text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The decomposition of tensor products of simple Lie algebra modules has been studied for a long time now. Many elegant results have been found for the multiplicities of the decompositions, the so-called tensor product multiplicities. However, most results pertain to the decomposition of tensor products of two irreducible highest weight modules of a simple Lie algebra:

$$M_\lambda M_\mu =\underset{\nu }{}T_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }M_\nu .$$
(1)
$`M_\lambda `$ is the module of highest weight $`\lambda `$, while $`T_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }`$ is the tensor product multiplicity. This problem is equivalent to the more symmetric one of determining the multiplicity of the singlet in the decomposition of the triple product

$$M_\lambda M_\mu M_\nu T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }M_0.$$
(2)
Indeed, if $`\nu ^+`$ denotes the weight conjugate to $`\nu `$, we have $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }=T_{\lambda ,\mu }^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu ^+}`$. We will use the shorthand notation $`\lambda \mu \nu `$ to represent the left hand side of (2), and refer to it as a three-point product.

The objective of the present work is to discuss higher $`su(N)`$ tensor products (or higher-point $`su(N)`$ couplings), and provide explicit expressions for the associated multiplicities

$$M_\lambda M_\mu \mathrm{}M_\sigma T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\mathrm{},\sigma }M_0.$$
(3)
Based on a generalisation of the Berenstein-Zelevinsky method of triangles , we have recently obtained very explicit expressions for $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }`$. The result is a multiple sum formula measuring the discretised volume of a convex polytope associated to the tensor product . It is this idea which shall be extended here to cover higher-point couplings. The main focus will be on four-point couplings. Our results pertain to the $`A`$-series, $`A_r=su(r+1)`$.

We also address the problem of determining when a higher-point coupling exists, i.e., when the associated multiplicity is non-vanishing. The solution is a set of inequalities in the Dynkin labels.

## 2 Ordinary tensor product multiplicities

To fix notation, we review briefly our main result  on the computation of ordinary tensor product multiplicities, i.e., on the evaluation of three-point couplings. We refer to  for more details.

An $`su(r+1)`$ Berenstein-Zelevinsky (BZ) triangle, describing a particular coupling (to the singlet) associated to the triple product $`\lambda \mu \nu `$, is a triangular arrangement of

$$E_r=\frac{3}{2}r(r+1)$$
(4)
non-negative integers, denoted entries. The entries are subject to certain constraints: the $`3r`$ outer constraints and the $`2H_r`$ hexagon identities, where

$$H_r=\frac{1}{2}r(r1)$$
(5)
is the number of hexagons, see below. The case $`su(3)`$ provides a simple illustration:

$$\begin{array}{c}m_{13}\\ n_{12}l_{23}\\ m_{23}m_{12}\\ n_{13}l_{12}n_{23}l_{13}\end{array}$$
(6)
According to the outer constraints, these $`E_2=9`$ non-negative integers are related to the Dynkin labels of the three integrable highest weights by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& m_{13}+n_{12}=\lambda _1,\hfill & n_{13}+l_{12}=\mu _1,\hfill & l_{13}+m_{12}=\nu _1,\hfill \\ & m_{23}+n_{13}=\lambda _2,\hfill & n_{23}+l_{13}=\mu _2,\hfill & l_{23}+m_{13}=\nu _2.\hfill \end{array}$$

The entries further satisfy the hexagon conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}n_{12}+m_{23}=n_{23}+m_{12},\hfill \\ m_{12}+l_{23}=m_{23}+l_{12},\hfill \\ l_{12}+n_{23}=l_{23}+n_{12};\hfill \end{array}$$

of which only two are independent. The number of BZ triangles is the triple tensor product multiplicity $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }`$.

The generalisation of the BZ triangles we consider is obtained by weakening the constraint that all entries are non-negative integers to arbitrary integers, negative as well as non-negative. The hexagon identities and the outer constraints are still enforced. A triangle will be called a true BZ triangle if all its entries are non-negative.

A generalised $`su(r+1)`$ BZ triangle is built out of $`H_r`$ hexagons and three corner points. Each hexagon corresponds to two independent constraints on the entries. This leaves

$$E_r(2H_r+3r)=H_r$$
(7)
parameters labelling the possible triangles. Thus, for a given triple product $`\lambda \mu \nu `$, the set of associated triangles spans an $`H_r`$-dimensional lattice. Among the lattice points, only a finite number correspond to true BZ triangles. As already stated, this number is precisely the tensor product multiplicity of the triple product.

The $`H_r`$ basis vectors in the lattice correspond to so-called (basis) virtual triangles , denoted $`𝒱`$. They are themselves triangles (i.e., points in the lattice) associated to the particular coupling $`000`$. In the case $`su(4)`$ the three basis virtual triangles are

$`\begin{array}{c}1\\ \overline{1}\overline{1}\\ \overline{1}\overline{1}\\ 1\overline{1}\overline{1}1\\ 010\\ 000000\end{array}\begin{array}{c}0\\ 00\\ 10\\ \overline{1}\overline{1}10\\ \overline{1}\overline{1}0\\ 1\overline{1}\overline{1}100\end{array}\begin{array}{c}0\\ 00\\ 01\\ 01\overline{1}\overline{1}\\ 0\overline{1}\overline{1}\\ 001\overline{1}\overline{1}1\end{array}`$ (8)
where $`\overline{1}1`$. In general, a convenient basis for the virtual triangles is given by associating the simple distribution

$$\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}1\\ 1\overline{1}\overline{1}1\\ \overline{1}\overline{1}\\ 1\overline{1}\overline{1}1\\ 1\end{array}\end{array}$$
(9)
of plus and minus ones to any given hexagon. All other entries are zero.

The lattice may now be characterised by an initial triangle $`𝒯_0`$ and the basis of virtual triangles, as a generic triangle $`𝒯`$ may be written

$$𝒯=𝒯_0+\underset{i,j1}{\overset{i+j=r}{}}v_{i,j}𝒱_{i,j}.$$
(10)
$`v_{i,j}`$ are called linear coefficients, and our choice of labelling follows from111The choice of labelling differs slightly from the one used in Ref. .

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \\ v_{r1,1}\\ \\ v_{r2,1}v_{r2,2}\\ \\ \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\\ \\ \\ v_{2,1}\mathrm{}v_{2,r2}\\ \\ v_{1,1}v_{1,2}v_{1,r2}v_{1,r1}\\ \mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(11)
The initial triangle corresponds to any point in the lattice. A convenient choice is based on the fact that every highest weight $`\nu `$ in a coupling $`\lambda \mu \nu `$ satisfies

$$\nu =\lambda ^++\mu ^+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}n_i\alpha _i,n_i=(\lambda ^+)^i+(\mu ^+)^i\nu ^iZZ_{},$$
(12)
where $`\alpha _i`$ is the $`i`$-th simple root. The coefficients $`n_i`$ are expressed using dual Dynkin labels:

$$\lambda =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\lambda _i\mathrm{\Lambda }^i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\lambda ^i\alpha _i^{},$$
(13)
where $`\{\mathrm{\Lambda }^i\}`$ and $`\{\alpha _i^{}\}`$ are the sets of fundamental weights and simple co-roots, respectively. For simply-laced algebras like $`su(N)`$, $`\alpha _i`$ is identical to the co-root $`\alpha _i^{}`$ (with standard normalisation $`\alpha ^2=2`$, for $`\alpha `$ a long root). Now, it is easy to construct the unique true triangle associated to the coupling $`\lambda \mu (\lambda +\mu )^+`$, as well as triangles associated to the couplings $`00\alpha _i`$. $`su(3)`$ examples are

$$\lambda \mu (\lambda +\mu )^+\begin{array}{c}\lambda _1\\ 0\mu _1\\ \lambda _2\lambda _2\\ 0\mu _10\mu _2\end{array}00\alpha _2\begin{array}{c}1\\ \overline{1}1\\ 0\overline{1}\\ 0000\end{array}$$
(14)
Adding the triangles according to (12) results in a BZ triangle associated to $`\lambda \mu \nu `$. The result for $`su(r+1)`$ is the following generalised BZ triangle:

$$\begin{array}{c}N_r^{}\\ n_rN_r\\ \lambda _2N_{r1}^{}\\ 0\mu _1n_{r1}N_{r1}\\ \lambda _3\lambda _3N_{r2}^{}\\ 0\mu _10\mu _2n_{r2}N_{r2}\\ \text{.}\text{.}\text{.}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\\ \lambda _{r2}N_3^{}\\ 0\mu _1n_3N_3\\ \lambda _{r1}\lambda _{r1}\mathrm{}\lambda _{r1}N_2^{}\\ 0\mu _10\mu _20\mu _{r2}n_2N_2\\ \lambda _r\lambda _r\lambda _r\lambda _r\lambda _rN_1^{}\\ 0\mu _10\mu _20\mu _3\mathrm{}0\mu _{r2}0\mu _{r1}n_1N_1\end{array}$$
(15)
The entries $`n_i`$, $`N_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$ are defined by

$`n_i`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ri+1}+\mu ^{ri+1}\nu ^i,`$
$`N_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{i1})n_{i1}n_i+\mu _{ri+1}`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ri+1}+(1\delta _{i1})\lambda ^{ri+2}(1\delta _{ir})\mu ^{ri}+\mu ^{ri+1}(1\delta _{i1})\nu ^{i1}+\nu ^i,`$
$`N_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _iN_i`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ri+1}(1\delta _{i1})\lambda ^{ri+2}+(1\delta _{ir})\mu ^{ri}\mu ^{ri+1}+\nu ^i(1\delta _{ir})\nu ^{i+1}.`$
supplemented by the condition that $`n_i`$, and thus also $`N_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$, are integers (cf. (12)).

