# Spin-Pseudospin Coherence and CP3 Skyrmions in Bilayer Quantum Hall Ferromagnets

## Abstract

We analyze bilayer quantum Hall ferromagnets, whose underlying symmetry group is SU(4). Spin-pseudospin coherence develops spontaneously when the total electron density is low enough. Quasiparticles are CP<sup>3</sup> skyrmions. One skyrmion induces charge modulations on both of the two layers. At the filling factor$`\nu =2/m`$ one elementary excitation consists of a pair of skyrmions and its charge is $`2e/m`$. Recent experimental data due to Sawada et al. \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4534 (1998)\] support this conclusion.   

The quantum Hall (QH) effect is a remarkable macroscopic quantum phenomenon in the two-dimensional electron system . Attention has recently been paid to quantum coherence in QH systems. The kinetic and Coulomb Hamiltonians have the spin SU(2) symmetry. Its spontaneous breakdown leads to a spin coherence and turns the system into a QH ferromagnet. The effective Hamiltonian is the SU(2) nonlinear sigma (NL$`\sigma `$) model . Quasiparticles are CP<sup>1</sup> skyrmions .

In this paper we analyze skyrmion excitations in bilayer QH (BLQH) ferromagnets. The lowest Landau level (LLL) contains four energy levels corresponding to the spin and layer (pseudospin) degrees of freedom. The SU(4) symmetry underlies the BLQH system. Its spontaneous breakdown leads to a spin-pseudospin coherence. The effective Hamiltonian is the SU(4) NL$`\sigma `$ model . Quasiparticles are CP<sup>3</sup> skyrmions . They have two characteristic features: (A) One skyrmion induces charge modulations on both of the two layers. The main part of the activation energy is the capacitive charging energy. (B) One elementary excitation consists of a pair of skyrmions at $`\nu =2/m`$ with $`m`$ odd. It carries the charge $`2e/m`$. Our theoretical analysis accounts for recent experimental data due to Sawada et al.. Throughout the paper we use the natural units $`\mathrm{}=c=1`$.

QH ferromagnets: We analyze skyrmion excitations at the filling factor $`\nu 2\pi \rho _0/eB_{}=1/m`$ with $`m`$ odd. We use an improved composite-boson (CB) theory , which is proposed based on a suggestion due to Girvin et al. . The advantage of the scheme is a direct connection between the semiclassical property of an excitation and its microscopic wave function. We start with a review of monolayer QH ferromagnets . The analysis of BLQH ferromagnets is its straightforward generalization with a replacement of SU(2) by SU(4).

The kinetic Hamiltonian for planar electrons with mass $`M`$ in the perpendicular magnetic field $`B_{}`$ is

$$H_K=\frac{1}{2M}d^2x\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙)(P_xiP_y)(P_x+iP_y)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙),$$
(1)   
where $`P_j=i_j+eA_j`$ is the covariant momentum with $`A_j=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon _{jk}x_kB_{}`$; $`\epsilon _{12}=\epsilon _{21}=1`$ and $`\epsilon _{11}=\epsilon _{22}=0`$. The electron field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙)`$ is a two-component spinor made of the spin-up ($`\psi ^{}`$) and spin-down ($`\psi ^{}`$) field. The symmetry group of this Hamiltonian is U(2)=U(1)$``$SU(2).

When the Zeeman energy is small, a spin coherence develops spontaneously. This is described by introducing the two-component CB field by the formula ,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)=e^{𝒜(𝒙)}e^{ie\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒙)}\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙),$$
(2)   
where $`𝒜(𝒙)`$ is the auxiliary field obeying $`\mathbf{}^2𝒜(𝒙)=2\pi m[\rho (𝒙)\rho _0]`$; $`\rho (𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙)`$ is the electron density. The phase field $`\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒙)`$ attaches $`m`$ units of flux quantum $`2\pi /e`$ to each electron via the relation, $`\epsilon _{ij}_i_j\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒙)=(2\pi /e)m\rho (𝒙)`$. The effective magnetic field is

