four - dimensional conformal field theories have attracted much attention in the last decade , mainly because of their relevance in the context of the ads / cft correspondence and its developments as well as its applications in completely different fields of which condensed matter is an example .
the conformal symmetry imposes stringent constraints on the theory @xcite . in the case of two dimensions , for example , where scale invariance implies conformal invariance ,
the symmetry is enough to solve the theory @xcite . in four and higher dimensions ,
this is in general not true @xcite , since examples are known of theories with scale but not conformal symmetry @xcite , but meaningful statements can be made as well ( e.g. @xcite for the four - dimensional case ) .
moreover , in the presence of supersymmetry , superconformal invariance puts restrictions on the operator scaling dimensions , independently of the space - time dimensionality @xcite .    for these theories ,
a great deal of information can be obtained from the conformal group , that in four dimensions is @xmath3 and that acts non - linearly on the coordinates , due to the presence of operations such as the inversion and the special conformal transformations .
however , it has been long known that it is possible to formulate the theory in such a way that the conformal group will act linearly on the coordinates , in the same fashion as the angular momentum does .
in addition , correlation functions automatically exhibit manifest conformal symmetry and any results written in terms of the embedding coordinates are valid not just in minkowski space but in any conformally flat space - time .
this approach goes back to @xcite and had applications to m / string theory branes @xcite as well as to more complicated conformal field theories in @xcite ( in particular @xcite generalizes the construction from scalars to more generic tensor fields ) .
moreover , embeddings of chiral conformal superspaces were considered in @xcite , in terms of off - shell twistors @xcite , while @xcite and @xcite review the general ( chiral and non - chiral ) case .
in particular , using the twistor notation , @xcite gives the two - point correlators between chiral and anti - chiral superfields for arbitrary @xmath2 . in some cases ,
@xmath4-point correlators have been calculated for various values of @xmath4 ( see for example @xcite where @xmath5 and the primaries are not chiral superfields ) . the supertwistor approach was also used in @xcite to study the superconformal structure of 4d @xmath6 compactified harmonic / projective superspace .
the results presented here ( as well as in @xcite ) are equivalent to those obtained with twistor calculations .    in the embedding method ,
one introduces two additional coordinates and embeds the four - dimensional space - time into a larger six - dimensional space with signature @xmath7 . in this space
the conformal group generators act as angular momenta .
the four - dimensional space is recovered by constraining the six - dimensional coordinates on the projective light - cone .
the group @xmath3 is isomorphic to @xmath8 . as a consequence
, one can re - express everything in spinor indices and introduce gamma matrices for the basis change from @xmath3 to @xmath8 .    in @xcite ,
the authors generalize the embedding methods to @xmath0 superconformal field theories .
the superconformal group is @xmath9 and the six - dimensional complex superspace is constructed out of the coordinates @xmath10 , which contain the standard space - time @xmath11 , one fermionic direction @xmath12 and an additional bosonic coordinate @xmath13 .
@xmath14 transforms linearly under a superconformal transformation . upon projecting on the projective light - cone ,
the four - dimensional superspace @xmath15 is recovered .
moreover , scalar and holomorphic fields are considered and it is shown that they correspond to four - dimensional @xmath0 chiral superfields whose @xmath16 component is an @xmath0 chiral primary operator @xcite .    in this paper
we generalize the embedding method to extended supersymmetry where the superconformal group is @xmath17 .
most of the arguments are similar to the ones in @xcite and analogue results are obtained by considering more fermionic coordinates @xmath18 , with @xmath19 .
automatically , more bosonic variables @xmath20 also appear in the six - dimensional superspace , which will then be removed once the light - cone constraint is imposed .
we define such a set - up in section [ section : conformal and superconformal group ] , where the generators as well as the necessary representations are introduced . in section [ section : superspace ] we construct the @xmath2-extended four - dimensional superspace .
this is done as a coset construction , achieved by applying translations and supersymmetry transformations to a reference origin .
the resulting space is invariant under the superconformal and lorentz groups . in section [ section : the chiral sector ] we consider representations of the superconformal algebra in terms of superfields . in particular , we generalize the arguments of @xcite to @xmath2-extended chiral superfields , find their transformation rules under the @xmath21 symmetry subgroup of the superconformal algebra as well as under generic superconformal transformations .
we also study in detail the case of chiral superfields in @xmath1 extended supersymmetry .    as an aside result of our calculations
, we have discovered an interesting connection between the number of component fields of a given kind in an @xmath2-extended supermultiplet and the so - called pascal s pyramid at layer @xmath2 .
this aspect of number theory seems not to be mentioned explicitly in the literature .
one can use it as a check that superfield expansions are correct .    throughout this paper
we use the conventions of @xcite and @xcite .
in particular , the various definitions for the spinor indices and the gamma matrices are the same as in @xcite . in the appendix
we give some details of the calculations as well as our notation .
in particular , in appendix [ explicit su(2,2 ) transformations ] we compute explicitly the @xmath8 transformations of the coordinates @xmath11 . in appendix [ appendix useful identities ] we give our notation for the spinorial indices and show some identities that will be useful in our computations . in appendix
[ 4d superspace barred ] we provide the necessary for computing the coordinates of the 4d barred superspace . in appendix
[ appendix pascal pyramid ] we define the pascal pyramid , with some of its properties and symmetries , construct the @xmath5 chiral multiplet and relate it to the pyramid at layer @xmath22 .
the superconformal group in four dimensions has fifteen generators that satisfy the @xmath3 algebra .
it includes the poincar generators ( @xmath23 for translations and @xmath24 for lorentz transformations ) as a subalgebra .
in addition there are the generators @xmath25 for special conformal transformations as well as the dilatation generator @xmath26 .
special conformal transformations can be thought of as an inversion , followed by a translation and then by another inversion and act non - linearly on the coordinates @xmath27 .
schematically :    @xmath28    with real parameters @xmath29 , @xmath30 , @xmath31 and @xmath32 . here
indices are raised and lowered by the four - dimensional metric @xmath33 .
the conformal group @xmath3 is identical to the lorentz group in a space with six dimensions and signature @xmath7 .
one can use this observation to make the conformal transformations act linearly on the coordinates .
define new variables @xmath34 , with @xmath35 .
under @xmath3 , @xmath34 transforms linearly : @xmath36 infinitesimally , @xmath37 , the conformal transformation @xmath38 is generated by the @xmath3 differential operators @xmath39 in order to recover the four - dimensional space , one has to demand that the coordinates @xmath34 are constrained on the projective light - cone : @xmath40    since the conformal group @xmath3 is equivalent to @xmath8 , we can transform everything into spinor notation .
@xmath8 is the group of four by four special matrices that are unitary with respect to a fixed invariant matrix of signature @xmath41 .
the connection is realized by using gamma matrices to transform the vector index @xmath42 into an anti - symmetric pair of spinor indices ( @xmath43 ) .
a spinor @xmath44 of @xmath8 transforms as @xmath45 the @xmath8 index @xmath46 has an undotted component transforming in the fundamental representation of @xmath47 and a dotted component transforming in the complex conjugate representation , @xmath48 , with @xmath49 and @xmath50 ( e.g. @xcite ) . the vector @xmath34 becomes an anti - symmetric tensor @xmath51 , with each index transforming as in ( [ su(2,2 ) spinor transformation ] ) : @xmath52 with @xmath53 the light - cone constraint is written as @xmath54 with @xmath55 .
similarly , one can express the @xmath3 generators @xmath56 in spinor notation .
the result is @xmath57 , @xmath58 , with @xmath59 being the @xmath8 generators .
the @xmath2-extended superconformal group in four dimensions is @xmath17 consisting of matrices of the form @xmath60 this is a block matrix , with the indices running in the range @xmath61 and @xmath62 .
the diagonal blocks are commuting , while the off - diagonal ones are anti - commuting .
an @xmath17 vector in the fundamental representation is written as @xmath63 where the @xmath44 component is fermionic and the @xmath2 @xmath64 fields are bosonic .
indices are raised and lowered with the invariant matrix @xmath65 where @xmath66 is the @xmath8 invariant metric . in order to be an element of @xmath17
, the matrix @xmath67 must have unit superdeterminant : @xmath68 it must also satisfy @xmath69 where @xmath70 .    one can introduce the @xmath17 generators @xmath71 as @xmath72 hence : @xmath73 with @xmath74 , @xmath75 , @xmath76 and @xmath77 . from the superdeterminant , it follows that @xmath71 have vanishing supertrace : @xmath78 where @xmath79 is the trace of @xmath80 , @xmath81 . from ( [ definition of su(2,2|n ) ] ) , it follows that @xmath82 hence , explicitly    * for @xmath83 : @xmath84 , which implies that @xmath85 is a @xmath86 generator * for mixed indices : @xmath87 ( equivalently @xmath88 ) * for @xmath89 : @xmath90 ( equivalently @xmath91 ) , which states that @xmath80 is hermitian and hence @xmath92 is unitary , @xmath93 , as it should be since @xmath80 is the @xmath94-symmetry generator .    in order to make @xmath85 an @xmath8 generator ( and hence @xmath95 )
, one can subtract its trace and replace @xmath71 by @xmath96 in the fundamental representation .    by defining supercharges according to @xmath97 v_a\,,\ ] ]
one has @xmath98 similarly , the @xmath94-symmetry generator is a non - abelian matrix @xmath99 which contains the @xmath100 block of the extended supersymmetry .
many concepts here are similar to those presented in @xcite .
if @xmath101 transforms in the fundamental representation , @xmath102 and @xmath103 in the anti - fundamental , @xmath104 then the product @xmath105 transforms as a tensor @xmath106 the singlet representation is given by its supertrace , @xmath107 where @xmath108 which , due to the property of the supertrace @xmath109 , is invariant under @xmath17 transformations .
the adjoint representation is given by the part of @xmath110 with vanishing supertrace , @xmath111    tensors @xmath14 and @xmath112 transform ] ] as the products @xmath113 and @xmath114 : @xmath115 this implies that the product @xmath116 transforms as @xmath110 and hence the scalar product @xmath117 is @xmath17 invariant .
the tensor @xmath14 contains the superspace components of six - dimensional conformal group .
explicitly : @xmath118 where @xmath11 is anti - symmetric , @xmath119 are fermionic variables and @xmath120 is a symmetric matrix of bosonic coordinates . in order to use the invariant scalar product ( [ invariant scalar product ] ) , we need the conjugate of @xmath121 , @xmath112 , with components @xmath122 defining @xmath123 and @xmath124 , and using the invariant matrix ( [ invariant matrix ] ) , the components are @xmath125 , @xmath126 , @xmath127 .