A true BZ triangle associated to the product $`\lambda \mu \nu `$ has the additional property that all its entries are non-negative integers. From (10) it then follows that the set of true BZ triangles may be characterised by a set of inequalities in the linear coefficients. It is easily seen that these inequalities define a convex polytope embedded in $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ R}^{H_r}`$, whose discretised volume is the tensor product multiplicity $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }`$. As discussed in Ref. , this volume may be measured explicitly and calculated by a multiple sum:

$$T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }=\left(\underset{v_{1,1}}{}\right)\left(\underset{v_{2,1}}{}\underset{v_{1,2}}{}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\underset{v_{r2,1}}{}\mathrm{}\underset{v_{1,r2}}{}\right)\left(\underset{v_{r1,1}}{}\mathrm{}\underset{v_{1,r1}}{}\right)1.$$
(17)
Here the summation variables are bounded according to

$`\mathrm{max}\{N_1,v_{1,r2},N_2^{}+v_{2,r2},\mu _{r2}+v_{1,r2}v_{2,r3}+v_{2,r2}\}`$
$`v_{1,r1}\mathrm{min}\{n_1,\mu _{r1}+v_{1,r2},\lambda _rv_{1,r2}+v_{2,r2},`$
$`n_2+v_{1,r2}v_{2,r2},N_1^{},N_2+v_{2,r2}\},`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{l1,rl}v_{l1,rl1}+v_{l,rl1},N_{l+1}^{}+v_{l+1,rl1},`$
$`\mu _{rl1}+v_{l+1,rl1}(1\delta _{l,r2})v_{l+1,rl2}+v_{l,rl1}\}`$
$`v_{l,rl}\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _{rl+1}v_{l,rl1}+v_{l1,rl}+v_{l+1,rl1},`$
$`n_{l+1}+v_{l,rl1}v_{l+1,rl1},N_{l+1}+v_{l+1,rl1}\},\mathrm{for}2lr2,`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{r2,1},N_r^{}\}v_{r1,1}\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _2+v_{r2,1},n_r,N_r\},`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{1,j1},\mu _{j1}+v_{1,j1}+v_{2,j1}(1\delta _{j,2})v_{2,j2}\}`$
$`v_{1,j}\mathrm{min}\{\mu _j+v_{1,j1},\lambda _rv_{1,j1}+v_{2,j1}\},\mathrm{for}2jr2,`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{i,j1}+v_{i1,j}v_{i1,j1},\mu _{j1}+v_{i,j1}+v_{i+1,j1}(1\delta _{j,2})v_{i+1,j2}\}`$
$`v_{i,j}\lambda _{ri+1}v_{i,j1}+v_{i+1,j1}+v_{i1,j},\mathrm{for}2i,j,i+jr1,`$
$`v_{i1,1}v_{i,1}\lambda _{ri+1}+v_{i1,1},\mathrm{for}2ir2,`$
$`0v_{1,1}\mathrm{min}\{\mu _1,\lambda _r\}.`$ (18)
Due to the freedom in choosing the initial triangle, this is just one out of an infinite class of multiple sum representations of $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }`$. Its asymmetry in the weights merely reflects the symmetry-breaking choice of initial triangle, and the choice of an order of summation.

## 3 Four-point products

We focus first on four-point products:

$$M_\lambda M_\mu M_\nu M_\sigma T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }M_0.$$
(19)
The objective is to characterise the multiplicity $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$ as the discretised volume of a convex polytope, and then to express the volume explicitly as a multiple sum. Our starting point will be the decomposition

$$T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }=\underset{\rho }{}T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\rho }T_{\rho ^+,\nu ,\sigma }$$
(20)
which may be represented graphically by

(21)
The arrow indicates that the third weight associated to the coupling involving $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ is $`\rho `$, while its conjugate, $`\rho ^+`$, takes part in the second coupling. Due to the $`S_4`$ symmetry of $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$ there are many possible decompositions in terms of three-point couplings, associated to different channels. As in the case of the three-point couplings, we are not seeking a symmetric representation of the multiplicity, but merely an explicit multiple sum formula. The decomposition (20) is itself a representation but less explicit than our goal. The former corresponds to considering a sum over products of discretised volumes of convex polytopes embedded in $`H_r`$-dimensional euclidean spaces. The sum is over the $`r`$ Dynkin labels of the interior weight $`\rho `$. Our goal is to represent the multiplicity as the discretised volume of a single convex polytope embedded in a $`(2H_r+r)`$-dimensional euclidean space, and eventually to measure explicitly the volume in terms of a multiple sum. The number of parameters is of course conserved.

Our approach does not admit an immediate and simple modification in order to obtain a result which is manifestly $`S_4`$ symmetric. Taking an average over the possible (symmetry-breaking) channels would provide a straightforward symmetrisation but result in a much more complicated expression. One should rather look for an approach which respects the four-coupling nature, and thus does not rely on breaking the coupling up into three-point couplings.

Let

(22)
denote a BZ triangle whose entries have not been specified explicitly. This offers an alternative illustration of the channel (21):

(23)
The dotted lines indicate a gluing of the triangles. These composite objects may be regarded as a generalisation of the BZ triangles to diagrams associated to particular choices of four-point channels; governed by a gluing of triangles representing three-point couplings. Disregarding this origin of (23), the configuration is merely an arrangement of $`2E_r`$ (non-)negative integers subject to certain constraints: $`4H_r`$ hexagon identities, $`4r`$ outer constraints representing the four weights, and $`r`$ gluing constraints. Along the dotted lines, the original $`2r`$ outer constraints are substituted by the $`r`$ gluing constraints requiring opposite weights to be identical. A four-point diagram is called true if all entries are non-negative integers. Explicit examples of four-point diagrams are provided below.

The number of parameters labelling the possible four-point diagrams is

$$2E_r(4H_r+4r+r)=2H_r+r.$$
(24)
As in the three-point case, this reflects the existence of $`2H_r+r`$ basis virtual diagrams that correspond to the basis vectors in the $`(2H_r+r)`$-dimensional lattice associated to any given four-point product $`\lambda \mu \nu \sigma `$. The points in the lattice are the four-point diagrams.

A triangle consisting of zeros alone is called a zero-triangle. It is then obvious that $`2H_r`$ of the basis virtual diagrams are made up of a basis virtual triangle glued together with a zero-triangle, while the remaining $`r`$ virtual diagrams are associated to the gluing. We shall denote virtual diagrams of the first kind by $`𝒱_{i,j}^{(1)}`$ or $`𝒱_{i,j}^{(2)}`$ (depending on which triangle includes the non-trivial part)222The lower indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ refer to any chosen labelling of the $`H_r`$ hexagons and, thus, of the associated virtual triangles. (11) is a merely a convenient choice. and call them extended (basis) virtual triangles, and virtual diagrams of the second kind by $`𝒢_i`$ and call them “simple gluing roots”. It follows from (12) that the latter indeed correspond to pairs of simple roots, as illustrated by this $`su(3)`$ example (cf. (14)):

(25)
A natural generalisation of conventional notation allows us to represent graphically the gluing roots as tree-graphs:

(26)
These graphs, of course, represent couplings that do not exist (i.e., they have vanishing multiplicities) but nevertheless serve to illustrate the power of virtual diagrams. One may even extend the summation range in (21) to include them, since the associated algebraic expressions (20) merely contribute zeros whenever non-true diagrams are encountered.

As in the three-point case, we may now characterise any diagram $`𝒟`$ in the lattice by specifying an initial diagram $`𝒟_0`$:

$$𝒟=𝒟_0+\underset{a=1,2}{}\underset{i,j1}{\overset{i+j=r}{}}v_{i,j}^{(a)}𝒱_{i,j}^{(a)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}g_i𝒢_i.$$
(27)
$`v_{i,j}^{(a)}`$ and $`g_i`$ are integers, denoted linear coefficients. Note that we have chosen a convention with a minus sign in front of the last sum (27). This reflects the intimate relationship between a simple gluing root and (our convention (9) for) a basis virtual triangle:

(28)
One may of course choose to substitute the gluing roots with virtual triangles. However, that would introduce redundant parameters that cannot be fixed. This is because such extended gluing roots have the same number of entries as virtual triangles but fewer constraints. $`su(2)`$ offers a simple illustration of that where the single gluing root is substituted by a single hexagon:

(29)
The redundancy occurs since the hexagon identities allow us to fix only a relation between the two extra entries $`e`$ and $`e^{}`$. This “uniformisation” makes possible relations between higher-point $`su(N^{})`$ couplings and lower-point $`su(N)`$ couplings, when $`N`$ is sufficiently larger than $`N^{}`$. The four-point $`su(2)`$ diagram above may thus be embedded in a three-point $`su(N4)`$ diagram. We hope to discuss such relations in the future. Here, however, we refrain from replacing the gluing roots.