$$_{\text{eff}}(𝒙)=B_{}\epsilon _{ij}_i_j\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒙)=B_{}(2\pi /e)m\rho (𝒙).$$
(3)   
It vanishes, $`_{\text{eff}}_\text{g}=0`$, on the ground state at $`\nu =1/m`$. Substituting (2) into (1), the kinetic Hamiltonian reads

$$H_K=\frac{1}{2M}d^2x\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒙)(𝒫_xi𝒫_y)(𝒫_x+i𝒫_y)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙),$$
(4)   
where $`𝒫_j=i_j(\epsilon _{jk}+i\delta _{jk})_k𝒜(𝒙)`$ is the covariant momentum. We have defined $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒙)e^{2𝒜(𝒙)}`$, with which $`\rho (𝒙)=\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(𝒙)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)`$. An analysis of the Lagrangian shows that the canonical conjugate of $`\phi ^\alpha (𝒙)`$ is not $`i\phi ^\alpha (𝒙)`$ but $`i\phi ^\alpha (𝒙)`$.

We decompose the CB field as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)=e^{𝒜(𝒙)}\varphi (𝒙)𝒏(𝒙),$$
(5)   
with the U(1) component $`\varphi (𝒙)=e^{i\chi (𝒙)}\sqrt{\rho (𝒙)}`$ and the SU(2) component $`𝒏(𝒙)`$: It is the CP<sup>1</sup> field  subject to the constraint, $`𝒏^{}(𝒙)𝒏(𝒙)=1`$. The spin density is

$$S^a(𝒙)=\frac{1}{2}\rho (𝒙)s^a(𝒙),s^a(𝒙)=𝒏^{}(𝒙)\lambda ^a𝒏(𝒙),$$
(6)   
where $`\lambda ^a`$ are the Pauli matrices.

At sufficiently low temperature it is reasonable to focus our attention to physics taking place within the LLL. The Hilbert space $`_{\text{LLL}}`$ is constructed by imposing the LLL condition so that the kinetic term (4) is quenched. It has a simple expression in terms of the CB field,

$$(𝒫_x+i𝒫_y)\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)|𝔖=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}_B}\frac{}{z^{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)|𝔖=0.$$
(7)   
The complex number is $`z=(x+iy)/2\mathrm{}_B`$ with $`\mathrm{}_B`$ the magnetic length. Hence, the wave function for composite bosons is analytic and symmetric in all $`N`$ coordinates,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }[z]=0|\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙_1)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙_N)|𝔖.$$
(8)   
The wave function for electrons is $`𝔖[𝒙]=\mathrm{\Omega }[z]𝔖_{\text{LN}}[𝒙]`$, where $`𝔖_{\text{LN}}[𝒙]`$ is the familiar Laughlin wave function. Here, $`[𝒙]=(𝒙_1,𝒙_2,\mathrm{},𝒙_N)`$ and $`[z]=(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_N)`$. Any excitation confined to the LLL is described by a choice of the analytic spinor factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }[z]`$.

We analyze the CB theory semiclassically, where the bosonic field operator is approximated by a c-number field. It follows from (8) that the wave function is

$$𝔖[𝒙]=\underset{r}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙_r)𝔖_{\text{LN}}[𝒙],$$
(9)   
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)`$ is analytic. If the Zeeman energy is neglected, the ground state is determined by minimizing the Coulomb energy. The one-point function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒙)`$ is a constant vector pointing to an arbitrary direction in the SU(2) space, as implies a spontaneous breakdown of the SU(2) symmetry. Actually, a small Zeeman interaction fixes this direction so that $`s^a(𝒙)=\delta ^{az}`$, or

$$\phi ^{}(𝒙)_\text{g}=\sqrt{\rho _0},\phi ^{}(𝒙)_\text{g}=0.$$
(10)   
The ground-state wave function is given by (9) with (10).

