Spin pumping and torque statistics in the quantum noise limit arxiv:69.469v [cond-mat.mes-hall] 5 Sep 6 P. Virtanen, and T.T. Heikkilä NEST, Istituto Nanoscienze-CNR and Scuola Normale Superiore, I-567 Pisa, Italy University of Jyvaskyla, Department of Physics and Nanoscience Center, P.O. Box 35, 44 University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND We analyze the statistics of charge and energy currents and spin torque in a metallic nanomagnet coupled to a large magnetic metal via a tunnel contact. We derive a Keldysh action for the tunnel barrier, describing the stochastic currents in the presence of a magnetization precessing with the rate Ω. In contrast to some earlier approaches, we include the geometric phases that affect the counting statistics. We illustrate the use of the action by deriving spintronic fluctuation relations, the quantum limit of pumped current noise, and consider the fluctuations in two specific cases: the situation with a stable precession of magnetization driven by spin transfer torque, and the torqueinduced switching between the minima of a magnetic anisotropy. The quantum corrections are relevant when the precession rate exceeds the temperature T, i.e., for Ω k BT. Spin transfer torque, angular momentum contributed by electrons entering a magnet, can be used to control magnetization dynamics via electrical means, as demonstrated in many experiments. [ 3] Often the effect can be described by considering the ensemble average magnetization dynamics, or taking only thermal noise into account. [4] The spin transfer torque is in general also a stochastic process, but at bias voltages large enough to drive the magnetization, it is not necessarily Gaussian nor thermal, [5] especially at cryogenic temperatures. The statistical distribution of electron transfer and the associated torque in magnetic tunnel junctions can be described by counting statistics, [6] via a joint probability distribution of charge, energy, and spin transferred into the magnet during time t, P t (δn, δe, δs). The distribution is conditional on the magnetization dynamics during time t, which necessitates consideration of back-action effects. Here we construct a theory describing the probability distribution for electron transfer via a Keldysh action (Eq. ()) describing a metallic magnet with magnetization M, coupled to a fermionic reservoir (another ferromagnetic metal), illustrated in Fig.. In the presence of a bias voltage in the reservoir, this coupling may lead to a stochastic spin transfer torque affecting the magnetization dynamics. Unlike some of the earlier discussions of counting and spin torque statistics [7 9], we follow the approach of Ref. [] and retain geometric phase factors in the derivation of the generating function. This becomes relevant in the quantum limit Ω > k B T where the precession rate Ω is large compared to the temperature T. To study the implications, we suggest two specific settings (Fig. b,c), characterized by opposite regimes of the external field H ext and anisotropy field H an. When H ext H an, a suitably chosen voltage drives the magnet into a stationary precession with rate Ω around the direction of H ext. [, 3] This precession pumps charge [4] and heat into the reservoir, along with the direct charge and heat currents due to the applied voltage. The noise FIG.. (a) Tunnel junction between magnetic materials with free (F ) and fixed (F ) magnetizations. The total spin S = VM/γ in F precesses at angular frequency Ω around the z-axis. As described by Eq. (3), the motion pumps charge, spin and heat currents through the junction, and the backaction spin transfer torque τ drives a change in the tilt angle θ. (b c) Schematic of effective magnetic potential energy, in the presence of an external field H ext and large spin transfer torque, or, in the presence of a magnetic anisotropy Ω an = γh an. of these currents depends on the intrinsic noise of the pumped current and, at low frequencies, also on the fluctuations of the magnetization, driven by the spin torque noise. The opposite limit H an H ext is the one relevant for memory applications, as the spin transfer torque can be used to switch between the two stable magnetization directions [5, 6]. Our approach allows finding the switching rate at any temperature and voltage, also for k B T Ω. Besides the average currents and noise, the Keldysh action allows us to calculate the full probability distribution P t (δn, δe, δs) of transmitted charge δn, energy δe, or change δm z = Sγδs/V of the z-component of magnetization in a nanomagnet with volume V and spin S, within a long measurement time t. Here γ is the gyromagnetic ratio. The precise distribution depends on the exact driving conditions and the parameters of the