the full superspace is then described by the supercoordinates @xmath10 , endowed with the scalar product ( [ invariant scalar product ] ) . in components : @xmath128 the superconformal transformations of the coordinates can be computed by using ( [ superconformal transformations ] ) . for @xmath14 , they are @xmath129 , or in components :    [ superconformal transformations for superspace ] @xmath130    for @xmath112 , they are @xmath131 , or in components :    [ superconformal transformations for superspace bar ] @xmath132      in this section we construct the four - dimensional superspace , described by the projective coordinates @xmath133 , @xmath134 , on the six - dimensional light - cone @xmath135 we start from the origin defined as @xmath136 one can check that the origin satisfies the light - cone constraint ] ] . an arbitrary point in superspace
is reached by applying all possible superconformal transformations ( [ superconformal transformations for superspace ] ) and ( [ superconformal transformations for superspace bar ] ) . under superconformal transformations
, the origin transforms as    [ transf of the origin ] @xmath137    explicitly , from table [ transformations of the origin ] in appendix [ explicit su(2,2 ) transformations ] , the origin is invariant under special conformal and lorentz transformations , and projectively invariant under dilatations .
it is also invariant under supersymmetry transformations generated by a spinor of the form @xmath138 because in this case @xmath139 in ( [ transf of the origin ] ) has only the down ( dotted ) component .
hence a generic point in superspace is reached from the origin by applying translations with parameter @xmath140 , and supersymmetry transformations with spinorial parameter @xmath141 then the four - dimensional superspace is a coset space where points are labelled by @xmath142 and the symmetries above have been modded out .
we denote the whole set of theta coordinates by curly brackets : @xmath143 the explicit transformation that brings the origin to the point @xmath142 in superspace is a product of two commuting transformations , one in ordinary space - time and the other one in the theta directions : @xmath144 the space - time part is as in @xcite : @xmath145 where @xmath146 is the @xmath147 identity matrix .
the theta part is a generalization of the expression used in @xcite ( see appendix [ appendix useful identities ] ) : @xmath148 this matrix is also equal to the product of analogous matrices , but with only one theta coordinate different from zero : @xmath149 where in the @xmath150-th factor @xmath151 if @xmath152 one has : @xmath153 ] .
one can explicitly check that each of the single factors commutes with each other as well as with the space - time transformation ( [ space - time factor in the product ] ) and that , consequently , the full theta matrix ( [ theta factor in the product ] ) commutes with ( [ space - time factor in the product ] ) too .
the complete transformation from the origin to any point in the superspace is explicitly @xmath154 where @xmath155 is the coordinate of the @xmath2-extended chiral superspace , or e.g. @xcite explicitly for @xmath1 . ] .
we use eq .
( [ explicit full transformation in 4d superspace ] ) to deduce the coordinates of the 4d superspace .
starting from the origin ( [ origin in spinor notation ] ) and using ( [ superconformal transformations ] ) , or equivalently ( [ superconformal transformations for superspace])-([superconformal transformations for superspace bar ] ) , one has . ] :    [ coordinates of 4d superspace ] @xmath156    where @xmath157 and we use the epsilon tensor to lower spinorial indices , @xmath158 , so that @xmath159 .
similarly , for the barred coordinates one finds ( more details in appendix [ 4d superspace barred ] ) :    [ barred 4d superspace ] @xmath160    where @xmath161 @xmath162 and we have lowered the theta index , @xmath163 .    under superconformal transformations , @xmath164 transform as the coordinates of the @xmath2-extended chiral superspace .
in fact , using ( [ superconformal transformations for superspace ] ) with @xmath165 as the only non - vanishing parameter , we get the following transformations :    [ 4d space - time superconformal transformations ] @xmath166    including also the barred half superspace given by @xmath112 , one gets the full superspace spanned by the coordinates @xmath167 .
@xmath0 conformal chiral superfields , @xmath168 , were considered in @xcite . defining a chiral superfield on the light - cone @xmath169 and expanding in powers of theta @xmath170 with @xmath171
, it was checked that the component fields transform as a chiral multiplet under the @xmath0 super poincar group and have non - trivial rules under the special conformal transformations . in particular ,
the highest component @xmath172 is a chiral primary operator , in the sense that it is annihilated by the special superconformal generators @xmath173 and @xmath174 , which are related to the supercharges by @xmath175 moreover , under the @xmath176 @xmath94-symmetry , one recovers the fact that the @xmath94-charge is proportional to the scaling dimension @xmath177 at a superconformal fixed point @xcite , according to @xmath178 actually , this result continues to hold in the case of extended supersymmetry . under @xmath21 the indices @xmath179 transform with a unitary matrix :    @xmath180    on the light - cone we define @xmath181 where the components are functions of ( @xmath182 ) .
hence , as @xmath183 is a scalar , i.e. @xmath184 we find @xmath185 under @xmath186 .
this result is the same as in the @xmath0 case , as we wanted to show . in the above equation
we have used that @xmath187 and hence @xmath188 , @xmath189 , as well as the projective property @xmath190 with @xmath191 .    under a generic superconformal transformation generated by the spinor ( [ superconformal parameter ] ) ,
using the scaling property of the superfield @xmath192 as well as its scalar nature , we have @xmath193 where @xmath194 and the variations @xmath195 and @xmath196 are given by ( [ 4d space - time superconformal transformations ] ) .
the transformations for the component fields can be read off directly from this one by equating same powers of theta on both sides .
special superconformal transformations are obtained by setting @xmath197 in these equations .
@xmath2-extended superfields can be represented in terms of @xmath0 superfields by expanding all the theta coordinates but one . in the case of @xmath2-extended _ chiral _ superfields , the component fields are @xmath0 _ chiral _ superfields and one can repeat the above argument .
the four - dimensional expansion strongly depends on the value of @xmath2 , since the number of components grows exponentially with @xmath2 . in the following subsection we will consider @xmath1 .      as an example ,
consider an @xmath1 chiral superfield , that we denote by @xmath198 .
the solution to the the chiral constraints @xmath199 and @xmath200 implies that @xmath201 does not depend explicitly on @xmath202 and @xmath203 , but implicitly through the combination @xmath204 ( cf .
( [ chiral coordinate ] and @xcite ) ) : @xmath205 expanding in powers of , say , @xmath206 , one finds ( e.g. @xcite ) @xmath207 where @xmath208 and @xmath209 are @xmath0 scalar superfields and @xmath210 is an @xmath0 spinor superfield .
however , for our purposes , we will consider the full expansion in @xmath211 and @xmath206 : @xmath212 here all the components are functions of @xmath213 and the dots represent higher - order terms ( cubic and quartic in @xmath214 and @xmath215 as well as products thereof ) that will vanish on the light - cone .
the fields @xmath216 , @xmath217 , @xmath218 , @xmath219 and @xmath26 are anti - symmetric in @xmath220 ( as well as in @xmath221 for @xmath26 ) .
all the components transform as follows under a scaling transformation of the coordinates : @xmath222 , @xmath223 ( same for @xmath224 ) , @xmath225 ( same for @xmath226 and @xmath227 ) , etc .
the four - dimensional @xmath1 chiral superfield is defined on the light - cone as @xmath228 in the following , we will be using such a notation for the components of this @xmath1 off - shell multiplet .
there are a total of @xmath229 fields , of which :    * 1 spin-0 scalar field @xmath230 * 2 spin-@xmath231 fields @xmath232 and @xmath233 * 1 spin-1 tensor field @xmath234 * 2 spin-1 fields @xmath235 and @xmath236 * 2 spin-@xmath237 fields @xmath218 and @xmath219 * 1 spin-2 field @xmath26 .
this list agrees with the ones in e.g. @xcite .
these numbers make up the pascal pyramid we give all the necessary material about the pascal pyramid . for the interested reader
, more technical information can be found in @xcite .
] at layer 2 : @xmath238 in appendix [ appendix pascal pyramid ] we consider the @xmath5 case : there , the triangle analogue to ( [ pascal pyramid for n=2 chiral superfield ] ) is larger , contains 15 entries and corresponds to the pyramid at layer 4 .
more generically , the component fields of various kind in an @xmath2-extended supermultiplets are equal in number to the elements of the pascal pyramid at layer @xmath2 .
the connection with the trinomial with power @xmath2 , which is at the origin of the pyramid , arises from the fact that in the product @xmath239 the powers @xmath240 can only have three values , @xmath241 , with @xmath242 .    using standard techniques
, we can now identify the component fields .
we find :    [ n=2 components of chiral superfield ] @xmath243\\ \chi^a(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+1 } \left[\chi^a(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\chi_{\dot{a}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\\ \label{n=2 components of chiral superfield : z - term } z^{ab}(y)&= & i(x^+)^{\delta+1}\epsilon^{ab } \left[-4\frac{\partial a}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) + x_{\alpha\beta}z_{\rm aver}^{\alpha\beta}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\\ b(y)&= & i(x^+)^{\delta+1 } \left[2\frac{\partial a}{\partial\varphi_{11}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}v^{\alpha\beta}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\\ c(y)&= & i(x^+)^{\delta+1 } \left[2\frac{\partial a}{\partial\varphi_{22}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}y^{\alpha\beta}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\\ e^a(y)&= & i(x^+)^{\delta+2 } \left[2\sqrt{2}\frac{\partial\lambda^a}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) + 2\sqrt{2}\frac{\partial\chi^a}{\partial\varphi_{11}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right.\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{i(x^+)^{\delta+2 } } -2\sqrt{2}iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\lambda_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -2\sqrt{2}iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\chi_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{11}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{i(x^+)^{\delta+2 } } \left .- x_{\alpha\beta}e^{\alpha\beta a}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}e^{\alpha\beta}_{\phantom{\alpha\beta}\dot{a}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\\ f^a(y)&= & i(x^+)^{\delta+2 } \left[2\sqrt{2}\frac{\partial\chi^a}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) + 2\sqrt{2}\frac{\partial\lambda^a}{\partial\varphi_{22}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right.\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{i(x^+)^{\delta+2}}-2\sqrt{2}iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\chi_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -2\sqrt{2}iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\lambda_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{11}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{i(x^+)^{\delta+2}}\left .- x_{\alpha\beta}f^{\alpha\beta a}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}f^{\alpha\beta}_{\phantom{\alpha\beta}\dot{a}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\\ \label{n=2 components of chiral superfield : d - term } d(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+2 } \left[2\frac{\partial^2 a}{\partial\varphi_{12}^2}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -2x_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial z_{\rm aver}^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}x_{\gamma\delta}d^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right.\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{(x^+)^{\delta+2}}\left.+2x_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial v^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\varphi_{22}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0 ) + 2x_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial y^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\varphi_{11}}(x_{\alpha\beta},0)\right]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in order to derive the components above , we have made use of the identity @xmath244 which is valid on the light - cone for each @xmath150 .
note that a similar identity does not hold for @xmath245 if @xmath246 .
for this reason , and in order to simplify the formulas above , we have introduced an auxiliary , or average , variable @xmath247 , defined as : @xmath248 the quantity @xmath247 makes the scaling properties of the component explicit .
