arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 13 Feb 2014

Transcription

1 Sign and Magnitude of Spin Hall Effect in CuBi Alloys B. Gu 1,2, Z. Xu 1,2, M. Mori 1,2, T. Ziman 3,4, and S. Maekawa 1,2 1 Advanced Science Research Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai , Japan 2 CREST, Japan Science and Technology Agency, Sanbancho, Tokyo , Japan 3 Institut Laue Langevin, Boîte Postale 156, F Grenoble Cedex 9, France 4 LPMMC (UMR 5493), Université Grenoble 1 and CNRS, Grenoble, France (Dated: February 14, 2014) arxiv: v1 cond-mat.mtrl-sci 13 Feb 2014 A recent experiment in CuBi alloys obtained a giant spin Hall angle of Niimi et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012), while the whole interpretation from microscopic models for both the sign and magnitude have been disputed Fedorov et al., Phys. Rev. B 88, (2013). We clarify that the confusing sign problem of SHA in CuBi alloys between the experiment and the established theories was due to the inconsistent definitions of SHA. This can help us to properly understand the physics in the spin Hall effect. We find that the SHA can be dramatically enhanced by Bi impurities close to the Cu surface. The mechanisms are two-fold. One is that the localized impurity state on surface has a decreased hybridization and combined with Coulomb correlation effect, this leads to an enhanced SHA. The other comes from the low-dimensional state of conduction electrons on surface, which results in a further enhancement of skew scattering by impurities. Our results may explain the giant SHA experimentally observed in CuBi alloys. PACS numbers: b,71.70.Ej, m The spin Hall effect (SHE), which converts charge currentintospincurrent,isoneofthekeyphenomenaforthe further development of spintronic devices1, 2. From the viewpoint of practical applications, materials are needed with a large spin Hall angle (SHA): the ratio between the induced spin Hall current and the input charge current. A difficulty in exploiting the effect is that it depends on the spin-orbit interaction (SOI) which, as a relativistic effect, is intrinsically weak except in heavy elements. A recent experiment employing an Cu Hall cross with a Permalloy perpendicular spin injector and a CuBi alloy perpendicular spin detector indicated a giant SHA of at low temperatures 3. A proposed mechanism for the giant SHE in CuBi alloys was the skew scattering of 6p orbitals of Bi, i.e. spin-dependent deflection of the scattered electrons due to the spin-orbit interaction of the Bi impurities in Cu metal 3, 4. In fact two years before the experiments, Gradhand et al. had predicted a giant positive SHA of for Cu doped with Bi impurities, based on firstprinciples calculations and the semiclassical Boltzmann equation 4. Ref. 3 provided an equation resulting in a negative SHA of with the use of phase shifts determined by the generalized gradient approximation plus spin-orbit interaction, and the observed experimental SHA of could be explained within the equation by increasing the splitting of phase shift by a factor of three 3. Very recently, however, Fedorov et al. have presented a derivation of an extended phase shift model (essentially the same as that of Fert and Levy 5), and obtained an equation for the SHA due to impurities of p orbitals, which is equivalent to that in Ref. 3 but with opposite sign 6. Fedorov et al. concluded, after a detailed analysis, that there is a discrepancy that the experimental value can be explained by neither conventional skew-scattering nor the side-jump contribution nor the intrinsic mechanism 6. In the long history of the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) as well as recent studies on the SHE, the sign of the Hall angle was usually ignored, partly because of the small magnitude of the obtained Hall angle, of order of The problem of sign in SHA raised in CuBi alloys becomes significant to the physics, since the SHA obtained by the well-established phase-shift analysis of Fert and Levy and first-principles simulation are both found to be opposite in sign to the experiment 6. This confusing situation will definitely hamper the further