Now we turn to the construction of a convenient initial diagram $`𝒟_0`$. Referring to (20) we know that

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^++\mu ^+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}n_i^{(1)}\alpha _i,n_i^{(1)}=(\lambda ^+)^i+(\mu ^+)^i\rho ^iZZ_{},`$
$`\rho ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\nu ^++\sigma ^+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}}n_i^{(2)}\alpha _i,n_i^{(2)}=(\nu ^+)^i+(\sigma ^+)^i(\rho ^+)^iZZ_{}.`$ (30)
It follows that

$$\lambda +\mu +\nu +\sigma =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}m_i\alpha _i,m_iZZ_{},$$
(31)
ensuring the integer nature of the entries. This invites us to choose

(32)
as the initial diagram. This $`𝒟_0`$ is easily constructed explicitly as it corresponds to gluing together our original initial triangles $`𝒯_0`$ (15) associated to the couplings $`\lambda \mu (\nu +\sigma )`$ and $`\nu \sigma (\nu +\sigma )^+`$, respectively.

Now, requiring that $`𝒟`$ in (27) is a true diagram leads to a set of inequalities in the linear coefficients $`v`$ and $`g`$. It follows from the structure of the virtual diagrams that this set defines a convex polytope in the euclidean space $`\text{ }\text{ }\text{ R}^{2H_r+r}=\text{ }\text{ }\text{ R}^{r^2}`$. The discretised volume of the polytope is by construction the tensor product multiplicity $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$. This characterisation of the four-point tensor product multiplicity is our first main result.

To measure the volume in a straightforward manner, we should organise the inequalities such that a multiple sum expressing the volume may be written down without having to evaluate intersections of polytope faces. This corresponds to choosing an “appropriate” order of summation, as discussed in Ref. . Anticipating the extension to higher tensor products to be discussed below, we propose the following procedure.

Let the left (or lower) triangle in (23) correspond initially to the product $`\lambda \mu (\nu +\sigma )`$ such that the right triangle initially corresponds to the product $`\nu \sigma (\nu +\sigma )^+`$. These couplings are of course altered by the gluing process, adding linear combinations of roots to the third weights. Denoting the linear coefficients of the virtual triangles $`v_{i,j}^{(1)}`$ and $`v_{i,j}^{(2)}`$, respectively, we may choose the labelling indicated in the following diagram (cf. (11))

(33)
An appropriate order of summation is then obtained by starting with the right-most variable, $`v_{1,1}^{(2)}`$, and moving systematically towards left:

$`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,1}^{(1)}}{}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{v_{2,1}^{(1)}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,2}^{(1)}}{}}\right)\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{v_{r1,1}^{(1)}}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,r1}^{(1)}}{}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{g_r}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{g_1}{}}\right)`$ (34)
$`\times `$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,r1}^{(2)}}{}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{r1,1}^{(2)}}{}}\right)\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,2}^{(2)}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{2,1}^{(2)}}{}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,1}^{(2)}}{}}\right)1.`$
The summation variables are bounded according to

$`\mathrm{max}\{0,\sigma _2+v_{1,2}^{(2)},v_{1,2}^{(2)}v_{2,2}^{(2)}+v_{2,1}^{(2)},\nu _{r1}+v_{2,1}^{(2)}\}`$
$`v_{1,1}^{(2)}\mathrm{min}\{\sigma _1,v_{1,2}^{(2)},\nu _rv_{1,2}^{(2)}+v_{2,1}^{(2)},\sigma _1+v_{1,2}^{(2)}v_{2,1}^{(2)},v_{2,1}^{(2)},\nu _r\},`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{\sigma _2+v_{i1,2}^{(2)}v_{i1,3}^{(2)}+v_{i,2}^{(2)},`$
$`v_{i,2}^{(2)}(1\delta _{i,r2})v_{i+1,2}^{(2)}\delta _{i,r2}g_2+v_{i+1,1}^{(2)},\nu _{i+1}+v_{i+1,1}^{(2)}\}`$
$`v_{i,1}^{(2)}\mathrm{min}\{\nu _{ri+1}+v_{i1,2}^{(2)}v_{i,2}^{(2)}+v_{i+1,1}^{(2)},`$
$`\sigma _1+v_{i,2}^{(2)}v_{i+1,1}^{(2)},v_{i+1,1}^{(2)}\},\mathrm{for}2ir2,`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{i+1,j}^{(2)}+v_{i,j+1}^{(2)}(1\delta _{i+j,r1})v_{i+1,j+1}^{(2)}\delta _{i+j,r1}g_{j+1},`$
$`\sigma _{j+1}+v_{i1,j+1}^{(2)}v_{i1,j+2}^{(2)}+v_{i,j+1}^{(2)}\}`$
$`v_{i,j}^{(2)}\nu _{ri+1}+v_{i1,j+1}^{(2)}v_{i,j+1}^{(2)}+v_{i+1,j}^{(2)},\mathrm{for}2i,j,i+jr1,`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{\sigma _{j+1}+v_{1,j+1}^{(2)},v_{1,j+1}^{(2)}+v_{2,j}^{(2)}(1\delta _{j,r2})v_{2,j+1}^{(2)}\delta _{j,r2}g_{r1}\}`$
$`v_{1,j}^{(2)}\mathrm{min}\{v_{1,j+1}^{(2)},\nu _rv_{1,j+1}^{(2)}+v_{2,j}^{(2)}\},\mathrm{for}2jr2,`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{\nu _1+g_1,\sigma _2+v_{r2,2}^{(2)}+g_2g_3\}`$
$`v_{r1,1}^{(2)}\mathrm{min}\{\sigma _1g_1+g_2,\nu _2+v_{r2,2}^{(2)}+g_1g_2,g_1\},`$
$`\sigma _{l+1}+v_{rl1,l+1}^{(2)}+g_{l+1}g_{l+2}`$
$`v_{rl,l}^{(2)}\nu _{l+1}v_{rl1,l+1}^{(2)}+g_lg_{l+1},\mathrm{for}2lr2,`$
$`\sigma _r+g_rv_{1,r1}^{(2)}\mathrm{min}\{g_r,\nu _r+g_{r1}g_r\},`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{n_1+v_{1,r1}^{(1)},N_2+v_{1,r1}^{(1)}v_{2,r2}^{(1)}+g_2\}`$
$`g_1\mathrm{min}\{N_1+v_{1,r1}^{(1)},N_1^{}v_{1,r1}^{(1)}+g_2\},`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{n_i+v_{i1,ri+1}^{(1)}+v_{i,ri}^{(1)}v_{i1,ri}^{(1)},N_{i+1}+v_{i,ri}^{(1)}(1\delta _{i,r1})v_{i+1,ri1}^{(1)}+g_{i+1}\}`$
$`g_iN_i^{}+v_{i1,ri+1}^{(1)}v_{i,ri}^{(1)}+g_{i+1}\},\mathrm{for}2ir1,`$
$`n_r+v_{r1,1}^{(1)}g_rN_r^{}+v_{r1,1}^{(1)},`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{1,j1}^{(1)},\mu _{j1}+v_{1,j1}^{(1)}+v_{2,j1}^{(1)}(1\delta _{j,2})v_{2,j2}^{(1)}\}`$
$`v_{1,j}^{(1)}\mathrm{min}\{\mu _j+v_{1,j1}^{(1)},\lambda _rv_{1,j1}^{(1)}+v_{2,j1}^{(1)}\},\mathrm{for}2jr1,`$
$`\mathrm{max}\{v_{i,j1}^{(1)}+v_{i1,j}^{(1)}v_{i1,j1}^{(1)},\mu _{j1}+v_{i,j1}^{(1)}+v_{i+1,j1}^{(1)}(1\delta _{j,2})v_{i+1,j2}^{(1)}\}`$
$`v_{i,j}^{(1)}\lambda _{ri+1}v_{i,j1}^{(1)}+v_{i+1,j1}^{(1)}+v_{i1,j}^{(1)},\mathrm{for}2i,j,i+jr,`$
$`v_{i1,1}^{(1)}v_{i,1}^{(1)}\lambda _{ri+1}+v_{i1,1}^{(1)},\mathrm{for}2ir1,`$
$`0v_{1,1}^{(1)}\mathrm{min}\{\mu _1,\lambda _r\},`$ (35)
where the parameters $`n_i`$, $`N_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$ are defined as in (16), with $`\nu `$ replaced by $`\nu +\sigma `$:

$`n_i`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ri+1}+\mu ^{ri+1}(\nu +\sigma )^i,`$
$`N_i`$ $`=`$ $`(1\delta _{i1})n_{i1}n_i+\mu _{ri+1}`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ri+1}+(1\delta _{i1})\lambda ^{ri+2}(1\delta _{ir})\mu ^{ri}+\mu ^{ri+1}(1\delta _{i1})(\nu +\sigma )^{i1}+(\nu +\sigma )^i,`$
$`N_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\nu +\sigma )_iN_i`$ (36)
$`=`$ $`\lambda ^{ri+1}(1\delta _{i1})\lambda ^{ri+2}+(1\delta _{ir})\mu ^{ri}\mu ^{ri+1}+(\nu +\sigma )^i(1\delta _{ir})(\nu +\sigma )^{i+1}`$
This multiple sum formula is our second main result. For $`su(2)`$, $`su(3)`$ and $`su(4)`$ the explicit multiple sum formulas are provided in Section 5.