setup. However, symmetries constrain the probability distribution, leading to a spintronic fluctuation relation (here and below, k B = = e = ) P t (δn, δe, δs) = e V δn/t F e δe(tf T F ) e Ωδs/T F P t ( δn, δe, δs), where P t corresponds to the case with reversed magnetizations. As in fluctuation relations presented earlier [7, 7 ], this allows for a direct derivation of Onsager symmetries, thermodynamical constraints, and fluctuation-dissipation relations, valid for the coupled charge-spin-energy dynamics (see Appendix). Generating function. Consider a magnetic tunnel junction depicted in Fig.. The spin transfer torque due to tunnelling, and the corresponding counting statistics can be described by a Keldysh action obtained by integrating out conduction electrons in F and F. [8, ] We apply the approach of Ref. to the characteristic function Z(χ, ξ) = e i[n F (t )χ +(H F (t ) µ)ξ ] e i[n F ()χ +(H F () µ)ξ ] describing the change in particle number N and internal energy H F in the ferromagnetic lead F. [, ] In the long-time limit, t /T, /V, this results to the action S = S + S T, where S = S dt [ ψ q ± (± φ cl + φ q ) cos(θ cl ± θ q )] is the Berry phase for total spin S = V M /γ. Moreover, the tunneling action is S T = i W () dt dt dɛ π Tr ˇP (t)ǧf (t t ) ˇP (t ) Ǧ F (ɛ), () where ˇP (t) = e i(ɛ V )t e i[χ(t)+(ɛ µ)ξ(t)]ˇγx/ Ř(t) contains the bias voltage V, and the charge and energy counting fields χ(t) and ξ(t). The rotation matrix Ř(t) = e i ˇφ(t)σ z/ e iˇθ(t)σ y/ e i ˇψ(t)σ z/ describes the direction of the magnetization S = (cos φ sin θ, sin φ sin θ, cos θ)s in terms of Euler angles θ and φ. Keldysh fields are in the basis [3] ˇφ = φ cl + φ qˇγ x, where ˇγ x is a Pauli matrix. Below, we fix the gauge [] so that ψ q = φ q cos θ cl, ψ cl = φ cl cos θ cl. We assume a spin and momentum independent tunneling matrix element W. The conduction electrons are described by Keldysh Green functions Ǧ, with the exchange field of F always parallel to ẑ in the rotating frame, Ǧ R F (ɛ, k) = [ɛ ξ k + h F σ z ]. Consider now the situation depicted in Fig. a, where S precesses around ẑ due to an external magnetic field and/or magnetic anisotropy contributing poten- energy tial E M. The corresponding action is S ext = dt ± ±E M [S ± ] = dt S q ẑω, with Ω = Ω ext + Ω an [cos θ] cl. Separating out the fast motion φ cl (t) = Ωt + φ cl (t), the dynamics of θ, φ are driven only by the spin transfer torque. We assume this dynamics is slow, and evaluate Eq. () under a time scale separation t, W /S T, Ω: [4] S T i dt dɛ σσ α=± Γ σσ α(ɛ)(e iαη σσ (ɛ) ). (3) Here, η σσ (ɛ) = χ(t)+(ɛ µ+v +Ω σσ )ξ(t) Ω σσ Ω φq (t) and Ω σσ = [σω σ Ω cos θ cl (t)]/. The transition rates per energy are + σσ cos θ cl (t) Γ σσ α(ɛ) = Ḡσσ Λ α (ɛ, V + Ω σσ ), (4) { f F (ɛ)[ f F (ɛ + V )], α = +, Λ α (ɛ, V ) = (5) f F (ɛ + V )[ f F (ɛ)], α =. Here, f F/F (ɛ) = /[e (ɛ µ)/t F/F + ] are Fermi distribution functions, and the time-averaged conductance is +σp Ḡ σσ = G F z +σ P F where G = π W (ν F + ν F )(ν F + ν F ), the polarizations are defined as P = (ν ν )/(ν + ν ), and P F z = P F cos θ F is the polarization of the fixed magnet projected onto the precession axis. The densities of states ν / of majority/minority spins are given at the Fermi level. The resulting S T is independent of φ cl, i.e. its dynamics decouples, which constrains θ q = (see Appendix). The result describes Poissonian transport events, each associated with a back-action on θ due to the spin transfer torque, as described by the dependence on φ q. The rates are proportional to the averaged densities of states and squared spin overlaps σ σ = [ + σσ cos θ]/, in the frame rotating with the magnetic precession. The transferred energy V + Ω σσ consists of the voltage bias and the difference ±Ω/ (±Ω cos θ)/ of energy shifts on the right and left sides of the junction in the rotating frame [, 5]. The relation of this additional dependence on θ to geometric phases is discussed in Ref.. It also separates Eq. (3) from the result of Ref. 7 