text:
# ELECTROWEAK SUDAKOV CORRECTIONS AT 2 LOOP LEVEL **footnote *Talk presented at PPP2000 workshop at Chipen, Taiwan, November 2000

## 1 Introduction

High energy experiments in TeV region are planned in the near future to obtain the hints to the fundamental problems in particle physics such as the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking, the gauge hierarchy problem and so on. The precision measurements in this region are expected to give us the important information to construct the scenario favorable up to Plank scale.The possibility of the large extra dimension is not considered in this note. In order to extract these information from experimental data, it is crucial to carry out the theoretical calculations at least in the same level of accuracy in the standard model and in other possible models. It is very important also for the estimation of the background of the production of the new particle.

Recently Ciafaloni and Comelli $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ pointed out that in processes with energy much higher than electroweak scale, the “heavy particle masses” $`M_WM_Z(M)`$ acts as IR cutoff in weak boson loop integrals and resulting IR log corrections give large contributions to cross sections, comparable or larger than QCD corrections. For example, 1 loop log corrections to $`e^+e^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ are $`^\mathrm{?}`$,

$`\sigma ^\mu =\sigma ^{tree}\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W}}\left\{0.6\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{\mu ^2}}+9.4\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{M^2}}1.4\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{Q^2}{M^2}}\right\}\right].`$
UV log IR log Sudakov log

The second and the third terms which vanish in LEP energy region give the dominant corrections in TeV region.

Especially Sudakov double logarisms $`^\mathrm{?}`$ which come from the overlap of the soft and the collinear region of the loop integral give the dominant radiative corrections in the asymptotic regime (Their typical value at $`\sqrt{S}1TeV`$ is $`\frac{\alpha }{4\pi \mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\mathrm{log}^2\frac{S}{M_W^2}6.6\%`$). Since factors like $`\alpha ^n\mathrm{log}^{2n}\frac{S}{M_W^2}`$ (LL), $`\alpha ^n\mathrm{log}^{2n1}\frac{S}{M_W^2}`$ (NLO), $`\mathrm{}`$, may spoil the perturbation expansion, it is necessary to control or resum these contributions to obtain a reliable and precise calculation in extremely high energy processes.

The infrared structure of gauge theory has been extensively investigated and it is well-known that Sudakov logs exponentiate for the form factor in QED $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and QCD $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and that they can be resummed in various physical processes $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The exponentiation of Sudakov logs in these cases results from the gauge symmetry and Lorentz symmetry in the factorization formula of cross sections $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In case of the electroweak theory, the situation is quite different. Since the gauge symmetry is broken and its breaking pattern is off-diagonal, the exponentiation of Sudakov logs in this case is a non-trivial matter. Several discussions on the all order behavior of Sudakov terms have been presented with different results $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ and the explicit 2 loop calculations $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$ imply the exponentiation of Sudakov logs. From these discussions, we can see that the methods valid in QCD can not be applied straightforwardly to electroweak case and adequate modifications are needed

The most striking feature of electroweak Sudakov is that they appear not only in the exclusive processes but also in the inclusive processes since non-abelian charge is not confined $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In non-abelian gauge theory, it is known that Bloch-Nordsieck cancellations occur in leading power when both the sum of the final degenerate states and the initial color average are taken $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In QCD prcesses where initial color averages are always taken due to the color confinement, Sudakov double logs appear only in the end-point region of the phase space where the soft cancellation fails due to the suppression of the real emissions. On the other hand, initial state in electroweak processes are color (isospin) non-singlet and Sudakov logs remain even when the number of weak boson is not counted in the final state. Therefore, it can be said that the effects of symmetry breaking remain even we go up to the extremely high energy in which we usually consider that the gauge symmetry is restored.

In the following sections, we introduce the discussions on all order behavior of Sudakov logs and explain 2-loop calculation of the form factor in detail and discuss on other recent development.

## 2 Discussion on all order behavior of Sudakov logarisms

Discussion on all order behavior of Sudakov logarisms have been presented by several authors $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. The author of $`^\mathrm{?}`$ calculated all order $`\mathrm{ln}^{2n}\frac{S}{M^2}`$ terms in the self-energy in Axial gauge including only the weak boson loop and showed that Sudakov terms does not exponentiate due to the mixing effect $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Ciafaloni and Comelli $`^\mathrm{?}`$ estimated the leading log terms of the form factor in Feynman gauge using soft insertion formula which is the formalism developed in QCD $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Soft insertion formula means that we can obtain leading log terms by inserting the eikonal current at fermion legs, and estimating the diagrams with energy ordering. Their result was that the QED effects and electroweak effects factorize and Sudakov logs exponentiate in operator form but does not exponentiate numerically. Fadin et.al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ gave a general argument using the infrared evolution equation $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which is the differencial equation with respect to the infrared cutoff derived from Gribov’s Bremsstrahlung theorem. They derive two equations, one is for the region where $`\mu M_W`$ with QED kernel and another is for $`\mu M_W`$ with electroweak kernel. The exponentiation as the numerical value is concluded naturally from their recursive form.

## 3 Explicit calculation

Explicit 2 loop calculations of leading logarisms for the form factor are helpful to resolve the controversy discussed above and to construct the rigorous all order proof of exponentiation of electroweak Sudakov. We describe the similarity and the difference between this case and the QCD case concerning the cancellation of the non-exponential factors.

### 3.1 QCD case

2 loop calculations of the leading singularities of the form factor were accomplished many years ago in QED $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and QCD $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

QCD double log corrections for the form factor come from vertex corrections in Feynman gauge. Using the mass regularization for infrared divergences 1-loop result is,

= $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2Q^2}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda ^2}}`$ ,

where $`C_F`$ is the SU(3) Casimir operator for the fundamental representation and $`S`$ is the momentum transfer. At 2 loop level, the leading double logs appear from the ladder diagram, the crossed ladder diagram, and the diagrams including triple gluon coupling as follows,

= $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{(4\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\mathrm{ln}^4{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda }}\times C_F^2`$ ,

= $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{(4\pi ^4)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{ln}^4{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda ^2}}\times \left(C_F^2\frac{1}{2}C_AC_F\right)`$ ,

$`\times 2`$ = $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{(4\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{ln}^4{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda ^2}}\times \frac{1}{2}C_AC_F`$ .

Then the sum of these contributions are exactly a half of the 1-loop contribution squared.The non-exponential terms which appear in the crossed diagram and the diagram with the triple gluon coupling due to the non-abelian nature cancel each other, and the result is consistent with the exponentiation of the Sudakov logarisms.

### 3.2 Electroweak theory

2-loop expricit calculations has been done for self energy in axial gauge by Beenakker and Werthenbach and for the form factor of right-handed fermion in Feynman gauge by Melles$`^\mathrm{?}`$. Here we concentrate on the calculations of the form factor for left-handed fermions $`^\mathrm{?}`$.

The situation become more complicated in electroweak theory than QCD since the gauge symmetry is spontaneously broken and the pattern of the symmetry breaking is not diagonal. In physical processes photon must be treated in semi-inclusive way since it is uncountable, on the other hand, weak bosons can be treated both inclusive and exclusive ways. The process we consider now is the fermion pair production from the SU(2)$``$U(1) singlet source and the infrared divergences by photon loops are regularzed by the fictitious photon mass $`\lambda `$. We must treat gauge bosons with different mass (“mass gap”). Within the leading log approximations, the fermion chirality is conserved and W and Z boson mass can be approximated to be equal and the field of unbroken phase i.e., W and Z can be used though $`SM_W^MM`$. The mixing effect comes from

$`[T^\pm ,Q]0,`$
where $`T^\pm `$ is the SU(2) generator and $`Q=T^3+Y`$ is the charge of fermion. For the right-handed fermion, the gauge group of electroweak interaction is reduced to $`U(1)_QU(1)_{YQ}`$ and the exponentiation become a trivial matter. It also should be noted that if we take $`M^2=\lambda ^2`$, the mixing effects disappear and the calculation becomes same with that for unbroken $`SU(2)U(1)`$ gauge theory with regularization mass $`M`$ and the exponentiation holds as QCD case.

The group factors for each SM boson exchange become,

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\gamma \mathrm{exchange}:e^2Q^2\hfill \\ W\mathrm{exchange}:g^2_{a=1,2}T^aT^a\hfill \\ Z\mathrm{exchange}:{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _W}}(T^3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WQ)(T^3\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WQ)\hfill \\ =g^2T^3T^3+g^2Y^2e^2Q^2\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
Then, 1 loop result turn out to be,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}(g^2C_F+g^2Y^2e^2Q^2)\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}e^2Q^2\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda }}.`$
Here $`C_F`$ denotes the SU(2) Casimir operator for the fundamental representation. At the 2 loop level, there appear 16 diagrams which are classified in 3 groups. That is, ladder diagrams, crossed ladder diagrams (Fig.1) and the diagrams including 3 gauge boson couplings (Fig.2). Here we use the following definitions for brevity,

$`e^2Q^2`$ $``$ $`\gamma ,\left(g^2C_F+g^^2Y^2e^2Q^2\right)(W+Z),`$
$`l`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda ^2}},L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}\pi }}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{M^2}},`$
for the group factors and the loop factors respectively. After the several cancellations among different diagrams, the 2 loop results for ladder diagrams, crossed ladder diagrams, and the diagrams including 3 point coupling turn out to be,

ladder $`=`$ $`(1a.)+(1c.)+(1d.)+(1f.)`$
$`=`$ $`\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}l^4+2\gamma (W+Z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}l^2L^2+(W+Z)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}L^4`$
$`+\underset{¯}{\gamma (W+Z)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}L^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L^3l\right]},`$
crossed $`=`$ $`(1b.)+(1e.)\times 2+(1g.)`$
$`=`$ $`\gamma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}l^4+\{(W+Z)^2g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_VC_F\}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}L^4`$
$`\underset{¯}{+\gamma (W+Z)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}L^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L^3l\right]+2g^2e^2QT^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}L^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L^3l\right]},`$
3 point $`=`$ $`[(2a.)+(2b.)+(2c.)+(2d.)]`$
$`=`$ $`g^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_VC_F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}L^4+\underset{¯}{2g^2e^2QT^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}L^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}L^3l\right]}.`$
Here the underlined terms are the extra terms compared to QCD case which come from the mixing effect. After these terms cancels each other, the sum of these contributions becomes,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(g^2C_2(R)+g^2Y^2e^2Q^2\right)\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{M^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}e^2Q^2\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda ^2}},`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\left(g^2C_2(R)+g^2Y^2e^2Q^2\right)\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{M^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}e^2Q^2\mathrm{ln}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\lambda ^2}}\right]^2`$
which imply the exponentiation of Sudakov form factor.