## 4 Higher point couplings

We shall now indicate how one may extend our results on four-point couplings to any higher $`𝒩`$-point coupling, in straightforward fashion.

It is well-known that higher-point couplings may be decomposed into three-point couplings along the lines of (20). The various tree-graph channels all have diagram counterparts as illustrated by the following two examples:

(37)
and

(38)
Since we may choose the channel freely, we can avoid complicated configurations like the “rocket” of (38) and concentrate on the “string-like” ones, like (37) and the following nine-point coupling:

(39)
Thus, an $`𝒩`$-point coupling may conveniently be represented by an $`𝒩`$-point diagram consisting of $`𝒩2`$ triangles glued together along $`𝒩3`$ pairs of faces to form a string-like configuration. An $`𝒩`$-point diagram is therefore a geometrical arrangement of $`(𝒩2)E_r`$ (non-)negative integers subject to $`2(𝒩2)H_r`$ hexagon identities, $`𝒩r`$ outer constraints, and $`(𝒩3)r`$ gluing constraints. (This is also true for the more complicated diagrams, such as (38)). This leaves

$$(𝒩2)E_r\left((𝒩2)H_r+𝒩r+(𝒩3)r\right)=(𝒩2)H_r+(𝒩3)r$$
(40)
parameters labelling the possible diagrams. As it should be, this is equal to the total number of virtual triangles and simple gluing roots.

Thus, from the point of view of the $`𝒩`$-point diagram, we have two types of virtual diagrams: extended (basis) virtual triangles $`𝒱`$, and simple gluing roots $`𝒢`$, exacly as for four-point couplings. The extension of (27) is therefore obvious:

$$𝒟=𝒟_0+\underset{a=1}{\overset{𝒩2}{}}\underset{i,j1}{\overset{i+j=r}{}}v_{i,j}^{(a)}𝒱_{i,j}^{(a)}\underset{a=1}{\overset{𝒩3}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}g_i^{(a)}𝒢_i^{(a)}.$$
(41)
The initial diagram $`𝒟_0`$ is likewise easy to describe, as it may be constructed by gluing $`𝒩2`$ initial triangles together. Labelling the $`𝒩`$ weights according to (in this example $`𝒩`$ is assumed odd)

(42)
the participating initial triangles are associated to the couplings

$`\lambda ^{((𝒩+1)/2)}\lambda ^{((𝒩+3)/2)}(\lambda ^{((𝒩+1)/2)}+\lambda ^{((𝒩+3)/2)})^+,`$
$`(\lambda ^{((𝒩+1)/2)}+\lambda ^{((𝒩+3)/2)})\lambda ^{((𝒩+5)/2)}(\lambda ^{((𝒩+1)/2)}+\lambda ^{((𝒩+3)/2)}+\lambda ^{((𝒩+5)/2)})^+,`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`(\lambda ^{(3)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{(𝒩1)})\lambda ^{(𝒩)}(\lambda ^{(3)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{(𝒩)})^+,`$
$`\lambda ^{(1)}\lambda ^{(2)}(\lambda ^{(3)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{(𝒩)}).`$ (43)
The weights are subject to the consistency condition (cf. (31))

$$\lambda ^{(1)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{(𝒩)}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}m_i\alpha _i,m_iZZ_{}.$$
(44)
The characterisation of the associated tensor product multiplicity in terms of a convex polytope, is materialised by requiring that the diagram should be a true diagram, i.e., all entries must be non-negative integers. As before, its discretised volume is the multiplicity by construction. That volume can be expressed explicitly as a multiple sum. An appropriate order of summation is indicated here:

$$T_{\lambda ^{(1)},\lambda ^{(2)},\mathrm{},\lambda ^{(𝒩)}}=\{\underset{v^{(1)}}{}\}\{\underset{g^{(1)}}{}\}\mathrm{}\{\underset{v^{(𝒩3)}}{}\}\{\underset{g^{(𝒩3)}}{}\}\{\underset{v^{(𝒩2)}}{}\}1.$$
(45)
This generalisation of our main results on three- and four-point couplings, concludes the extension to general higher-point couplings.

## 5 Examples and an application

It is of interest to know whether or not an $`𝒩`$-point coupling $`\lambda \mu \mathrm{}\sigma `$ exists, without having to work out the tensor product multiplicity. Based on our multiple sum formulas (34) and (45), one may derive a set of inequalities in the dual and ordinary Dynkin labels of the $`𝒩`$ weights, determining when the associated tensor product multiplicity is non-vanishing. The method is an immediate extension of the one employed in Ref.  when discussing three-point couplings (17). We work out the inequalities for $`su(2)`$ and $`su(3)`$ four-point couplings. In principle, it is possible to repeat the procedure for higher rank and higher $`𝒩`$ than four, though it rapidly becomes cumbersome.

To the best of our knowledge, similar results only exist for three-point products where, besides our work , the works  provide recent results and extensive lists of references.

For $`su(2)`$ the BZ triangle representing the product $`\lambda \mu \nu `$ is unique ($`H_1=0`$):

(46)
Nevertheless, gluing two triangles together leaves one free parameter $`g`$. We have

$$𝒟=𝒟_0g𝒢$$
(47)
where

(48)
and

(49)
Requiring $`𝒟`$ to be a true diagram results in a set of inequalities defining a one-dimensional convex polytope - a line segment. Its discretised volume (or length) is the sought multiplicity:

$$T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }=\underset{g=\mathrm{max}\{0,S\lambda _1\mu _1\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{S\lambda _1,S\mu _1,\nu _1,\sigma _1\}}{}}1,S\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _1+\mu _1+\nu _1+\sigma _1)ZZ_{}.$$
(50)
The summation, and thus the multiplicity, is non-vanishing if and only if the upper bound is greater than or equal to the lower bound. This requirement defines a four-dimensional cone:

$$0\lambda _1,\mu _1,\nu _1,\sigma _1,S\lambda _1,S\mu _1,S\nu _1,S\sigma _1.$$
(51)
It is easily verified that (50) and (51) are in accordance with well-known results.

For $`su(3)`$ the four-point coupling may be characterised by a convex polytope in a four-dimensional euclidean space. Its discretised volume is the tensor product multiplicity which we find may be expressed as the following multiple sum:

$`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v^{(1)}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _2,\mu _1\}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_2=n_2+v^{(1)}}{\overset{N_2^{}+v^{(1)}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_1=\mathrm{max}\{N_2+v^{(1)}+g_2,n_1+v^{(1)}\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{N_1+v^{(1)},N_1^{}+g_2v^{(1)}\}}{}}}`$ (52)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v^{(2)}=\mathrm{max}\{0,\sigma _2+g_2,\nu _1+g_1\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\nu _2,\sigma _1,g_1,g_2,\nu _2+g_1g_2,\sigma _1g_1+g_2\}}{}}}1,`$
where the weights are subject to

$$S_i\lambda ^i+\mu ^i+\nu ^i+\sigma ^iZZ_{},i=1,2$$
(53)
and where

$`n_1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2+\mu ^2\nu ^1\sigma ^1,`$
$`n_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^1+\mu ^1\nu ^2\sigma ^2,`$
$`N_1`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2\mu ^1+\mu ^2+\nu ^1+\sigma ^1,`$
$`N_2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^1+\lambda ^2+\mu ^1\nu ^1+\nu ^2\sigma ^1+\sigma ^2,`$
$`N_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^2+\mu ^1\mu ^2+\nu ^1\nu ^2+\sigma ^1\sigma ^2,`$
$`N_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^1\lambda ^2\mu ^1+\nu ^2+\sigma ^2.`$ (54)
This explicit result is believed to be new.