for tunneling through a ferromagnetic insulator barrier, where such angular dependencies are not included. Equation (3) is a main result of this work, as the knowledge of S T allows access to the statistics of charge, energy and spin transfer in the generic case depicted in Fig. a. Below, we describe some applications. First, we can identify the following spintronic fluctuation relation (see Appendix) S T (χ, ξ, φ q ) = S T ( χ + iv, ξ + i T F T F i T F, φ q + iω T F ), where the prime denotes inverting the magnetizations and the sign of the precession. Identifying the conjugate fields of χ, ξ, and φ q to the number of charges δn, change of energy δe and transfer of spin angular momentum δs, this relation is equivalent with Eq. (). This relation also implies the Onsager relation di/dω = (sin θ)dτ/dv relating the pumped current to the torque τ sin θ (6)
3 (a) SI/(GeT) 4. 3.5 3..5..5. /4 3 /8 / 5 5 /T (b) p/s (c) p/s C A C B s * p sw s * s z s z (a) ( cos s * ) / 3..5..5..5 T/.75.5.5..7..5 V/ ext (b) sw/ 6 5 4 3 T/ an. V/ an FIG.. (a) Noise in pumped charge current, for different tilt angles θ and precession speeds Ω, for P F = P F z =.9. (b) Semiclassical trajectories for V = Ω ext, P F =, P F z = /, χ = ξ =, T =. Shown are the H = lines AB and the fixed point s = (black). Measurement P F z P F + V P F Ω trajectories C χ for χ = (red) and χ = (blue) are also shown. (c) Trajectories with anharmonicity, Ω = Ω ans z, V =.5Ω an, P F z =., P F =, T =. FIG. 3. (a) Normalized variance of the magnetization z- component in the steady state around the fixed point s, as a function of bias voltage and temperature for P F = /, P F z = /. Dotted lines indicate results where the energy shifts in the spin torque noise are neglected. (b) Switching exponent sw, for P F =, P F z = /4, and different temperatures and voltages. Dotted lines indicate the range Ω an/8 < V < Ω an where sw = at T =. ds T /d(φ q ) acting on the angle θ [6]. This and further details of the fluctuation relation are discussed in the Appendix. The average dynamics follows the θ component of the Landau-Lifshitz-Slonczewski equation, [] here obtained from stationarity of S vs φ q, S θ = sin(θ)τ(θ), τ(θ) = Ωα(θ) + I sz, (7) where the spin current I sz = 4 G P F z V and damping α(θ) = 8 G [ P F z P F cos θ] [7] have been discussed in Ref. 8. The equation describes motion of cos θ in an effective potential cos θ d(cos θ ) τ(θ ) defined by Ω(θ) and the spin torque, illustrated in Fig. b. In certain parameter ranges, a fixed point τ(θ ) = appears it can be either attractive or repulsive. This can correspond to a stable but fluctuating precession around the angle θ (Fig. b), induced by spin torque, or spin torque-induced switching between two energy minima (Fig. c). Average current and noise. For fast measurements, t / θ, we can assume θ remains fixed, and find the average currents, I = G [ + P F P F z cos θ]v + 4 G P F z Ω sin θ, (8) Q F = IV + τ(θ)ω sin θ, (9) where the pumped charge current (second term in Eq. (8)) is that found in Ref. 5. The heat current is a sum of the Joule heat and the magnetic energy lost due to the spin torque, Ė M = t [Ω ext S z + Ω ansz], dissipated equally in F and F. In contrast to the average values, the energy shifts Ω σσ remain in the noise of the currents, S I = σσ Ḡ σσ S Q F = σσ Ḡ σσ + σσ cos θ V σσ coth V σσ T, () + σσ cos θ (π T + Vσσ 6 )V σσ coth V σσ T, () where V σσ = V +Ω σσ and T F = T F. In the classical linear regime V, Ω < T, the results reduce to a form dictated by the fluctuation-dissipation theorem and Wiedemann- Franz law, S I = ḠT, S Q F = ḠL T 3, where Ḡ = di dv is the electrical dc conductance of the magnetic tunnel junction, [8] and L the Lorenz number. The presence of the angle-dependent frequencies is revealed in the quantum noise regime Ω > T. The noise in the pumped current for V = is plotted in Fig. the location of the quantum classical crossover is pushed up to higher precession frequencies as the tilt angle approaches θ =. Spin torque induced fluctuating precession. The above results are conditional on a specific value of θ. For the full probability distribution, the distribution P (θ) would need to be known. To find P (θ) = D[θ cl, φ q ] e is χ=ξ= δ(θ cl () θ), we assume S and take a semiclassical approximation. Defining s z = cos θ and p = isφ q, the action reads is χ=ξ= = dt [pṡ z H(p, s z )] where H = is T is real for real s z, p. The problem can then be analyzed as in Hamiltonian mechanics, ṡ z = p H, ṗ = sz H. [3] In a time-sliced discretization of the path integral, the δ restriction specifying the exact measured value adds a boundary condition s z () = s z that removes one of the integration variables and saddle point equations. This
