- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Super Landau model and Howe duality: From supermonopole harmonics to quantum matrix geometry

Kazuki Hasebe*

  • *Contact author: khasebe@sendai-nct.ac.jp
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 085006 – Published 7 October, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/lvq2-k6x8

Abstract

Landau models serve as quantum mechanical systems for generating quantum matrix geometries. In this paper, we demonstrate that Howe duality provides the underlying structure of the super Landau model, reflecting a general feature of coset-type Landau models. The (super) Howe duality relates different Landau levels and accounts for the emergence of a dual fuzzy geometry. By employing superspinor derivative operators, the supermonopole harmonics in both integer and half-integer Landau levels are explicitly constructed and the algebraic structure of the super-Hilbert space is revealed. We propose a consistent probabilistic interpretation for these wave functions defined on a supermanifold. Through a level projection method, we derive the matrix coordinates of fuzzy supersphere geometries for arbitrary Landau levels, along with a precise determination of the noncommutative scale factor. It is shown that the theta correspondence of Howe duality induces a geometric transformation between fuzzy objects. Finally, we point out that Howe duality realizes an internal-external space duality and underlies quantum matrix geometries, suggesting that it may play a fundamental role in understanding Matrix model geometries.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (114)

  1. Z. F. Ezawa, G. Tsitsishvili, and K. Hasebe, Noncommutative geometry, extended W(infinity) algebra and Grassmannian solitons in multicomponent quantum Hall systems, Phys. Rev. B 67, 125314 (2003).
  2. S. M. Girvin and T. Jach, Formalism for the quantum Hall effect: Hilbert space of analytic functions, Phys. Rev. B 29, 5617 (1984).
  3. S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Magneto-roton theory of collective excitations in the fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. B 33, 2481 (1986).
  4. D. N. Kabat and W. Taylor, Spherical membranes in matrix theory, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 181 (1998).
  5. W. Taylor, M(atrix) Theory: Matrix Quantum Mechanics as a Fundamental Theory, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 419 (2001).
  6. A. Chaney, L. Lu, and A. Stern, Lorentzian fuzzy spheres, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064021 (2015).
  7. J. Castelino, S. Lee, and W. Taylor, Longitudinal five-branes as four spheres in matrix theory, Nucl. Phys. B526, 334 (1998).
  8. J. Gohara and A. Sako, Quantization of Lie–Poisson algebra and Lie algebra solutions of mass-deformed type IIB matrix model, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 67, 022301 (2026).
  9. K. Hasebe, Generating quantum matrix geometry from gauged quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 108, 126023 (2023).
  10. S. Iso, Y. Kimura, K. Tanaka, and K. Wakatsuki, Noncommutative gauge theory on fuzzy sphere from matrix model, Nucl. Phys. B604, 121 (2001).
  11. Y. Kimura, Noncommutative gauge theories on fuzzy sphere and fuzzy torus from matrix model, Prog. Theor. Phys. 106, 445 (2001).
  12. Y. Kimura, Noncommutative gauge theory on fuzzy four sphere and matrix model, Nucl. Phys. B637, 177 (2002).
  13. Y. Kimura, On higher dimensional fuzzy spherical branes, Nucl. Phys. B664, 512 (2003).
  14. R. C. Myers, Dielectric branes, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (1999) 022.
  15. M. Sperling and H. C. Steinacker, The fuzzy 4-hyperboloid Hn4 and higher-spin in Yang-Mills matrix models, Nucl. Phys. B941, 680 (2019).
  16. H. C. Steinacker and T. Tran, Spinorial higher-spin gauge theory from IKKT model in euclidean and Minkowski signatures, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2023) 010.
  17. H. C. Steinacker, Emergent gravity on covariant quantum spaces in the IKKT model, J. High Energy Phys. 12 (2016) 156.
  18. A. Stern and C. Xu, Signature change in matrix model solutions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 086015 (2018).
  19. J. de Boer, P. A. Grassi, and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, Noncommutative superspace from string theory, Phys. Lett. B 574, 98 (2003).
  20. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, The C deformation of gluino and nonplanar diagrams, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, 53 (2003).
  21. H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, Gravity induced C deformation, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 7, 405 (2003).
  22. N. Seiberg, Noncommutative superspace, N=1/2 supersymmetry, field theory and string theory, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2003) 010.
  23. A. P. Balachandran, S. Kurkcuoglu, and S. Vaidya, Lectures on fuzzy and fuzzy SUSY physics, arXiv:hep-th/0511114.
  24. H. Grosse, C. Klimcik, and P. Presnajder, Field theory on a supersymmetric lattice, Commun. Math. Phys. 185, 155 (1997).