understanding of the Spin and Anomalous Hall effects. We re-examine, in this paper, the theory of the SHE due to skew scattering of impurities with p orbitals. We find that the apparent discrepancy in sign of SHA in CuBi alloys came from a confusion of definitions: the SHA, if defined as a ratio between transverse and longitudinal resistances, α(ρ) = ρ yx /ρ xx, is of opposite sign to the ratio between transverse and longitudinal conductivities, α(σ) = σ yx /σ xx. This restores the possibility of properly microscopic understanding of the effects from skew scattering mechanisms. We find, in addition, that the SHA can be dramatically enhanced by the presence of Bi impurities on the Cu surface. There are two factors at the origin of this enhancement. One is the localization of the impurity state on the surface as shown in Fig. 1. Compared with the impurity in bulk, the hybridization between impurity and surface is sharply decreased. Combined with the effects of Coulomb correlations, the localized impurity state on surface leads to an enhanced SHA. The other factor comes from the two-dimensional (2D) wave function of conduction electrons on the surface as shown in Fig. 1. We find that the skew scattering by impurities on surface can be further enhanced by the

2 2 scattering cross section, I(θ) = f 1 (θ) 2 + f 2 (θ) 2,S(θ) = 2Imf 1(θ)f 2 (θ) f 1 (θ) 2 + f 2 (θ) 2. (2) In terms of phase shift δ of partial wave l,m, the amplitudes are 11 f 1 (θ) = l,m P l (cosθ) (l+1)(e 2iδ l ) 2ik +l(e 2iδ l 1 2 1), f 2 (θ) = l,m sin(θ) 2ik e 2iδ l+ 1 2 e 2iδ l 1 2 d dcosθ P l(cosθ). (3) FIG. 1. Schematic picture of skew scattering of conduction electrons by the Bi impurity in Cu bulk (a) and on a Cu surface (b). The Bi impurity has a very extended state (large circle) in the bulk and a much more localized state (small circle) on the surface. The conduction electron in Cu is described by a three-dimensional wave vector k(θ,ϕ) in the bulk, and a two-dimensional wave vector k(θ = π/2,ϕ) on the surface, where θ and ϕ are polar and azimuthal angles respectively. 2D state of conduction electrons.. Skew scattering by impurities of p orbital in bulk. We now derive the expression in the formalism that has been applied to the SHE in n-doped GaAs 7, as well as in Au metal with impurities of d orbitals We consider the scattering of conduction electrons by non-magnetic impurities of p orbitals with spin-orbit interaction. The Hamiltonian of the system is described in Ref. 11. Taking the incoming wave as a three-dimensional (3D) plane wave, the amplitude ofthe scattered waveis given by 11 f (θ) = f 1 (θ) +e iϕ f 2 (θ), f (θ) = f 1 (θ) e iϕ f 2 (θ), (1) for incoming spin-up and spin-down electrons, respectively. θ and ϕ are the polar and azimuthal angles of the scattered wave vector k in coordinates where the incident wave vector k is along z axis. f 1 (θ) and f 2 (θ) describe the spin-conserving and spin-flip scattering amplitudes. For incoming electron with general spin state ξ =a + b, the differential scatteringcrosssection is given by dσ dω = I(θ) + I(θ)S(θ)σ n 11, where σ is a vector of Pauli matrix, n = k k / k k, and I(θ) and S(θ) are the spin-independent part and skewness of the Following the derivation of Ref. 7, the distribution function f k can be obtained as f k = fk 0 +k E + γ k (σ E) C k (4) 2 wherefk 0 istheequilibriumdistributionfunction, k = k, k is crystal momentum, E is external electric field, and C k is a coefficient. Note that the factor 1/2 arises from the integration on the azimuthal angle ϕ in a threedimensional system. The transport skewness γ k is defined as 7 dωi(θ)s(θ)sinθ γ k = (5) dωi(θ)(1 cosθ) where Ω is the solid angle in three dimensions; the polar angle θ is defined as the angle between k and k. The currents j (±) can be expressed as j (±) = ± d 3 k k (2π) 3 m f k ±, where ± denote the spins of the conduction electrons. Considering the case σ = (0,0,σ z ) and E = (E x,0,0), we obtain j c j (+) +j ( ) d 3 k = ˆx 2E x, (γkf j s j (+) j ( ) =ŷy 2 k 2 (2π) 3 3m C k ) d 3 k (2π) 3 k 2 3m C k 2E x. (6) The above two equations can be written in terms of electric conductivities jx c = j x (+) = 2σ xx (+) E x and jy s = j y (+) +j x ( ) = (σ xx (+) +σ xx ( ) )E x yx )E x = -j ( ) y = (σ (+) yx -σ ( ) 2σ (+) yx E x. The spin Hall angle α(σ) can be defined by currents j s α(σ)(ẑz j c ) 12. It can then be related to the transport skewness of equation (5), α(σ) = j s y /jc x = σ(+) yx /σ(+) xx = γ k F /2. (7) By Eqs. (2) and (3), we finally obtain α(σ) = 2sinδ 0 sin(δ1/2 δ 0 )sinδ 1/2 sin(δ 3/2 δ 0 )sinδ 3/2 3 ( sin 2 δ 0 +sin 2 δ 1/2 +2sin 2 ). δ 3/2 (8)