4 SI/e I V/.6.8...4 4 3 e /( G t ) FIG. 4. Current noise S I as a function of the measurement bandwidth /t, for P F =, P F z = /, T =. allows for a discontinuity of p at t =, cf. Refs. [9, 3]. The other boundary conditions are p(t ± ) =, so that relevant paths have integration constant H =. Consider now fluctuations close to an attractive fixed point τ(θ ) = (cf. Fig. b). For dynamics driven by an external field, it is located at s z = s = P F P F z + V P F Ω ext, and it is attractive if τ (s ) = ΩP F z P F <. The phase space picture is shown in Fig. b. Expanding around p = in terms of the torque τ and torque noise correlator D, H [ s z][s τ(s z )p S D(s z )p ], () D(s z ) = ( σσ s z ) 8 s Γ σσ α, z (3) σσ α=± where Γ σσ α = dɛ Γ σσ α(ɛ) = Ḡσσ +σσ s z α(v + Ω σσ )/[ e α(v +Ω σσ )/T ] for T F = T F = T. The fluctuation contribution comes from following path A from (s, ) to (s z, Sτ(s z )/D(s z )): P (cos θ) Ne S cos θ τ(sz ) ds z s D(sz ) Ne S τ (s ) D(s ) (cos θ s ), (4) where N is a normalization constant. This agrees with Ref. 8 in the semiclassical limit S, except for the presence of the energy shifts Ω σσ [] in the spin torque noise correlator D, which are relevant in the quantum limit Ω V T. The variance is plotted in Fig. 3a. Long measurement times. For t / θ, the slow fluctuation of the magnetization contributes low-frequency noise to observables. This contribution is not small in /S: the typical excursion from the average position is small, δs z S /, but it lasts for a long time τ m S, generating low-frequency noise S I ( di ds z δs z ) τ m. The situation is similar to noise induced in tunneling currents by temperature fluctuations on small islands. [3] We now find the result within the semiclassical approximation. The counting fields are switched on in the interval < t < t, e.g. χ(t) = θ(t)θ(t t)i χ. They make the semiclassical path to transition from branch A to B in the time interval < t < t following a trajectory C χ, ξ of constant H χ, ξ. Two such trajectories are shown in Fig. a. For simplicity, we consider the limit T Ω, V with full polarization of the free magnet P F =. Then, close to s, H e α χ [ s ][ τ(s z) S p D(s ) S p ] Γ(s z )(e α χ ), (5) where α = sgn V and Γ(s z ) = Γ ++α + Γ +α. For quadratic H, the Hamiltonian equations can be solved exactly (see Appendix). From this approach, we find the current noise: ( S I = Γ(s ) + 4Γ (s ) σsτ m ) e t/τm, (6) t /τ m where τ m = S/[( s )τ (s )] is the slow time scale associated with the spin transfer torque and σs = D(s )/(Sτ (s )) the variance of the magnetization z- component in Eq. (4). The first term Γ(s ) in Eq. (6) is the Poissonian shot noise (), and the second term originates from magnetization fluctuations. The dependence on the measurement time is shown in Fig. 4. The current noise at frequencies ω τm Ω can be used to probe the dynamics and distribution of the magnetization. Spin torque induced stochastic switching. Magnetic anisotropy field H an results to an effective magnetic potential with two minima (see Fig. c), and the spin torque can induce switching between the two. Here, we take H ext =, and Ω = γh an s z Ω an s z. The corresponding semiclassical Hamiltonian picture is shown in Fig. c. An unstable fixed point s = P F P F z [ ( + 8P F P F z V Ω an ) / ] separates the two stable fixed points s z = ±. The leading exponent of the rate of switching from s z = to s z = is, [7] Γ sw e sw s = e dsz psw(sz), H(s z, p sw (s z )) =, (7) where p sw (s z ) is shown in Fig. c. The switching occurs deterministically ( sw ) if P F z V > +P F P F z Ω an as s z = becomes unstable. At lower voltages, the switching is stochastic. Numerically computed results are shown in Fig. 3b. At zero temperature, the switching is blocked [7] at Ωan 8 < V < Ω an for P F > P F z and Ω an < V < Ωan 8 otherwise. This occurs because the transition rates Γ σσ α vanish for α(v + Ω σσ ), and because the back-action Ω σσ vanishes for σ = σ, s z. [3] The latter constraint is due to the additional angle dependence in the spin torque, which traces back to the geometric phases [] in the spin dynamics. Discussion. In conclusion, we have derived a Keldysh action (3), describing the stochastic charge and energy currents affected by a precessing magnetization. We obtain a fluctuation relation for the transferred charge, energy, and magnetization. The noise in the current at low temperatures displays features related to geometric phases, and its low frequency component reflects the