We can see from this result that

* $`\gamma `$ must be included to extract the correct coefficient of $`\mathrm{ln}^4\frac{S}{M^4}`$.
* Non-exponential factor appear also in ladder diagrams.

The first point comes from the fact that the singularity from the photon which propagates inside the $`W`$ and/or $`Z`$ loop in Figs.1d and 2c is regulated by the $`W`$ and/or $`Z`$ mass $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The gauge invariant set including photon contributions must be included to extract the correct $`\mathrm{ln}^2\frac{S}{M^2}`$ terms. The second is the important difference from QCD. In QCD case, the contributions of the ladder diagrams and similar part of the crossed ladder diagrams remain in final results and those of “3-point” diagrams act only as the counter term against the non-exponential term, while the sum of former two contributions can be extracted from the ordered ladder diagrams. Therefore, the approach by soft insetion formula which is valid for QCD can not be applied straightforwardly to this case and modifications seems to be necessary..

## 4 Discussions

Electroweak log corrections become very important in the processes in TeV region. Since they give large corrections to the cross sections, It is crucial to control them in perturbation series to reduce the uncertainty of theoretical predictions in precision measurements and in the backgroud estimations for the signals of the new physics.

Exponentiation of Sudakov double logarisms seems to be valid from the discussion using the infrared evolution equation and the explicit 2-loop calculations. The resummation of next to leading logarisms were accomplished by K$`\ddot{u}`$hn, Penin and Smirnov $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for fermion external line and by Melles for general external line and for the top Yukawa enhanced part $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

As for the phenomenology, several works have been done. 1-loop $`^\mathrm{?}`$, and 2-loop $`^\mathrm{?}`$ Sudakov-type log corrections to $`e+ef\overline{f}`$ and 1-loop effects in MSSM $`^\mathrm{?}`$ were calculated. Denner and Pozzorini $`^\mathrm{?}`$ presented the complete 1-loop electroweak log corrections for the general processes. Baur $`^\mathrm{?}`$ discussed on the impact of electroweak Sudakov on the W boson mass measurement at LHC.

Above calculations indicate that NLO Sudakov effects are comparable with LO Sudakov effects at the energy around 1 TeV. Therefore, it can be said that we can not yet control the electroweak log corrections within the 1% level and much have to be done from now.

Acknowlegements
The author would like to thank M.Hori and J.Kodaira for useful discussions through the collaboration. He is also grateful to H-n.Li, and W.M.Zhang and all organizers of PPP2000 for the kind invitation to a fruitful, enjoyable workshop. The work of H.K was supported by the Monbusyo Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.10000504.


format: text

text:
# Kondo effect induced by a magnetic field

## I Introduction

Quantum dot devices provide a well-controlled object for studying quantum many-body physics. In many respects, such a device resembles an atom imbedded into a Fermi sea of itinerant electrons. These electrons are provided by the leads attached to the dot. The orbital mixing in the case of quantum dot corresponds to the electron tunneling through the junctions connecting the dot with leads. Voltage $`V_g`$ applied to a gate – an electrode coupled to the dot capacitively – allows one to control the number of electrons $`N`$ on the dot. Almost at any gate voltage an electron must have a finite energy in order to overcome the on-dot Coulomb repulsion and tunnel into the dot. Therefore, the conductance of the device is suppressed at low temperatures (Coulomb blockade phenomenon). The exceptions are the points of charge degeneracy. At these points, two charge states of the dot have the same energy, and an electron can hop on and off the dot without paying an energy penalty. This results in a periodic peak structure in the dependence of the conductance $`G`$ on $`V_g`$. Away from the peaks, in the Coulomb blockade valleys, the charge fluctuations are negligible, and the number of electrons $`N`$ is integer.

Every time $`N`$ is tuned to an odd integer, the dot must carry a half-integer spin. In the simplest case, the spin is $`S=1/2`$, and is due to a single electron residing on the last occupied discrete level of the dot. Thus, the quantum dot behaves as $`S=1/2`$ magnetic impurity imbedded into a tunneling barrier between two massive conductors. It is known since mid-60’s that the presence of such impurities leads to zero-bias anomalies in tunneling conductance, which are adequately explained in the context of the Kondo effect. The advantage of the new experiments is in full control over the “magnetic impurity” responsible for the effect. For example, by varying the gate voltage, $`N`$ can be changed. Kondo effect results in the increased low temperature conductance only in the odd-$`N`$ valleys. The even-$`N`$ valleys nominally correspond to the $`S=0`$ spin state (non-magnetic impurity), and the conductance decreases with lowering the temperature.

However, the enhancement of the low temperature conductance in the even-$`N`$ valleys has been observed recently in both vertical  and lateral  GaAs quantum dots, and in transport through carbon nanotubes . Unlike the real atoms, the energy separation between the discrete states in a quantum dot is fairly small. Therefore, the $`S=0`$ state of a dot with even number of electrons is less robust than the corresponding ground state of a real atom. Because of the exchange interactions between electrons residing on the last doubly occupied level, one of the electrons is promoted to the next (empty) orbital state, and thus a triplet spin state of the dot is formed. Apparently, dots studied in  and  were in a triplet state in the absence of magnetic field. On the other hand, experiments with carbon nanotubes  indicate that in the absence of magnetic field the state with even number of electrons is a singlet.

Application of a magnetic field results in a spin transition in the ground state of a quantum dot  or carbon nanotube . In the former case the Zeeman effect is negligible because of the small $`g`$-factor in GaAs; magnetic field affects mostly the orbital states, making energy of the triplet state higher than that of the singlet. In the latter case, the Zeeman contribution dominates and can exceed the level spacing, i.e., the magnetic field induces the transition to a triplet state. Electron tunneling between the dot and leads results in mixing of the components of the ground state. The mixing involves spin as well as orbital degrees of freedom and yields an enhancement of the low temperature conductance through the dot at the transition point. This enhancement can be viewed as a magnetic field–induced Kondo effect .

In Section II a simple model capable of describing the singlet-triplet transition in Coulomb blockade systems is introduced. In Section III we derive an effective low energy Hamiltonian and establish the Fermi-liquid nature of its ground state. The Hamiltonian is analyzed by means of renormalization group in Sections IV-VI. Generalizations of the model are discussed in Appendices C-E.

Section V is relevant for the experiments  with vertical GaAs quantum dots. In this case the Zeeman energy is very small due to an anomalously small electronic $`g`$-factor in GaAs. The low energy physics in this limit is described by a special version of a two-impurity Kondo model . We show that at zero temperature the linear DC conductance is a monotonous function of a magnetic field, reaching the unitary limit $`4e^2/h`$ at the triplet side of the singlet-triplet transition, and decreasing logarithmically at the singlet side. The Kondo temperature on the triplet side of the transition falls off rapidly from $`T_0`$ at the transition point down to $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ far away from the transition .

The relations between $`T_0,T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$, and the Kondo temperature $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ in the adjacent Coulomb blockade valleys depend on the tunneling amplitudes between the dot and the leads and also on the intradot interactions. If the tunneling preserves the orbital symmetry, as it likely occurs in vertical quantum dots , then $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}T_0`$. Accordingly, at a finite temperature $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}TT_0`$ the Kondo effect in $`N=even`$ valley of Coulomb blockade can be observed only when the system is tuned to the singlet-triplet transition point .

If the tunneling mixes the orbitals, the difference between $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ becomes less pronounced and vanishes if the mixing is strong, see Appendix D. The relation between $`T_0`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ is almost independent on the degree of mixing but depends strongly on the intradot interactions, see Appendices C,D.

In Section VI we discuss the Zeeman splitting–driven transition , relevant for the transport experiments with carbon nanotubes . In this system, the $`g`$-factor is close to its free-electron value, while the orbital effects are suppressed due to a small radius of the nanotube. The low energy physics in this case is described adequately by the single-channel anisotropic Kondo model. Tuning away from the transition points is equivalent to applying a finite magnetic field to the conventional Kondo impurity. The DC conductance has a peak at the transition point at all values of $`T`$, with the corresponding Kondo temperature being of the same order as $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$.

Finally, in Section VII we demonstrate that in a generic case the positions of the peaks of non-linear conductance are not symmetric with respect to the change of the bias polarity. This effect is weak and can be best seen in double-dot systems.

## II The model

We will consider a confined electron system which does not have special symmetries, and therefore the single particle levels in it are non-degenerate. In addition, we assume the electron-electron interaction to be relatively weak (the gas parameter $`r_s1`$). Therefore, discussing the ground state, we concentrate on the transitions which involve only the lowest-spin states. In the case of even number of electrons $`N`$ on the dot, these are states with $`S=0`$ and $`S=1`$. At a sufficiently large level spacing $`\delta ϵ_{+1}ϵ_1`$ between the last occupied ($`1`$) and the first empty orbital level ($`+1`$), the ground state is a singlet at $`B=0`$. Finite magnetic field affects the orbital energies; if it reduces the difference between the energies of the said orbital levels, a transition to a state with $`S=1`$ may occur, as illustrated at Fig. 1. Such a transition involves rearrangement of two electrons between the levels $`n=\pm 1`$. Out of the six states involved, three belong to a triplet $`S=1`$, and three others are singlets ($`S=0`$). The degeneracy of the triplet states is removed only by Zeeman energy. The three singlet states, in general, are not degenerate with each other. To describe qualitatively the transition between a singlet and the triplet in the ground state, it is sufficient to consider the following Hamiltonian:

$$H_{dot}=\underset{ns}{}ϵ_nd_{ns}^{}d_{ns}E_S𝐒^2E_ZS^z+E_C\left(N𝒩\right)^2.$$
(1)
Here, $`N=_{s,n}d_{ns}^{}d_{ns}`$ is the total number of electrons occupying the levels $`n=\pm 1`$, operator

$`𝐒={\displaystyle \underset{nss^{}}{}}d_{ns}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈_{ss^{}}}{2}}d_{ns^{}}`$

is the corresponding total spin of the dot ($`𝝈`$ are the Pauli matrices), and the parameters $`E_S`$, $`E_C`$, and

$$E_Z=g_d\mu _BB,$$
(2)
are the exchange, charging, and Zeeman energies respectively . We restrict our attention to the very middle of a Coulomb blockade valley with an even number of electrons in the dot (that is modelled by setting the dimensionless gate voltage $`𝒩`$ to $`𝒩=2`$). We assume that the level spacing $`\delta `$ is tunable, e.g., by means of a magnetic field $`B`$: $`\delta =\delta (B)`$.