The semiclassical LLL condition follows from (5),

$$\phi ^\alpha (𝒙)=e^{𝒜(𝒙)}e^{i\chi (𝒙)}\sqrt{\rho (𝒙)}n^\alpha (𝒙)\omega ^\alpha (z),$$
(11)   
where various fields are classical ones. This is solved by $`\chi (𝒙)=0`$ and $`n^\alpha (𝒙)=\omega ^\alpha (z)/\sqrt{_\alpha |\omega ^\alpha |^2}`$. The soliton equation  follows trivially from (11),

$$\frac{\nu }{4\pi }\mathbf{}^2\mathrm{ln}\rho (𝒙)\rho (𝒙)+\rho _0=\nu Q(𝒙),$$
(12)   
where $`Q(𝒙)`$ is the topological charge density,

$$Q(𝒙)=\frac{1}{4\pi }\mathbf{}^2\mathrm{ln}\left(\underset{\alpha }{}|\omega ^\alpha (z)|^2\right).$$
(13)   
The lightest skyrmion on the ground state (10) is

$$\phi ^{}(𝒙)_{\text{sky}}=z\sqrt{\rho _0},\phi ^{}(𝒙)_{\text{sky}}=\kappa \sqrt{\rho _0},$$
(14)   
with which the wave function is given by (9). For a large skyrmion ($`\kappa 1`$), the soliton equation (12) is solved iteratively and agrees with the familiar expression ,

$$\varrho (𝒙)\rho (𝒙)\rho _0\nu Q(𝒙)=\frac{\nu }{\pi }\frac{4(\kappa \mathrm{}_B)^2}{[r^2+4(\kappa \mathrm{}_B)^2]^2}.$$
(15)   
The skyrmion is reduced to the vortex in the limit $`\kappa 0`$.

The excitation energy of one skyrmion consists of the exchange energy $`E_{\text{ex}}`$, the electrostatic energy $`E_C`$ and the Zeeman energy $`E_Z`$. Minimizing their sum, we determine the skyrmion size $`\kappa `$, the skyrmion energy $`E_{\text{sky}}`$ and the flipped-spin number $`N_{\text{spin}}`$ as follows :

$`\kappa `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta \nu )^{1/3}\left\{\stackrel{~}{g}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{32\stackrel{~}{g}}}+1\right)\right\}^{1/3},`$ (16)   
$`E_{\text{sky}}`$ $`\left(\nu \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{32}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3\beta \nu ^2}{4\kappa }}\right)E_C^0,`$ (17)   
$`N_{\text{spin}}`$ $`2\nu \kappa ^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{32\stackrel{~}{g}}}+1\right).`$ (18)   
Here, $`\rho _s=\nu e^2/(16\sqrt{2\pi }\epsilon \mathrm{}_B)`$, $`E_C^0=e^2/\epsilon \mathrm{}_B`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g^{}\mu _BB/E_C^0`$. The parameter $`\beta `$ represents the strength of the Coulomb energy; it is calculated as $`\beta =3\pi ^2/64`$ for a sufficiently large skyrmion in an ideal planar system. However, an actual skyrmion is not large and there will also be a correction from a finiteness of the layer width. We use $`\beta `$ as a phenomenological parameter. We fix it as $`\beta =0.24`$ by requiring the skyrmion spin $`N_{\text{spin}}`$ to agree with the experimental data due to Barrett et al.  at $`\nu =1`$: $`N_{\text{spin}}3.7`$ at $`B=7.05`$ Tesla, where $`\kappa 1.0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}0.015`$. Note that $`N_{\text{spin}}5.3`$ ($`\kappa 1.10`$) at $`B=3`$ Tesla and $`N_{\text{spin}}2.7`$ ($`\kappa 0.96`$) at $`B=15`$ Tesla. Our results are consistent with the previous ones .

The excitation energy of a skyrmion-antiskyrmion pair will be given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2E_{\text{sky}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{offset}}`$ with a sample dependent offset $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{offset}}`$. In Fig.1 we have fitted the experimental data due to Schmeller et al.  based on formula (17) with $`\beta =0.24`$, where an appropriate offset $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\text{offset}}`$ is used for each curve. The theoretical curves reproduce all data remarkably well.