5 magnetization fluctuations. Information about the spin torque noise is also contained in the switching probability of anisotropic magnets. Our predictions are readily accessible in experiments probing spin pumping at low temperatures T < Ω/k B. Precession frequencies in GHz range have been achieved, [, 3] which translates to T K. We thank B. Nikolic and S. van Dijken for discussions. This work was supported by the MIUR-FIRB3 - Project Coca (Grant No. RBFR379UX), the Academy of Finland Centre of Excellence program (Project No. 84594) and the European Research Council (Grant No. 436-Heattronics). [] J. Slonczewski, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 59, L (996). [] Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, G. E. W. Bauer, and B. I. Halperin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 375 (5). [3] D. Ralph and M. Stiles, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 3, 9 (8). [4] W. F. Brown, Phys. Rev. 3, 677 (963). [5] J. Foros, A. Brataas, Y. Tserkovnyak, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 66 (5). [6] L. S. Levitov and G. B. Lesovik, JETP Lett. 58, 3 (993). [7] Y. Utsumi and T. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 866 (5). [8] A. L. Chudnovskiy, J. Swiebodzinski, and A. Kamenev, Phys. Rev. Lett., 666 (8). [9] G.-M. Tang and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. B 9, 954 (4). [] A. Shnirman, Y. Gefen, A. Saha, I. S. Burmistrov, M. N. Kiselev, and A. Altland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 7686 (5). [] L. Berger, Phys. Rev. B 54, 9353 (996). [] S. I. Kiselev, J. C. Sankey, I. N. Krivorotov, N. C. Emley, R. J. Schoelkopf, R. A. Buhrman, and D. C. Ralph, Nature 45, 38 (3). [3] W. H. Rippard, M. R. Pufall, S. Kaka, S. E. Russek, and T. J. Silva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 7 (4). [4] Y. Tserkovnyak, A. Brataas, and G. E. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 76 (). [5] R. H. Koch, J. A. Katine, and J. Z. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 883 (4). [6] S. Yakata, H. Kubota, T. Sugano, T. Seki, K. Yakushiji, A. Fukushima, S. Yuasa, and K. Ando, Appl. Phys. Lett. 95, 454 (9),.63/.375753. [7] G. E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. E 6, 7 (999). [8] G. E. Crooks, Phys. Rev. E 6, 36 (). [9] U. Seifert, Rep. Prog. Phys. 75, 6 (). [] M. Esposito, U. Harbola, and S. Mukamel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8, 665 (9). [] J. Tobiska and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. B 7, 3538 (5). [] M. Campisi, P. Hänggi, and P. Talkner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 77 (). [3] A. Kamenev and A. Levchenko, Adv. Phys. 58, 97 (). [4] Here and below, we choose ψ(t) as in, and only consider ψ q (± ) =. [5] Y. Tserkovnyak, T. Moriyama, and J. Q. Xiao, Phys. Rev. B 78, 4 (8). [6] A. Brataas, Y. Tserkovnyak, G. E. Bauer, and P. J. Kelly, Spin current, (Oxford University Press, ) Chap. 8. [7] For simplicity, we assume here that spin torque dominates magnetization damping. The presence of extra damping would lead to an additional term in α(θ). [8] D. Huertas-Hernando, Y. V. Nazarov, and W. Belzig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 473 (). [9] S. Pilgram, A. N. Jordan, E. V. Sukhorukov, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 9, 68 (3). [3] T. T. Heikkilä and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett., 365 (9). [3] M. A. Laakso, T. T. Heikkilä, and Y. V. Nazarov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 9685 (). [3] The blocking is due to non-gaussianity of the spin torque. The result neglects the exact quantization of spin and ignores e.g. quantum tunneling. [33] A. G. Abanov and A. Abanov, Phys. Rev. B 65, 8447 (). [34] M. Kindermann and S. Pilgram, Phys. Rev. B 69, 55334 (4). [35] S. Pilgram, K. E. Nagaev, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B 7, 4534 (4). [36] D. Andrieux and P. Gaspard, J. Chem. Phys., 667 (4).