The lowest energy singlet state and the three components of the competing triplet state can be labeled as $`|S,S^z`$ in terms of the total spin $`S`$ and its $`z`$-projection $`S^z`$,

$`|1,1=d_{+1}^{}d_1^{}|0,`$ (3)
$`|1,1=d_{+1}^{}d_1^{}|0,`$ (4)
$`|1,0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(d_{+1}^{}d_1^{}+d_{+1}^{}d_1^{}\right)|0,`$ (5)
$`|0,0=d_1^{}d_1^{}|0,`$ (6)
where $`|0`$ is the state with the two levels empty. From (1), the energies of these states satisfy

$$E_{|S,S^z}E_{|0,0}=K_0SE_ZS^z,K_0=\delta 2E_S$$
(7)
If, for example, $`K_0>0`$ at $`B=0`$, the ground state of the dot in the absence of the magnetic field is a singlet $`|0,0`$. Finite field shifts the singlet and triplet states due to the orbital effect, and also leads to Zeeman splitting of the components of the triplet. As $`B`$ is varied, the level crossings occur (see Fig. 1). The first such crossing takes place at $`B=B^{}`$, for which

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=E_{|0,0}E_{|1,1}=0.$$
(8)
At this point the two states, $`|1,1`$ and $`|0,0`$, form a doubly degenerate ground state of the dot.

If leads are attached to the dot, the dot-lead tunneling results in the hybridization of the degenerate (singlet and triplet) states. The characteristic energy scale $`T_0`$ associated with the hybridization can be in different relations with the Zeeman splitting at field $`B=B^{}`$.

If $`E_Z(B^{})T_0`$, then the Zeeman splitting can be neglected, and at the $`B=B^{}`$ point all four states (4) can be considered as degenerate. This limit adequately describes a quantum dot formed in a two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) at the GaAs-AlGaAs interface, subject to a magnetic field . Indeed, the orbital effect of a magnetic field is very strong in GaAs due to a smallness of the effective mass, so that a relatively weak magnetic field $`B^{}`$ suffices to induce the spin transition. In addition, the electronic $`g`$-factor in GaAs is also small. Both these factors contribute to the smallness of the Zeeman energy $`E_Z(B^{})=g_d\mu _BB^{}`$ compared to $`T_0`$. This case is studied in details in Section V.

The opposite limit $`E_Z(B^{})T_0`$ is realized in carbon nanotubes . In nanotubes, on the one hand, the effect of magnetic field on orbital motion is very weak due to their small diameter. On the other hand, the $`g`$-factor is close to its free electron value $`g=2`$, yielding an appreciable Zeeman splitting even in a magnetic field of moderate strength. This limit of the theory is addressed in Section VI.

In order to study the transport problem, we need to introduce into the model the Hamiltonian of the leads and a term that describes the tunneling. We choose them in the following form:

$`H_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha nks}{}}\xi _{ks}c_{\alpha nks}^{}c_{\alpha nks},\xi _{ks}=\xi _k{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}g_c\mu _BB`$ (9)
$`H_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha nn^{}ks}{}}t_{\alpha nn^{}}c_{\alpha nks}^{}d_{n^{}s}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (10)
Here $`\alpha =R,L`$ for the right/left lead, and $`n=\pm 1`$ for the two orbitals participating in the singlet-triplet transition; $`k`$ labels states of the continuum spectrum in the leads, and $`s=\pm 1`$ is the spin index. The single-particle energies $`\xi _{ks}`$ include the direct effect of the external magnetic field on the electrons in the leads.

In writing (9)-(10), we had in mind the vertical dot device , where the potential creating lateral confinement of electrons most probably does not vary much over the thickness of the dot . Therefore we have assumed that the electron orbital motion perpendicular to the axis of the device can be characterized by the same quantum number $`n`$ inside the dot and in the leads. Presence of two orbital channels $`n=\pm 1`$ is important for the explanation of experiments , in which the orbital effect of the magnetic field dominates. In the case of large Zeeman splitting, the problem effectively becomes a single-channel one , as we will see in Section VI.

## III Low Energy Hamiltonian

We will demonstrate the derivation of the effective low energy Hamiltonian under a simplifying assumption

$$t_{\alpha nn^{}}=t_\alpha \delta _{nn^{}}.$$
(11)
It has been shown previously  that, despite its simplicity, Eq. (11) still allows to understand, at least qualitatively, the most interesting results of the experiments . Some of the features not captured by (11) will be discussed later on.

The advantage of (11) is that it allows us to perform a rotation in the R-L space

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{nks}\\ \varphi _{nks}\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{t_L^2+t_R^2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_R& t_L\\ t_L& t_R\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_{Rnks}\\ c_{Lnks}\end{array}\right),$$
(12)
after which the $`\varphi `$ field decouples from the dot:

$$H_T=\sqrt{t_L^2+t_R^2}\underset{nks}{}\psi _{nks}^{}d_{ns}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.$$
(13)
The Hamiltonian of the system then acquires a form

$$=H_0(\varphi )+H(\psi ),$$
(14)
where $`H_0(\varphi )=_{nks}\xi _{ks}\varphi _{nks}^{}\varphi _{nks}`$ with $`\xi _{ks}`$ given by Eq. (9) is the free-electron Hamiltonian of the $`\varphi `$-particles, and

$`H(\psi )=H_0(\psi )+H_{dot}+H_T,`$ (15)
$`H_0(\psi )={\displaystyle \underset{nks}{}}\xi _{ks}\psi _{nks}^{}\psi _{nks}`$ (16)
describes the $`\psi `$-particles interacting with the dot via the tunneling Hamiltonian (13).

The physical quantity we are interested in is the linear conductance of the system $`G`$. The particle current operator is defined as

$$j=\frac{d}{dt}\frac{1}{2}(N_LN_R),N_\alpha =\underset{nks}{}c_{\alpha nks}^{}c_{\alpha nks}$$
(17)
In order to take a full advantage of the decomposition (14), we need to express $`j`$ via $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ of Eq. (12). When the resulting expression is substituted into the Kubo formula (see Appendix B for details of the calculation), it yields

$$G=\underset{ns}{}g_0𝑑\epsilon (df/d\epsilon )\left[\pi \nu \mathrm{Im}𝒯_{ns}(\epsilon )\right].$$
(18)
Here $`𝒯_{ns}`$ are the diagonal elements of the $`𝒯`$-matrix for the Hamiltonian $`H(\psi )`$, defined in a usual fashion (see Appendix B), $`f`$ is the Fermi function, $`\nu `$ is the density of states in the leads, and

$$g_0=\frac{e^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\left(\frac{2t_Lt_R}{t_L^2+t_R^2}\right)^2.$$
(19)
In order to bring $`H(\psi )`$ to the form convenient for further analysis, we explore the existence of a one-to-one correspondence between the low energy states of the dot (4) and the states of two fictitious $`1/2`$-spins :

$`|1,1|_1_2,`$ (20)
$`|1,1|_1_2,`$ (21)
$`|1,0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|_1_2+|_1_2),`$ (22)
$`|0,0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}(|_1_2|_1_2),`$ (23)
This correspondence allows one to represent any operator acting on the states (4) in terms of the spin-$`1/2`$ operators $`𝐒_{1,2}`$. By comparing directly matrix elements, one can check the validity of the following relations:

$`𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{ss^{}}{}}d_{ns}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈_{ss^{}}}{2}}d_{n^{}s^{}}𝒫{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{n,n^{}}}{2}}𝐒_++{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{n,n^{}}}{2\sqrt{2}}}(𝐒_{}+2in𝐓)`$ (24)
$`𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}d_{ns}^{}d_{n^{}s}𝒫n\delta _{n,n^{}}\left[\left(𝐒_1𝐒_2\right)1/4+n\right]`$ (25)
Here $`𝒫=_{S,S^z}|S,S^zS,S^z|`$ is a projector onto the low energy multiplet (4), $`𝝈=(\sigma ^x,\sigma ^y,\sigma ^z)`$ are the Pauli matrices, and

$$𝐒_\pm =𝐒_1\pm 𝐒_2,𝐓=𝐒_1\times 𝐒_2.$$
(26)
Eqs. (24)-(25) should be understood in a sense that the operators in the l.h.s. obey the same algebra as those in the r.h.s. The states (4) are the eigenstates of the operators $`𝐒_+`$ and $`\left(𝐒_1𝐒_2\right)`$, while $`𝐒_{}`$ and $`𝐓`$ describe transitions between the singlet state and the components of the triplet. Some useful relations involving these operators are listed in Appendix A.

We can now simplify $`H(\psi )`$ by integrating out the virtual transitions to the states with $`𝒩\pm 1`$ electrons on the dot. This is done by means of the Schrieffer-Wolff transformation or, equivalently, of the second order of the Brilluin-Wigner perturbation theory. Using Eqs. (24)-(26), the result of this procedure is written in terms of the operators $`𝐒_{1,2}`$ as:

$`H=H_0(\psi )+K(𝐒_1𝐒_2)E_ZS_+^z+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}H_n,`$ (27)
$`H_n=J(𝐬_{nn}𝐒_+)+Vn\rho _{nn}(𝐒_1𝐒_2)`$ (28)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{I}{\sqrt{2}}}\left[(𝐬_{n,n}𝐒_{})+2in(𝐬_{n,n}𝐓)\right].`$ (29)
Here we introduced the particle and spin densities in the continuum:

$$\rho _{nn^{}}=\underset{kk^{}s}{}\psi _{nks}^{}\psi _{n^{}k^{}s},𝐬_{nn^{}}=\underset{kk^{}ss^{}}{}\psi _{nks}^{}\frac{𝝈_{ss^{}}}{2}\psi _{n^{}k^{}s^{}}.$$
(30)
The bare values of the coupling constants are

$$J=I=2V=2(t_L^2+t_R^2)/E_C.$$
(31)
We did not include into (27)-(29) some terms, that are irrelevant for the low energy renormalization. The contribution of these terms to the conductance is featureless at the energy scale of the order of $`T_0`$ (see the next section), where the Kondo resonance develops. The Schrieffer-Wolff transformation also produces a small correction to the energy gap $`K=E_{|1,0}E_{|0,0}`$ between the states $`|1,0`$ and $`|0,0`$, so that $`KK_0`$. However, this difference is not important, since it only affects the value of the control parameter at which the singlet-triplet transition occurs, but not the nature of the transition.