BLQH systems: We proceed to analyze BLQH states at $`\nu =1/m`$ and $`2/m`$ with $`m`$ odd. There are three experimental techniques to elucidate various states. The first one is to change the total electron density $`\rho _0`$. By increasing $`\rho _0`$ the interlayer separation $`d`$ is effectively increased compared with the magnetic length, $`d/\mathrm{}_B\sqrt{\rho _0}`$. Hence, as $`\rho _0\mathrm{}`$ the BLQH system at $`\nu =2/m`$ will be decomposed into two independent $`\nu =1/m`$ monolayer systems; as $`\rho _00`$ an interlayer coherence will develop spontaneously, which has been argued  at $`\nu =1/m`$ and will be argued at $`\nu =2/m`$ in this paper. Consequently, we expect a phase transition at $`\nu =2/m`$ between these two phases but not at $`\nu =1/m`$. These two phases are clearly distinguishable by using the second technique, i.e. by applying gate bias voltage. We can control the density difference $`\sigma _0`$ between the two quantum wells, where $`\sigma _0=(\rho _0^1\rho _0^2)/\rho _0`$ with $`\rho _0^\alpha `$ the density in the layer $`\alpha `$. Only the coherent state is stable  against an arbitrary change of $`\sigma _0`$. All these features have been experimentally confirmed in recent works due to Sawada et al.  at $`\nu =1`$ and $`2`$. The coherent state at $`\nu =2/3`$ has not been observed by them presumably because of a poor sample quality. The third technique is to tilt the sample with the perpendicular magnetic field $`B_{}`$ fixed. In the high-density data  the activation energy is found to increase at $`\nu =2`$ and $`2/3`$ as normally as in the monolayer system: Indeed, we can fit the data by the monolayer skyrmion formula (17). We conclude that elementary excitations are monolayer skyrmions. In the low-density data  it is found to decrease anomalously at $`\nu =1`$ and $`\nu =2`$, as is the phenomenon discovered by Murphy et al.  at $`\nu =1`$: It is a behavior intrinsic to the interlayer coherent state in the BLQH system.

Spin-pseudospin coherence: We analyze elementary excitations in the coherent state of the BLQH system. The electron field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝒙)`$ has four components $`\psi ^1`$, $`\psi ^1`$, $`\psi ^2`$ and $`\psi ^2`$, where the layer is indexed by 1 and 2. The kinetic Hamiltonian is given by (1), whose symmetry group is U(4)=U(1)$``$SU(4). When the interlayer and intralayer Coulomb energies are nearly equal and dominate the system, we expect a spin-pseudospin coherence to emerge.

Such a new phase is described in terms of the CB field defined by (2). The CB field is decomposed into the U(1) and SU(4) components by (5). Here, $`𝒏(𝒙)`$ is the CP<sup>3</sup> field. The group SU(4) is generated by the hermitian, traceless, $`4\times 4`$ matrices $`\lambda ^a`$, $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},15`$, normalized as $`\text{Tr}(\lambda ^a\lambda ^b)=2\delta ^{ab}`$. They are the generalization of the Pauli matrices in case of SU(2). The SU(4) spin density is given by (6) with such $`\lambda ^a`$.

The Coulomb energy is decomposed into two terms,

$$E_C^\pm =\frac{1}{2}d^2xd^2yV^+(𝒙𝒚)\varrho _\pm (𝒙)\varrho _\pm (𝒚),$$
(19)   
where $`V^\pm (𝒙)=(e^2/2\epsilon )\left(|𝒙|^1\pm (|𝒙|^2+d^2)^{1/2}\right)`$ with the interlayer separation $`d`$; $`\varrho _+\varrho (𝒙)=\rho (𝒙)\rho _0`$; $`\varrho _{}(𝒙)=\rho ^1(𝒙)\rho ^2(𝒙)\rho _0^1+\rho _0^2`$ with $`\rho ^1(𝒙)=\rho ^1(𝒙)+\rho ^1(𝒙)`$ and $`\rho ^2(𝒙)=\rho ^2(𝒙)+\rho ^2(𝒙)`$. The Coulomb energy $`E_C^+`$, possessing the SU(4) symmetry, is the driving force to realize the QH system. The term $`E_C^{}`$ describes the capacitive charging energy between the two layers. It vanishes in the limit $`d0`$.