6 Appendix: Details of derivation of the generating function We consider a tunneling Hamiltonian model for the ferromagnet/nanomagnet junction, H = [c σk (H F ) σk,σ k c σ k + d σk (H F ) σk,σ k d σ k ] + H T + H ext, (8) kk σσ (H F ) σk,σ k = δ k,k [ɛ F,k + gs σ] σσ, (9) (H F ) σk,σ k = δ k,k ɛ F,σσ k, () H T = W σk,σ k c σk d σ k + h.c., () σσ kk H ext = JH ext S. () Above, c (d) are conduction electrons in the free (fixed) magnet, S is the magnetization in the free (single-domain) magnet, H ext an externally applied field, and g and J coupling constants. Moreover, ɛ F /F describe the noninteracting energy dispersions. The Keldysh action corresponding to H is, S = S [S] + dt ( c T [i t H F ]c + d T [i t H F ]d + c T W d + d T W c ), (3) where S is the standard spin action [33]. We also include source terms in the generating function Z [34], Z[χ, ξ, ζ] = D[S, c, c, d, d] e is+isc+isc, (4) S c [χ, ξ] = S c [ζ] = dt d T ˇγ x [ χ + (H F µ) ξ]d, (5) dt ζ t S cl z (6) so that derivatives vs. χ and ξ produce cumulants of the charge and energy transfer, and ζ characterizes S z. The terms added in S c can be eliminated with a change of variables d(t) e iγx[(h F µ)ξ(t)+χ(t)]/ d(t) and conversely for d, provided χ(± ) = ξ(± ) =. This results to addition of phase factors in W, via W W e iγx[(h F µ)ξ(t)+χ(t)]/. Here and below, we use Larkin-Ovchinnikov rotated Keldysh basis [3]: fermion fields have Keldysh structure d = (d, d ), where d / = (d + ± d )/, d / = ( d + d )/ are related to the fields d ± on the Keldysh branches. Real fields are split similarly, as X cl/q = (X + ± X )/. ˇγ x is a Pauli matrix in the Keldysh space. We integrate out the conduction electrons, and expand in small W, Ṡ [8, ]. The resulting tunneling action can be obtained via the same route as in Ref., S T [χ, ξ, S] = i dt dt Tr[R(t)G F (t, t )R(t ) W e iγx[h F ξ(t )+χ(t )]/ G F (t, t)e iγx[h F ξ(t)+χ(t)]/ W ]. (7) Here, G R/A F = [ɛ ± i+ ξ F g S σ z ], G R/A F = [ɛ ± i + ξ N ], and the unitary matrices R are defined by Rσ z R = S σ and the gauge degree of freedom ψ in R = R e iψσz is fixed [] so that (R t R) cl z = and (R t R) q z is proportional to time derivatives of classical field components. The conduction electrons c may also contribute other terms than S T, for example change (or generate) the total spin in S [33]. However, here we are mainly interested in spin torque and pumping, and therefore concetrate on dynamics implied by S T and assume any other effects are absorbed to changes in parameters or phenomenological damping terms. Let us now consider the long-time limit correlation functions of the form Tr[e iξo(t)/ e iξo()/ ρe iξo()/ e iξo(t)/ ], t, which characterize a two-measurement protocol [, ]. They correspond to choices ξ(t) = θ(t)θ(t t)ξ, and χ(t) = θ(t)θ(t t)χ. We can write (see below) e iγxh N ξ(t) G F (t, t )e iγxh N ξ(t ) = dɛ ) π e iɛ(t t e iɛγxξ(t) G F (ɛ)e iɛγxξ(t ) + a(t, t ), (8) where the correction term a(t, t ) is zero for t t ξ(t) ξ(t ). As discussed below in more detail, it can be neglected in the long-time limit [34]. The tunneling action then reads S T i dt dɛ π Tr[P (t, ɛ)g F (t, t )P (t, ɛ) W G F (ɛ)w ], (9)
where P (t, ɛ) = e i(ɛ V )t e iγxχ(t)/ e iγxɛξ(t)/ R(t), and X(t, t ) = dt X(t + t /, t t /). In the case considered in the main text, ˇφ = Ωt + ˇ φ, and dynamics of ˇθ and ˇ φ arises from the spin transfer torque. We have R(t) = e i[ωt+ψ(t)]σz/ e iσz[ ˇ φ+ ˇ ψ]/ cos ˇθ + e i[ωt ψ(t)]σz/ e iσz[ ˇ φ ˇ ψ]/ ( iσ y ) sin ˇθ, (3) where ψ (t) = t dt Ω cos θ cl, ψ (t + q) ψ (t) Ωq cos θ cl (t). Keeping only the non-oscillating parts of Eq. (9) and taking the leading term of the gradient expansion vs. θ, φ, we can write the time average: ( e iɛ(t t ) P (t, ɛ)g F (t, t )P (t, ɛ) dɛ σ s tr (3) s= / δ(ɛ ɛ V sω (t))e iη,s(ɛ,t)ˇγx/ cos ˇθ(t) Ǧ,s(ɛ ) cos ˇθ(t) e iη,s(ɛ,t)ˇγx/ + δ(ɛ ɛ V sω + (t))e iη+,s(ɛ,t)ˇγx/ sin ˇθ(t) Ǧ, s(ɛ ) sin ˇθ(t) e iη+,s(ɛ,t)ˇγx/), where η ±,s (ɛ, t) = χ(t) + [ɛ µ]ξ(t) s[ φ q (t) ψ q (t)] = χ(t) + [ɛ µ]ξ(t) s Ω±(t) φ q Ω (t) and Ω ± = Ω[ ± cos θ cl ]/. To this order, S T is independent of φ cl. Provided no source fields measuring the statistics of φ cl are added, the only part dependent on it is S =... + S dt φ cl t[cos(θ cl + θ q ) cos(θ cl θ q )], which implies a constraint cos(θ cl + θ q ) cos(θ cl θ q ) = const. and we set θ q =. The slow part of the dynamics of the polar φ angle decouples from the rest of the problem. The result Eq. (3) in the main text now follows, noting dt dt (...)G R F (t, t )G R F (t, t) = dt dt (...)G A F (t, t )G A F (t, t) = and neglecting terms unimportant in the long-time limit introduced by Eq. (8). 