3 3 This recovers the expression of Fedorov et al. 6, which is the equivalent for s-p orbitals of the expression for p-d orbitals 13. If instead of defining a Spin Hall Angle as a ratio of currents, we do so as that of resistances, as is common in the experimental literature, then from the general relation ρ yx = - σ yx /σxx 2, we have α(ρ) ρ (+) yx /ρ(+) xx = α(σ). (9) The above result can be verified by direct calculation of resistances ρ yx and ρ xx following the method of Fert et al. 14. Thus, the equation for the SHA in Ref. 3 is in fact valid since it was α(ρ) that has been measured in the experiment on the SHE in CuBi alloys15. The apparent discrepancy deduced as to the sign of SHE in CuBi alloys between the experiment 3 and previous theories 4, 6 can thus be eliminated by taking care over the definitions used. Skew scattering by impurities of p orbital on a surface. We consider the scattering of conduction electrons by impurities of p orbitals with spin-orbit interactions, within a very simplified approach: taking a twodimensional (2D) incoming plane wave on the surface defined as the x-y plane 16, 17, and considering the outgoing scattered wave projected into the same plane using the (3D) scattering amplitudes. Similarly to the calculation leading to Eq. (1), for a 2D plane wave we obtain the following amplitude of the scattered wave f (ϕ) = f 1 (ϕ), f (ϕ) = f 1 (ϕ), (10) for incoming spin-up and spin-down electrons, respectively. ϕ is azimuth angle of scattered wave vector k in the coordinate where the incident wave vector k is set along x axis, where polar angle θ = π/2 for k and k. In contrast to the bulk case, here there are only spin-conserving scattering amplitudes f 1 (ϕ) and f 1 (ϕ), and no spin-flip scattering amplitudes. For an incoming electron with general spin state ξ = a + b, the differential scattering cross section is given by dσ dω = I(ϕ) + I(ϕ)S(ϕ)σ n, where I(ϕ) and S(ϕ) are the spinindependent part and skewness of the scattering cross section, I(ϕ) = g(ϕ) 2 + h(ϕ) 2,S(ϕ) = 2Reg (ϕ)h(ϕ) g(ϕ) 2 + h(ϕ) 2. (11) Here g(ϕ) = f 1 (ϕ) +f 1 (ϕ)/2, and h(ϕ) = f 1 (ϕ) f 1 (ϕ)/2. In terms of phase shift δ of the lowest partial waves m = 0 and 1, it has g(ϕ) = e iπ/4 2πk (e 2iδ0 1)+ 4 3 cosϕ(e2iδ 3/2 1) cosϕ(e2iδ 1/2 1), h(ϕ) = e iπ/4 2πk ( 2 3 isinϕ)(e2iδ 3/2 e 2iδ 1/2 ). (12) Note that the non-zero skewness S(ϕ) originates from the SOI in p orbitals, i.e., δ 3/2 δ 1/2. As observed in Ref. 7, the distribution function f k can be obtained as f k = f 0 k +k E +γ 2D k (σ E) C k, (13) where the transport skewness γk 2D is now determined by integration over a single angle π γk 2D 0 = dϕi(ϕ)s(ϕ)sinϕ (14) dϕi(ϕ)(1 cosϕ). π 0 We note that while this agrees with the general 2D expression cited in Ref. 7, the functions I(ϕ) and S(ϕ) defined in Eqs. (11) and (12). Just as in the bulk α 2D (σ) = σ + yx /σ+ xx = γ2d k F. (15) By Eqs. (11) and (12), we finally obtain α 2D (σ) = 2sinδ 0 sin(δ1/2 δ 0 )sinδ 1/2 sin(δ 3/2 δ 0 )sinδ 3/2 3sin 2 δ 0 +2 ( sin 2 δ 1/2 +2sin 2 δ 3/2 ). By the general relation ρ yx = - σ yx /σxx 2, we also have (16) α 2D (ρ) ρ (+) yx /ρ (+) xx = α 2D (σ). (17) Comparing Eqs. (17) and (9) with same phase shift parameters, it is found that α 2D (ρ)/α(ρ) 1.5 in the limit wherepphase shifts δ 3/2 and δ 1/2 dominate. Thus within our simplified approach, the difference of taking purely planar scattering can lead to a substantial increase in the observed spin hall angle. Numerical results for SHE in CuBi. We turn to the specific case of Bi impurities in Cu, comparing experiment and theory, while the issue of sign is now resolved, there remains that of the magnitude. The authors of Ref. 3 found α(ρ) = from phase shift parameters δ 1/2 =1.18,δ 