it appears in ( [ n=2 components of chiral superfield : z - term ] ) and ( [ n=2 components of chiral superfield : d - term ] ) and should be viewed as a shortcut of more lengthy expressions corresponding to the expansion : @xmath249=\nonumber\\ & = & ( x^+)^2\theta_{1a}\theta_{2b}\left[z^{ab}(x,\varphi)+iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{b}b}z^{a}_{\phantom{a}\dot{b}}(x,\varphi)+ iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}z_{\dot{a}}^{\phantom{\dot{a}}b}(x,\varphi)\right.\nonumber\\ & & \left.+\frac{1}{2}\left(y^2\epsilon^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\epsilon^{ab}- 4y_\mu y_\nu ( \epsilon\sigma^{\lambda\mu})^{ab}(\bar{\sigma}^{\lambda\nu}\epsilon)^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\right ) z_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}(x,\varphi)\right]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] in going from the first equality to the second we have exploited the fact that the product @xmath250 is symmetric in @xmath251 and hence we can use the symmetric version of the product of two ( barred ) sigma matrices ( see appendix [ appendix useful identities ] ) .
the r.h.s . of ( [ zaverage ] ) is in components : @xmath252\ ] ] and hence one can derive the components of @xmath253 , using ( [ coordinates of 4d superspace ] ) for the field @xmath11 .
expanding now both sides in @xmath20 , we are left with ordinary fields depending on @xmath11 only .
we obtain : @xmath254\\ \theta_{1\alpha}\theta_{2\beta}4ix^+\theta_1\cdot\theta_2\frac{\partial z^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0)&= & ( x^+)^2\theta_{1a}\theta_{2b}\big[4ix^+\theta_1\cdot\theta_2\left ( \frac{\partial z^{ab}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0)\right.\nonumber\\ & & + iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{b}b}\frac{\partial z^{a}_{\phantom{a}\dot{b}}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0)+ iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{z_{\dot{a}}^{\phantom{\dot{a}}b}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0)\nonumber\\ & & \left.+\frac{1}{2}\left(y^2\epsilon^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\epsilon^{ab}- 4y_\mu y_\nu ( \epsilon\sigma^{\lambda\mu})^{ab}(\bar{\sigma}^{\lambda\nu}\epsilon)^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\right ) \frac{\partial z_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0 ) \right ) \big]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] this modifies ( [ n=2 components of chiral superfield : z - term ] ) and ( [ n=2 components of chiral superfield : d - term ] ) , which explicitly read : @xmath255\right]\\ d(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+2 } \left[2\frac{\partial^2 a}{\partial\varphi_{12}^2}(x,0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}x_{\gamma\delta}d^{\alpha\beta\gamma\delta}(x,0 ) + 2x_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial v^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\varphi_{22}}(x,0 ) + 2x_{\alpha\beta}\frac{\partial y^{\alpha\beta}}{\partial\varphi_{11}}(x,0 ) \right.\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{(x^+)^{\delta+2 } } \left . -i\epsilon_{ab}x^+\big [ \frac{\partial z^{ab}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0 ) + iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{b}b}\frac{\partial z^{a}_{\phantom{a}\dot{b}}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0)+ iy^\mu(\bar{\sigma}_\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{z_{\dot{a}}^{\phantom{\dot{a}}b}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0 ) \right.\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{(x^+)^{\delta+2 } } \phantom{-i\epsilon_{ab}(x^+ ) } \left.+\frac{1}{2}\left(y^2\epsilon^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\epsilon^{ab}- 4y_\mu y_\nu ( \epsilon\sigma^{\lambda\mu})^{ab}(\bar{\sigma}^{\lambda\nu}\epsilon)^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\right ) \frac{\partial z_{\dot{a}\dot{b}}}{\partial\varphi_{12}}(x,0 ) \big ] \right]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using ( [ component transformations from superfield ] ) we can determine the superconformal transformations for the components of the @xmath1 superfield .
we obtain :    @xmath256    special conformal transformations correspond to @xmath257 , as it was written in @xcite . by setting @xmath257 , we see that at the origin the @xmath258 component is invariant , namely @xmath259 , and hence @xmath172 is annihilated by the special superconformal generators @xmath260 , defined by @xmath261 this can be checked by using the appropriate generalizations of those operators from the @xmath0 case of @xcite , which tells us that @xmath192 is a chiral field generated by a chiral primary operator @xmath230 .
this is a generic property of the chiral sector .
in fact , using the transformation rules ( [ 4d space - time superconformal transformations ] ) , for special conformal transformations , @xmath262 ( the vertical bar denoting the @xmath263 component of the r.h.s .
, which corresponds to taking the spinorial @xmath264-component of @xmath183 ) will always be proportional to @xmath265 and hence will vanish at the origin .
in this paper we generalized the construction of superembedding methods for 4d @xmath0 in @xcite to embeddings of @xmath2-extended superconformal field theories . in this way ,
the superconformal group acts linearly on the coordinates of the ambient space , the conformal symmetry is manifest and moreover the method is valid for any conformally flat space , not just minkowski .
we have considered explicitly the case of @xmath1 chiral superfields in four dimensions and concluded that any conformal chiral superfield of the @xmath2-extended supersymmetry is generated by a chiral primary operator sitting in its highest component . we have also noted a correspondence between the number of component fields of a certain type in any chiral multiplet of the @xmath2-extended supersymmetry and the entries of the pascal pyramid at layer @xmath2 .
this correspondence has been explicitly showed in the cases of @xmath1 and @xmath5 supersymmetry .
we have not considered correlation functions , that for @xmath0 were presented in @xcite , neither non - holomorphic operators and higher - rank tensors , which among other things are relevant in ads / cft and its applications .
these points are left as open questions .
we would like to acknowledge beatriz gato rivera for carefully reading the manuscript , the instituto de fisica teorica in madrid , ift - csic / uam , for hospitality during the completion of this work , warren siegel , andreas stergiou and dimitri sorokin for correspondence , and the npb referee for useful comments .
this research has been supported by funding of the project consolider - ingenio 2010 , program cpan ( csd2007 - 00042 ) .
for the six - dimensional vector @xmath266 the transformations under the conformal group @xmath3 are @xmath267 , with @xmath268 anti - symmetric .
the four - dimensional coordinates @xmath27 are related to the six - dimensional ones by solving the light - cone constraint : @xmath269 using the conventions of @xcite , since and @xmath270 is @xmath271 ] @xmath272 in @xmath8 notation , these transformations are : @xmath273 in the next subsections , we consider the single conformal transformations explicitly
. we will also apply these transformations to the origin ( [ origin in spinor notation ] ) and will find the summarizing table [ transformations of the origin ] , that is given here for convenience .
.summary of @xmath8 transformations of the origin [ cols="^,^ " , ]     [ transformations of the origin ]      the only non - zero parameter is @xmath274 .
hence    @xmath275    the second line gives the four - dimensional translation @xmath276 and consistently the third line gives @xmath277 . using ( [ generic su(2,2 ) transformation ] ) one has : @xmath278 when evaluated at the origin , this becomes @xmath279      the only non - zero parameter is @xmath280 .
this implies :    @xmath281    the second line implies the four - dimensional lorentz transformation @xmath282 and consistently the third line gives @xmath283 . in @xmath8 notation
, one has @xmath284 which vanishes at the origin , @xmath285      here @xmath286 is non - zero and    @xmath287    the first two lines combined give the four - dimensional special conformal transformation @xmath288 with @xmath289 . in @xmath8 notation , one has @xmath290 which vanishes at the origin , @xmath285      the non - vanishing parameter is @xmath291 and    @xmath292    the first two lines combined give the four - dimensional scale transformation @xmath293 while the third line gives consistently @xmath294 . in spinor notation , @xmath295 at the origin this becomes @xmath296
in this appendix we write down some spinor identities that are used in the calculations of the main text .
our conventions for the spinors are the same as in @xcite , in particular : @xmath297 where @xmath298 the gamma matrices are given by : @xmath299 and @xmath300 the @xmath3 coordinate @xmath34 and the anti - symmetric @xmath8 tensor @xmath11 are related by @xmath301 and @xmath302    as it is standard in supersymmetry , for each @xmath150 , the product @xmath303 must be proportional to @xmath304 , i.e. @xmath305 , where the proportionality constant @xmath306 is fixed by multiplying both sides by @xmath307 and summing over @xmath308 and @xmath309 ( which gives @xmath310 ) .
after anti - commuting the theta s , one finds @xmath311 and hence , for each @xmath150 : @xmath312 this expression was used in ( [ theta factor in the product ] ) .
one can make similar manipulations in extended supersymmetry and write ( repeated indices are not summed ) : @xmath313 which were used , for example , in ( [ n=2 components of chiral superfield ] ) with @xmath314 .
our conventions for the sigma matrices are as in @xcite and @xcite .
in particular , @xmath315 and @xmath316 .
these are related by @xmath317 this implies that @xmath318 the former equation was used in ( [ coordinates of 4d superspace ] ) .
there , we also used the following relation : @xmath319 this comes from the more generic relation regarding the product of two sigma matrices , which can be expressed in terms of the generators @xmath320 and @xmath321 of the lorentz group in the spinor representation , which are anti - symmetric in the indices @xmath42 and @xmath4 ( see below ) .
however , the symmetric part in the space - time indices and the anti - symmetric part in the spinorial indices is fully specified by the metric tensor and the epsilon tensor as : @xmath322}= -\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mu\nu}\epsilon^{\dot{a}\dot{b}}\epsilon^{cd}\,.\ ] ] a similar formula holds for the anti - symmetric combination of the dotted indices as well as for the product of two ( unbarred ) sigma matrices .    using the relations above , it is straightforward to check that : @xmath323 these identities were used in ( [ 4d space - time superconformal transformations ] )
. if we only look at the symmetric part in the space - time indices , instead , we have to consider the more general expression @xmath324\,,\ ] ] as it appears in @xcite , which was used in ( [ n=2 components of chiral superfield ] ) .
in the translations given in ( [ superconformal transformations ] ) we need to know the inverse of ( [ explicit full transformation in 4d superspace ] ) . because of ( [ full transformation in 4d superspace ] ) , the inverse is a product of the two commuting transformations @xmath325 the space - time part is simply obtained by replacing @xmath326 in ( [ space - time factor in the product ] ) : @xmath327 to compute the theta part , it is convenient to use the following expression for the inversion formula of block matrices : @xmath328 with    * @xmath329 * @xmath330 * @xmath331 * @xmath332 * @xmath333    hence : @xmath334 the complete inverse transformation is then the product of ( [ space - time factor in the product , inverse ] ) and ( [ theta factor in the product , inverse ] ) : @xmath335 where @xmath336 and we have again replaced , for each @xmath150 , @xmath337 .
this is enough to derive the set of equations ( [ barred 4d superspace ] ) .
in number theory , in analogy to the binomial expansion , whose coefficients can be organized into a triangle , one can consider the trinomial : @xmath338 where the integer numbers appearing in the pascal pyramid ( tetrahedron ) are just the coefficients @xmath339 of the expansion ( see figure [ pyramid ] ) of the trinomial .