Analysing when the tensor product multiplicity is non-vanishing, leads to the following definition of a cone in the eight-dimensional Dynkin label space:

$`0`$ $``$ $`\lambda _i,\mu _i,\nu _i,\sigma _i,i=1,2`$
$`0`$ $``$ $`S_i\lambda _1\lambda _2,S_i\mu _1\mu _2,S_i\nu _1\nu _2,S_i\sigma _1\sigma _2,i=1,2`$
$`0`$ $``$ $`S_i\lambda _i\mu _i,S_i\lambda _i\nu _i,S_i\lambda _i\sigma _i,`$ (55)
$`S_i\mu _i\nu _i,S_i\mu _i\sigma _i,S_i\nu _i\sigma _i,i=1,2`$
This explicit characterisation is also believed to be new. It is verified immediately that for one weight equal to zero, (55) reduces to the result for the three-point product discussed in Ref. , i.e., $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,0}>0`$ if and only if $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu }>0`$.

For ease of use of the formula (34) expressing the tensor product multiplicity $`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$ as a multiple sum, we conclude this section by writing down explicitly the result for $`su(4)`$:

$`T_{\lambda ,\mu ,\nu ,\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,1}^{(1)}=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _3,\mu _1\}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{2,1}^{(1)}=v_{1,1}^{(1)}}{\overset{\lambda _2+v_{1,1}^{(1)}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,2}^{(1)}=\mathrm{max}\{\mu _1+v_{2,1}^{(1)}+v_{1,1}^{(1)},v_{1,1}^{(1)}\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\lambda _3+v_{2,1}^{(1)}v_{1,1}^{(1)},\mu _2+v_{1,1}^{(1)}\}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_3=n_3+v_{2,1}^{(1)}}{\overset{N_3^{}+v_{2,1}^{(1)}}{}}}`$ (56)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{g_2=\mathrm{max}\{N_3+g_3+v_{2,1}^{(1)},n_2+v_{1,2}^{(1)}+v_{2,1}^{(1)}v_{1,1}^{(1)}\}}{\overset{N_2^{}+g_3+v_{1,2}^{(1)}v_{2,1}^{(1)}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{g_1=\mathrm{max}\{n_1+v_{1,2}^{(1)},N_2+g_2+v_{1,2}^{(1)}v_{2,1}^{(1)}\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{N_1^{}+g_2v_{1,2}^{(1)},N_1+v_{1,2}^{(1)}\}}{}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,2}^{(2)}=\sigma _3+g_3}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\nu _3+g_2g_3,g_3\}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{2,1}^{(2)}=\mathrm{max}\{\nu _1+g_1,\sigma _2+v_{1,2}^{(2)}+g_2g_3\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\nu _2+v_{1,2}^{(2)}+g_1g_2,\sigma _1g_1+g_2,g_1\}}{}}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{v_{1,1}^{(2)}=\mathrm{max}\{0,\nu _2+v_{2,1}^{(2)},\sigma _2+v_{1,2}^{(2)},v_{2,1}^{(2)}+v_{1,2}^{(2)}g_2\}}{\overset{\mathrm{min}\{\nu _3,\sigma _1,v_{2,1}^{(2)},v_{1,2}^{(2)},\nu _3+v_{2,1}^{(2)}v_{1,2}^{(2)},\sigma _1v_{2,1}^{(2)}+v_{1,2}^{(2)}\}}{}}}1.`$
The parameters $`n_i`$, $`N_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$ are defined in (36), while the weights are subject to the condition

$$\lambda ^i+\mu ^i+\nu ^i+\sigma ^iZZ_{},i=1,2,3.$$
(57)
## 6 Conclusion

We have generalised our recent work on three-point products  to cover general $`𝒩`$-point products. That is, we have characterised the associated higher tensor product multiplicities by certain convex polytopes, and measured explicitly their discretised volumes. The latter are the multiplicities and are expressed as multiple sums.

The characterisation of the multiplicity as the number of integer points in a convex polytope is an example of a polyhedral combinatorial expression. Alternative polyhedral combinatorial expressions for three-point products (including other simple Lie algebras as well) may be found in . To the best of our knowledge, our result for higher-point products is the first of its kind.

As an application we have also addressed the problem of determining when a tensor product multiplicity is non-vanishing, and as an illustration of the general resolution provided explicit characterisations for $`su(2)`$ and $`su(3)`$. The result for $`su(3)`$ is believed to be new.

We are currently extending our work (presented here and in Ref. ) on tensor product multiplicities to fusion multiplicities. The latter are relevant to the representation theory of affine extensions of the Lie algebra, the so-called affine Kac-Moody algebras. They have found prominent applications to conformal field theory with affine Lie group symmetry, the so-called WZW theories. Since tensor product multiplicities correspond to the infinite-level limit of fusion multiplicities, our current efforts are concentrated on incorporating the finite-level dependence into the characterisation of the multiplicities in terms of convex polytopes and their discretised volumes. That again relies on our recent studies of three-point correlation functions in WZW theory . We intend to report more on this in the future.

Related in spirit to our approach is the recent work Ref.  on fusion rules in $`SU(N)`$ WZW theory. For lower ranks the authors discuss a combinatorial relation between three-point fusion multiplicities and numbers of certain group theoretical orbits. It would be interesting to understand how the results of Ref.  are related to ours.
Acknowledgements
We thank J. Patera for discussions and T. Gannon for comments.


format: text

text:
# Chaos and Interactions in Quantum Dots

## I Quantum Dots

Recent advances in materials science have made possible the fabrication of quantum dots, submicron-scale conducting devices containing up to several thousand electrons . A 2D electron gas is created at the interface region of a semiconductor heterostructure (e.g., GaAs/AlGaAs) and the electrons are further confined to a small region by applying a voltage to metal gates, depleting the electrons under them. Insofar as the motion of the electrons is restricted in all three dimensions, a quantum dot may be considered a zero-dimensional system. The transport properties of the dot, i.e., its conductance, can be measured by connecting it to external leads. A micrograph of a quantum dot is shown in Fig. 1(a).

At low temperatures, the electron preserves its phase over distances that are longer than the system’s size, i.e., $`L_\varphi >L`$, where $`L_\varphi `$ is the coherence length and $`L`$ is the linear size of the system. Such systems are called mesoscopic. Elastic scatterings of the electron from impurities generally preserve phase coherence, while inelastic scatterings, e.g., from other electrons or phonons, result in phase breaking

When the mean free path $`\mathrm{}`$ is much smaller than $`L`$, transport across the dot is dominated by diffusion, and the system is called diffusive. In the late 1980s it became possible to fabricate devices with little disorder where $`\mathrm{}>L`$. In these so-called ballistic dots, transport is dominated by scattering of the electrons from the boundaries. A schematic illustration of a ballistic dot is shown in Fig. 1(b).

In small dots (with typically less than $`20`$ electrons), the confining potential is often harmonic-like, leading to regular dynamics of the electron and shell structure that can be observed in the addition spectrum (i.e., the energy required to add an electron to the dot). Maxima in the addition spectrum are seen for numbers of electrons that correspond to filled ($`𝒩=2,6,12`$) or half-filled ($`𝒩=4,9,16`$) valence harmonic-oscillator shells .

Dots with a large number of electrons ($`𝒩50100`$) often have no particular symmetry, and their irregular shape results in single-particle dynamics that are mostly chaotic. For such dots the conductance and addition spectrum display “random” fluctuations when the shape of the dot or a magnetic field are varied. This is the statistical regime, where we are interested in the statistical properties of the dot’s spectrum and conductance when sampled from different shapes and magnetic fields. For a recent review of the statistical theory of quantum dots see Ref. .

Many of the physical parameters of a quantum dot can be experimentally controlled, including its degree of coupling to the leads, shape, size, and number of electrons. When the dot is “open”, i.e., strongly coupled to leads, there are generally several channels in each lead and the conductance fluctuates as a function of, e.g., the Fermi momentum of the electron in the leads (see Fig. 2(a)). As the point contacts are pinched off, the coupling becomes weaker and a barrier is effectively formed between the dot and the leads. In such “closed” dots, the charge is quantized. At low temperatures, the conductance through a closed dot displays peaks as a function of gate voltage (or Fermi energy); see, e.g., Fig. 2(b). Each peak represents the addition of one more electron into the dot. In between the peaks, the tunneling of an electron into the dot is blocked by the Coulomb repulsion of electrons already in the dot, an effect known as Coulomb blockade. In this paper we discuss closed dots in which mesoscopic phenomena are determined by the interplay between single-particle chaos, quantum coherence and electron-electron interactions.

## II  Transport in the Coulomb blockade regime

The simplest model for describing the Coulomb blockade regime is the constant interaction (CI) model, in which the Coulomb energy is taken to be $`e^2𝒩^2/2C`$, where $`C`$ is the total capacitance of the dot and $`𝒩`$ is the number of electrons. The Hamiltonian of the CI model is given by

$$H_{\mathrm{dot}}=\underset{\lambda }{}(E_\lambda e\alpha V_g)a_\lambda ^{}a_\lambda +e^2\widehat{𝒩}^2/2C.$$
(1)
Here $`a_\lambda ^{}|0`$ is a complete set of single-particle eigenstates in the dot with energies $`E_\lambda `$, and $`\widehat{𝒩}=\underset{\lambda }{}a_\lambda ^{}a_\lambda `$ is the electron number operator in the dot. The quantity $`\alpha V_g`$ is the confining potential written in terms of a gate voltage $`V_g`$ and $`\alpha =C_g/C`$, where $`C_g`$ is the gate-dot capacitance.