The effective Hamiltonian (27)-(29) can be simplified further by excluding the magnetic field acting on the electrons in the leads. Indeed, according to Eq. (18), the linear conductance is determined by the scattering properties of the $`\psi `$-particles in the vicinity of the Fermi level. It is therefore convenient to redefine the single particle energies in such a way that being measured from the corresponding Fermi levels they are independent of the spin direction $`\xi _{ks}\xi _k`$,

$$H_0=\underset{nks}{}\xi _k\psi _{nks}^{}\psi _{nks},$$
(32)
cf. Eq. (16). Most of the operators in the r.h.s. of (29) are invariant with respect to the redefinition of energies. The only correction that appears is

$$\underset{n}{}Js_{nn}^z_0S_+^z=\nu Jg_c\mu _BBS_+^z,$$
(33)
where $`s_{nn}^z_0`$ is ground state average of the spin density in the presence of the magnetic field (Note that $`J`$ here is the bare value of the exchange amplitude). This correction can be readily absorbed into $`E_Z`$ and can be cast in the form of a small (since $`\nu J1`$) tunneling-induced correction to the $`g`$-factor $`g_d`$ of the dot’s electrons \[see Eq. (2)\], indistinguishable from other types of corrections . Thus, not quite unexpectedly , the direct Zeeman coupling of the magnetic field to the electrons in the leads has little influence on the properties of the system.

There were several simplifying assumptions involved in the derivation of the effective Hamiltonian (27)-(29). Nevertheless, we believe it provides an adequate description of the low temperature physics in the vicinity of the singlet-triplet transition. The dot interacts via tunneling with four species, or channels, of conduction electrons. At the same time, the dot behaves like a composite two-spin impurity. Obviously, it takes only two channels to screen such an impurity. By analogy with the multichannel Kondo model  one should expect that in the absence of special symmetry no more than two channels are coupled to the dot in the effective low energy Hamiltonian.

In the above derivation of the effective two-channel Hamiltonian we entirely ignored the multilevel structure of the dot and also adopted a simplified description of intradot Coulomb interaction. The presence of many energy levels in the dot is important at the energies above the single particle level spacing $`\delta `$, while the Kondo physics emerges at the energy scale well below $`\delta `$. These levels result merely in a renormalization of the parameters of the effective low energy Hamiltonian . One only needs to consider this renormalization for deriving the relation between the parameters $`t_{\alpha nn^{}}`$ of the low energy Hamiltonian (1), (9) and (10) to the “bare” constants of the model defined in a wide $`(ϵ_F)`$ band. On the other hand, using the effective low energy Hamiltonian, one can calculate, in principle, the observable quantities such as conductance $`G(T)`$ and other susceptibilities of the system at low temperatures ($`T\delta `$), and establish the relations between them, which is our main goal.

The two-parameter $`(E_C,E_S)`$ description of the intradot Coulomb interaction, see Eq. (1), is justified as long as Random Matrix Theory (RMT) is applicable . Small dots , containing only a few electrons, can not be described in the framework of RMT. Characterization of the interaction in such systems requires introduction of additional parameters. Respectively, the part of the effective Hamiltonian which describes the interaction of the dot with itinerant electrons contains some additional \[compared to Eq. (29)\] constants, see Eq. (C2). Similar complications arise if the restriction (11) on the tunneling amplitudes is lifted, see Eq. (D3). Although the Hamiltonians (D3) and (C2) appear to be different and more cumbersome than Eq. (29), all three models turn out to be identical as far as one is interested in the low-temperature properties of the system. We will see in the next section that the three constants, $`J`$, $`V`$, and $`I`$ of the exchange Hamiltonian (29) grow in the course of renormalization. At a sufficiently advanced stage of the renormalization group procedure, these constants significantly exceed their starting values. It turns out, see Appendices C and D, that at such a stage the Hamiltonians (D3) and (C2) generate the same renormalization group (RG) flow as Eq. (29) does.

Note that the expression of the current operator (17) in terms of the fields $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ depends strongly on the manner in which $`\psi ,\varphi `$ are composed from the original conduction electrons representing the left and the right leads. Therefore, lifting the restriction (11) results in modification of Eqs. (18), which express the DC conductance $`G`$ through the properties of $`\psi `$-particles. In Section VII below we study in details the corresponding generalization of Eq. (18) onto the case of large Zeeman energy.

Also note that Eqs. (27)-(29) are valid only in the vicinity of the singlet-triplet transition. Far away from the transition, the system’s properties can be much more complicated compared to the predictions based on (27)-(29). An example of such non-universal behavior is discussed in Appendix E.

The Hamiltonian (27)-(29) is still very complex and its exact treatment is very difficult, if possible at all. Fortunately, there exists a strong argument in favor of the Fermi-liquid nature of the ground state of (27)-(29). Indeed, formally, (27)-(29) resembles the effective Hamiltonian of the two-impurity Kondo model (2IKM), for which $`H_n`$ is replaced by

$$H_n^{2IKM}=J\left(𝐬_{nn}𝐒_+\right)+I\left(𝐬_{n,n}𝐒_{}\right)$$
(34)
and the parameter $`K`$ characterizes the strength of the RKKY interaction. It is known  that 2IKM may undergo a phase transition at some special value of $`K`$. At this point, the system may exhibit non-Fermi liquid properties. However that this can happen  only if $`H`$ is invariant with respect to the particle-hole transformation

$`\psi _{nks}s\psi _{n,k,s}^{}.`$

The two extra terms in (29) as compared to (34) violate this invariance. Therefore, the symmetry that warrants the existence of the non-Fermi liquid state is absent in our problem. The logarithmic grow of the two extra terms in (29) at low energies  precludes the possibility that the RG flow passes anywhere near the 2IKM non-Fermi liquid fixed point.

## IV Scaling Analysis

To gain an insight into the low-energy properties of our model, we apply the “poor man’s” scaling technique . The procedure consists of a successive integration out of the high-energy degrees of freedom and yields a set of scaling equations

$`dJ/d=\nu (J^2+I^2),`$ (35)
$`dI/d=2\nu I(J+V),`$ (36)
$`dV/d=2\nu I^2`$ (37)
with the initial conditions (31). Here $`=\mathrm{ln}(\delta /D)`$, and $`\nu `$ is the density of states in the leads; the initial value of the high energy cutoff $`D`$ is $`D=\delta `$, see the discussion after Eq. (31). The scaling procedure also generates corrections to $`K`$. In the following we absorb these corrections in the re-defined value of $`K`$. Equations (36) are valid in the perturbative regime and as long as

$`D\left|K\right|,E_Z,T.`$

At certain value of the scale, $`=_0`$, the inverse coupling constants simultaneously reach zero:

$`1/J\left(_0\right)=1/I\left(_0\right)=1/V\left(_0\right)=0.`$

This can be used to define a characteristic energy scale of the problem $`T_0`$ through the equation

$`\mathrm{ln}(\delta /T_0)=_0.`$

The value of $`T_0`$ is obviously non-universal. It is convenient to parametrize $`T_0`$ by a value of constant $`c`$ in the expression resembling the usual definition of Kondo temperature:

$$T_0=\delta \mathrm{exp}[c/\nu J];$$
(38)
here $`J=J(=0)`$ is given by Eq. (31). For the special choice (11) of the tunneling amplitudes it was found numerically  that $`c=0.36`$. It is instructive to compare $`T_0`$ with the Kondo temperature $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$, corresponding to $`K=\delta `$ at the triplet side of the singlet-triplet transition (see the next Section),

$$T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}=\delta \mathrm{exp}[1/\nu J],$$
(39)
and with the Kondo temperature $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ in the adjacent Coulomb blockade valleys with $`N=odd`$. In the latter case, only one of the two orbitals $`n=\pm 1`$ in the dot is involved in the corresponding effective Hamiltonian, which takes the form of a single-channel $`S=1/2`$ Kondo model. The corresponding exchange amplitude is $`J_{\mathrm{odd}}=4(t_L^2+t_R^2)/E_C=2J`$, which yields

$$T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}=\delta \mathrm{exp}[1/2\nu J].$$
(40)
\[note that (39) and (40) are also valid only for the model (11)\]. In the limit $`\nu J0`$ Eqs. (38)-(40) imply that

$`T_0T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}.`$

This inequality explains why the Kondo effect at the singlet-triplet transition point in the $`N=even`$ valley appears more pronounced than that in the $`N=odd`$ valleys , and why the experiments with vertical quantum dots failed to detect the Kondo effect away from the transition when the dot definitely was in the triplet state .

The solution of the RG equations (36) can be expanded near $`=_0`$. To the first order in $`_0=\mathrm{ln}D/T_0`$, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{\nu J}=\frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{\nu I}=\frac{\lambda 1}{2\nu V}=\left(\lambda +1\right)\mathrm{ln}(D/T_0),$$
(41)
where

$$\lambda =2+\sqrt{5}4.2.$$
(42)
It should be emphasized that the constant $`\lambda `$ is determined by the properties of the solutions of (36) at large $``$ and is universal in the sense that it’s value does not depend on the bare values of the coupling constants.

The solution (41) can be used to calculate the differential conductance at high temperature $`T\left|K\right|,T_0`$. In this regime, the coupling constants are still small, and the conductance can be calculated perturbatively from the Hamiltonian (27)-(29) with renormalized parameters and formula (18). This results in

$$G/G_0=\frac{A}{\left[\mathrm{ln}(T/T_0)\right]^2},$$
(43)
where $`G_0=4g_0`$ and

$`A=\left(3\pi ^2/8\right)\left(\lambda +1\right)^2\left[1+\lambda +\left(\lambda 1\right)^2/8\right]0.9`$

is a numerical constant. At low temperature, the RG flow (36) terminates at either $`D|K|`$ (which corresponds to the relatively strong orbital effect of the magnetic field), or at $`DE_Z`$ (weak orbital effect). We consider these two cases separately.

