basis can be seen through a tabulation of the interme- diate RVM-diagonalization total energies as the size of the RVM basis increases in successive steps. In TABLE VIII, in addition to these intermediate RVM energies, we also display the corresponding relative error (relative to the EXD result) and the corresponding overlap with the EXD wave function for the yrast state (denoted by the index [1] in Sec. III C). 

Convergence (as a function of the number of the RVM basis functions used in the calculation) is seen from TA- 

[1] D.C. Tsui, H.L. Stormer, and A.C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48 , 1559 (1982). 

[2] R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395 (1983); Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 , 863 (1999), and references therein. 

[3] F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 605 (1983). 

[4] B.I. Halperin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1583 (1984). 

[5] S.A. Trugman and S. Kivelson, Phys. Rev. B 31 , 5280 (1985). 

[6] J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63 , 199 (1989). 

[7] G. Moore and N. Read, Nucl. Phys. B 360, 362 (1991). 

[8] M. Stone, H.W. Wyld, and R.L. Schult, Phys. Rev. B 45 , 14 156 (1992). 

[9] J.H. Oaknin, L. Mart´ın-Moreno, J.J. Palacios, and C. Tejedor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74 , 5120 (1995). 

[10] J.J. Palacios and A.H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76 , 118 (1996). 

[11] J.K. Jain, Composite Fermions (Cambridge University Press, 2007), and references therein. 

[12] C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B 66 , 115315 (2002). 

[13] C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B 68 , 035326 (2003). 

[14] C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B 70 , 235319 (2004). 

[15] C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Rep. Prog. Phys. 70 , 2067 (2007). 

[16] C.C. Chang, G.S. Jeon, and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94 , 016809 (2005). 

[17] C.C. Chang, C. T¨ oke, G.S. Jeon, and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B 73 , 155323 (2006). 

[18] G.S. Jeon, C.C. Chang, and J.K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B 69 , 241304(R) (2004). 

[19] G.S. Jeon, C.C. Chang, and J.K. Jain, Eur. Phys. J. B 55 , 271 (2007). 

[20] B. Wunsch, T. Stauber, and F. Guinea, Phys. Rev. B 77 , 035316 (2008). 

[21] I. Romanovsky, C. Yannouleas, and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. B 79 , 075311 (2009). 

[22] B.R. Mottelson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 , 2695 (1999). 

[23] N.R. Cooper and N.K. Wilkin, Phys. Rev. B 60 , R16 279 (1999). 

[24] K. Wilkin and J.M.F. Gunn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84 , 6 (2000). [25] Th. Papenbrock and G.F. Bertsch, Phys. Rev. A 63 , 

023616 (2001). 

[26] M. Ueda and T. Nakajima, Phys. Rev. A 64 , 063609 (2001). 

[27] M. Popp, B. Paredes, and J.I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 70 , 053612 (2004). 

BLE VIII to be achieved rapidly (i.e., already with the use of only two basis functions one obtains a relative er- ror of 0.90% for the energy eigenvalue, and a 99% overlap with the exact eigenfunction). In particular, we note that at the third step the RVM wavefunction is already more accurate compared to the Laughlin function: indeed the latter exhibits a relative error of 0.37% for the energy and an overlap of 97.9%, compared to 0.19% and 99.2%, respectively, in the case of the former [see TABLE VIII]. 

[28] N. Barber´ an, M. Lewenstein, K. Osterloh, and D. Dagnino, Phys. Rev. A 73 , 063623 (2006). 

[29] L.O. Baksmaty, C. Yannouleas, and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. A 75 , 023620 (2007). 

[30] S. Viefers, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20 , 123202 (2008). 

[31] N.R. Cooper, Adv. Phys. 57 , 539 (2008), and references therein. 

[32] E. Sarajlic, N. Gemelke, S.-W. Chiow, S. Herrman, H. M¨ uller, and S. Chu, in Pushing the frontiers of atomic physics: Proceedings of the XXI International Conference on Atomic Physics , edited by R. Cˆ ot´e, Ph.L. Gould, M. Rozman, and W.W. Smith (World Scientific, Hackensack, New Jersey, USA, 2009), p. 34. 

[33] S.K. Baur, K.R. Hazzard, and E.J. Mueller, Phys. Rev. A 78 , 061608 (2008). 

[34] M.I. Parke, N.K. Wilkin, J.M. Gunn, and A. Bourne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 110401 (2008). 

[35] A. Bourne, J.M. Gunn, and N.K. Wilkin, Phys. Rev. A 76 , 053602 (2007). 

[36] An yrast state has the lowest enegy at a given L . 

[37] Classical approaches have also been used for construct- ing molecular models of the lower part of the LLL spec- tra. They perform better at high L (with ν < 1 / 9); see P.A. Maksym, Phys. Rev. B 53 , 10 871 (1996), and J.-P. Nikkarila and M. Manninen, Sol. State Commun. 141 , 209 (2007). As stressed in Ref. [56] and in Ch. 7.3 of Ref. [15], such classical molecular analogs correspond to highly floppy rotors with an L -dependent, variable mo- ment of inertia. This allows for ground states with non- vanishing angular momenta in agreement with the EXD LLL yrast bands portrayed in Figs. 1 and 2 below. Rigid rotors with an L -independent moment of inertia (asso- ciated with an L = 0 ground state and an yrast band ∝ L $^{2}$) were found for electrons in quantum dots only at zero magnetic fields [see, e.g., C. Yannouleas and U. Landman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85 , 1726 (2000); Phys. Rev. B 69 , 113306 (2004); L. Zeng, W. Geist, W.Y. Ruan, C.J. Umrigar, and M. Y. Chou, Phys. Rev. B 79 , 235334 (2009)]. 

[38] Ref. [5] multiplied the elementary symmetric polynomials by a Pauli-exclusion single-determinant factor to gener- ate a basis spanning the fermionic TI subspace, but which has no physical picture associated with it. 

[39] J.W. Clark and E. Feenberg, Phys. Rev. 113 , 388 (1959). 

[40] J.W. Clark and P. Westhaus, Phys. Rev. 141 , 833 (1966). 

[41] H. M¨ uther and A. Polls, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 45 , 243 (2000), in particular Section 2.4. 

[42] G.S. Jeon, C.C. Chang, and J.K. Jain, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16 , L271 (2004). 