At low temperatures, conductance occurs by resonant tunneling through a single-particle level in the dot. Assuming energy conservation for the tunneling of the $`𝒩`$-th electron we have, $`E_F+_{g.s.}(𝒩1)=_{g.s.}(𝒩)`$, where $`E_F`$ is the Fermi energy of the electron in the leads and $`_{gs}(𝒩)`$ is the ground state energy of a dot with $`𝒩`$ electrons. Using Eq. (1), we find that the effective Fermi energy $`\stackrel{~}{E}_FE_F+e\alpha V_g`$ satisfies

$$\stackrel{~}{E}_F=E_𝒩+\left(𝒩\frac{1}{2}\right)\frac{e^2}{C}.$$
(2)
The conductance displays a series of peaks at values of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_F`$ given by (2), with each peak corresponding to the tunneling of an additional electron into the dot. The spacings between the peaks are given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{E}_F=(E_{𝒩+1}E_𝒩)+e^2/C.$$
(3)
Since the charging energy is usually much larger than the mean-level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the Coulomb-blockade peaks are almost equidistant. Coulomb blockade is illustrated in Fig. 3.

The Coulomb-blockade peak heights contain information about the wave functions. For closed dots, a typical level width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is small, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T`$ even for the lowest electron temperatures attained in the experiments. Under this condition, the coherence between the electrons in the leads and the dot can be ignored, and a master-equation approach is feasible . In the CI model and for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }T\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the $`𝒩`$-th conductance peak $`G`$ occurs through level $`\lambda =𝒩`$ and is given by

$$G(\stackrel{~}{E}_F,T)G_\lambda ^{\mathrm{peak}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}^2\left(\frac{E_\lambda \stackrel{~}{E}_F}{2kT}\right)}.$$
(4)
Eq. (4) describes a peak centered at $`\stackrel{~}{E}_F=E_\lambda `$ (here $`\stackrel{~}{E}_F`$ is measured with respect to $`(𝒩1/2)(e^2/C)`$). The peak has a width $`T`$ and a height of

$$G_\lambda ^{\mathrm{peak}}=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{4kT}g_\lambda ,\mathrm{where}g_\lambda =\frac{2}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^r}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^l+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^r}.$$
(5)
The quantities $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{l(r)}`$ describe the partial width of level $`\lambda `$ to decay into the left (right) lead, and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the average level width.

The partial widths can be written as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda =|\gamma _\lambda |^2`$, where $`\gamma _\lambda `$ is the partial width amplitude. In $`R`$-matrix theory , $`\gamma _\lambda `$ can be related to the wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda `$ at the respective dot-lead interface

$`\gamma _{c\lambda }=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2k_cP_c}{m}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒞}{}}𝑑l\varphi _c^{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda ,`$ (6)
where $`k_c`$ is the longitudinal channel momentum ($`\mathrm{}^2k_c^2/2m+\mathrm{}^2\kappa _c^2/2m=E`$), $`P_c`$ is the penetration factor to tunnel through the barrier in channel $`c`$ ($`P_c=1`$ in the absence of barrier and $`P_c1`$ in the presence of a barrier), and $`\varphi _c`$ is the transverse channel wave function. The integral in (6) is over the dot-lead interface $`𝒞`$.

## III Signatures of chaos in closed dots

In a dot where the classical dynamics of the electron are chaotic, the wave function fluctuations are described by random-matrix theory (RMT) . These fluctuations lead to fluctuations in the conductance peaks according to Eqs. (5) and (6). When time-reversal symmetry is conserved (i.e., there is no external magnetic field $`B`$) the corresponding random-matrix ensemble is the Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE), while for broken time-reversal symmetry ($`B0`$) the appropriate ensemble is the Gaussian unitary ensemble (GUE). For a recent review of RMT and its applications see Ref. . For a review of the random-matrix theory of quantum transport (including applications to open dots) see Ref. .

To quantify the conductance peak statistics using RMT, we express the partial width amplitude (6) as a scalar product of the resonance wavefunction $`𝝍_\lambda =(\psi _{\lambda 1},\psi _{\lambda 2},\mathrm{})`$ and the channel wavefunction $`\mathit{\varphi }_c=(\varphi _{c1},\varphi _{c2},\mathrm{})`$

$$\gamma _{c\lambda }=\mathit{\varphi }_c|𝝍_\lambda \underset{j}{}\varphi _{cj}^{}\psi _{\lambda j},$$
(7)
where we expanded the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\lambda =\underset{j}{}\psi _{\lambda j}\rho _j`$ in a fixed basis $`\rho _j`$ in the dot and defined the channel vector $`\varphi _{cj}\left(\mathrm{}^2k_cP_c/m\right)^{1/2}\underset{𝒞}{}𝑑l\rho _j^{}(𝒓)\varphi _c(𝒓)`$. We note that the scalar product in (7) is defined over the dot-lead interface and is different from the usual scalar product in the Hilbert space of the dot.

### A Peak heights distributions

The conductance peak distributions for one-channel symmetric leads ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1;\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^l=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^r`$) were derived by Jalabert, Stone and Alhassid using RMT . Similar results were obtained in the supersymmetry method . Using Eqs. (5) and (7), and assuming $`\psi _\lambda `$ to be an RMT eigenvector, we can calculate the distributions of the dimensionless conductance peak heights $`g`$. These distributions are universal and depend only on the space-time symmetries :

$`P_{\mathrm{GOE}}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{2/\pi g}e^{2g}`$ (9)
$`P_{\mathrm{GUE}}(g)`$ $`=`$ $`4ge^{2g}\left[K_0(2g)+K_1(2g)\right],`$ (10)
where $`K_0`$ and $`K_1`$ are modified Bessel functions. The distributions were measured independently by Chang et al.  and by Folk et al.  and found to agree with the theoretical predictions for both conserved and broken time-reversal symmetries. Fig. 4 shows a comparison between the theoretical and experimental distributions in both experiments. The peak height distributions in closed dots with several possibly correlated and inequivalent channels in each lead were derived in Refs. .

### B Weak localization

Another signature of chaos is the weak localization effect. This well-known quantum interference effect was already observed in macroscopic disorder conductors . When time-reversal symmetry is conserved, time-reversed orbits contribute coherently to enhance the return probability. The average conductance is then smaller in the absence of magnetic field.

In Coulomb-blockade quantum dots, the average conductance peak height can be calculated as a function of a time-reversal symmetry breaking parameter $`\zeta `$. In RMT, the statistics of the crossover regime between GOE and GUE can be described by the Mehta-Pandey ensemble

$$H=S+i\alpha A,$$
(11)
where $`S`$ and $`A`$ are, respectively, symmetric and antisymmetric real matrices and $`\alpha `$ is a real parameter. The matrices $`S`$ and $`A`$ are uncorrelated and chosen from Gaussian ensembles of the same variance. The transition parameter $`\zeta `$ is given by a typical symmetry-breaking matrix element measured in units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ : $`\zeta =(\overline{H^2}_{\mathrm{break}})^{1/2}/\mathrm{\Delta }=\alpha \sqrt{N}/\pi `$ (where $`N`$ is the dimension of the random matrix). If the time-reversal symmetry is broken by a magnetic field $`B`$, then $`\zeta =B/B_{\mathrm{cr}}`$, where $`B_{cr}`$ is the crossover field.

Using the ensemble (11) to describe the statistics of the partial amplitude (7), we can find the average conductance peak height in a dot with single-channel symmetric leads

$`\overline{g}(\zeta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}d\zeta P_\zeta (t)\times `$ (13)
$`\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{1t^2}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{2t^2}{1t^4}}\mathrm{ln}t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)\right].`$
Eigenvectors in the crossover ensemble (11) have complex components whose distribution in the complex plane is characterized by a “shape” parameter $`t`$. The function $`P_\zeta (t)`$ in (13) describes the probability of an eigenvector to have a certain shape $`t`$ and is given by

$`P_\zeta (t)=\pi ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1t^4}{t^3}}\zeta ^2`$ $`e^{\frac{\pi ^2}{2}\zeta ^2\left(t1/t\right)^2}\{\varphi _1(\zeta )+[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}})^2`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2\zeta ^2}}][1\varphi _1(\zeta )]\},`$
where $`\varphi _1(\zeta )=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}e^{2\pi ^2\zeta ^2(1y^2)}𝑑y`$.

The average dimensionless conductance $`\overline{g}(\zeta )`$ has a dip at $`\zeta =0`$ (see solid line in Fig. 5), describing a weak localization effect. The theoretical results compare well with recent experimental results vs magnetic field  (solid circles in Fig. 5) once the magnetic field is scaled by $`B_{cr}6`$ mT.