7 Energy counting In the eigenbasis of the single-particle operator H N, we can write Ǧ F (ɛ) = + Ǧ F,j (ɛ) j j, (3) j Ǧ F,j (ɛ) = P ( ) tanh ɛ µ + iπδ(ɛ ɛ j ) T, (33) ɛ ɛ j where P is the Cauchy principal value. Straightforward calculation now yields e ih F ˇγ xξ(t) Ǧ F (t, t )e ih F ˇγ xξ(t ) dɛ = e iɛ[t+ˇγxξ(t)] Ǧ F (ɛ)e iɛ[t +ˇγ xξ(t dɛ )] + e iɛ(t t ) e iɛjγx[ξ(t) ξ(t )] [ e i(ɛ ɛj)γx[ξ(t) ξ(t )] P ] j j π π ɛ ɛ j j dɛ = e iɛ[t+ˇγxξ(t)] Ǧ F (ɛ)e iɛ[t +ˇγ xξ(t )] + e iɛj(t t +γ xξ(t) γ xξ(t )) j j i π 4 [a + a γ x ] j (34) a (t, t ) = sgn(t t ) sgn(t t + ξ(t) ξ(t )) sgn(t t ξ(t) + ξ(t )), a (t, t ) = sgn(t t + ξ(t) ξ(t )) sgn(t t ξ(t) + ξ(t )). The correction term is zero for t t ξ(t) ξ(t ), and consequently gives negligible contribution in the long-time limit where ξ(t) = ξ(t ) except near the ends of the measurement interval. While neglecting it is not necessary in principle, this simplifies the approach. Appearance of such time-energy uncertainty was also noted in Ref. [34]. Fluctuation theorem Let us consider a system where the nanomagnet is coupled to a ferromagnetic electrode via a tunnel barrier with spin-flip conductance G T and polarization P, and via an ohmic contact to a normal metal. We disregard
the magnetization damping caused by the normal metal, and assume that the voltage completely drops across the tunnel junction. Below, we denote the temperature of the normal metal and the nanomagnet by T F, and that of the ferromagnetic electrode by T F. We disregard charge and energy pile-up effects, limiting ourselves to time scales long compared to the charge and energy relaxation time of the system. In this case we can specify the probability distribution of charge δn = t+t dt I(t )) and energy δe = t+t dt Q(t ) tunneling through the tunnel contact, and t t a change in the z component of magnetization δm z = Sγδs z /ν, δs z = δ[cos(θ cl )] in a time t. It reads 8 P t (δn, δe, δs z ) dζ dχ dξ = π π π e iχδn iξδe Dφ q Ds z e dζ dχ = π π dξ π Dφq Ds z e iχδn iξδe iζδsz e i{s[φ { i [ } Sζ(t) ts z(t)/v δsz t ]dt e i[s(φq )+S T (χ,ξ,φ q ;V,T F,T F )] q (t)+ζ(t)/]+s T (χ,ξ,φ q ;V,T F,T F )}, (35) where χ(t) = χ θ(t)θ(t t), ξ(t) = ξ θ(t)θ(t t) and ζ(t) = ζ θ(t)θ(t t) specify the two-measurement protocol. Since S T is independent of the slow component of the φ-coordinate, this component does not affect the statistics of the other parameters and can be integrated out. In the above equation, we assume that the measurement time t is long compared to charge relaxation times of the island, but it can be short compared to the time scale of magnetization relaxation. The presence of the spin action S ensures the conservation of the total angular momentum, analogous to the other conservation laws explained in [35]. We can use the Fermi function identities f(µ ɛ) = f(ɛ)e β(ɛ µ) = f(ɛ) to get Λ + (ɛ, V ) = e (ɛ µ)/t F e (ɛ µ+v )/T F Λ (ɛ, V ), Λ + (µ ɛ, V ) = Λ (ɛ, V ). (36) Applying these to the action S T yields the symmetries S T (χ, ξ, φ q ; V, Ω, T F, T F ) = S T ( χ, ξ, φ q ; V, Ω, T F, T F ) S T (χ, ξ, φ q ; V, Ω, T F, T F ) = S T ( χ ξv, ξ, φ q ξω/; V, Ω, T F, T F ) S T (χ, ξ, φ q ; V, Ω, T F, T F ) = S T ( χ + iv/t F, ξ + i(t F (37a) (37b) T F ), φq + iω/(t F ); V, Ω, T F, T F ) (37c) In addition, one more relation can be obtained by reversing the magnetizations of both systems, or changing the signs of the polarizations P F z and P F. This sign change can be balanced by replacing Ω Ω and φ q φ q. Denoting the magnetization reversal and reversal of the sign of precession with a prime hence yields the symmetry S T (χ, ξ, φ q ; V, Ω, T F, T F ) = S T (χ, ξ, φ q ; V, Ω, T F, T F ). (38) These relations together with the definition (35) allow us to find various symmetries of the probability distribution. For example, combining (37a) with (37b) yield P t (δn, δe, δs z ; T F, T F ) = P t (δn, δe + V δn δs z Ω, δs z, T F, T F ). (39) This relates the probabilities of charge and energy transfer and change of magnetization upon the interchange of the two temperatures. The detailed form is a result of the particle-hole symmetry of our model (no thermoelectric effects are included). For T F = T F this implies the first law of thermodynamics for the processes. Namely, it implies δe V δn + Ω δs z =, (4) i.e., for an arbitrary nonequilibrium state, the expectation value of the internal energy increase in the two terminals (when T F = T F, δe F = δe F δe ) equals the sum of the dissipated Joule heat and the work done by the change in the magnetization direction. This result is also reflected in the average heat current in Eq. (9) of the main text. On the other hand, combining (37c) with (38) yields P t (δn, δe, δs z ; T F, T F ) = e V δn/t F e δe(tf T F ) e δszω/t F P t ( δn, δe, δs z ; T F, T F ). (4) This is the spintronic fluctuation relation for the setup, and it in particular cases yields those presented in [7, 7 9, ]. Note that in contrast to [7], this presents the probability statistics of change of magnetization, rather than that of the spin current, as the latter as such is difficult to measure directly.
One direct consequence of fluctuation theorems is the Onsager symmetry of linear response coefficients characterizing nonequilibrium observables [, 36]. In particular, we can define the electrical and energy currents and spin transfer torque via 9 I c = S T χ χ=ξ=φ q= Q = S T ξ χ=ξ=φ q= sin (θ)τ = S T ζ χ=ξ=φ q=, (4a) (4b) (4c) or denoting λ,,3 {χ, ξ, φ q } and generalized current as J i S T λ i λ=. (43) Let us consider f,,3 {V, T F (T F T F ), Ω/} as generalized forces. The linear response coefficients are thus defined via In terms of the generalized forces and currents, Eq. (37c) can be expressed as L ij J i f= = S T λ=f=. (44) f j λ i f j S T (λ; f) = S T ( λ + if/t F ; f). (45) Differentiating this with respect to f j and λ i and setting λ = f = then gives (now T F = T F T ) T L ij T S T λ i f j (; ) = i S T λ i λ j (; ). (46) This hence yields the Onsager reciprocity relations, accoring to which L ij = L ji is a symmetric matrix. Note that Eq. (46) is the (zero-frequency) fluctuation-dissipation theorem: The left hand side of this equation yields the zerofrequency autocorrelation function δj i δj j. Semiclassical equations In the main text we analyze the slow stochastic dynamics of the magnetization under the fluctuating spin torque within the semiclassical approximation. As a result, the z component of the magnetization of the free magnet, s z = cos(θ), and a term proportional to the counting field φ q, p isφ q become conjugate variables, whose dynamics follows the effective Hamiltonian H = is T. Let us consider such Hamiltonian mechanics generated by a quadratic Hamiltonian, such as that in Eq. (5) in the main text, H = Aqp Bp + C + Dq + Eq with initial and final conditions Bp() + Aq() = and p(t ) =. The integration constant is H = C + Dq() + Eq(), which also implies q(t ) = q(). Define r = p + αq where α = A+β B and β = A + 4BE. Then, H = βqr Br + C + Dq, ṙ = βr D. (47) Taking the initial and final conditions into account, we find the starting point of the trajectory D q() = αβ + A/B e βt, (48) so that r(t) = e βt β A B q() D β [ e βt ]. (49)
The action of the trajectory now reads The second term is (A, B > ) is C = t t dt [p q H] = t H + dt p q. (5) t t dt p q = p()q() dt q[ṙ α q] = Aq() B + = Aq() B r(t) r() B β [ (βr(t ) D)r(t ) (βr() D)r() dr H C + Br D + βr (5) ] + t [H C + BD β ] (5) For βt, the last term is t e βt, and the others approach a constant as t. Therefore, for t we have is C t H. Let us furthermore expand the action in a counting field λ to the second (Gaussian) order. Given expansions A = A + A λ + A λ +..., of A, B, C, D, E, with C = D = E =, we find the leading terms is C C λt C λ t + λ B D is A = A [t ] e At, (53) A dt p q C=D=E= = Aq() B B D λ ( e At ). (54) Adding is = is A + is C, taking λ = α χ, and substituting in the values corresponding to Eq. (5) of the main text, A = [ s ]τ (s )/S, B = [ s ]D(s )/S, C = α χγ(s ), C = χ Γ(s ), D = Γ (s )α χ, we arrive at Eq. (6) in the main text. A 3