The Hilbert space $`_{\text{LLL}}`$ is defined by the LLL condition (7). In the semiclassical approximation the wave function is given by (9) at $`\nu 1`$. The SU(4) spin-pseudospin coherence is shown to develop spontaneously, precisely as the SU(2) spin coherence is. The ground state at $`\nu 1`$ is given by 

$`\phi ^1_\text{g}`$ $`=\sqrt{\rho _0/2}\sqrt{1+\sigma _0},\phi ^1_\text{g}=0,`$ (20)   
$`\phi ^2_\text{g}`$ $`=\sqrt{\rho _0/2}\sqrt{1\sigma _0},\phi ^2_\text{g}=0,`$ (21)   
where $`\rho _0^1=\frac{1}{2}\rho _0(1+\sigma _0)`$ and $`\rho _0^2=\frac{1}{2}\rho _0(1\sigma _0)`$. It is convenient to use a new set of CB fields, 

$`\phi ^S`$ $`=\sqrt{(1+\sigma _0)/2}\phi ^1+\sqrt{(1\sigma _0)/2}\phi ^2,`$ (22)   
$`\phi ^A`$ $`=\sqrt{(1\sigma _0)/2}\phi ^1\sqrt{(1+\sigma _0)/2}\phi ^2,`$ (23)   
and a similar set for the spin-down fields. They are reduced to the symmetric and antisymmetric fields at the balanced point ($`\sigma _0=0`$). We call them the “bond” and “antibond” fields. The ground-state value (21) is transformed into $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_\text{g}=\sqrt{\rho _0}(1,0,0,0)`$ in terms of the new fields, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(\phi ^S,\phi ^S,\phi ^A,\phi ^A)`$.

The tunneling energy is

$$E_T=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}\sqrt{1\sigma _0^2}d^2x[\varrho _{}^S(𝒙)\varrho _{}^A(𝒙)],$$
(24)   
where $`\varrho _{}^S(𝒙)=\rho ^S(𝒙)\rho ^S(𝒙)_\text{g}`$ with $`\rho ^S=\phi ^S\phi ^S+\phi ^S\phi ^S`$ and similar equations for $`\varrho _{}^A(𝒙)`$. The tunneling gap is $`(1\sigma _0^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}`$ on the state (21).

A skyrmion excitation flips in general spins and pseudospins. It is a CP<sup>3</sup> skyrmion  described by

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\text{sky}}=\sqrt{\rho _0}(z,\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\kappa _3),$$
(25)   
with constant parameters $`\kappa _i`$. Its classical configuration is determined by (11) $``$ (13), and (15) with $`\kappa ^2=_\alpha \kappa _\alpha ^2`$. For definiteness we assume hereafter that the tunneling energy is much larger than the Zeeman energy. (For instance, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}/g^{}\mu _BB4`$ at $`B=`$ 5 Tesla in the sample of Ref..) Then, we have $`\kappa =\kappa _10`$, $`\kappa _2=\kappa _3=0`$. It is identical to the CP<sup>1</sup> skyrmion (14) in the spin space. At the balanced point the skyrmion size, the skyrmion energy and the flipped-spin number are given by the same formulas as (16) $``$ (18), where $`\beta `$ now depends on the layer separation $`d`$. Here, we concentrate our attention to its dependence on the imbalance parameter $`\sigma _0`$. The term involving $`\sigma _0`$ is only the charging term (19) for $`\nu 1`$. We give a numerical estimation of the activation energy at $`\nu =1`$ in Fig.2 by using the sample parameters ($`d=231`$Å, $`\mathrm{}_B=120`$Å) of Ref.. The theoretical curve explains the experimental data quite well with a reasonable skyrmion size $`\kappa 1`$.