The crossover field can be estimated semiclassically. Time-reversal symmetry is fully broken for field $`B_{cr}`$ where the rms of the phase difference between an orbit and its time-reversed partner is $`2\pi `$. This phase is proportional to the area enclosed by the electron’s trajectory. In a chaotic dot, area accumulation is diffusive, and the accumulated area’s rms behaves as the squared-root of the elapsed time . In an open dot the relevant time is the escape time $`\tau _{\mathrm{escape}}`$, but in a closed dot this time is replaced by the Heisenberg time $`\tau _H=h/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A more quantitative derivation (for a dot with area $`𝒜`$) gives

$$B_{cr}𝒜/\mathrm{\Phi }_0=\kappa \left(2\pi \tau _c/\tau _H\right)^{1/2}=\kappa g_T^{1/2}=\kappa (4\pi ^2)𝒩^{1/4},$$
(16)
where $`\tau _c`$ is the ergodic time (roughly the time to cross the dot), and $`g_T=E_T/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (with $`E_T\mathrm{}/\tau _c`$) is the ballistic Thouless conductance. The factor $`\kappa `$ is a non-universal geometrical factor.

### C Parametric correlations

Another signature of quantum chaos are the mesoscopic fluctuations of a given conductance peak height as a function of an external parameter, e.g., the shape of the dot or a magnetic field. These fluctuations can be described in the framework of Gaussian processes (GP)  which generalize the random-matrix ensembles to random-matrix processes. A Gaussian process $`H(x)`$ of a given symmetry class $`\beta `$ is characterized by its first two moments

$`\overline{H_{ij}(x)}=0;\overline{H_{ij}(x)H_{kl}(x^{})}={\displaystyle \frac{a^2}{2\beta }}f(xx^{})g_{ij,kl}^{(\beta )},`$ (17)
where the coefficients $`g_{ij,kl}^{(\beta )}`$ are defined by

$`g_{ij,kl}^{(\beta =1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}+\delta _{il}\delta _{jk};g_{ij,kl}^{(\beta =2)}=2\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}.`$ (18)
The Gaussian process (17) constitutes a Gaussian ensemble for each value of the parameter $`x`$.

A GP is characterized by the short distance behavior of its correlation function $`f(xx^{})1\kappa |xx^{}|^\eta `$. A differentiable GP is obtained for $`\eta =2`$ , and corresponds to the usual situation where the Hamiltonian depends analytically on the parameter. Simons and Altshuler  showed that parametric correlations in disordered or chaotic systems become universal once the parameter $`x`$ is scaled by the rms of the level velocity

$`x\overline{x}\left[\overline{\left(ϵ_i/x\right)^2}\right]^{1/2}x.`$ (19)
Here $`ϵ_i`$ is the $`i`$th energy level measured in units of the mean-level spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The conductance peak correlator is defined by $`c_g(xx^{})=\overline{\delta G(x)\delta G(x^{})}/[\sigma (G(x))\sigma (G(x^{}))]`$, where $`\delta G(x)=G(x)\overline{G}(x)`$ and $`\sigma ^2(G(x))=\overline{(\delta G(x))^2}`$ (here $`G(x)`$ is the conductance peak height at a value $`x`$ of the parameter). The universal correlator $`c_g`$ was calculated in Ref.  using the simple GP  $`H(x)=H_1\mathrm{cos}x+H_2\mathrm{sin}x`$, where $`H_1,H_2`$ are uncorrelated matrices that belong to the appropriate Gaussian ensemble. The GUE correlator can be well fitted to the square of a Lorentzian. If the parameter is a magnetic field $`B`$ then

$$c_g(\mathrm{\Delta }B)\left[\frac{1}{1+(\mathrm{\Delta }B/B_c)^2}\right]^2,$$
(20)
where $`B_c`$ is the correlation field. Fig. 6 shows the measured conductance peak correlator (solid diamonds) in comparison with the theoretical prediction (20) (solid line), where the parameter $`B_c`$ is fitted. RMT describes the correct shape of the correlator for $`B10`$ mT. A single-particle semiclassical estimate of the correlation field $`B_c`$ gives an expression similar to (16). For a stadium in a uniform magnetic field, the correlation flux is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_c0.3\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ , which is below the experimental value of $`0.8\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. This indicates that the single-particle picture is inadequate for estimating the correlation field. Numerical simulations in small disordered dots with Coulomb interactions find that the correlation field increases with the interaction strength .

### D Peak-to-peak correlations

The conductance peak at finite temperature ($`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$) can be calculated in the master-equations approach

$`\begin{array}{cc}G(T,\stackrel{~}{E}_F)=\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{\pi \overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}}{4kT}g,\hfill & \mathrm{where}g=_\lambda w_\lambda (T,\stackrel{~}{E}_F)g_\lambda \hfill \end{array}`$ (22)
is the dimensionless conductance expressed as a thermal average over the level conductances $`g_\lambda =2\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^r/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^l+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda ^r)`$. For $`T,\mathrm{\Delta }e^2/C`$, the thermal weights for the $`𝒩`$-th conductance peak are given by

$`w_\lambda =4P_𝒩n_\lambda __𝒩\left[1f\left(E_\lambda \stackrel{~}{E}_F\right)\right],`$ (23)
where $`P_𝒩`$ is the probability that the dot has $`𝒩`$ electrons, and $`n_\lambda __𝒩`$ is the canonical occupation of a level $`\lambda `$.

The finite-temperature peak height statistics were calculated in Ref.  assuming the level conductance and energy levels satisfy RMT. Of particular interest is the peak-to-peak correlator

$$c(n)=\overline{\delta G_𝒩\delta G_{𝒩+n}}/\overline{(\delta G_𝒩)^2},$$
(24)
where $`\delta G_𝒩=G_𝒩\overline{G}_𝒩`$ is the fluctuation of the $`𝒩`$-th conductance peak around its average. The number of correlated peaks $`n_c`$ is the FWHM of (24). The calculated temperature dependence of $`n_c`$ is shown in Fig. 7(c) (solid line).

The experimental results  shown in Fig. 7 demonstrate that $`n_c`$ saturates with temperature, especially for the small dots. This behavior is contrary to the linear dependence predicted by RMT. An explanation of this saturation effect is discussed in Sec. IV A.

## IV Interaction effects

While the CI-plus-RMT model can explain some of the observed statistical properties of closed dots, several experimental observations suggest that electron-electron interactions beyond the charging energy are important: (i) The measured peak-spacing distribution  does not have the Wigner-Dyson shape expected in the CI model (see Eq. (3)). This signature will be discussed in detail in Sec. IV B. (ii) The measured correlation flux is larger than the semiclassical estimate (see Sec. III C). (iii) Correlations between the addition and excitation spectra are seen only for a small number of added electrons . (iv) The peak-to-peak correlations saturate with increasing temperature, contrary to the results of the CI-plus-RMT model. This effect is explained in Section IV A.

### A Spectral scrambling

The best way to include interaction effects while retaining a single-particle framework is the mean-field approach, e.g., the Hartree-Fock approximation. In this approach, the self-consistent single-particle energy levels change (“scramble”) when an electron is added to the dot. This scrambling can be modeled in terms of a discrete parametric random matrix $`H(x_𝒩)`$, where $`x_𝒩`$ describes the parameter of the dot with $`𝒩`$ electrons. We describe $`H(x_𝒩)`$ as a discrete Gaussian process, and embed it in a continuous process $`H(x)`$. We assume that the scaled parametric change $`\delta \overline{x}=\overline{x}_{𝒩+1}\overline{x}_𝒩`$ upon the addition of one electron is independent of $`𝒩`$.

The parameter $`\delta \overline{x}`$ determines the degree of spectral scrambling. Fig. 8(a)(b) shows the correlators $`c(n)`$ at various temperatures for both an unchanged spectrum ($`\delta \overline{x}=0`$) and for a spectrum that scrambles ($`\delta \overline{x}=0.5`$). Fig. 8(c) shows that when $`\delta \overline{x}`$ is larger (i.e., the spectrum scrambles faster), the number of correlated peaks saturates at smaller values of $`T/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ .

Spectral scrambling is an interaction effect . A microscopic estimate of $`\delta \overline{x}`$ can be done in Koopmans’ limit , i.e., assuming the single-particle wave functions do not change with the addition of electrons (and only the spectrum scrambles). In this limit the change $`\delta E_i`$ of an energy level upon the addition of one electron is given by a diagonal matrix element $`\delta E_iv_{i,𝒩+1}`$, where $`v_{\alpha \gamma }v_{\alpha \gamma ;\alpha \gamma }`$. Using an RPA screened interaction  or a short-range dressed interaction  $`v\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }𝒜\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$, we have

$$\sigma ^2(\delta E_i)\sigma ^2(v_{i,𝒩+1})\frac{\lambda ^2}{\beta ^2}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{g_T^2},$$
(25)
where $`g_T`$ is the Thouless conductance. In the finite dot, there could be an additional contribution due to excess negative charge on the boundaries , leading to

$$\sigma ^2(\delta E_i)\frac{\lambda ^2}{\beta }\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{g_T}.$$
(26)
In the parametric approach $`\sigma ^2(\delta E_i)(\delta \overline{x})^2`$, and by comparing with (25) or (26) we can find $`\delta \overline{x}`$. The number of added electrons $`m`$ required for complete scrambling of the spectrum is then determined from $`m_c\delta \overline{x}1`$. We obtain

$`m_c{\displaystyle \frac{\beta g_T}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta 𝒩^{1/2}}{\lambda }}`$ (28)
$`\mathrm{or}`$ $`m_c{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta g_T)^{1/2}}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^{1/2}𝒩^{1/4}}{\lambda }},`$ (29)
where (29) holds in the presence of surface charge.