the power @xmath4 indicates the layer of the pyramid .
the pyramid has a huge number of symmetries and interesting properties .
for instance , by looking at specific examples or by using some combinatorics , one can check that there are @xmath340 elements at each layer .
also , the sum of the entries of each layer is @xmath341 , as can be seen by taking @xmath342 in ( [ trinomial expansion ] ) .
moreover , by superimposing two consecutive layers , it is possible to prove that each entry at layer @xmath4 is given by the sum of all the entries at layer @xmath343 that surround it .
this is simply a property of the trinomial coefficients .    in number theory ,
one generalizes binomials and trinomials to multinomials and , in a similar way , we speak of an @xmath42-simplex , which generalizes triangles and tetrahedrons .
a multinomial is by definition @xmath344 where the coefficients are given by @xmath345      in ( [ pascal pyramid for n=2 chiral superfield ] ) we have written down the pascal pyramid at layer two and show that its elements are related to the number of certain kind of fields arising as components of an @xmath1 chiral supermultiplet . here
we will do the same for @xmath5 chiral supermultiplets and will find the pyramid at layer four .    as we have done in section [ section : the chiral sector ] , a six - dimensional @xmath5 chiral superfield can be expanded in the theta variables as @xmath346 here , @xmath347 can be raised / lowered with the flat ( identity ) metric , all the component fields are functions of @xmath348 and the dots in the end represent quantities that will vanish on the light - cone .
the four - dimensional superfield as well as its components are defined on the light - cone and will be functions of @xmath349 only .
moreover , the @xmath20-dependence is removed by replacing @xmath350 and expanding everything in @xmath351 .
the result is : @xmath352 the fractional coefficients are such that each field appears only once in the sum .
the four - dimensional components are expressed in terms of the six - dimensional ones appearing in ( [ 6d chiral n=4 ] ) .
for example , for the first few components we have : @xmath353\nonumber\\ f^{ij , ab}(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+1}\big[ix_{\alpha\beta}\epsilon^{ab}e^{ij,\alpha\beta}_{\rm aver.}(x,0 ) -4i\epsilon^{ab}\frac{\partial a_{\rm aver.}}{\partial \varphi_{ij}}(x,0)\big]\nonumber\\ f^{i}(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+1}\big[-ix_{\alpha\beta}e^{i,\alpha\beta}(x,0)+2i\frac{\partial a}{\partial\varphi_{ii}}(x,0)\big]\nonumber\\ \upsilon^{i , abc}(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+2}\big[\epsilon^{ab}ix_{\alpha\beta}\chi_{\rm aver.}^{i,\alpha\beta c}(x,0 ) + \epsilon^{ab}x^{\alpha\beta}y_\mu(\bar{\sigma}^\mu)^{\dot{a}c}\epsilon_{\dot{a}\dot{c}}\chi_{\rm aver.}^{i,\alpha\beta\dot{c}}(x,0)\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{(x^+)^{\delta+2 } } -24i\epsilon^{bc}\epsilon_{ijkl}\frac{\partial \lambda^{ja}}{\partial\varphi_{kl}}(x,0 ) -24\epsilon_{ijkl}\epsilon^{bc}y_\mu(\bar{\sigma}^\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\lambda^j_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{kl}}(x,0)\big]\nonumber\\ \upsilon^{i , a}(y)&= & ( x^+)^{\delta+2}\big[-ix_{\alpha\beta}\chi^{ij,\alpha\beta a}(x,0 ) -x_{\alpha\beta}y_\mu(\bar{\sigma}^\mu)^{\dot{c}a}\epsilon_{\dot{c}\dot{d}}\chi^{ij,\dot{d}}(x,0 ) + 2i\frac{\partial\lambda^{ia}}{\partial\varphi_{ij}}(x,0)\nonumber\\ & & \phantom{(x^+)^{\delta+2 } } + y_\mu(\bar{\sigma}^\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\lambda^i_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{jj}}(x,0 ) -i\frac{\partial\lambda^{ja}}{\partial\varphi_{ij}}(x,0 ) -y_\mu(\bar{\sigma}^\mu)^{\dot{a}a}\frac{\partial\lambda^j_{\dot{a}}}{\partial\varphi_{ij}}(x,0)\big]\nonumber\\ \dots&&\dots\qquad\qquad\dots\qquad\dots\qquad\dots\end{aligned}\ ] ] etc . here
the averaged quantities are defined whenever @xmath246 as done in the main text , e.g. @xmath354 and should be regarded as shorter labels of longer expressions .
* one scalar field @xmath355 * four spinors @xmath356 in the representation ( 1/2,0 ) * @xmath357 rank-2 tensors @xmath358 , @xmath359 in the representation ( 1,0 ) * four scalars @xmath360 * four spinors @xmath361 in the representation ( 3/2,0 ) * @xmath362 spinors @xmath363 , @xmath246 , in the representation ( 1/2,0 ) * one rank-4 tensor @xmath364 in the representation ( 2,0 ) * @xmath362 rank-2 tensors @xmath365 , @xmath366 and @xmath367 , in the representation ( 1,0 ) * @xmath368 scalars @xmath369 , @xmath359 and symmetric in @xmath370 * four spinors @xmath371 in the representation ( 3/2,0 ) * @xmath372 spinors @xmath373 , @xmath367 and symmetric in @xmath374 , in the representation ( 1/2,0 ) * six rank-2 tensors @xmath375 , @xmath359 and symmetric in @xmath374 , in the representation ( 1,0 ) * @xmath376 scalars @xmath377 , symmetric in @xmath378 * four spinors @xmath379 , in the representation ( 1/2,0 ) * one scalar @xmath380 .    this field content can be summarized by using the pascal pyramid at layer @xmath5 : @xmath381 the total number of fields is given by the sum of the elements of the pyramid and amounts , as it should be , to @xmath382 .
a.  m.  polyakov , `` non - hamiltonian approach to conformal quantum field theory '' , soviet physics jetp  * 39 * ( 1974 ) 10 [ pisma zh .
* 66 * ( 1974 ) 23 ] .
a.  b.  zamolodchikov , `` irreversibility of the flux of the renormalization group in a 2d field theory '' , jetp lett .
* 43 * ( 1986 ) 730 [ pisma zh .
teor .  fiz .
* 43 * ( 1986 ) 565 ] .
a.  a.  belavin , a.  m.  polyakov and a.  b.  zamolodchikov , `` infinite conformal symmetry in two - dimensional quantum field theory , '' nucl .
b * 241 * ( 1984 ) 333 .
j.  polchinski , `` scale and conformal invariance in quantum field theory '' , nucl .
b * 303 * ( 1988 ) 226 .
s.  el - showk , y.  nakayama and s.  rychkov , `` what maxwell theory in d@xmath3834 teaches us about scale and conformal invariance , '' nucl .
b * 848 * ( 2011 ) 578 [ arxiv:1101.5385 [ hep - th ] ] .
j.  -f .
fortin , b.  grinstein and a.  stergiou , `` scale without conformal invariance : an example '' , phys .
b * 704 * ( 2011 ) 74 [ arxiv:1106.2540 [ hep - th ] ] ; + j.  -f .
fortin , b.  grinstein and a.  stergiou , `` scale without conformal invariance : theoretical foundations '' , arxiv:1107.3840 [ hep - th ] ; + j.  -f .
fortin , b.  grinstein and a.  stergiou , `` scale without conformal invariance at three loops '' , arxiv:1202.4757 [ hep - th ] ; + j.  -f .
fortin , b.  grinstein and a.  stergiou , `` scale without conformal invariance in four dimensions '' , arxiv:1206.2921 [ hep - th ] .
z.  komargodski and a.  schwimmer , `` on renormalization group flows in four dimensions '' , jhep * 1112 * ( 2011 ) 099 [ arxiv:1107.3987 [ hep - th ] ] .
m.  a.  luty , j.  polchinski and r.  rattazzi , `` the @xmath384-theorem and the asymptotics of 4d quantum field theory '' , arxiv:1204.5221 [ hep - th ] . m.  flato and c.  fronsdal , `` representations of conformal supersymmetry '' , lett .  math .
* 8 * ( 1984 ) 159 .
s.  minwalla , `` restrictions imposed by superconformal invariance on quantum field theories '' , adv .
* 2 * ( 1998 ) 781 [ arxiv : hep - th/9712074 ] .
p.  a.  m. dirac , `` wave equations in conformal space '' , annals math .
* 37 * , 429 ( 1936 ) .
d.  p.  sorokin , `` superbranes and superembeddings , '' phys .
* 329 * ( 2000 ) 1 [ hep - th/9906142 ] .
g.  mack , a.  salam , `` finite - component field representations of the conformal group '' , annals  phys .
* 53 * , 174 ( 1969 ) .
s.  weinberg , `` six - dimensional methods for four - dimensional conformal field theories '' , phys .
d * 82 * ( 2010 ) 045031 [ arxiv:1006.3480 [ hep - th ] ] .
w.  siegel , `` green - schwarz formulation of selfdual superstring '' , phys .
d * 47 * ( 1993 ) 2512 [ hep - th/9210008 ] ; + w.  siegel , `` supermulti - instantons in conformal chiral superspace '' , phys .
d * 52 * ( 1995 ) 1042 [ hep - th/9412011 ] .
m.  f.  atiyah , n.  j.  hitchin , v.  g.  drinfeld and y.  i.  manin , `` construction of instantons '' , phys .
lett .  a * 65 * ( 1978 ) 185 .
w.  siegel , `` ads / cft in superspace '' , arxiv:1005.2317 [ hep - th ] . w.  siegel , `` embedding vs. 6d twistors '' , arxiv:1204.5679 [ hep - th ] .
p.  s.  howe and p.  c.  west , `` nonperturbative green s functions in theories with extended superconformal symmetry '' , int .
j.  mod .
a * 14 * ( 1999 ) 2659 [ hep - th/9509140 ] ; + p.  s.  howe and p.  c.  west , `` superconformal invariants and extended supersymmetry '' , phys .
b * 400 * ( 1997 ) 307 [ hep - th/9611075 ] ; + b.  eden , p.  s.  howe and p.  c.  west , `` nilpotent invariants in n=4 sym '' , phys .
b * 463 * ( 1999 ) 19 [ hep - th/9905085 ] .
s.  m.  kuzenko , `` on compactified harmonic / projective superspace , 5-d superconformal theories , and all that '' , nucl .
b * 745 * ( 2006 ) 176 [ hep - th/0601177 ] ; + s.  m.  kuzenko , `` conformally compactified minkowski superspaces revisited '' , arxiv:1206.3940 [ hep - th ] .
w.  d.  goldberger , w.  skiba and m.  son , `` superembedding methods for 4d n=1 scfts '' , arxiv:1112.0325 [ hep - th ] .
s.  ferrara , `` supergauge transformations on the six - dimensional hypercone '' , nucl .
b * 77 * , 73 ( 1974 ) .
j.  wess , j.  bagger , `` supersymmetry and supergravity '' , princeton university press ( 1992 ) .
s.  j.  gates , m.  t.  grisaru , m.  rocek and w.  siegel , `` superspace or one thousand and one lessons in supersymmetry '' , front .