## V Singlet-triplet transition

In this section, we assume that the Zeeman energy is negligibly small compared to all other energy scales. At high temperature $`T|K|`$, the conductance is given by Eq. (43). At low temperature $`T|K|`$ and away from the singlet-triplet degeneracy point, $`|K|T_0`$, the RG flow yielding Eq. (43) terminates at energy $`D|K|`$. On the triplet side of the transition,

$`KT_0,`$

the two spins $`𝐒_{1,2}`$ are locked together into a triplet. The system is therefore described by the effective two-channel Kondo model with $`S=1`$ impurity, obtained from Eqs. (27)-(29) by projecting out the singlet state and dropping the no longer relevant potential scattering term:

$$H_{\mathrm{triplet}}=H_0+J\underset{n}{}(𝐬_{nn}𝐒).$$
(44)
Here $`J`$ is given by the solution $`J()`$ of Eq. (36), taken at $`=^{}=\mathrm{ln}(\delta /|K|)`$, which corresponds to $`D=|K|`$. With further decrease of $`D`$ the renormalization of the exchange amplitude $`J`$ is governed by the standard RG equation

$$dJ/d=\nu J^2,>^{}.$$
(45)
The solution of Eq. (45),

$`1/\nu J()1/\nu J(^{})=^{},`$

can be also written as $`1/\nu J=\mathrm{ln}(D/T_K)`$ in terms of the running bandwidth $`D`$ and the Kondo temperature

$$T_K(K)=|K|\mathrm{exp}\left[1/\nu J(^{})\right].$$
(46)
Substituting here the asymptote of $`J(^{})`$ from Eq. (41) we obtain

$$\frac{T_K}{T_0}=\left(\frac{T_0}{|K|}\right)^\lambda .$$
(47)
This result is universal and is valid in the vicinity of the transition point. To clarify what does the ”vicinity“ mean, we again rely on the model (11), for which Eqs. (36) are valid for all $`|K|\delta `$. Expansion of the solution of Eqs. (36) near the weak coupling fixed point $`=0`$ and the substitution of $`J(^{})`$ into (46) results in the large-$`|K|`$ asymptote of $`T_K(K)`$:

$$\frac{T_K(K)}{T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}}=\frac{\delta }{|K|},$$
(48)
where $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ is given by Eq. (39). Comparison of (47) and (48) shows that the two asymptotes match at

$`|K|/T_0=(\delta /T_0)^\mu ,\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1/c2}{\lambda 1}}0.24,`$

which gives the upper limit of the validity of Eq. (47): $`|K|/T_0(\delta /T_0)^\mu `$. From Eqs. (47),(48) follows that the larger is $`|K|`$ the smaller $`T_K`$ is. In fact, the universal part $`T_K(K)`$, Eq. (39), suffices to describe a fall of $`T_K`$ by an order of magnitude for realistic values of the parameters for a vertical quantum dot device .

For a given $`|K|T,T_0`$ the linear conductance can be cast into the scaling form,

$$G/G_0=F\left(T/T_K\right)$$
(49)
where $`F\left(x\right)`$ is a smooth function that interpolates between $`F\left(x1\right)=\left(\pi ^2/2\right)(\mathrm{ln}x)^2`$ and $`F\left(0\right)=1`$. It coincides with the scaled resistivity

$`F(T/T_K)=\rho (T/T_K)/\rho (0)`$

for the symmetric two channel $`S=1`$ Kondo model. The conductance at $`T=0`$ (the unitary limit value) is $`G_0=4g_0`$, see Eq. (19). Equation (49) remains valid not too far away from the transition point, where the universal description (27)-(29) is applicable. At large $`|K|`$ the conductance exhibit additional features (an example is discussed in Appendix E). However, smallness of $`T_K`$ renders these features difficult to observe.

On the singlet side of the transition,

$`KT_0,`$

the scaling terminates at $`DK`$, and the low-energy effective Hamiltonian is

$`H_{\mathrm{singlet}}=H_0{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}V{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n\rho _{nn},`$

where $`V`$ is the renormalized scattering amplitude $`V()`$ taken at $`=^{}=\mathrm{ln}(\delta /|K|)`$. The temperature dependence of the conductance saturates at $`TK`$, reaching the value

$$G/G_0=\frac{B}{\left[\mathrm{ln}(K/T_0)\right]^2},B=\left(\frac{3\pi }{8}\frac{\lambda 1}{\lambda +1}\right)^20.5.$$
(50)
This result is universal in the vicinity of the transition.

At $`T=0`$ Eqs. (49) and (50) predict different dependence on the parameter $`K`$ which is used for tuning through the transition. At positive $`K`$, conductance decreases with the increase of $`K`$, while at $`KT_0`$ conductance $`G`$ is independent of $`K`$, see Fig. 2. While the conductance $`G`$ is a monotonous function of $`K`$ at $`T=0`$, it develops a peak at the singlet-triplet transition point $`K=0`$ at high temperature $`TT_0`$.

## VI Transition Driven by Zeeman Splitting

If the Zeeman energy is large, the RG flow (36) terminates at $`DE_Z`$. The effective Hamiltonian, valid at the energies $`DE_Z`$ is obtained by projecting (27)-(29) onto the states $`|1,1`$ and $`|0,0`$. These states differ by a flip of a spin of a single electron (see Fig. 3), and are the counterparts of the spin-up and spin-down states of $`S=1/2`$ impurity in the conventional Kondo problem. It is therefore convenient to switch to the notations

$$|1,1=|,|0,0=|,$$
(51)
and to describe the transitions between the two states in terms of the (pseudo)spin operator

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐒}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ss^{}}{}}|s𝝈_{ss^{}}s^{}|,`$

built from the states (51).

Among the various operators in (27)-(29) that act on the states of the dot only the following have non-zero matrix elements between the states (51):

$`𝒫^{}S_+^z𝒫^{}=\stackrel{~}{S}^z+1/2,𝒫^{}(𝐒_1𝐒_2)𝒫^{}=\stackrel{~}{S}^z1/4,`$
$`𝒫^{}S_{}^\pm 𝒫^{}=\sqrt{2}\stackrel{~}{S}^\pm ,𝒫^{}T^\pm 𝒫^{}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}}\stackrel{~}{S}^\pm ,`$
where $`𝒫^{}=_s|ss|`$. Using these relations, we obtain from (27)-(29)

$`H=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{nks}{}}\xi _k\psi _{nks}^{}\psi _{nks}\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}^z`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[Js_{nn}^z\left(\stackrel{~}{S}^z+1/2\right)+Vn\rho _{nn}\left(\stackrel{~}{S}^z1/4\right)\right]`$
$`I(s_{1,1}^+\stackrel{~}{S}^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.),`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E_ZK`$, see Eq. (8). It is now convenient to transform (54) to a form which is diagonal in the orbital indexes $`n`$. This is achieved by relabeling the fields according to

$`\psi _{+1,k,}=a_{k,},\psi _{1,k,}=a_{k,},`$ (55)
$`\psi _{1,k,}=b_{k,},\psi _{+1,k,}=b_{k,},`$ (56)
which yields

$`H=`$ $`H_0\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}^z`$ (59)
$`+V_as_a^z+J_zs_a^z\stackrel{~}{S}^z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}J_{}\left(s_a^+\stackrel{~}{S}^{}+s_a^{}\stackrel{~}{S}^+\right)`$
$`+V_bs_b^z+J_z^{}s_b^z\stackrel{~}{S}^z,`$
where $`H_0`$ is a free-particle Hamiltonian for $`a,b`$ electrons, and $`𝐬_a=_{kk^{}ss^{}}a_{ks}^{}\left(𝝈_{ss^{}}/2\right)a_{k^{}s^{}}`$ is the spin density for $`a`$-electrons (with a similar definition for $`𝐬_b`$). The coupling constants in (59),

$`V_a=(JV)/2,J_z=J+2V,J_{}=2I,`$ (60)
$`V_b=(J+V)/2,J_z^{}=J2V`$ (61)
are expressed through the solutions of the RG equations (36) taken at $`=^{}=\mathrm{ln}(\delta /E_Z)`$.

Eq. (69) contains unusual terms $`V_is_i^z`$, which have a meaning of a magnetic field acting locally on the conduction electrons at the impurity site. The appearance of these terms is a price of the finiteness of the magnetic field, which breaks spin-rotational invariance. Fortunately, these terms do not change significantly properties of the model. Their main effect is to produce a small correction to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, through creating a non-zero expectation value $`s_i^z`$. This correction is not important, since it merely shifts the degeneracy point. In addition, $`V_is_i^z`$ lead to insignificant corrections to the densities of states . In the following, we will discard these terms.

The scaling equations for the coupling constants in (59) take the standard form

$$dJ_z/d=\nu J_{}^2,dJ_{}/d=\nu J_zJ_{},>^{};$$
(62)
$`J_z^{}`$ is not renormalized in this order of perturbation theory, but acquires a negative correction in the next order: $`dJ_z^{}/d=\frac{1}{2}\nu ^2J_{}^2J_z^{}`$. In addition, $`J_z^{}`$ initially is smaller than $`J_z`$ (for $`E_Z=\delta `$, for example, $`J_z^{}`$ simply vanishes). Therefore the $`b`$-dependent part of (59) can be ignored, and the resulting effective Hamiltonian is that of a single-channel $`S=1/2`$ anisotropic Kondo model .

The Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ depends on $`E_Z`$. For the model (11), as follows from Eqs. (31) and (61), the exchange at $`E_Z=\delta `$ is isotropic: $`J_z=J_{}=2J`$ (where $`J`$ is given by (31)). Therefore the Kondo temperature $`T_K^{\mathrm{Zeeman}}`$ corresponding to $`E_Z=\delta `$ satisfies

$`T_K^{\mathrm{Zeeman}}=T_K^{\mathrm{odd}},`$

see Eq. (40). At lower $`E_Z`$ the Kondo temperature becomes larger. Interestingly, the isotropy of the exchange in (59) is preserved in the regime when Eqs. (36) can be linearized near $`=0`$. The corresponding asymptote of $`T_K(E_Z)`$ is

$$\frac{T_K(E_Z)}{T_K^{\mathrm{Zeeman}}}=\left(\frac{\delta }{E_Z}\right)^{1/2}$$
(63)
When $`E_Z`$ approaches $`T_0`$ one can use Eqs. (41) to calculate initial conditions for (62). From (41) and (61) follows that the difference between $`J_z`$ and $`J_{}`$ in this regime is very small: $`J_z/J_{}=\sqrt{\lambda }/21.02`$. Therefore, the anisotropy of the exchange can be neglected in the universal regime as well, and we obtain

$$\frac{T_K}{T_0}=\left(\frac{T_0}{E_Z}\right)^{1/\lambda }.$$
(64)
The asymptotes (63) and (64) match at

$`E_Z/T_0=(\delta /T_0)^\mu ^{},\mu ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{31/c}{12/\lambda }}0.42,`$

which separates their regions of applicability. The dependence of $`T_K`$ on $`E_Z`$ appears to be much weaker than the dependence of $`T_K`$ on $`K`$ in the previous section, and practically saturates in the regime (64).

The linear conductance is given by \[cf. Eq. (18)\]

$$G=\underset{s}{}g_0𝑑\epsilon (df/d\epsilon )\left[\pi \nu \mathrm{Im}𝒯_s^a(\epsilon )\right],$$
(65)
where $`𝒯_s^a`$ is the $`𝒯`$-matrix for the $`a`$-particles with spin $`s`$; $`𝒯_s^a`$ does not depend on $`s`$ if the term $`V_as_a^z`$ in (59) is neglected. The distance to the degeneracy point $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (59) plays the part of the Zeeman splitting of the impurity spin in the conventional Kondo effect. At $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ the Kondo resonance develops: Regardless the initial anisotropy of the exchange constants in Eq. (69), the conductance in the universal regime (when $`T`$ approaches the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$ or lower) is given by

$$G=G_0f(T/T_K),$$
(66)
where $`f(x)`$ is a smooth function interpolating between $`f(0)=1`$ and $`f(x1)=(3\pi ^2/16)(\mathrm{ln}x)^2`$. Function $`f(T/T_K)`$ coincides with the scaled resistivity for the single channel $`S=1/2`$ Kondo model and its detailed shape is known . Note that in (66) the zero-temperature conductance $`G_0=2g_0`$ is by a factor of 2 smaller than that in Eqs. (43),(49),(50).

At finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_K`$, the scaling trajectory (62) terminates at $`D\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Below this energy scale the spin-flip scattering processes are suppressed. As a result, at $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the linear conductance is given by

$$G=G_0\frac{\pi ^2/16}{\left[\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Delta }/T_K)\right]^2}$$
(67)
and is independent of temperature.

## VII Spin filtering and asymmetry of the non-linear conductance caused by Zeeman splitting

The low-temperature properties of the system exhibiting the Zeeman–splitting–driven Kondo effect can be described by a single-channel anisotropic Kondo Hamiltonian

$`=`$ $`H_0(\varphi )+H_0(\psi )\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{S}^z`$ (69)
$`+Us^z+J_zs^z\stackrel{~}{S}^z+{\displaystyle \frac{J_{}}{2}}\left(s^+\stackrel{~}{S}^{}+s^{}\stackrel{~}{S}^+\right),`$
where $`𝐬=_{kk^{}ss^{}}\psi _{ks}^{}\left(𝝈_{ss^{}}/2\right)\psi _{k^{}s^{}}`$. This description is valid regardless the assumption (11). The operators $`\psi _{ks}`$ are certain linear combinations of the conduction electron operators from the left and right leads. When the restriction (11) is lifted, the coefficients of such linear relation are $`s`$-dependent :

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{ks}\\ \varphi _{ks}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\vartheta _s& \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _s\\ \mathrm{sin}\vartheta _s& \mathrm{cos}\vartheta _s\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_{Rks}\\ c_{Lks}\end{array}\right).$$
(70)
Perhaps, the simplest possible generalization of (11) yielding $`\vartheta _{+1}\vartheta _1`$ in (70) is $`t_{\alpha nn^{}}=t_{\alpha n}\delta _{nn^{}}`$ \[see Appendix E, Eq. (E1)\], in which case $`\mathrm{tan}\vartheta _s=t_{Ls}/t_{Rs}`$.

The $`s`$-dependence of the coefficients in (70) may lead to interesting effects. We consider the linear regime first. It is convenient to split the current operator (17) into two parts,

$`j=j_0+\delta j,`$

which are respectively bi-linear and quadratic in the operators $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$. Using Eq. (70) we obtain

$`j_0={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ks}{}}\mathrm{sin}(2\vartheta _s)\left(\psi _{ks}^{}\varphi _{ks}+\varphi _{ks}^{}\psi _{ks}\right)`$ (71)
$`\delta j={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}s\psi _{ks}^{}\psi _{ks},\eta ={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}s\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _s.`$ (72)
The operator $`\delta j`$ makes no contribution to the DC conductance. Indeed, since $`\frac{1}{2}_ss\psi _{ks}^{}\psi _{ks}+\stackrel{~}{S}^z`$ commutes with $``$, Eq. (72) can be re-written as

$$\delta j=\eta \frac{d}{dt}\stackrel{~}{S}^z.$$
(73)
Being averaged over time, $`\delta j`$ yields $`0`$:

$`\overline{\delta j}`$ $`=\underset{t_0\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2t_0}}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{t_0}}𝑑t\delta j(t)`$
$`=\underset{t_0\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2t_0}}\stackrel{~}{S}^z(t_0)\stackrel{~}{S}^z(t_0)=0`$
because operator $`\stackrel{~}{S}^z`$ is bounded, $`1/2\stackrel{~}{S}^z(t)1/2`$. Thus, the contribution $`\delta G`$ from $`\delta j`$ to the DC conductance vanishes identically.

The contribution from $`j_0`$ is evaluated in the same way as in Appendix B with the result

$$G=\underset{s}{}g_0^s𝑑\epsilon (df/d\epsilon )\left[\pi \nu \mathrm{Im}𝒯_s(\epsilon )\right],$$
(74)
where

$`g_0^s={\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(2\vartheta _s)`$

and $`𝒯_s`$ is $`𝒯`$-matrix for $`\psi `$-particles with spin $`s`$. Equation (65) is identical to Eq. (74), except for $`s`$-dependence of $`g_0^s`$. Therefore, the conductance at sufficiently low temperature is again given by Eqs. (66) and (67) with $`G_0=_sg_0^s`$.

At $`T=0`$ the electrons scatter from the dot elastically , that is, without flip of their spin. In this regime the inequality $`g_0^{+1}g_0^1`$ means that the probability of transmission through the dot depends on the direction of the spin of an incoming electron. In other words, the system acts as a spin filter .

The main effect for the non-linear differential conductance $`dI/dV_{DC}`$ consists in the violation of symmetry with respect to the bias sign. To see this, it is sufficient to calculate the conductance in the leading (second) order of the perturbation theory in $`J_{}`$. In this order, tunneling of an electron through the dot is accompanied by the transition of the dot between the states $`|`$ and $`|`$, see Eq. (51). The difference of the corresponding energies, $`E_|E_|`$, depends on the average value of the operator $`s^z`$ through the term $`J_zs^z\stackrel{~}{S}^z`$ in the Hamiltonian (69). This average is not zero due to a finite DC voltage bias $`V_{DC}`$, which is described by an addition of a term

$$H_V=\frac{eV_{DC}}{2}(N_LN_R)$$
(75)
to the Hamiltonian (69). Using (70) and (75) we obtain

$`s^z`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{ks}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{s}{2}}\left[c_{Rks}^{}c_{Rks}\mathrm{cos}^2\vartheta _s+c_{Lks}^{}c_{Lks}\mathrm{sin}^2\vartheta _s\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{2}}\nu eV_{DC},`$
where $`\eta `$ is given by (72). Therefore, the energy difference between the states (51) acquires a bias-dependent correction:

$`E_|E_|=\mathrm{\Delta }+\delta \mathrm{\Delta },`$ (76)
$`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }=J_zs^z=\chi eV_{DC},\chi =\eta \nu J_z/2.`$ (77)
This correction is similar to that caused by the magnetic field applied to the leads, see Eq. (33). But there is an important difference: $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ in Eq. (76) is due to non-equilibrium. Obviously, the contribution to the non-linear conductance we discuss is suppressed if $`|eV_{DC}|<E_|E_|`$. Using Eq. (76) we find for the interval of suppression

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{1+\chi }<eV_{DC}<\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{1\chi }.$$
(78)
Similar to the conventional Kondo problem  higher-order calculation yields the differential conductance which peaks at the ends of the interval (78). Therefore the position of peaks is not symmetric with respect to the change of the bias polarity $`V_{DC}V_{DC}`$, see Fig. 4.

The feasibility of an experimental observation of this effect obviously depends on the value of the parameter $`\eta `$. The largest possible value $`|\eta |=1`$ is reached in a strongly asymmetric setup. An example of such setup consists of level $`n=+1`$, see Fig. 3, coupled only to the left lead, while the level $`n=1`$ is coupled only to the right lead. Such a control over the tunneling amplitudes to the individual energy levels in the dot is very difficult to achieve with a single-dot device. But one can instead think of a system of two very small quantum dots connected in series . If the gate voltages are tuned properly, the double-dot system is equivalent to a single dot with $`N=even`$. In particular, the situation is possible when the wave functions of the upper and lower levels in Fig. 3 are localized mostly in the left and in the right dots respectively. The degree of the “localization” and, therefore, the value of the parameter $`\eta `$ is controlled by the strength of the tunneling coupling between the dots.

Note that similar non-linear effects occur also in the case of a small Zeeman splitting, $`E_ZT_0`$, considered in Section V. At a finite temperature and when the system is tuned to the singlet-triplet transition point, the differential conductance exhibits a peak at zero bias. The peak is split in two when the magnetic field is tuned away from the transition. The location of the split peaks is given by the energy balance condition for activation of the interorbital scattering processes: $`\left|eV_{DC}\right|=K+\delta K`$. Here $`\delta KeV_{DC}`$ is a non-universal correction analogous to $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ in (76), which appears due to a non-zero average of the operator $`_nn\rho _{nn}`$ in Eq. (29) in the presence of a finite bias.

## Conclusion

In this paper we studied the transport through a quantum dot tuned to the singlet-triplet transition point. Such a transition in the ground state of an isolated dot can be reached by applying a magnetic field to it. The low temperature properties of a quantum dot attached to conducting leads can be described by a version of a two-impurity Kondo model. Depending on the value of Zeeman energy, two distinct physical situations are realized.

If Zeeman energy is small, the zero-temperature linear conductance reaches the quantum limit at the triplet side of the transition. At finite temperature, however, the conductance reaches a maximum at the transition point. This happens due to the extra degeneracy of the ground state multiplet of the dot at this point, which causes an increase of the characteristic temperature below which the conductance is approaching the unitary limit.

If Zeeman energy is large, the ground state of the dot is degenerate only at the transition point. In this limit the model can be further reduced to the single-channel anisotropic Kondo Hamiltonian. The conductance exhibits a peak at the point of the transition at arbitrary low temperature.

The two limits of the theory are in a good agreement with the results of recent experiments with vertical quantum dots and carbon nanotubes.

## Acknowledgments

This work was supported by NSF under Grants DMR-9812340 and DMR-9731756. We benefited from discussions with D. Cobden, M. Eto, K. Kikoin, L. Kouwenhoven, A. Ludwig, A. Luther, K. Matveev, Yu. Nazarov, S. Tarucha, A. Tsvelik, M. Voloshin, J. Weis, and A. Zvyagin.