3/2 =0.72,andδ 0 =1.46. Theypointedoutthat only by adjusting by hand from the values estimated by density functional theory (DFT), would the difference in phase shifts for the spin-orbit split p-states be sufficient to explain experiment, and suggested that the Coulomb correlation effect, following Ref. 9, might produce such a renormalization. This we have tested with Quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) method, but for simple substitutional impurities the numerical results do not bear out this hope; in fact the predicted SHA decreases in magnitude as shown in Table I. This decrease in itself may not be significant as the QMC results, can only treat a single of the three components of the L S coupling. In any case within our DFT calculations 18 with the local density approximation (LDA) the hybridization between Bi impurity and Cu bulk is very large ( 15 ev at Γ point), which is much larger than the Coulomb correlation U 4 ev for the 6p orbitals of Bi impurities. Thus

4 4 In Bulk δ 0 δ 1/2 δ 3/2 α(ρ) LDA+SOI QMC(U=4eV) TABLE I. Numerical result for the skew scattering due to a Bi impurity in Cu bulk. A simple substitutional impurity is considered. On Surface δ 0 δ 1/2 δ 3/2 α(ρ) α 2D (ρ) LDA+SOI (s) LDA+SOI (i) QMC(U=3eV) (i) QMC(U=4eV) (i) TABLE II. Numerical result for the skew scattering due to a Bi impurity on the Cu surface. Two possible surface dopings: substitution (s) of a surface atom and intercalation (i) of the impurity close to, but slightly above the surface. it is not surprising that the Coulomb correlation U does not appear to enhance the SHA for a Bi impurity in bulk Cu. We therefore considered the possibility that surface enhancement of the impurity scattering, as advanced in Ref. 10 might play a role. Our results are listed in Table II. We looked at this first within LDA+SOI for two different possible surface dopings; substitution of a surface atom and intercalation of the impurity close to, but slightly above, the copper surface. In both cases the SHA α(ρ) = , which increases 71% in magnitude compared to the SHA α(ρ) = in the bulk and remains of the same sign. The increase is primarily because of the localization of impurity state on surface. We find that the hybridization between Bi impurity and Cu surface is dramatically decreased ( 4 ev at Γ point), compared to the bulk case, and is now close to the Coulomb correlation U 4 ev for the 6p orbitals of Bi impurities. Including the Coulomb correlation effect, which can be correctly treated by QMC calculations 9, 10, further increases the splitting and predicts a SHA α(ρ) = with U =4eV,whichfurtherincreases84%in magnitude compared to α(ρ) = without correlations. Using the formula corresponding to our simplified approach to two-dimensionality, the SHA becomes α 2D (ρ) = for an intercalated impurity, a further increase of about 20% in magnitude. While this final estimate of SHA of is still smaller than that of recently observed in CuBi alloys 3, the values are similar enough that the skew scattering mechanism must now be considered as quite plausible, especially given the uncertainties in the values of U and our simplified treatment of low dimensionality.. Discussions. We emphasis that the microscopic mechanism for skew scattering of conduction electrons in 2D space is quite different from that in 3D space. For conduction electrons in the bulk, the skew scattering by impurities comes from the interference between the spinconserving and spin-flip scattering terms as shown in Eqs. (1)and(2). Forconductionelectronsina2Dspace, there is no spin-flip scattering tersm as shown in Eq. (10), and the skew scattering comes from the difference between the spin-conserving terms for spin-up and spin-down, respectively, as shown in Eq. (11). It is important to note that since the spin of conduction electrons on surface is fixed perpendicular to the surface in the calculation, such enhancement of skew scattering on the surface is distinct from the Rashba effect, which comes from the contribution of conduction electrons with spin components within the surface 19. In fact, the phase shift will change depending on the position of the