* 58 * ( 1983 ) 1 [ hep - th/0108200 ] .
j.  d.  lykken , `` introduction to supersymmetry '' , hep - th/9612114 .
s.  v.  ketov , `` n=2 supersymmetry and the irreducible su(2 ) extended superfields '' , fortsch .
phys .   * 36 * ( 1988 ) 361 . s.  v.  ketov , b.  b.  lokhvitsky , `` n=4 irreducible scalar superfields '' , j.  math .
* 29 * ( 1988 ) 1244 .
r.  l.  graham , m.  gr@xmath385tschel , l.  lov@xmath386sz , `` handbook of combinatorics '' , elsevier science b.v .
, amsterdam ; mit press , cambridge , ma , 1995 .
isbn 0 - 444 - 88002-x .


emergent phenomena is one of the most profound topics in modern science addressing the ways that collectivities and complex patterns appear from multiplicity of components and simple interactions .
ensembles of random hamiltonians allow one to explore the emergent phenomena in a statistical way , and thus to establish generic relations and rules . to study the many - body physics of interest we adopt a shell model approach with a two - body interaction hamiltonian .
the sets of the two - body interaction strengths are selected at random resulting in the two - body random ensemble ( tbre ) .
symmetries , such as rotational , isospin , and parity , entangled with complex many - body dynamics result in surprising regularities discovered recently in the low - lying spectrum .
patterns exhibited by the random ensembles are remarkably similar to those observed in real nuclei .
the high probability for the ground state spin to be zero is the most astounding feature of the tbre discovered in ref .
signs of almost every collective feature seen in nuclei , namely , pairing superconductivity , deformation , and vibration , have been observed in random ensembles @xcite . while the systematics of the ground state quantum numbers is almost not sensitive to the short - range pairing matrix elements , the probability to find a coherent paired structure in the wave - functions of low - lying states is enhanced @xcite .
the presence of rotational features in the spectra is another unexpected result seen in the tbre @xcite .
the goal of this work is to study the emergence of collective mean - field dynamics in ensembles with random interactions .
the discussion is organized as follows : in sec .
[ sec : collectivity ] we briefly define the tbre , introduce signatures of collective motion , and discuss ways to detect them . in sec .
[ sec : single_level ] we present our study of collectivities in single@xmath0 level models .
more complex models are explored in secs .
[ sec : two_levels ] and [ sec : realistic - model - space ] .
we summarize our results in sec [ sec : summary ] with a discussion of the quadrupole - quadrupole hamiltonian which appears to be responsible for most of the observed phenomena .
in the spirit of the traditional shell model approach , we define a model configuration as @xmath1 where @xmath2 nucleons occupy a set of single particle levels labeled by their angular momentum @xmath0 . in this work
we assume that the single particle energies are degenerate .
we examined other models for which this was not the case and the results are similar .
the hamiltonians in the tbre are defined with a set of two - body matrix elements which are selected at random .
the distribution of the matrix elements is gaussian so that , within a given symmetry class , the ensemble of hamiltonian matrices for two particles coincides with gaussian orthogonal ensemble .
the presence of rotational symmetry and , where relevant , of parity and isospin symmetries is assumed .
the typical number of random realizations was between @xmath3 and @xmath4 for all ensembles presented in this work .    in the tbre the number of realizations where the ground state spin @xmath5 is disproportionally large .
aiming at collective phenomena we select realizations with @xmath5 . with the exception of the ground state , labeled as @xmath6
, we denote the low - lying states by the value of their spin with an identifying subscript .
the subscript is given in bold font if it refers to the absolute position of a given state in the spectrum . throughout the paper
we give probabilities of finding realizations with certain features , these probabilities are always quoted in percent relative to the size of the ensemble ; however , all probability distribution plots are normalized to unit area .    in order to identify and to analyze manifestations of collective phenomena in the spectra
we use a set of observables .
the goal is to choose a finite number of spectral observables that are likely to convey the most information about possible collective structures in a scale - independent way and with minimal model dependence .
these quantities and the logic behind their selection are discussed in what follows .
the geometry of the nuclear mean field is described by the multipole density operators @xmath7 with multipolarity @xmath8 and magnetic component @xmath9 .
the structure of the multipole operators depends on the valence space , for each model it is addressed separately .
the reduced transition rate from an initial state @xmath10 to a final state @xmath11 @xmath12 is one of the observables . here
@xmath10 denotes a many - body state with angular momentum @xmath13 and magnetic projection @xmath14 the total transition strength from a state @xmath13 is given by the sum rule @xmath15 which provides a convenient normalization to assess the _ fractional collectivity _ of the transition @xmath16    the shape of a state is described by its multipole moments specified by the expectation value @xmath17 for a non - spherical system this moment describes the shape of a deformed nucleus measured in the lab frame .
the intrinsic shape is characterized by the body - fixed ( intrinsic ) multipole moments @xmath18 a rotational spectrum ( band ) emerges for every fixed intrinsic shape . in a rigid rotor these intrinsic moments are the same for all states in the band and they determine the lab - frame observables in eqs .
( [ eq : be ] ) and ( [ eq : qlab ] ) . for the ground state band of interest ,
the intrinsic moments determine the total transition strength @xmath19 .    in the axially symmetric case the quantum number @xmath20 , a projection of the angular momentum onto the body - fixed symmetry axis , is conserved . then for each rotational @xmath20-band the relations between the observables in the lab frame and in the intrinsic frame are expressed via clebsch - gordan coefficients @xmath21 and @xmath22 this limit of an axially symmetric rotor provides a convenient normalization to examine the multipole moments . in this work instead of @xmath23
we quote a normalized intrinsic moment @xmath24 which is computed as if the state is a member of the @xmath25 rotational ground state band .    in this paper
we only briefly touch the subject of collectivities other than quadrupole , see sec . [
sub : higher - multipole - collectivity ] ; thus for convenience the subscript @xmath8 is omitted for @xmath26 .
the relation between the lab - frame moment of the @xmath27 state and its intrinsic moment is @xmath28 for the axially symmetric rotor the quadrupole transition sum rule for the @xmath6 is saturated by a single transition @xmath29 the quadrupole moment is @xmath30 for prolate or @xmath31 for oblate
_ _ shapes .
we normalize the total transition strength @xmath32 to its maximum possible value for a given valence space .
taking the @xmath26 case as an example , we define the quadrupole - quadrupole ( qq ) hamiltonian as @xmath33 the eigenstate energy of the qq hamiltonian coincides with the total transition strength for that state : @xmath34 . thus , the absolute value of the ground state energy of the qq hamiltonian @xmath35 is the maximum possible value of the total transition strength @xmath36 for a given model space and for a given structure of the quadrupole operator .
we therefore define a _ relative transition strength _
as@xmath37    to summarize , in our study we use the dimensionless variables defined in eqs .
( [ eq : b ] ) , ( [ eq : q ] ) , and ( [ eq : s ] ) .
to shorten notations we define @xmath38 and @xmath39 for collective models of pairing , rotations , and vibrations @xmath40 we refer to a realization with @xmath41 as _ collective _ and with @xmath42 as _ non - collective_. the quadrupole moment @xmath43 allows one to separate different collective modes : @xmath44 for rotations and @xmath45 for vibrations and for paired states . in what follows we allude to collective realizations with @xmath46 as _ prolate _ and those with @xmath47 as _ oblate . _ for rotations the relative transition strength @xmath48 is proportional to the square of the intrinsic moment , and thus it is associated with the hill - wheeler deformation parameter @xmath49 . within elliot
s su(3 ) model @xcite the relative transition strength @xmath48 can be thought to represent the expectation value of the casimir operator which identifies the irreducible representation . in cases where @xmath50 the ground state band structure is close to that of the qq hamiltonian .
the collective structure is further analyzed using the following @xmath51 state .
the types of collective modes can be classified by the ratio of the excitation energies measured relative to the energy of the @xmath6 state @xmath52 this ratio is close to @xmath53 for pairing , 2 for vibration , and 10/3 for rotation .
the ratio of deexcitation rates@xmath54 is another measure .
it is nearly 0 for pairing , 2 for vibrational mode , and 10/7 for rotational motion .
typically , for models with the qq hamiltonian @xmath55 and @xmath56 are close to the rotational values , see summary in tab .
[ tab : qq ] . a comprehensive review of different collective models , their analytic predictions , and comparisons with rotational spectra observed in real nuclei can be found in the textbooks @xcite .
we begin our presentation with single @xmath0 level models . starting from the original paper @xcite
the single @xmath0 level with identical nucleons has been at the center of numerous investigations ; a good summary may be found in the following reviews @xcite . with many issues understood and with still unanswered questions
, the single @xmath0 model remains an important exploratory benchmark .
the model , while simple , has a number of particularly attractive features which can be of both advantage and disadvantage @xcite : the hamiltonian is defined with a small number of parameters ; apart from an overall normalization constant , the multipole operators are uniquely defined ; a special role is played by the quasispin su(2 ) group ; and the particle - hole symmetry is exact .    in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] the system with 6 nucleons in a single @xmath57 level is examined , we refer to this system as @xmath58 . here
we select 10.4% of random realizations where the @xmath6 state is followed by the @xmath59 state . the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath60 in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6](a ) points to highly collective nature of the quadrupole transition @xmath61 most realizations with @xmath6 and @xmath59 are collective @xmath62 , their fraction is 7.8% of the total number of samples .
these realizations are shaded in red .
this collectivity is not a statistical coincidence .
the system @xmath58 has 1242 spin - states , among them there are 10 states with @xmath63 and 23 states with @xmath64 .
thus , statistically the chance for the @xmath65 spin sequence to occur among all other possible outcomes is only 0.015% .
the large fractional collectivity for the transition between these two states is even more unlikely , given that the transition strength is shared among 23 @xmath64 states , the chances for @xmath66 are of the order of 1 in @xmath4 .
there are two peaks in the distribution of the quadrupole moment in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6](b ) , they reflect prolate and oblate deformations . for most of the collective realizations , which are shaded in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] , the magnitude of the quadrupole moment is consistent with the value for the axially deformed rigid rotor @xmath67 .
the ground state is most likely to be oblate , but in about one out of four collective cases a prolate mean field emerges .    the collective realizations are further analyzed in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] where the distribution of the relative transition strength @xmath48 is shown . in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] the oblate @xmath68 and prolate @xmath69 cases are shaded with different patterns .
the relative transition rate @xmath48 for the oblate samples is close to the maximum possible @xmath70 thus , for these realizations the ground state band structure is similar to that of the qq hamiltonian .
the data on the qq hamiltonian for our models is summarized in sec.[sec : summary ] . for prolate systems the distribution of the relative transition strength peaks around @xmath71 .    .
( a ) the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 .