BLQH ferromagnet at $`\nu =2`$: A caution is needed to analyze the BLQH system at $`\nu =2`$ since one Landau state contains two electrons. We attach one unit of flux to each electron and transform it into the CB field by formula (2) with $`m=1`$. The effective magnetic field is not given by (3) but by

$$2_{\text{eff}}=2B_{}\epsilon _{ij}_i_j\mathrm{\Theta }(𝒙)=2B_{}(2\pi /e)m\rho (𝒙).$$
(26)   
It vanishes on the homogeneous ground state at $`\nu =2/m`$. Due to the fermi statistics the wave function is the antisymmetric product of two wave functions (9),

$`𝔖[𝒙]=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_1(𝒙_r)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(𝒙_r)\mathrm{\Phi }_2(𝒙_r)\mathrm{\Phi }_1(𝒙_r)]`$ (28)   
$`\times 𝔖_{\text{LN}}[𝒙]^2,`$   
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(𝒙)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(𝒙)`$ are analytic and satisfy

$$\underset{\alpha }{}|\phi _1^\alpha (𝒙)|^2=\underset{\alpha }{}|\phi _2^\alpha (𝒙)|^2,$$
(29)   
as follows from the semiclassical LLL condition (11).

When $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}g^{}\mu _BB`$, the spin-up and spin-down “bond” states are filled. Hence, the ground state is given by (28) with a set of two constant CB fields,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1_\text{g}=\sqrt{\frac{\rho _0}{2}}(1,0,0,0),\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2_\text{g}=\sqrt{\frac{\rho _0}{2}}(0,1,0,0),$$
(30)   
in terms of the “bond” and “antibond” fields. This might be identified with the canted state  for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}g^{}\mu _BB`$. A skyrmion excitation flips pseudospins, or induces a coherent tunneling excitation. It is described by (28) with a set of two CB fields,

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1_{\text{sky}}`$ $`=\sqrt{\rho _0/2}(z,\kappa _1,\kappa _2,\kappa _3),`$ (31)   
$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_2_{\text{sky}}`$ $`=\sqrt{\rho _0/2}(\kappa _1^{},z,\kappa _2^{},\kappa _3^{}),`$ (32)   
with $`\kappa ^2_\alpha \kappa _\alpha ^2=_\alpha \kappa _{}^{}{}_{\alpha }{}^{2}`$. It consists of two CP<sup>3</sup> skyrmions (25), and the skyrmion charge is $`2e`$. We emphasize that there exists no skyrmion composed of one CP<sup>3</sup> skyrmion at $`\nu =2`$ because of the constraint (29).

An estimation of the excitation energy of the skyrmion (32) is straightforward. We concentrate our attention to its dependence on the imbalance parameter $`\sigma _0`$. The terms involving $`\sigma _0`$ are the charging energy (19) and the tunneling energy (24). The charging energy increases while the tunneling energy decreases as $`\sigma _0`$ increases. We give a numerical estimation in Fig.2 by using the sample parameters ($`d=231`$Å, $`\mathrm{}_B=228`$Å, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}=`$6.8K) of Ref.. The vortex limit ($`\kappa 0`$) gives a best fitting of the experimental data because of a large tunneling gap ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\text{SAS}}=`$6.8K). We have also given a theoretical curve for a would-be skyrmion carrying charge $`e`$ at $`\nu =2`$ by using the same parameters, where the charging energy and the tunneling energy are found to cancel each other almost completely (Fig.2).

The driving force of the SU(4) spin-pseudospin coherence is the Coulomb exchange energy arising from the SU(4)-invariant Coulomb term $`E_C^+`$ in (19). Provided the exchange energy is dominant, it is obvious that the SU(4) coherence develops also at $`\nu =2/m`$ with the skyrmion charge $`2e/m`$, and at $`\nu =6,10,14,\mathrm{}`$ with charge $`2e`$.

I am very grateful to Kenichi Sasaki, Anju Sawada, Sankar Das Sarma, Eugene Demler, Allan MacDonald and Jim Eisenstein for fruitful conversations on the subject. Part of this work was done at ITP, Santa Barbara. This research was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY9407194.