $`\widehat{S}_x`$ and $`\widehat{S}_y`$ both can be considered as good quantum numbers: The impurity spin in $`H_{EK}^A`$ can oscillate between the two states $`\widehat{S}_x=1/2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_y=1/2`$. The use of the two-channel anisotropic Kondo model is completely justified, for all $`N[0;1]`$. It is noteworthy that this model can be refermionized and diagonalized; See e.g. Ref., page 401. Another energy scale related to the magnetic field emerges: $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=J_{y}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}/\pi v_Fa=\gamma E_c_0^{}\widehat{\delta }^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi N)/\pi `$. This is associated with the divergence of $`J_y`$. Using the two-channel anisotropic Kondo model, for $`B0`$ I find $`\text{(}\mathrm{}m\{\mathrm{ln}[i\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ]\}=\mathrm{tan}^1[\mathrm{\Gamma }/\omega ]\text{)}`$

$$\delta E=+_{\omega _{min}}^{E_c/\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\mathrm{}m\text{{}\mathrm{ln}[i\mathrm{\Gamma }\omega ]+\mathrm{ln}[i\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\omega ]\text{}}.$$
(25)
Let me comment on the low-frequency (spin) cutoff.

Away from half-integer values of N, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ tends to zero because $`\mathrm{sin}(\pi N)1`$. Then, the coupling $`J_y1`$ is not really affected by the renormalization of the short-distance cutoff $`a`$. As in the absence of the magnetic field, all spin fluctuations get pinned at the time $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. The equilibrium state at the QPC then corresponds to $`\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)\pi [2\pi ]`$ if $`N1/2`$ \[if $`N1/2`$\], and $`J_y\widehat{S}_y<\mathrm{sin}[\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)]>0`$. Approaching the point $`N=1/2`$, in contrast the Kondo resonance vanishes. But now, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ becomes dominant such that $`J_y`$ is flowing off to strong couplings at the finite time $`\mathrm{}/\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Spin fluctuations at the QPC then get pinned also for $`N1/2`$ and $`\sqrt{4\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_s(0)3\pi /2`$. In the presence of the magnetic field, therefore the logarithmic integral on spin fluctuations in Eq. (25) now acquires a natural low-energy cut-off, $`\mathrm{}\omega _{min}=\text{Max}[\mathrm{\Gamma };\mathrm{{\rm Y}}]`$, whatever the value of $`N[0;1]`$. Performing the integration in Eq. (25), then I precisely obtain $`\delta Qb_0^{}(1\widehat{\delta }^2)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi N)\mathrm{ln}(E_c/\mathrm{}\omega _{min})`$.

The charge (and spin) in the dot becomes a “continuous” function of N.

This enables me to allege that the capacitance $`C=Q/V_G`$ displays, instead of a logarithmic singularity, a reduced peak as a function of N; See Eq. (3) and Fig. 3. For a small deviation $`\widehat{n}=(N1/2)`$ from $`N=1/2`$, one gets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{n})\widehat{n}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\widehat{\delta })\widehat{\delta }^2`$, and then

$$\delta C\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ln}\widehat{\delta }:& \widehat{n}\widehat{\delta }\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{ln}\widehat{n}:& \widehat{\delta }\widehat{n}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(26)
Increasing the in-plane magnetic field, i.e. $`\widehat{\delta }`$, then the capacitance peak reduces and becomes more and more broadened. For high fields $`\widehat{\delta }1`$ and $`\delta 0.4`$, only spin-up electrons can be transmitted: $`𝒯_0^{}0`$. One must disregard the spin-down channel at the QPC. Formally, $`\mathrm{}\omega _{min}`$ now exceeds $`E_c`$ and the classical value of the grain charge must be rescaled as: $`Q_c=\varphi _{}(0)/\sqrt{\pi }=[\varphi _c(0)+\varphi _s(0)]/\sqrt{2\pi }N`$. Now, this produces $`\delta E=|\lambda |\gamma E_c\mathrm{cos}(2\pi N)/\pi ^2`$ and then only a weak residual oscillation in $`\delta C=b|\lambda |\mathrm{cos}(2\pi N)`$ for all $`N[0;1]`$, as for “spinless” fermions. The logarithmic part disappears.

To conclude, investigating zero-temperature properties of a large dot coupled to a two-channel anisotropic QPC, I have shown that the steps of the Coulomb staircase function gets immediately smeared out by a finite magnetic field parallel to the 2DEG. This rigorously proves that like the magnetic susceptibility of the Kondo impurity in the two-channel Kondo model, the logarithmic singularity in the capacitance is destroyed by a small channel anisotropy. For high fields, adjusting correctly the voltage at the QPC one reproduces a single-channel QPC model; For $`|\lambda |1`$, the charge entering the dot exhibits only a weak quantum oscillation around its classical value. Experimentally, the prominent smearing of the Coulomb staircase — predicted by increasing the in-plane magnetic field — could be possibly observed for sufficiently low temperatures T, probing (preferably) the capacitance line shapes of the large dot in a single-terminal geometry. To account for nonzero temperature, one must rescale $`\text{Max}[\mathrm{\Gamma };\mathrm{{\rm Y}}]`$ as $`\text{k}_B\text{T}+\text{Max}[\mathrm{\Gamma };\mathrm{{\rm Y}}]`$. Experimentally, it would be crucial to minimize the broadening of the capacitance peaks due to thermal effects. This work is supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.