( b ) the distribution the intrinsic quadrupole moment @xmath43 .
only realizations with the @xmath65 spin sequence are included in both panels .
there are 10.4% of such realizations .
the 7.8% of collective realizations @xmath62 are shaded .
, width=326 ]    in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col024 ] we focus on distributions of the deexcitation ratio @xmath56 and the energy ratio @xmath73 defined in eqs . [ eq : dx ] and [ eq : rr ] .
we use the same shading for prolate and oblate realizations as in fig . [
fig : jl19n6_col ] , but slightly modify our selection of samples .
we chose the collective realizations that have states @xmath27 and @xmath74 with @xmath27 being not higher than the forth excited state and @xmath51 state being above it .
the collective oblate realizations comprise a peak in the distribution of @xmath56 in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col024](a ) around the rotational limit of @xmath75 . for prolate realizations the distribution peaks near @xmath76 and has an extended shoulder .
it is likely that the rotational structure is fragmented in instances with a weak prolate deformation . here
the lower value of @xmath48 seen in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] is used to suggest a weak deformation .
therefore , the @xmath51 state is not purely rotational .
the distribution of the ratio of the excitation energies @xmath55 in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col024](b ) seems to contradict the rotational limit . for most of the collective realizations
the values of the ratio fall between the pairing limit of @xmath77 and the vibrational limit of @xmath78 , while in the rotational limit the ratio of @xmath79 is expected .
this discrepancy has been reconciled in ref .
@xcite with the observation that the rotational ordering emerges for the ensemble - averaged excitation energies .
the same conclusion is expected from the geometrical chaoticity arguments @xcite .
excitation energies are sensitive to non - collective features , this leads to large fluctuations of @xmath55 .
the experimental observations of realistic nuclei also show that when the quadrupole transition rates follow the rotational systematics , the excitation energy spectrum can deviate from rotational ; on occasions , the spectrum is closer to the vibrational limit @xcite .
the coexistence of both prolate and oblate configurations in this @xmath58 system could be another reason for the distortion in the energy spectrum . within elliot s su(3 )
model analogous mixing of group representations was investigated in ref .
@xcite .    .
the distribution of the relative transition strength @xmath48 for the collective realizations ( shaded area in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] ) .
the quadrupole moments shown in the inset are separated into prolate ( @xmath46 ) and oblate ( @xmath47 ) shapes .
the resulting distributions are shaded with a pattern and a uniform color , respectively .
the fraction of oblate cases is 5.2% and the fraction of prolate cases is 1.3% relative to the total number of random realizations . ,
width=326 ]    .
( a ) the distribution of the deexcitation ratio @xmath56 defined in eq .
( [ eq : dx ] ) .
( b ) the distribution of the excitation energy ratio @xmath55 defined in eq .
( [ eq : rr ] ) .
the distributions are comprised of 13.6% of realizations that have the @xmath80 sequence with @xmath41 , the @xmath27 state is not higher than the fourth excited state , and @xmath81 .
the prolate cases and oblate cases , that appear in the ensemble with probabilities 3.3% and 7.1% respectively , are shaded with the same patterns as in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] .
the values of @xmath56 and @xmath55 for the qq hamiltonian listed in tab .
[ tab : qq ] are marked with the vertical grid lines.,width=326 ]      the triaxiality is marked by the presence of low - lying levels @xmath82 .
the excitation energies are subject to equalities @xmath83 and @xmath84 .
it is remarkable that these relations appear to be well satisfied by the spectrum of the qq hamiltonian in the @xmath58 configuration , for which @xmath85 and @xmath86 here @xmath87 denotes the ratio of excitation energies .
the rigid rotor hamiltonian , defined by three moments of inertia , is responsible for these correlations in the spectrum .    in this work
we examine two low - lying @xmath27 and @xmath88 states .
these are the only states with spin 2 in the triaxial rotor model , they are mixed configurations of @xmath25 and @xmath89 .
we use angle @xmath90 to express the level of the @xmath20-mixing .
this angle is determined by the three reciprocal moments of inertia @xmath91 , @xmath92 in the rotor hamiltonian@xmath93 the ratio of the excitation energies of the @xmath27 and @xmath88 states is another parameter of the rotor hamiltonian .
it is convenient to express this ratio @xmath94 in terms of the angle @xmath95 defined using the davydov - filippov model of irrotational flow @xcite as@xmath96 in our example that follows , the triaxiality is small and @xmath97 .
thus , the rotor hamiltonian , given by the three moments of inertia , can be equivalently described by an overall energy scale , the @xmath20-mixing angle @xmath90 , and the angle @xmath95 .
the quadrupole shape is parametrized by the hill - wheeler parameters @xmath98 and @xmath99 which define the quadrupole operator @xmath100 .
the relation between the parameters of the rotor hamiltonian and the intrinsic shape is model - dependent .
the irrotational - flow moments of inertia discussed in ref .
@xcite result in @xmath101 and @xmath102-\gamma\right\ } /2 $ ] ; the latter implies @xmath103 for small triaxiality .
a rather different result follows from the rigid - body moments of inertia .
we determine @xmath104 @xmath105 and @xmath99 independently from the spectroscopic observables .
the parameter @xmath95 is obtained from the energy spectrum , eq .
( [ eq : trixgammadf ] ) . following ref .
@xcite one can view the sum rules @xmath106 and @xmath107 for the @xmath64 two - state model as the pythagorean theorem for amplitudes .
the angles in the corresponding right - angled triangles are @xmath108 and @xmath109 therefore @xmath110
@xmath111    these equations allow one to determine the triaxiality @xmath99 and the @xmath20-mixing angle @xmath90 .
all three angles @xmath112 @xmath104 and @xmath95 are small in our models with the qq hamiltonian , see discussion in sec .
[ sec : summary ] .
correspondingly , in the tbre the effects of triaxiality are weak but detectable .    for our studies of triaxiality presented in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_trix ] we use the @xmath58 model .
we recall that in the triaxial rotor model there is a second @xmath88 state with @xmath113 thus , we select collective realizations with @xmath6 and @xmath27 , and in addition to that we require that in the entire spectrum there is a @xmath88 state for which the equality @xmath114 holds within 20% of accuracy . in collective realizations of rotational type
the magnitude of the @xmath115 is large as compared to the quadrupole moments of other many - body states .
this simplifies the identification of the @xmath88 state .
we find that practically for all collective realizations this second @xmath88 state exists . indeed ,
from the total number of random realizations a large fraction , 18.3% , satisfy all of the mentioned triaxiality conditions . in figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_trix](a ) , [ fig : jl19n6_trix](b ) , and [ fig : jl19n6_trix](c ) we show the distributions of the triaxiality angle @xmath99 , @xmath20-mixing angle @xmath104 and @xmath95 , respectively .
we use the same shading as in fig . [
fig : jl19n6_col024 ] to separate prolate and oblate shapes .    .
( a ) the distribution of the triaxiality angle @xmath99 .
( b ) the distribution of the @xmath20-mixing angle @xmath90 .
( c ) the distribution of the triaxiality angle @xmath95 from the davydov - filippov model .
the angles are obtained from eqs .
( [ eq : trixgamma ] ) , ( [ eq : trixgammaq ] ) and ( [ eq : trixgammadf ] ) .
we select realizations with two states of spin 2 in the spectrum and require @xmath41 and @xmath116 ; 18.3% of realizations satisfy this set of restrictions .
the realizations with prolate and oblate shapes are shaded with the same patterns as in figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] and [ fig : jl19n6_col024 ] .
vertical grid lines indicate the triaxiality parameters calculated from the qq hamiltonian , which are : @xmath117 @xmath118 and @xmath119,width=288 ]    in the @xmath58 model one often finds collective realizations with oblate intrinsic deformation and @xmath50 , these realizations are triaxial with @xmath120 , fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_trix](a ) .
this result , as well as @xmath121 in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_trix](b ) , is consistent with that of the qq hamiltonian .
the less frequent prolate cases are nearly axially symmetric .    in the tbre the angle @xmath95 , fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_trix](c ) , appears on average to be higher than the corresponding angle in the qq hamiltonian .
the peak in the @xmath95 distribution is also higher than the peak in the @xmath99 distribution , compare figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_trix](a ) and [ fig : jl19n6_trix](c ) .
( we remind that @xmath101 in the irrotational flow model . ) nevertheless , no conclusions can be made from these two discrepancies .
we believe that the excitation energies could be influenced significantly by non - collective features .
the situation may be similar to the one in fig .
[ fig : qqj19n8](b ) , where @xmath51 state is lower than expected for the rotor . similarly , if the @xmath88 state is lowered the resulting @xmath95 is larger . in both cases
the lowering is relative to the excitation energy of the @xmath27 state .
it is known that in the tbre the probability to find a @xmath6 state followed by either one of the states @xmath122 @xmath123 @xmath124 or @xmath125 is disproportionally large as compared to what is statistically expected . for the @xmath58 model
the corresponding probabilities are 10.4% , 17.3% , 11.9% and 1.8% . in an attempt to understand this , we repeat the previous study but target the collective realizations of multipolarity @xmath126 , and 8 . for realizations with the @xmath127 state and with the first excited state of spin @xmath8 in fig . [
fig : multipole19n6 ] , we consider the fractional collectivity @xmath128 and the multipole moment @xmath129 . fig .
[ fig : multipole19n6 ] shows evidences for intrinsic shapes with deformations of higher multipolarities . in particular , for @xmath130 and 8 there is a sizable number of collective realizations where @xmath131 .
these realizations are shaded ( in red ) .
the corresponding distributions of the multipole moments in figs .
[ fig : multipole19n6](d ) and [ fig : multipole19n6](f ) have peaks which are centered at non - zero values of @xmath132 .
the @xmath133 shape collectivity is nearly absent in the @xmath58 system : the realizations are mostly non - collective , @xmath134 ( shaded in blue ) , and the corresponding moment has a peak centered near zero .
investigations of other single @xmath0 systems show presence of multipole collectivities with @xmath135 . generally ,
the collectivities corresponding to the intrinsic quadrupole shape are the most pronounced ones , however there are signatures of realizations with shapes of higher multipole deformation . the existence of such geometric structures may be related to the symmetries discussed in ref .
@xcite    .
the distributions of the fractional collectivity @xmath136 are shown in panels ( a ) , ( b ) , and ( c ) .
the distributions of the intrinsic multipole moments @xmath132 are shown in panels ( d ) , ( e ) , and ( f ) .
the plots are organized in three rows corresponding to multipolarities with @xmath137 .
here we include realizations where , in addition to the @xmath6 state , the first excited state is either @xmath123 or @xmath124 or @xmath138 the shaded areas correspond to collective and non - collective modes with @xmath131 and @xmath139 respectively .
we use the same patterns as in fig .
[ fig : jl19n6].,width=326 ]      in this subsection we discuss the multipole structure of the two - body hamiltonian in the single @xmath0 level model . for this purpose
we use a larger system of @xmath140 nucleons in the same @xmath57 model space , i.e. the @xmath141 model .
the distributions of the fractional collectivity , the quadrupole moment , and the relative transition strength shown in figs .