impurity and this has been seen to efficiently enhance the SHA 10. We note that the microscopic mechanism is rather different from that for scattering from Pt impurities on an Au surface, where the surface changed the scattering lengths because of an extra degeneracy in crystal field levels. Here it is more determinedbythenarrowingofthesurfacebandandchangein the hybridization by a large factor. In addition, a further enhancement of the SHA from the low-dimensional state of conduction electrons on the surface is first proposed in the present paper. In summary, we have re-examined the theory of the SHE in CuBi alloys due to resonant skew scattering by 6p orbitals. We showed that the apparent discrepancy in sign of the SHE in CuBi alloys between the experiment and the established theories can be removed by using consistent definitions. This re-establishes skew scattering as the essential mechanism underlying the SHE and AHE in these materials. We found that the SHA can be dramaticallyenhancedifbiimpuritiesoccuronthecusurfaceby two effects. Firstly, the decreased hybridization of the localized impurity state on the surface, combined with the Coulomb correlation, enhances SHE. Secondly the twodimensional state of conduction electrons on surface can result in a further enhancement of skew scattering by impurities. The combined effects may be responsible for the giant SHE recently observed in CuBi alloys 3. The authors acknowledge Y. Niimi and Y. Otani for many valuable discussions about the experiments of spin Hall effect in CuBi alloys and A. Fert, P. Levy, I. Mertig, and G. Y. Guo for helpful and encouraging correspondence. 1 M. I. Dyakonov and V. I. Perel, Sov. Phys. JETP Lett. 13, 467 (1971). 2 J. E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834 (1999). 3 Y. Niimi, Y. Kawanishi, D. H. Wei, C. Deranlot, H. X. Yang, M. Chshiev, T. Valet, A. Fert, and Y. Otani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, (2012). 4 M. Gradhand, D. V. Fedorov, P. Zahn, and I. Mertig, Phys. Rev. B 81, (2010).

5 5 5 A. Fert and P. M. Levy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, (2011). 6 D. V. Fedorov, C. Herschbach, A. Johansson, S. Ostanin, I. Mertig, M. Gradhand, K. Chadova, D. Kodderitzsch, and H. Ebert, Phys. Rev. B 88, (2013). 7 H. A. Engel, B. I. Halperin, and E. I. Rashba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005). 8 G. Y. Guo, S. Maekawa, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, (2009). 9 B. Gu, J. Y. Gan, N. Bulut, T. Ziman, G. Y. Guo, N. Nagaosa, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010). 10 B. Gu, I. Sugai, T. Ziman, G. Y. Guo, N. Nagaosa, T. Seki, K. Takanashi, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, (2010). 11 H. A. Bethe, and R. Jackiw, Intermediate Quantum Mechanics (The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc. Menlo Park, CA, 1986), Chap S. Takahashi, H. Imamura, and S. Maekawa, in Concepts in Spin Electronics, edited by S. Maekawa (Oxford University, New York, 2006) p We note that a factor 1/2 is missing in the equation of spin Hall angle (SHA)dueto skew scattering of d orbitals in Refs The quoted results of the SHA in Refs should then be divided by 2. The definition of the SHA should be regarded as a ratio between transverse and longitudinal electric resistances, α(ρ) = ρ yx/ρ xx to give the correct sign. 14 A. Fert, A. Friederich, and A. Hamzic, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 24, 231 (1981). 15 As mentioned in Ref. 6, the sign of the equation of spin Hall angle by the Fert-Levy model in Ref. 3 should be corrected to be +, if the spin Hall angle is defined to be the ratio between transverse and longitudinal electrical conductivities, α(σ) = σ yx/σ xx. Here we argue that if we define the spin Hall angle as a ratio between transverse and longitudinal electrical resistances, α(ρ) = ρ yx/ρ xx, the result in Ref. 3 is recovered. 16 A. Lupu-Sax, Quantum Scattering Theory and Applications, Ph.D thesis(harvard University, Cambridge, 1998) Appendix. E. 17 J. Wang, J. Zeng, Sci. China Ser. G 47, 676 (2004). 18 P. Giannozzi et al., 19 Y. A. Bychkov, and E. I. Rashba, J. Phys. C 17, 6039 (1984).