### B Peak spacing statistics

One of the main signatures of interactions is seen in the peak spacing distribution. The spacing between peaks in an interacting dot is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2=_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩+1)+_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩1)2_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩),$$
(30)
where $`_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩)`$ is the ground state energy of the dot with $`𝒩`$ electrons. In the CI model, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ reduces to (3), and a shifted Wigner-Dyson distribution is expected for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$. Experimentally, the distribution is Gaussian-like (for semiconductor dots with $`r_s12`$) and has a larger width than the Wigner-Dyson distribution . An example of the measured peak spacing statistics is shown in Fig. 9.

An estimate of the fluctuations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2`$ can be obtained in Koopmans’ limit  where the addition energy is given by $`E_𝒩^{(𝒩)}`$ ($`E_i^{(𝒩)}`$ is the $`i`$-th single-particle level of a dot with $`𝒩`$ electrons). The peak spacing can then be written as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_2E_{𝒩+1}^{(𝒩+1)}E_𝒩^{(𝒩)}=(E_{𝒩+1}^{(𝒩+1)}E_𝒩^{(𝒩+1)})+\mathrm{\Delta }E_𝒩.$$
(31)
The first term on the r.h.s. of (31) is the usual level spacing in a dot with a fixed number of electrons ($`𝒩+1`$) and has an rms of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The second term $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_𝒩`$ represents the change of a given energy level when an electron is added and its standard deviation can be estimated from (25) or (26).

Gaussian-like peak spacing distributions were explained in exact numerical diagonalization of a small Anderson model with Coulomb interactions . Their width increases with the gas constant $`r_s`$. Scrambling of the single-particle spectrum (see Section IV A) can also lead to Gaussian distributions if $`\delta \overline{x}`$ is sufficiently large .

Nearly-Gaussian distributions were observed in Hartree-Fock calculations at larger values of $`r_s`$ . The distribution of a diagonal interaction matrix element is found to be approximately Gaussian. Using (31) (for small values of $`r_s`$), we can describe the peak spacing distribution as a convolution of the Wigner-Dyson distribution with a Gaussian distribution.

The numerical investigations of small disordered dots with interactions demonstrate the need to go beyond the simple CI model. An interesting question is whether it is possible to describe the RMT-like behavior of the peak height statistics and the Gaussian-like distribution of the peak spacing distribution within a single random-matrix model.

### C Random interaction matrix model

RMT is not restricted to single-particle systems. It was successfully applied to strongly interacting systems, e.g., the compound nucleus at finite excitations. However, in the linear conductance regime of quantum dots we are interested in the statistical properties of the ground state of the system as the number of electrons changes. Since RMT does not make explicit reference to interactions or to particle number, it is necessary to use a model that contains interactions explicitly. A two-body random-interaction model was introduced in nuclear physics in the early 1970s . It was used, together with a random single-particle spectrum, to study thermalization  and the onset of chaos in interacting many-body systems . Since its one-body part has Poissonian statistics it is not suitable for studying chaotic dots. A random interaction matrix model (RIMM) for dots with chaotic single-particle dynamics was recently introduced to study the interplay between one-body chaos and interactions .

The RIMM describes an ensemble of interacting Hamiltonians in a fixed basis of $`m`$ single-particle states $`|i=a_i^{}|0`$

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}h_{ij}a_i^{}a_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijkl}{}}u_{ijkl}^Aa_i^{}a_j^{}a_la_k.`$ (32)
The one-body elements $`h_{ij}`$ are chosen from the appropriate Gaussian random-matrix ensemble, i.e., GOE (GUE) for conserved (broken) time-reversal symmetry of the one-body dynamics. The anti-symmetrized two-body matrix elements $`u_{ij;kl}^Au_{ij;kl}u_{ij;lk}`$ form a GOE in the two-particle space (the two-body interaction is assumed to conserve time-reversal symmetry irrespective of the symmetry of the one-body Hamiltonian). The variance of the diagonal (off-diagonal) interaction matrix elements is $`U^2`$ ($`U^2/2`$). The two-body interaction can include a non-vanishing average part $`\overline{u}`$ that is invariant under orthogonal transformations of the single-particle basis. The only such invariant for spinless electrons is the charging energy $`e^2𝒩^2/2C`$, which is a constant and thus does not affect the statistical fluctuations. If the spin degrees of freedom are included in the RIMM then another possible invariant is the exchange interaction $`\xi 𝑺^2/2`$ . It is important to note that in a physical model of the dot, the two-body interaction in a given basis is fixed. The introduction of a fluctuating two-body interaction is done in the spirit of RMT to describe generic effects that do not depend on the specific interaction.

The RIMM was used to calculate the peak spacing distribution from Eq. (30), where the ground state energies of the Hamiltonian (32) are calculated for $`𝒩1`$, $`𝒩`$ and $`𝒩+1`$ electrons. The peak spacing distribution describes a crossover from a Wigner-Dyson distribution at $`U=0`$ to a Gaussian distribution as $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ increases; see Fig. 10(a) . The width of the distributions increases vs $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see Fig. 10(b)). The distributions are well described by a convolution of a Wigner-Dyson distribution with a Gaussian distribution. For small $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the width of this Gaussian is just the standard deviation of a diagonal interaction matrix element.

The inset of Fig. 10(b) shows the calculated ratio $`\sigma _{\mathrm{GOE}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)/\sigma _{\mathrm{GUE}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_2)`$ vs $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The experimental values $`1.11.3`$  are consistent with theory.

To calculate the conductance peak height we use Eq. (5) but now the partial width of the ground state of the $`𝒩`$-electron dot to decay into the ground state of the dot with $`𝒩1`$ electrons plus an electron in the respective lead is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_𝒩\left|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩)|\psi ^{}(𝒓)|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩1)\right|^2,$$
(33)
where $`\psi ^{}(𝒓)`$ is the creation operator of an electron at the point contact $`𝒓`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{s}.}(𝒩)`$ is the ground state wavefunction of the $`𝒩`$-electron dot. For a GOE one-body statistics we find that the partial-width distribution is a Porter-Thomas distribution irrespective of $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (see Fig. 11(a)). A similar insensitivity to the interaction strength was found in numerical simulations of an Anderson model with Coulomb interactions . However, for a GUE single-particle statistics (Fig. 11(b)) we find a crossover from the GUE Porter-Thomas distribution (at U=0) to the GOE Porter-Thomas distribution (at large $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$). Equivalently, the GOE $``$ GUE transition due to an external magnetic field is incomplete because of the competing GOE symmetry of the two-body interaction. The crossover width distributions are well described by those of the Mehta-Pandey ensemble (11) with a transition parameter $`\zeta `$ that is a monotonically decreasing function of $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ .

We note that the curves of the width $`\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }_2)`$ and $`\zeta `$ vs $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ depend on both $`m`$ (number of single-particle states) and $`𝒩`$ (number of electrons), but they become universal once $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is scaled by a constant (that depends on $`m`$ and $`𝒩`$). For $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }0.71.5`$, the peak spacing distribution is already Gaussian-like, while the peak height statistics (in the presence of a time-reversal symmetry breaking field) is still close to the GUE prediction. In the RIMM, $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a free parameter and physical values can be determined by comparing its results to specific models. For a small ($`4\times 5`$) Anderson model with Coulomb interactions of strength $`U_c`$, we find that the range $`U/\mathrm{\Delta }0.71.5`$ corresponds to $`U_c25`$ .

## V Conclusions

The mesoscopic fluctuations in closed dots are affected by both one-body chaos and electron-electron interactions. Signatures of chaos include the RMT-like conductance peak height distributions, the weak localization effect, and the line shape of the parametric peak-height correlator. Interaction effects include the Gaussian-like shape of the peak-spacing distribution, a correlation magnetic field that is larger than its single-particle estimate, and the saturation of peak-to-peak correlations with temperature. Some of these interaction effects can be described by a random interaction matrix model.

## VI Acknowledgments

I thank H. Attias, Y.Gefen, M. Gökçedağ, J.N. Hormuzdiar, Ph. Jacquod, R. Jalabert, S. Malhotra, C.M. Marcus, S. Patel, A.D. Stone, N. Whelan and A. Wobst for collaborations on various parts of the work presented above. This research was supported in part by the Department of Energy grant No. DE-FG-0291-ER-40608.