[ fig : qqj19n8 ] and [ fig : colqqj19n8 ] are similar to the distributions observed in the @xmath58 model in figs .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] and [ fig : jl19n6_col ] .
the main difference between the models is that , in contrast to fig .
[ fig : jl19n6](b ) , only oblate ground state configurations are present in fig . [
fig : qqj19n8](b ) .    .
the same figure as fig .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] but for the 8-particle system .
( a ) the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 .
( b ) the distribution of the intrinsic quadrupole moment @xmath43 .
the histogram is comprised of 7.5% of random spectra with @xmath6 and @xmath59 states .
shaded areas correspond to 4.6% of collective realizations ( @xmath41 ) and 1.9% of non - collective realizations ( @xmath142 ) .
this figure is analogous to figs .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] and [ fig : multipole19n6 ] , and the same shading is used in these figures.,width=326 ]    . the same figure as fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] but for the 8-particle system .
the distribution of the relative transition strength rule @xmath48 for the collective realizations .
this figure is analogous to fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] , and the same shading is used as in figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] and [ fig : jl19n6_col024 ] , however only oblate shapes @xmath68 are seen .
, width=326 ]    the collectivities observed in the single @xmath0 studies are deeply rooted in the underlying geometric structure of the hamiltonian . to focus on this relation
we express the two - body hamiltonian in the particle - hole channel in terms of the multipole operators    @xmath143    the interaction parameters @xmath144 in the particle - hole channel are determined from those in the particle - particle channel @xmath145 via pandya transformation    @xmath146    the transformation coefficients @xmath147 are given by the six-@xmath0 recoupling coefficients .    on a single @xmath0 level
only even values of the particle - pair angular momenta @xmath148 are allowed by the fermi statistics .
thus , there are @xmath149 interaction parameters @xmath145 in eq .
( [ eq : pp2ph ] ) . in studies of the tbre
a set of these parameters can be viewed as a random vector in the @xmath149 dimensional space .
there is no such a restriction on the particle - hole momentum @xmath150 .
thus , the inverse transformation @xmath151 may produce some unphysical @xmath145 with odd values of @xmath152 such pauli - forbidden terms in the hamiltonian do not generate any dynamics .
therefore the @xmath153 parameters @xmath144 contain passive components which can be removed making @xmath144 linearly dependent @xcite .
the interaction terms that correspond to the multipoles with momentum @xmath154 and @xmath155 are constants of motion @xcite .
the @xmath154 term in eq .
( [ eq : h_int_ph ] ) , describes the nucleon - nucleon interaction that is the same for all angular momentum channels , @xmath156 , as follows from eq .
( [ eq : vlk ] ) .
the resulting monopole hamiltonian is proportional to the number of particle - pairs in a system .
this hamiltonian has no dynamical effect .
thus , there is no change in results if one constrains the tbre by projecting out the monopole @xmath154 component as follows @xmath157 this effectively reduces the number of independent parameters @xmath145 .    in a single @xmath0 model space
the @xmath155 multipoles are proportional to the angular momentum operators @xmath158 .
therefore the @xmath155 interaction leads to a rotational @xmath159 spectrum with @xmath160 determining the moment of inertia . in the particle - particle channel ,
the @xmath161 operator is obtained with @xmath162 .
consistently , it was argued in refs .
@xcite that those interactions that lead to the positive moment of inertia are likely to result in the @xmath5 .
the exact @xmath161 operator component in the interaction can be removed by orthogonalization to @xmath163 following the procedure in eq .
( [ eq : projection ] ) .
the changes in dynamics are no longer trivial when the quadrupole @xmath164 component in the interaction is modified .
the role of different multipoles in the tbre is studied in fig . [
fig : j19n8gsspin ] and [ fig : multi_j19n8_jj ] where we remove different @xmath150 components from the interaction hamiltonian in eq .
( [ eq : h_int_ph ] ) using the graham - schmidt projection procedure . in the particle - particle channel
the projection of pairing interaction @xmath165 has been extensively discussed in ref .
the removal of pairing does not lead to any significant qualitative change , we thus forgo this topic in what follows .    the probability to observe a certain ground state spin in the @xmath141 system
is shown in fig .
[ fig : j19n8gsspin ] .
three cases of random ensembles are reviewed : ( a ) the traditional tbre where all @xmath149 interaction parameters @xmath145 are random gaussian variables , ( b ) the case where @xmath155 term is removed , and ( c ) the ensemble where _
@xmath155 _ and _ @xmath164 _ multipole components are removed from the hamiltonian . while the wave functions in ensembles ( a ) and ( b ) are identical , the ground state spin distributions are different .
the role of the @xmath161 moment - of - inertial - like term has been discussed before in refs .
@xcite ; it appears to be fully responsible for the cases with maximum possible spin . as seen in fig .
[ fig : j19n8gsspin ] , the states with the maximum spin almost never occur as ground states in ensembles ( b ) and ( c ) where the @xmath161 interaction term ( @xmath155 ) is removed .    .
probabilities to observe a certain ground state spin @xmath166 for three random ensembles : ( a ) the tbre , ( b ) the tbre without a @xmath161 term ( the @xmath155 term in eq .
( [ eq : h_int_ph ] ) is removed ) , and ( c ) the tbre without both , @xmath161 and qq terms ( the @xmath155 and @xmath164 terms in eq .
( [ eq : h_int_ph ] ) are removed).,width=326 ]    : the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 for the same three random ensembles as in fig .
[ fig : j19n8gsspin ] .
namely : ( a ) the traditional tbre , ( b ) the tbre without a @xmath161 term , and ( c ) the tbre without both , @xmath161 and qq terms .
we select realizations with the @xmath6 state followed by the first excited state @xmath59 .
the fraction of such cases for ensembles ( a ) , ( b ) , and ( c ) is 7.6% , 8.2% , and 4.7% respectively .
, width=326 ]    the ensembles ( b ) and ( c ) shown in fig .
[ fig : j19n8gsspin ] appears to have similar ground state spin distributions but the behavior of the fractional collectivity is different . in fig .
[ fig : multi_j19n8_jj ] for all three ensembles we show the distribution of the fractional collectivity of the transition between the @xmath6 and @xmath59 states .
it is evident that the quadrupole collectivity disappears once the quadrupole component in the interaction is removed .
thus , we conclude that the quadrupole - quadrupole component in the interaction generates the corresponding deformation and is responsible for the rotational behavior observed .
in this section we expand the scope of our models and consider systems with two single - particle levels .
the richer geometry allows one to study the effects of particle - hole conjugation , different structures of the multipole operators , and the role of parity .
the distributions of the fractional collectivity and of the quadrupole moment are shown in figs .
[ fig : ppvj13n6 ] for the @xmath167 system . here
the model space is comprised of two levels with @xmath168 .
both single - particle levels have the same positive parity , so that the effective spherical hartree - fock mean - field hamiltonian can contain terms of a mixed structure such as @xmath169 these terms are scalars for @xmath170 there is some arbitrariness in the choice of the single - particle matrix elements of the multipole operator @xmath100 which depend on the radial overlap of the operator @xmath171 .
we choose the radial overlap to be diagonal @xmath172 and @xmath173 ; other possibility with @xmath174 has been explored and led to no substantial difference .
a structurally different @xmath175 model is examined in fig .
[ fig : vj13n6 ] where two levels of equal spin and different parity are considered . in this case
the matrix elements of the hamiltonian are restricted by parity .
the same structure of the quadrupole operator is used .
the model space of this kind has been explored in ref .
@xcite because it is the simplest model space that allows for quadrupole and octupole modes .
the prevalence of the positive parity ground states is remarkable in this model .
the ground state is most likely to have spin - parity @xmath176 , @xmath177 or @xmath178 with 35% , 19% , and 14% probability , respectively .
in contrast , @xmath179 , the most probable negative parity ground state , happens only in 3% of realizations .
for the @xmath175 model the number of many - body states is the same for both parities , 8,212 each .    for both @xmath167 and @xmath175 models ,
the results related to the quadrupole collectivity are almost identical , see figs .
[ fig : ppvj13n6 ] and [ fig : vj13n6 ] .
moreover , these results are similar to those for the single @xmath0 level models , compare to figs . [
fig : jl19n6 ] and [ fig : qqj19n8 ] .
the major features in the distributions of @xmath72 and @xmath43 persist despite a bigger number of random parameters defining the hamiltonians , more complex geometry of the two - level models , and a more chaotic resulting dynamics .
there is a peak in the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 near 1 indicating a sizable number of collective cases .
the distribution of the quadrupole moment for the collective realizations ( shaded in red ) has a well - defined peak on the oblate side .
the non - collective realizations appear to have quadrupole moment distribution centered at zero ( shaded in blue ) .    .
( a ) the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 .
( b ) the distribution of the intrinsic quadrupole moment @xmath43 .
the @xmath180 of samples have the @xmath65 sequence .
shaded areas correspond to 1.2% of collective realization and to 1.8% of non - collective realizations .
this figure is analogous to figs .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] , [ fig : multipole19n6 ] , and [ fig : qqj19n8 ] , and the same shading is used in these figures .
, width=326 ]    .
( a ) the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 .
( b ) the distribution of the intrinsic quadrupole moment @xmath43 .
the @xmath181 of samples have the @xmath6 state and the first state @xmath27 , both of positive parity .
the @xmath182 of collective and @xmath183 of non - collective realizations are shaded with patterns .
this figure is analogous to figs .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] , [ fig : multipole19n6 ] , [ fig : qqj19n8 ] , and [ fig : ppvj13n6 ] , and the same shading is used in these figures .
, width=326 ]    for systems with exact particle - hole symmetry the quadrupole moment for particles is equal in magnitude and opposite in sign to that of holes .
moreover , properties such as excitation energies , spins of states , and transition rates , are exactly equal for particle - hole conjugated systems .
the particle - to - hole transformation for any two - body hamiltonian amounts to the same hamiltonian for holes but with an additional one - body term .
thus , the symmetry is not exact in a two - level model space .
nevertheless in the tbre , where two - body matrix elements are selected symmetrically about zero , the one - body term averages to zero . therefore the results in figs .
[ fig : ppvj13n22 ] and [ fig : ppvj13n6 ] for particle - hole conjugates systems @xmath184 and @xmath167 are nearly symmetric .
the main difference is that the hamiltonian for holes contains random single - particle energies which leads to a different fraction of collective realizations in the ensembles .    .
( a ) the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 .
( b ) the distribution of the intrinsic quadrupole moment @xmath43 .
the system is particle - hole conjugated to that in fig .
[ fig : ppvj13n6 ] .
the percentage of samples with the @xmath65 sequence is @xmath185 which includes @xmath186 of collective and @xmath187 of non - collective .
this figure is analogous to figs .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] , [ fig : multipole19n6 ] , [ fig : qqj19n8 ] , [ fig : ppvj13n6 ] , and [ fig : vj13n6 ] , and the same shading is used in these figures .