  25. H. Grosse and G. Reiter, The fuzzy supersphere, J. Geom. Phys. 28, 349 (1998).
  26. E. Ivanov, L. Mezincescu, and P. K. Townsend, Fuzzy CP(n|m) as a quantum superspace, arXiv:hep-th/0311159.
  27. K. Hasebe, Graded Hopf maps and fuzzy superspheres, Nucl. Phys. B853, 777 (2011).
  28. S. Iso and H. Umetsu, Gauge theory on noncommutative supersphere from supermatrix model, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105003 (2004).
  29. K. Hasebe and Y. Kimura, Fuzzy supersphere and supermonopole, Nucl. Phys. B709, 94 (2005).
  30. K. Hasebe, Supersymmetric quantum Hall effect on fuzzy supersphere, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 206802 (2005).
  31. F. D. M. Haldane, Fractional quantization of the Hall effect: A hierarchy of incompressible quantum fluid states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 605 (1983).
  32. J. Hoppe, Quantum theory of a massless relativistic surface and a two-dimensional bound state problem, Ph.D. thesis, MIT, 1982.
  33. J. Madore, The fuzzy sphere, Classical Quantum Gravity 9, 69 (1992).
  34. K. Hasebe, Hopf maps, lowest landau level, and fuzzy spheres, SIGMA 6, 071 (2010).
  35. M. Hatsuda, S. Iso, and H. Umetsu, Noncommutative superspace, supermatrix and lowest Landau level, Nucl. Phys. B671, 217 (2003).
  36. T. Curtright, E. Ivanov, L. Mezincescu, and P. K. Townsend, Planar super-Landau models revisited, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2007) 020.
  37. K. Hasebe, Quantum Hall liquid on a noncommutative superplane, Phys. Rev. D 72, 105017 (2005).
  38. E. Ivanov, L. Mezincescu, and P. K. Townsend, Planar super-Landau models, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2006) 143. arXiv:hep-th/0510019.
  39. E. Ivanov, Supersymmetrizing Landau models, Theor. Math. Phys. 154, 349 (2008).
  40. F. Melong and R. Wulkenhaar, Generalized super-W1+∞-n-algebra and Landau problem, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 67, 023502 (2026).
  41. K. Hasebe, Hyperbolic SUSY quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. D 78, 125024 (2008).
  42. K. Hasebe, Supersymmetric Chern-Simons theory and supersymmetric quantum Hall liquid, Phys. Rev. D 74, 045026 (2006).
  43. K. Hasebe, Unification of Laughlin and Moore-Read states in SUSY quantum Hall effect, Phys. Lett. A 372, 1516 (2008).
  44. D. P. Arovas, K. Hasebe, X.-L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Supersymmetric valend bond solid states, Phys. Rev. B 79, 224404 (2009).
  45. K. Hasebe and K. Totsuka, Hidden order and dynamics in supersymmetric valence bond solid states: Super-matrix product state formalism, Phys. Rev. B 84, 104426 (2011).
  46. K. Hasebe and K. Totsuka, Quantum entanglement and topological order in hole-doped valence bond solid states, Phys. Rev. B 87, 045115 (2013).
  47. K. Hasebe and K. Totsuka, Topological many-body states in quantum antiferromagnets via fuzzy super-geometry, Symmetry 5, 119 (2013).
  48. Z.-Q. Gao, H. Yang, and Y.-Q. Wang, Deconfined quantum criticality with internal supersymmetry, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2026) 155.
  49. K. Totsuka, Ferromagnetism in the SU(N) Kondo lattice model: SU(N) double exchange and supersymmetry, Phys. Rev. A 107, 033317 (2023).
  50. A. Gromov, E. J. Martinec, and S. Ryu, Collective excitations at filling factor 5/2: The view from superspace, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 077601 (2020).
  51. S. Pu, A. C. Balram, M. Fremling, A. Gromov, and Z. Papić, Signatures of supersymmetry in the ν=5/2 fractional quantum Hall effect, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 176501 (2023).
  52. P. Salgado-Rebolledo and G. Palumbo, Nonrelativistic supergeometry in the Moore-Read fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. D 106, 065020 (2022).
  53. H. Sati and U. Schreiber, Engineering of anyons on M5-probes via flux quantization, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes 107, 1 (2025).
  54. J.-B. Bae and S. Lee, Emergent supersymmetry on the edges, SciPost Phys. 11, 091 (2021).
  55. B. P. Dolan, N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills and the quantum Hall effect, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 4807 (2006).
  56. K. K. W. Ma, R. Wang, and K. Yang, Realization of supersymmetry and its spontaneous breaking in quantum Hall edges, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 206801 (2021).