## A Some properties of the operators $`𝐒_\pm `$ and $`𝐓`$

Using $`[S_i^\alpha ,S_j^\beta ]=\delta _{ij}_\gamma ϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }S_i^\gamma `$, it is straightforward to show that the operators $`𝐒_\pm =𝐒_1\pm 𝐒_2`$ and $`𝐓=𝐒_1\times 𝐒_2`$ obey the commutation relations

$`\left(𝐒_{}𝐓\right)\left(𝐓𝐒_{}\right)`$ $`=4i\left(𝐒_1𝐒_2\right),`$
$`[𝐒_{},(𝐒_1𝐒_2)]`$ $`=2i𝐓,`$
$`[𝐓,(𝐒_1𝐒_2)]`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}𝐒_{}.`$
Using these relations one can check that $`𝐒_{}`$ and $`𝐓`$ are related by means of the unitary transformation

$`2𝐓=e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}(𝐒_1𝐒_2)}𝐒_{}e^{i\frac{\pi }{2}(𝐒_1𝐒_2)}.`$

Since $`\left(𝐒_1𝐒_2\right)`$ commutes with $`𝐒_+`$, application of this transformation to the identity

$`[S_\pm ^\alpha ,S_{}^\beta ]={\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }S_{}^\gamma ,`$

gives at once

$`[S_+^\alpha ,T^\beta ]={\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }T^\gamma ,[T^\alpha ,T^\beta ]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}iϵ_{\alpha \beta \gamma }S_+^k.`$

## B Derivation of Eq. (18)

Using Eq. (12), the particle current operator $`j`$ is written as

$`j={\displaystyle \frac{t_Lt_R}{t_L^2+t_R^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nks}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}A_{nks}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,A_{nks}=\psi _{nks}^{}\varphi _{nks}`$

Substitution into the Kubo formula

$$G=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{\omega }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}[j(t),j(0)],$$
(B1)
and integration by parts yield

$$G=\underset{\omega 0}{lim}g_0\pi \omega \underset{nks}{}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{nks}(\omega ),$$
(B2)
where $`g_0`$ is given by Eq. (19) and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{nks}(\omega )=𝑑te^{i\omega t}\mathrm{\Pi }_{nks}(t)`$ is the Fourier-transform of the retarded correlation function

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{nks}(t)=i\theta (t)[A_{nks}(t),A_{nks}^{}(0)]`$

One can express $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{nks}(\omega )`$ via the retarded Green functions of the $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ particles as

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{nks}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ}`$ $`\left[f(ϵ+\omega )f(ϵ)\right]`$ (B4)
$`\times \mathrm{Im}𝒢_{nks}^0(ϵ)\mathrm{Im}𝒢_{nks}(ϵ+\omega ),`$
where $`f(ϵ)`$ is the Fermi function, and $`𝒢_{nks}(\epsilon )`$ is the Fourier-transform of

$`𝒢_{nks}(t)=i\theta (t)\{\psi _{nks}(t),\psi _{nks}^{}(0)\}.`$

In writing of Eq. (B4) we took into account that the Green function of the $`\varphi `$-particles coincides with the unperturbed (without interactions) value of $`𝒢_{nks}`$,

$`𝒢_{nks}^0(\epsilon )=(\epsilon \xi _{ks}+i0)^1.`$

Therefore $`\mathrm{Im}G_{nks}(ϵ)=\pi \delta (ϵ\xi _{ks})`$, which removes the integral over $`ϵ`$ in (B4). It is convenient to represent $`𝒢_{nks}`$ in the form

$$𝒢_{nks}(ϵ)=𝒢_{nks}^0(ϵ)+𝒢_{nks}^0(ϵ)𝒯_{nks}(ϵ)𝒢_{nks}^0(ϵ),$$
(B5)
where $`𝒯_{nks}(ϵ)`$ is a diagonal element of the $`𝒯`$-matrix. Since the interaction in $`H(\psi )`$ is local, $`𝒯_{nks}(ϵ)`$ is in fact independent of $`k`$: $`𝒯_{nks}=𝒯_{ns}`$. Obviously, for $`ϵ=\xi _{ks}+\omega `$ the second term in the r.h.s. of (B5) diverges as $`\omega ^2`$ at small $`\omega `$. Combination of Eq. (B5) with Eqs. (B2) and (B4), and replacement of the sum over $`k`$ in Eq. (B2) by an integral then yield Eq. (18).

## C The effective exchange Hamiltonian for the general form of intradot interactions

Two electrons occupying two single particle energy levels can form three linearly independent singlet states:

$`|0,0_1=d_1^{}d_1^{}|0,`$
$`|0,0_{+1}=d_{+1}^{}d_{+1}^{}|0,`$
$`|0,0_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(d_{+1}^{}d_1^{}d_{+1}^{}d_1^{}\right)|0.`$
These states are the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (1) with $`|0,0_1`$ being the singlet state of the lowest energy. However, (1) is oversimplified by the assumption of the validity of the Random Matrix Theory . In a more general model electron-electron interactions yield non-zero matrix elements

$`{}_{n}{}^{}0,0|H_{dot}|0,0_{n^{}}^{}0`$

for $`nn^{}`$. As the result, the lowest energy singlet $`|0,0`$ is no longer $`|0,0_1`$, but a certain mixture of all 3 states $`|0,0_n`$:

$`|0,0={\displaystyle \underset{n=0,\pm 1}{}}C_n|0,0_n.{\displaystyle }_nC_n^2=1`$

This generalization of the dot’s Hamiltonian yields additional coupling constants in the dot-lead exchange interaction. It turns out that such an extended model is identical to Eq. (29) as far as the low-temperature properties of the system are concerned. We demonstrate it on a specific example :

$`C_0=0,C_n={\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{2}}}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha +n\mathrm{sin}\alpha ),`$

The case considered in  corresponds to $`\alpha =0`$ (or $`C_1=C_1=1/\sqrt{2}`$). The choice of the singlet state in  and in Eq. (4) above corresponds to $`\alpha =\pi /4`$ (or $`C_1=1,C_1=0`$).

Of course, the transitions between the state $`|0,0`$ and the triplet states $`|1,S^z`$ can be described again in terms of 2 fictitious spin-1/2 operators $`𝐒_{1,2}`$. But instead of (24)-(25) we have now

$`𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{ss^{}}{}}d_{ns}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{𝝈_{ss^{}}}{2}}`$ $`d_{n^{}s^{}}𝒫={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{n,n^{}}𝐒_+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _{n,n^{}}(𝐒_{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha +2in𝐓\mathrm{sin}\alpha ),`$
$`𝒫{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}d_{ns}^{}d_{n^{}s}`$ $`𝒫=n\delta _{n,n^{}}\left[\left(𝐒_1𝐒_2\right)\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha )1/4+n\right]`$
Accordingly, the effective Hamiltonian also modifies: Eq. (27) remains unchanged while Eq. (29) is replaced by

$`H_n=J(𝐬_{nn}𝐒_+)+V^{}n\rho _{nn}(𝐒_1𝐒_2)`$ (C1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{I_S}{\sqrt{2}}}(𝐬_{n,n}𝐒_{})+{\displaystyle \frac{I_T}{\sqrt{2}}}2in(𝐬_{n,n}𝐓).`$ (C2)
The coupling constants here are expressed through $`J,I,V`$ of Eq. (31) as

$`I_S=I\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha ,I_T=I\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,V^{}=V\mathrm{sin}2\alpha `$

\[$`J`$ is the same as in (31)\].

The scaling equations for this Hamiltonian read

$`dJ/d=\nu \left[J^2+\left(I_S^2+I_T^2\right)/2\right]`$ (C3)
$`dI_S/d=2\nu \left(I_SJ+I_TV^{}\right)`$ (C4)
$`dI_T/d=2\nu \left(I_TJ+I_SV^{}\right)`$ (C5)
$`dV^{}/d=2\nu I_SI_T`$ (C6)
(these equations are equivalent to Eqs. (17)-(20) of). For $`\alpha 0`$ the initial values of all coupling constants differ from zero. System of equations (C5) allows for a solution in which all the coupling constants diverge at a certain point $`=_0`$. Similar to the conventional Kondo problem, the leading divergency is $`J,I_S,I_T,V^{}\left(_0\right)^1`$. Examination of the subleading terms allows us to conclude that the solutions of (C5) and (36) coincide near this point if one sets $`I_S=I_T=I`$ and $`V^{}=V`$. Indeed, it follows from the second and the third equations in (C5) that

$$\frac{d}{d}\mathrm{ln}(I_{}/I_+)=2\nu V^{},I_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(I_S\pm I_T)$$
(C7)
Using the leading term of the asymptote of $`V^{}`$,

$`1/\nu V^{}=(2/\zeta )\left(_0\right),\zeta >0,`$

and Eq. (C7) we find $`I_{}/I_+\left(_0\right)^\zeta `$. Therefore, in the vicinity of the point $`_0`$ the difference between $`I_S`$ and $`I_T`$ can be neglected, and the resulting equations for $`J,I_+,V^{}`$ coincide with Eqs. (36) for $`J,I,V`$.

So far we found a solution near some singularity point $`=_0`$. We should check now that such point is reached indeed by solutions satisfying the proper initial conditions at $`=0`$. We were only able to perform this check by solving numerically the system (C5). Numerical solution for a set of models defined by $`\alpha `$ in the interval $`0.01\pi \alpha \pi /4`$ indeed verified the proper divergency of the coupling constants. We have also found that the parameter $`c`$ in Eq. (38) approaches $`1/2`$ at small $`\alpha `$. In other words, in the limit $`\alpha +0`$ the difference between $`T_0`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ disappears.

The convergence of the system of equations (C5) to Eqs. (36) means that the results of the main text are not sensitive to the details of intradot interactions. In particular, Eq.(47) with $`\lambda `$ given by (42) holds.

We now consider the special case $`\alpha =0`$, in which the exponent $`\lambda `$ turns out to be different. We consider a slight generalization of the model, allowing for the dependence of the tunneling amplitudes on the orbital index: $`t_\alpha `$ in Eq. (11) is replaced by $`t_{\alpha n}`$; see also Appendix E). \[Note that for $`\alpha 0`$ this extension does not affect the value of $`\lambda `$ in Eq. (42)\]. The exchange Hamiltonian for such model,

$$H_n=J_n(𝐬_{nn}𝐒_+)+I(𝐬_{n,n}𝐒_{}),$$
(C8)
acquires an $`n`$-dependent exchange constant. The scaling equations in this case,

$$\frac{dJ_n}{d}=\nu (J_n^2+I^2),\frac{dI}{d}=\nu I\underset{n}{}J_n,$$
(C9)
have first integral

$`(J_{+1}J_1)/2I=\mathrm{tan}\phi ,|\phi |<\pi /2.`$

The value of $`\phi `$ is determined by the bare value of the exchange constants. The first integral allows one to solve the scaling equations (C9) exactly . Near the singularity point $`_0`$ the solutions acquire asymptotic form

$$\nu J_n=\frac{1+n\mathrm{sin}\phi }{2(_0)},_0=\mathrm{ln}(\delta /T_0).$$
(C10)
At the triplet side of the transition at energies below $`|K|T_0,E_Z`$ the system is described by the Hamiltonian (44) with $`n`$-dependent exchange amplitudes $`J_n`$. In this situation one can define two separate scales, $`T_n`$, corresponding to the two exchange constants,

$`T_n=|K|\mathrm{exp}\left[1/\nu J_n(^{})\right],^{}=\mathrm{ln}(\delta /|K|).`$

At these scales the two exchange constants, $`\nu J_n`$, become of the order of 1. Substitution here of $`J_n()`$ from Eq. (C10) then yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T_n}{T_0}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_0}{|K|}}\right)^{\lambda _n},\lambda _n(\phi )={\displaystyle \frac{1n\mathrm{sin}\phi }{1+n\mathrm{sin}\phi }}.`$

The larger of the two scales corresponds to the smallest of the two exponents $`\lambda _n`$ ,:

$`\mathrm{min}\lambda _n={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{sin}|\phi |}{1+\mathrm{sin}|\phi |}}<1.`$

The Hamiltonian (C8) formally coincides with that for the two impurity Kondo model , see Eq. (34) above. If $`J_n`$ do not depend of $`n`$, this model exhibits an exotic non-Fermi liquid behavior . Note that the non-Fermi-liquid state is extremely fragile and is also destroyed by potential scattering, which we have neglected in our derivation. The requirements $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\phi =0`$ set strict conditions on both the intradot interaction constants and on the values of the tunneling amplitudes. Finding these conditions is beyond the scope of the present paper.