, width=326 ]
the schematic models discussed in the previous sections all seem to possess the rotational low - lying spectrum which is an evidence of the intrinsic deformation . however , to what extend they reflect the dynamics of realistic nuclei remains a question .
the oblate intrinsic deformation observed in our models seems to be inconsistent with the prolate dominance in real nuclei ( see discussion in sec .
[ sec : summary ] ) , moreover , the semi - magic nuclei with one type of valence nucleons are generally not deformed . to attend to these issues
we examine a realistic valence space consisting of the @xmath188 single - particle levels , allowing for both protons and neutrons .
the matrix element of the quadrupole operator for this model are constructed using the harmonic oscillator single - particle wave functions , we use the same effective charge for both types of nucleons .
the multipole operator in this form facilitates comparison with the su(3 ) group .    in fig .
[ fig:0f71p3 ] we present our results for the @xmath189 system with 8 nucleons : 4 protons and 4 neutrons .
this corresponds to the configuration space of @xmath190 nucleus . in fig .
[ fig:0f71p3](a ) , where the fractional collectivity @xmath72 is shown , a noticeable peak that corresponds to collective realizations is observed .
the distribution of the quadrupole moment in fig .
[ fig:0f71p3](b ) shows prolate and oblate peaks .
the peaks are especially clear for the collective realizations ( shaded in uniform red ) . the non - collective cases in fig .
[ fig:0f71p3](b ) are distributed around @xmath191 ( shaded in blue pattern ) . in agreement with the results in ref .
@xcite , in this tbre the prolate intrinsic shape is more probable , as evident from a bigger prolate peak .    .
( a ) the distribution of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 .
( b ) the distribution of the intrinsic quadrupole moment @xmath43 .
the solid black line outlines the probability distribution for 31% of realizations with the @xmath192 state followed by the @xmath59 first excited state , both states with isospin @xmath193 the 8.8% of realizations are collective and the 12.8% are non - collective .
this figure is analogous to figs .
[ fig : jl19n6 ] , [ fig : multipole19n6 ] , [ fig : qqj19n8 ] , [ fig : ppvj13n6]-[fig : ppvj13n22 ] , and the same shading is used in these figures .
, width=326 ]    in fig .
[ colfig:0f71p3 ] we focus on the 8.8% of realizations that are collective .
the quadrupole moments in fig . [ fig:0f71p3](b ) are further separated into prolate @xmath46 and oblate @xmath47 cases as shown in the inset of fig .
[ colfig:0f71p3 ] . the same shading is used in the main figure showing the distribution of the relative transition strength @xmath48 .
the maximum possible value @xmath194 is reached when the ground state wave function of the randomly selected hamiltonian coincides with that of the qq hamiltonian . from the summary in tab .
[ tab : qq ] one finds that the @xmath195 ground state of the qq hamiltonian , for which @xmath194 , is prolate in this valence space .
indeed , the distribution of prolate realizations is peaked at around @xmath196 while the oblate shapes have @xmath48 near @xmath197    the distributions of @xmath56 and @xmath55 for collective realizations are shown in fig .
[ fig:0f7p3_col024 ] .
this figure can be compared to fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col024 ] . in both figures
we use the same shading to separate the prolate and oblate collective cases .
in contrast to fig . [
fig : jl19n6_col024](a ) , both prolate and oblate realizations in fig .
[ fig:0f7p3_col024](a ) have a band structure with the deexcitation ratio @xmath56 that is consistent with the rotational value 10/7 .
this ensemble , based on the more realistic model space , appears to have an energy spectrum that is closer to the rotational spectrum .
the distribution of @xmath55 in fig .
[ fig:0f7p3_col024](b ) is broad , but it has a peak around the rotor value of 10/3 .    .
the distribution of the relative transition strength @xmath48 for the collective realizations ( shaded with uniform red in fig .
[ fig:0f71p3 ] ) .
the 3.6% of prolate cases and 1.0% of oblate are identified with shades of color and pattern ( see the inset ) .
this figure is analogous to fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] , and the same shading is used as in figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_col]-[fig : jl19n6_trix].,width=326 ]    . ( a ) the distribution of the deexcitation ratio @xmath56 defined in eq .
( [ eq : dx ] ) .
( b ) the distribution of the excitation energy ratio @xmath55 defined in eq .
( [ eq : rr ] ) . collective realization discussed in fig .
[ fig:0f71p3 ] are selected and , in addition , we require that the second excited state has spin @xmath198 .
the fraction of such cases is 4.2% , with 2.4% being prolate and 0.6% being oblate , they are shaded separately with the same patterns as in fig .
[ colfig:0f71p3 ] .
the values for @xmath56 and @xmath55 from the qq hamiltonian listed in tab.[tab : qq ] are shown with the vertical grid lines .
this figure is analogous to fig .
[ fig : jl19n6_col024 ] , and the same shading is used as in figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_col]-[fig : jl19n6_trix ] and [ colfig:0f71p3].,width=326 ]    as concluded in ref .
@xcite , realizations with rotational features appear in random ensembles due to correlated interaction matrix elements .
similarly to the single @xmath0 level model , it is natural to attribute this collectivity to the qq component in the hamiltonian .
the overlap @xmath199 between the ground state wave functions of the two - body random ensemble @xmath200 and the fixed ground state wave function of the qq hamiltonian is defined as@xmath201 fig . [
fig : overlap ] shows the distribution of the overlap @xmath199 in the @xmath189 model .
a similar approach has been used in investigations of pairing coherence in random ensembles , see review in ref .
we select 56.3% of realizations where the ground state quantum numbers are @xmath5 and @xmath202 , the ground state of the qq hamiltonian has the same spin and isospin . the distribution of @xmath199 shown in fig .
[ fig : overlap ] is compared with the porter - thomas @xmath203 distribution .
the latter emerges for uncorrelated wave functions in the 126-dimensional space spanned by the @xmath204 wave functions .
as shown in fig .
[ fig : overlap ] the porter - thomas distribution drops abruptly , thus predicting that cases with large @xmath199 are extremely unlikely . according to the porter - thomas distribution the probability to find @xmath205 is only @xmath206 whereas in the tbre @xmath205 in @xmath207 of random realizations . to emphasize the relation between the collective structure and the large qq component of the wave function we show in fig .
[ fig : overlap ] the histogram for collective realization ( with states @xmath6 and @xmath208 and @xmath41 ) .
it is clear that the collective transitions and rotational structure emerge when the component of the wave functions that corresponds to the eigenstate of the qq hamiltonian is large .    .
the distribution of the overlap @xmath199 defined in eq .
( [ eq : x ] ) .
the results for all @xmath209 states are unshaded ; the fraction of such realizations is 56.3% .
collective realization that in addition to the @xmath6 state have the @xmath210 , @xmath27 first excited state and @xmath41 are shaded ( their fraction is 8.8% ) .
solid line shows the porter - thomas distribution , which is expected for the overlap between uncorrelated states .
, width=326 ]
our studies show that a collective behavior that resembles realistic is quite likely to be present in the ensemble with two - body random interactions .
this behavior appears to emerge due to the quadrupole - quadrupole interaction component in the hamiltonian .
this component , as well as some higher multipoles can establish some noticeable coherence despite the overall many - body randomness and complexity .
similarly to the moment - of - inertia - like @xmath161 term ( that is responsible for the ground state configurations with the maximum possible spin ) the qq component , while not a constant of motion , is dynamically prevailing .
let us list the supporting arguments :    * the fraction of random realizations that are quadrupole - collective is extremely large as compared to the statistically expected number .
* in the two - body random ensemble , the quadrupole collectivity displayed by the transition rates disappears when the qq component in the interaction is removed , see fig .
[ fig : multi_j19n8_jj ] . * from investigations in fig .
[ fig : overlap ] , as well as indirectly form figs .
[ fig : jl19n6_col ] , [ fig : colqqj19n8 ] , and [ colfig:0f71p3 ] , it follows that the collective states in the tbre have structure similar to that of the qq hamiltonian eigenstates . * in order to examine the shape and other quantitative characteristics of the deformed mean - field we turn to the qq hamiltonian , for which the geometry of the configuration space is the only parameter .
the values of the quadrupole moments , transition rates , and level spacings for the models discussed in this paper are summarized in tab .
[ tab : qq ] . in all cases
the qq hamiltonian has a low - lying rotational spectrum . the type of the quadrupole deformation and most of the other quantitative measures in tab .
[ tab : qq ] are consistent with those observed in the tbre .
this again suggests that the collective features seen in the tbre arise from the coherent qq component .
.characteristics of the qq hamiltonian . listed in the table are the values of the fractional collectivity @xmath72 , quadrupole moment @xmath43 , ratios of the transition rates @xmath56 and the ratios of excitation energies @xmath55 .
the models are the same as those considered in our study of the tbre . [
cols="<,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     practically all deformed nuclei in nature are known to have a prolate ground state shape .
this prolate dominance has been widely discussed in the literature @xcite .
an effort to pinpoint the origin of the phenomenon using the shell model approach with random interactions is presented in ref .
@xcite . while in this work we do not explicitly pursue the question of prolate dominance , we are compelled to comment on the issue from the standpoint of our findings .
our studies fully confirm the results in ref .
however , conclusions supporting the prolate dominance are difficult to draw , instead we offer several observations .
first , the quadrupole collectivity seen in the tbre is due to the qq component in the hamiltonian .
this interaction and the geometry of the valence space determine the deformation type .
thus , some questions of the shape systematics can be addressed by considering the qq hamiltonian and without invoking random interactions .
second , the shape is determined by the valence configuration and by the positions of the single particle levels .
the role of the single - particle level structure discussed by hamamoto in ref .
@xcite is possible to pinpoint using the tbre as well as using analytic models , e.g. the seniority model and elliot s su(3 ) model @xcite .
third , due to particle - hole symmetry , which does not need to be exact , the number of prolate and oblate configurations is approximately the same within a given valence space .
the deviations from this symmetry affect only a few mid - shell systems where the two shapes compete .
the effect of the particle - hole symmetry is seen in our results in figs .
[ fig : ppvj13n6 ] and [ fig : ppvj13n22 ] .
to conclude , in this work we examined the quadrupole collectivity that emerges in systems with two - body random interactions . a low - lying spectrum , characteristic of a rigid rotor , is commonly observed .
the transition @xmath211 the quadrupole moment of the first @xmath27 state , and the deexcitation ratio @xmath212 are all consistent with that of the deformed rotor .
a weak triaxiality is also identified .
the coherent dynamical role of the quadrupole - quadrupole interaction component is established as a source of this behavior .
the authors are thankful to v. zelevinsky and j.m .
allmond for motivating discussions .
support from the u. s. department of energy , grant de - fg02 - 92er40750 is acknowledged .
the computing resources were provided by the florida state university shared high - performance computing facility .