  57. D. X. Nguyen, K. Prabhu, A. C. Balram, and A. Gromov, Supergravity model of the Haldane-Rezayi fractional quantum Hall state, Phys. Rev. B 107, 125119 (2023).
  58. E. Sagi and R. A. Santos, Supersymmetry in the fractional quantum Hall regime, Phys. Rev. B 95, 205144 (2017).
  59. D. Tong and C. Turner, Quantum Hall effect in supersymmetric Chern-Simons theories, Phys. Rev. B 92, 235125 (2015).
  60. L. Borsten, K. Bradler, and M. J. Duff, Tsirelson’s bound and supersymmetric entangled states, Proc. R. Soc. A 470, 20140253 (2014).
  61. L. Borsten, K. Brádler, and M. J. Duff, The structure of superqubit states, Riv. Nuovo Cimento 38, 371 (2015).
  62. L. Borsten, D. Dahanayake, M. J. Duff, and W. Rubens, Superqubits, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105023 (2010).
  63. H. Adachi, G. Ishiki, and S. Kanno, Vector bundles on fuzzy Kähler manifolds, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2023, 023B01 (2023).
  64. H. Adachi, G. Ishiki, T. Matsumoto, and K. Saito, Matrix regularization for Riemann surfaces with magnetic fluxes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 106009 (2020).
  65. F. Balli, A. Behtash, S. Kürkçüoğlu, and G. Ünal, Quantum Hall effect on the Grassmannians Gr2(CN), Phys. Rev. D 89, 105031 (2014).
  66. M. Daoud and A. Jellal, Quantum Hall effect on the flag manifold F(2), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 23, 3129 (2008).
  67. K. Hasebe, Non-compact Hopf maps and fuzzy ultra-hyperboloids, Nucl. Phys. B865, 148 (2012).
  68. K. Hasebe, Higher dimensional quantum Hall effect as A-class topological insulator, Nucl. Phys. B886, 952 (2014).
  69. K. Hasebe, Chiral topological insulator on Nambu 3-Algebraic geometry, Nucl. Phys. B886, 681 (2014).
  70. K. Hasebe, Higher (odd) dimensional quantum Hall effect and extended dimensional hierarchy, Nucl. Phys. B920, 475 (2017).
  71. K. Hasebe and Y. Kimura, Dimensional hierarchy in quantum Hall effects on fuzzy spheres, Phys. Lett. B 602, 255 (2004).
  72. G. Ishiki, T. Matsumoto, and H. Muraki, Information metric, Berry connection and Berezin-Toeplitz quantization for matrix geometry, Phys. Rev. D 98, 026002 (2018).
  73. D. Karabali and V. P. Nair, Quantum Hall effect in higher dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B641, 533 (2002).
  74. D. Karabali and V. P. Nair, Quantum Hall effect in higher dimensions, matrix models and fuzzy geometry, J. Phys. A 39, 12735 (2006).
  75. V. P. Nair and S. Randjbar-Daemi, Quantum Hall effect on S3, edge states and fuzzy S3/Z(2), Nucl. Phys. B679, 447 (2004).
  76. S.-C. Zhang and J.-p. Hu, A four-dimensional generalization of the quantum Hall effect, Science 294, 823 (2001).
  77. K. Hasebe, Relativistic Landau models and generation of fuzzy spheres, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 31, 1650117 (2016).
  78. K. Hasebe, SO(4) Landau models and matrix geometry, Nucl. Phys. B934, 149 (2018).
  79. K. Hasebe, SO(5) Landau models and nested Nambu matrix geometry, Nucl. Phys. B956, 115012 (2020).
  80. K. Hasebe, SO(5) Landau model and 4D quantum Hall effect in the SO(4) monopole background, Phys. Rev. D 105, 065010 (2022).
  81. K. Hasebe, Deformation of matrix geometry via Landau level evolution, Phys. Rev. D 111, 045008 (2025).
  82. L. Hu, Y.-C. He, and W. Zhu, Operator product expansion coefficients of the 3D Ising criticality via quantum fuzzy spheres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 031601 (2023).
  83. W. Zhu, C. Han, E. Huffman, J. S. Hofmann, and Y.-C. He, Uncovering conformal symmetry in the 3D Ising transition: State-operator correspondence from a quantum fuzzy sphere regularization, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021009 (2023).
  84. Y. Tang, C. Voinea, L. Hu, Z. Papić, and W. Zhu, Emergence of 3D superconformal Ising criticality on the fuzzy sphere, arXiv:2512.25054.
  85. Z. Zhou, D. Gaiotto, and Y.-C. He, Free and interacting fermionic conformal field theories on the fuzzy sphere, arXiv:2509.08038.