## D The effective exchange Hamiltonian for the case of orbital mixing

In order to see how our results are modified in the case when the orbital mixing is allowed in the course of tunneling, we choose the tunneling amplitudes in Eq. (10) in the form

$$t_{\alpha nm}=t_\alpha \delta _{n,m}+t_\alpha ^{}\delta _{n,m},\alpha =R,L$$
(D1)
The rotation in the orbital space,

$`c_{\alpha nks}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{c}_{\alpha nks}n\stackrel{~}{c}_{\alpha nks}\right),`$
$`d_{ns}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\stackrel{~}{d}_{ns}n\stackrel{~}{d}_{ns}\right)`$
diagonalizes $`H_T`$:

$`H_T={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha n}{}}v_{\alpha n}\stackrel{~}{c}_{\alpha nks}^{}\stackrel{~}{d}_{ns}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,v_{\alpha n}=t_\alpha +nt_\alpha ^{}`$

and modifies Eqs. (24),(25). Next, we perform a rotation in the $`RL`$ space, similar to (12)

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{nks}\\ \varphi _{nks}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{v_{Ln}^2+v_{Rn}^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_{Rn}& v_{Ln}\\ v_{Ln}& v_{Rn}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{c}_{Rnks}\\ \stackrel{~}{c}_{Lnks}\end{array}\right),`$

which yields

$`H_T={\displaystyle \underset{nks}{}}v_n\psi _{nks}^{}\stackrel{~}{d}_{ns}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,v_n^2=v_{Ln}^2+v_{Rn}^2,`$

We now perform a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation, which yields Eq. (27) with $`H_n`$ given by

$`H_n`$ $`=`$ $`J_n\left(𝐬_{n,n}𝐒_+\right)+I_n{\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(𝐬_{n,n}𝐒_{}\right)`$ (D3)
$`+I\sqrt{2}in\left(𝐬_{n,n}𝐓\right)V\rho _{n,n}\left(𝐒_1𝐒_2\right).`$
The scaling equations for this model read

$`dJ_n/d`$ $`=`$ $`\nu \left[J_n^2+\left(I_n^2+I^2\right)/2\right]`$ (D4)
$`dI_n/d`$ $`=`$ $`2\nu \left(IV+J_nI_n\right)`$ (D5)
$`dI/d`$ $`=`$ $`\nu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(IJ_n+VI_n\right)`$ (D6)
$`dV/d`$ $`=`$ $`\nu {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}II_n`$ (D7)
In a generic case $`t_\alpha t_\alpha ^{}`$ the initial values of all the coupling constants in (D6) are finite:

$`J_n=I_n=2v_n^2/E_C,I=2V=2v_{+1}v_1/E_C.`$

For example, for

$$t_\alpha ^{}/t_\alpha =\beta $$
(D8)
one obtains

$`J_n=I_n=(1+n\beta )^2J_0,I=2V=(1\beta ^2)J_0,`$

where $`J_0=2(t_L^2+t_R^2)/E_C`$.

System of equations (D6) allows for a solution in which all the coupling constants diverge at a certain point $`=_0`$, with the leading divergency being of the form $`J_n,I_n,I,V\left(_0\right)^1`$. The analysis of the subleading terms similar to that in Appendix C leads to a conclusion that in the vicinity of the point $`_0`$ the difference between $`J_{+1}`$ and $`J_1`$, and the difference between $`I_n`$ and $`I`$ can be neglected. The resulting equations are identical to Eqs. (36). Accordingly, near the point $`_0`$ the solutions of Eqs. (D6) coincide with that of Eqs. (41) if $`J_n=J`$ and $`I_n=I`$. Note that setting $`J_n=J`$ and $`I_n=I`$ in Eq. (D3) and performing a unitary transformation

$`\psi _{nks}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(a_{nks}+na_{nks}\right)`$

brings the exchange Hamiltonian (D3) to the form (29).

We solved Eqs. (D6) numerically for $`\beta `$ \[see Eq. (D8)\] in the interval $`0\beta 0.9`$ (note that for the model defined by Eqs. (D1) and (D8) all physical observables possess a symmetry with respect to the change $`\beta 1/\beta `$). These calculations confirmed that the proper divergency of the coupling constants indeed occurs.

It turns out that the relation between $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ (see Section IV) depends on the degree of orbital mixing: the stronger the orbitals are mixed the less the difference between $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ is. For example, for the model (D1),(D8) $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ can be associated with the larger of the two energy scales $`T_n=\delta \mathrm{exp}(1/\nu J_n)`$, while $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}=\delta \mathrm{exp}(1/\nu J_{\mathrm{odd}})`$ with $`J_{\mathrm{odd}}=2(1+\beta ^2)J_0`$. This yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\delta /T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\delta /T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}\right)}}=2{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta ^2}{(1+\beta )^2}}.`$

The expression in the r.h.s. here is invariant with respect to the change $`\beta 1/\beta `$ and its value varies between $`2`$ for $`\beta =0`$ (or $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$) and $`1`$ for $`\beta =1`$. Therefore, the temperature scales $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ coincide in the strong mixing limit $`\beta 1`$. The experiments with vertical quantum dots  correspond to $`T_K^{\mathrm{triplet}}T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$, which can be explained only if the mixing is weak ($`\beta 1`$ or $`1/\beta 1`$).

Note that the relation between $`T_0`$ and $`T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ depends on $`\beta `$ much weaker. For instance, for $`\beta =1`$ the ratio

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\delta /T_0\right)}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\delta /T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}\right)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+1/\sqrt{2}}}0.6,`$

while for $`\beta =0`$ this ratio equals approximately $`0.7`$, see Eqs. (38) and (40). Accordingly, for $`\delta T_0`$ the inequality $`T_0T_K^{\mathrm{odd}}`$ holds independently of the strength of the orbital mixing.

## E Two–stage Kondo effect

In this Appendix, we consider an example of the non-universal features that the system may exhibit far away from the transition point. Consider the following generalization of (11):

$$t_{\alpha nn^{}}=t_{\alpha n}\delta _{nn^{}}.$$
(E1)
After a rotation in the left-right space

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{nks}\\ \varphi _{nks}\end{array}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{t_n}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}t_{Rn}& t_{Ln}\\ t_{Ln}& t_{Rn}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_{Rnks}\\ c_{Lnks}\end{array}\right),t_n^2=t_{Ln}^2+t_{Rn}^2`$

and a Schrieffer-Wolff transformation one obtains Eqs. (27)-(29) with $`J`$ and $`V`$ in (29) replaced by $`J_n`$ and $`V_n`$,

$`J_n=2V_n=2t_n^2/E_C,I=2t_{+1}t_1/E_C.`$

This is only a small modification as far as the vicinity of the singlet-triplet transition is concerned. Indeed, the scaling equations (36) are replaced by

$`dJ_n/d=\nu \left(J_n^2+I^2\right),`$
$`dI/d=\nu I{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left(J_n+V_n\right),`$
$`dV_n/d=2\nu I^2`$
If these equations are rewritten in terms of new variables

$`J=(J_{+1}+J_1)/2,V=(V_{+1}+V_1)/2,`$
$`J^{}=(J_{+1}J_1)/2,V^{}=(V_{+1}V_1)/2,`$
one finds that $`J,I`$, and $`V`$ behave at large $``$ according to Eq. (41), all being proportional to $`\left(_0\right)^1`$, while $`J^{}`$ diverges much slower, as $`J^{}\left(_0\right)^{2/(\lambda +1)}`$, and $`V^{}`$ is not renormalized at all.

Interesting properties appear at the triplet side of the transition in the case when the exchange constants are very different, say, $`J_{+1}J_1`$.

The exchange term in the Hamiltonian (44) is replaced by $`_nJ_n\left(𝐬_{nn}𝐒\right)`$. One can define two separate Kondo temperatures

$`T_n=\delta \mathrm{exp}(1/\nu J_n),T_{+1}T_1`$

corresponding to the two exchange constants $`J_n`$. At $`TT_{+1}T_1`$ the presence of the $`n=1`$ channel can be neglected, so that the system in this regime is described by a single-channel $`S=1`$ Kondo model. Accordingly, the conductance in this regime is given by

$$G=g_{+1}\frac{\pi ^2/2}{[\mathrm{ln}(T/T_{+1})]^2},TT_{+1}$$
(E2)
where $`g_n=(2e^2/h)4t_{Ln}^2t_{Rn}^2t_n^4`$. At $`TT_{+1}`$ the scattering in the $`n=+1`$ channel reaches the unitary limit. In this regime one half of the dot’s spin is screened . The remaining spin $`S=1/2`$ still interacts with the electron continuum in the channel $`n=1`$. This antiferromagnetic exchange coupling eventually results in the second stage of the Kondo effect. The corresponding asymptote of the conductance is

$$G=g_{+1}+g_1\frac{3\pi ^2/16}{[\mathrm{ln}(T/T_1)]^2},T_1TT_{+1}$$
(E3)
At $`TT_1`$ the dot’s spin is screened entirely . The zero-temperature conductance $`G_0=g_{+1}+g_1`$; the leading finite temperature correction $`G_0G(T/T_1)^2`$.

Equations (E2) and (E3) describe a staircase-like temperature dependence of the conductance, see Fig. 5. The thermodynamic quantities are expected to exhibit a similar two-stage crossover .