  86. C. Bartocci, U. Bruzzo, and G. Landi, Chern-Simons forms on principal superfiber bundles, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 31, 45 (1990).
  87. G. Landi, Projective modules of finite type over the supersphere S(2,2), Differential Geometry and its Applications 14, 95 (2001).
  88. G. Landi and G. Marmo, Extensions of Lie superalgebras and supersymmetric Abelian gauge fields, Phys. Lett. B 193, 61 (1987).
  89. F. A. Berezin and V. N. Tolstoi, The group With Grassmann structure Uosp(1,2), Commun. Math. Phys. 78, 409 (1981).
  90. M. Greiter, Landau level quantization on the sphere, Phys. Rev. B 83, 115129 (2011).
  91. E. T. Newman and R. Penrose, Note on the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 7, 863 (1966).
  92. T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Dirac monopole without strings: Monopole harmonics, Nucl. Phys. B107, 365 (1976).
  93. M. Daumens, Superangular momentum and superspherical harmonics, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 34, 2508 (1993).
  94. M. Scheunert, W. Nahm, and V. Rittenberg, Irreducible representations of the OSP(2,1) and SPL(2,1) graded Lie algebras, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 18, 155 (1977).
  95. T. Dray, The relationship between monopole harmonics and spin weighted spherical harmonics, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 26, 1030 (1985).
  96. T. Dray, A unified treatment of Wigner D functions, spin-weighted spherical harmonics, and monopole harmonics, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 27, 781 (1986).
  97. R. E. Howe, θ-series and invariant theory, in automorphic forms, representations and l-functions (1979), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:124722445.
  98. T. Basile, E. Joung, K. Mkrtchyan, and M. Mojaza, Dual pair correspondence in physics: Oscillator realizations and representations, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2020) 020.
  99. D. J. Rowe, M. J. Carvalho, and J. Repka, Dual pairing of symmetry groups and dynamical groups in physics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 711 (2012).
  100. K. Hasebe, Perfectly spherical bloch hyper-spheres from quantum matrix geometry, Nucl. Phys. B1005, 116595 (2024).
  101. A. P. Balachandran, G. Marmo, B. S. Skagerstam, and A. Stern, Gauge theories and fibre bundles—applications to particle dynamics, Lect. Notes Phys. 188, 1 (1983).
  102. J. N. Goldberg, A. J. MacFarlane, E. T. Newman, F. Rohrlich, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Spin-s spherical harmonics and ð, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 8, 2155 (1967).
  103. D. Bykov and V. Krivorol, Holomorphic quantization in constant curvature backgrounds, arXiv:2602.22984.
  104. V. Krivorol, Point particles as spin chains, arXiv:2601.01504.
  105. D. Karabali, V. P. Nair, and S. Randjbar-Daemi, Fuzzy spaces, the M(atrix) model and the quantum Hall effect, From Fields to Strings: Circumnavigating Theoretical Physics: A Conference in Tribute to Ian Kogan (2004), pp. 831–875; arXiv:hep-th/0407007.
  106. P.-M. Ho and S. Ramgoolam, Higher dimensional geometries from matrix brane constructions, Nucl. Phys. B627, 266 (2002).
  107. M. Hanada, H. Kawai, and Y. Kimura, Describing curved spaces by matrices, Prog. Theor. Phys. 114, 1295 (2006).
  108. P. M. Ho, H. Kawai, and H. C. Steinacker, General relativity in IIB matrix model, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2026) 070.
  109. S.-F. Liou, F. D. M. Haldane, K. Yang, and E. H. Rezayi, Chiral gravitons in fractional quantum Hall liquids, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 146801 (2019).
  110. J. Liang, Z. Liu, Z. Yang, Y. Huang, U. Wurstbauer, C. R. Dean, K. W. West, L. N. Pfeiffer, L. Du, and A. Pinczuk, Evidence for chiral graviton modes in fractional quantum Hall liquids, Nature (London) 628, 78 (2024).
  111. A. Pais and V. Rittenberg, Semisimple graded Lie algebras, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 16, 2062 (1975).
  112. D. Arnaudon, M. Bauer, and L. Frappat, On Casimir’s Ghost, Commun. Math. Phys. 187, 429 (1997).
  113. P. Minnaert and M. Mozrzymas, Racah-Wigner calculus for the superrotation algebra. 1., J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 33, 1582 (1992).
  114. T. T. Wu and C. N. Yang, Some properties of monopole harmonics, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1018 (1977).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 085006– Published 7 October, 2026
  • Received 8 July 2026
  • Accepted 20 August 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation