text:
# Experimental synchronization of spatiotemporal chaos

## Abstract

We report the first experimental evidence of a successful synchronization of spatiotemporal chaos. The experiments were performed on two unidirectionally coupled, nonlinear-optical systems of single-feedback type. The synchronization was investigated for different degrees of complexity of the spontaneous structures. In all cases, the cross-correlation between the two system states was found to increase with the strength of the coupling. Numerical simulations yield comparable results and throw a light on the role of spatial inhomogeneities, which hamper a perfect synchronization.

It is well-known that two coupled chaotic oscillators can synchronize pikovsky ; boccaletti02a . The extension of this concept to spatially extended systems is a rather new topic. Spontaneously forming complex and dynamic spatial structures (”spatiotemporal chaos”) play a role in numerous fields, from biology over chemistry to different areas of physics hohwal , e.g. fluid dynamics, solid state physics, or nonlinear optics optpatt . While as bridge to the temporal phenomena, often spatially discrete system like coupled oscillators are regarded, we will here focus on continuous systems.

To achieve synchronization between two separate systems, the system states must be communicated between the both. In most pattern forming systems, such as in fluiddynamical or chemical systems, the experimental realization of this communication is rather difficult. The spatial distribution of physical quantities, like a flow field or the concentration of chemical compounds, must be manipulated dynamically by injecting an external signal. Therefore, up to now only numerical simulations of coupled prototype models are performed, mostly in one spatial dimension only stcsynchro1 ; parlitz ; discretesynchro1 ; nonident ; garcia01a . Both uni- or bidirectionally coupling, and the synchronization of not completely identical systems nonident  are regarded. Following concepts of controlling-chaos, the coupling signal is sometimes derived from a comparison of both system states, e.g. is the difference of two quantities. Since the transfer of the full spatial distribution of a system state is considered to be a problem, often the possibility to use only few discrete coupling channels is investigated parlitz ; discretesynchro1 . In the present report instead, we regard the coupling of the full, space- and time-continuous state of spatially two-dimensional systems.

Light waves are ideal as carrier for the coupling signal, since they can carry almost arbitrary spatial and temporal profiles. Hence, it almost suggests itself to use nonlinear-optical pattern forming systems, where the light field is already a central physical quantity. Our experiment belongs to the class of the so-called single-feedback systems, which have become quite popular over the last years dalesfirth ; singlefeedb ; hyasia ; arecchi00a ; akhmanovoro .

In our system, a reflective Liquid Crystal Light Valve (LCLV) is used as optical nonlinearity, providing a self-defocusing, saturable Kerr-type nonlinearity. Its large nonlinear sensitivity allows us to realize large aspect ratio patterns with moderate laser powers. The LCLV consists of two thin layers, separated by a mirror and sandwiched between two transparent electrodes to which a low ac voltage is applied lclv . One layer is a photoconductor (PC), which changes its conductivity according to the intensity profile $`I_w(x,y)`$ of an incident light wave. This results in a space dependence of the voltage drop over the second layer, a liquid crystal (LC), affecting its effective refractive index. A light wave, passing the LC layer (read side) and being internally reflected, consequently acquires a transverse phase shift profile, which is determined by the intensity profile at the PC (write side).

The LCLV is put into an optical feedback loop: an almost plane pump wave is first phase-modulated and reflected by the LCLV read side. The modulated wave is then fed back to the intensity sensitive write side by means of beam splitters (BS), mirrors (M) and lenses (L), as indicated in Fig. 1. During the free space propagation through the feedback loop, diffraction causes the phase profile to be transferred into an intensity modulation, such closing the feedback. For detection purposes, a fraction of the feedback wave is coupled out with the beam splitter BS2. We use a digital camera to record an intensity distribution $`I_w(x,y,t)`$ equivalent to the one at the LCLV’s write side. More details about this system and the theoretical modelling can be found in hyasia .

Above a certain threshold of the pump intensity, the uniform, plane-wave solution becomes modulationally unstable with respect to a critical transverse wave number $`k_c`$. At higher respective thresholds, also higher order critical wave numbers become unstable. Increasing the pump intensity from below threshold, first a stationary hexagonal pattern develops dalesfirth ; hyasia , and then the pattern becomes increasingly disordered and dynamic, finally turning into a very complex spatiotemporally chaotic state iapdyn ; lclvdyn . Typical snapshots of dynamic experimental structures are shown in Fig. 2. Just above threshold, remainders of perfect order are visible as hexagonal domains, the typical size of which shrinks with pump intensity.

Our system includes a spatial low-pass filter in the feedback (aperture A1 in the Fourier plane between the lenses L1, L2). By setting the low-pass cutoff just above the first critical wave number, the evolution of spatial chaos is impeded and the amount of disorder grows more smoothly with the pump intensity lclvdyn ; leberre97a . With an open low-pass filter instead, pronounced disorder sets in already closely above the primary threshold. Hence, the closed low-pass allows us a finer adjustment of the degree of complexity.

Because of their versatility, LCLV feedback systems are frequently used to investigate spontaneous optical structures. In some configurations, the feedback wave is rotated or shifted laterally arecchi00a ; akhmanovoro . In the present version instead, the full rotational and translational symmetry is retained and diffraction represents the dominant spatial coupling mechanism.

We have recently shown, how this system can be synchronized by injecting perfect hexagonal patterns forclettpap . The question addressed in this report is, whether such a synchronization can also be realized for spatiotemporal chaos. For this purpose, we regard two systems, one of which runs autonomously (master $`A`$), while the other (slave $`B`$) is exposed to the attenuated signal generated by the master system. Since it is difficult to get two identical LCLVs, we divided the active area of a single LCLV into two independent subsystems by inserting a mask A2 with two circular holes (each diameter $`D=4`$ mm). Because of inhomogeneities of the LCLV, the two systems A and B cannot be expected to be perfectly identical.

In the feedback, a fraction of the light waves was extracted with the beam splitter BS3. While the signal from the slave system $`B`$ was blocked, the wave from the master $`A`$ was injected into $`B`$ with the beam splitter BS4. A halfwave-plate $`\lambda /2`$ and a polarizer P were used to attenuate the injected signal, i.e. to set the coupling factor $`\gamma `$. The perpendicular polarization behind the polarizer prevented interference effects. The recorded intensity distributions do not contain this coupling signal, because it was injected behind beam splitter BS2.

Due to the injected signal from $`A`$, the feedback intensity in $`B`$ changes to $`I_{wB}I_{wB}^{}=I_{wB}+\gamma I_{wA}`$. Without further modifications, system $`B`$ would experience a total feedback power larger than system $`A`$. As consequence of the saturation of the nonlinearity, this would cause differences between systems $`A`$ and $`B`$. In order to reduce this effect, a uniform bias beam was superimposed onto $`A`$, such that $`I_{wA}I_{wA}^{}=I_{wA}+I_{bias}`$ with $`I_{bias}=\gamma I_{wA}`$, where the brackets $``$ denote spatial averaging. The seemingly simpler attenuation of $`I_{wB}^{}`$ was hindered by technical reasons.

With the spatial low-pass filter cutoff set just above the critical wave number, the pump intensity $`I_p`$ was set to different values above the pattern forming threshold $`I_{th}`$. An additional measurement series was carried out with open low-pass and the pump at $`I_p/I_{\mathrm{th}}=1.5`$. In each particular measurement, the coupling strength was set to a fixed value and a temporal image sequence of up to 100 s duration was recorded. From each image, we computed a cross-correlation function between A and B

$$C(\mathrm{\Delta }x,\mathrm{\Delta }y,t)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}_{wA}(x,y,t)\stackrel{~}{I}_{wB}(x\mathrm{\Delta }x,y\mathrm{\Delta }y,t)}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{I}_{wA}^2\stackrel{~}{I}_{wB}^2}},$$
(1)
where $`I_{wA}`$ and $`I_{wB}`$ are the experimentally recorded intensity distributions of master and slave system, respectively. The tildes stand for the deviation from the mean value $`\stackrel{~}{I}=II`$. In order to exclude boundary effects, only the central parts of the active areas (85% of the diameter) have been considered here. As measure for synchronization, the correlation coefficient $`c_{AB}(t)=C(0,0,t)`$ was used. Fig. 3 shows the time-averaged correlation coefficients, plotted over the coupling factor $`\gamma `$. The errorbars indicate the RMS value of the temporal variation during the recorded sequence. We have checked that the cross-correlation coefficients do not show temporal drifts, which confirms that the coupled systems were in their asymptotic states.

The increase of the cross-correlation coefficient $`c_{AB}`$ with the coupling strength $`\gamma `$ clearly substantiates that the two systems become synchronized by the coupling. Because of the experimental imperfections and remaining differences between the systems $`A`$ and $`B`$, the correlation coefficient never reaches unity. When the coupling parameter is larger than about $`\gamma >0.5`$, the correlation drops again. This behavior can be assigned to the fact that the systems become increasingly different, because the bias intensity for the master system $`A`$ is an insufficient way to balance the unidirectional coupling. Fig.3 also shows that the cross-correlation drops with increasing distance from threshold, meaning that the synchronization is harder to achieve for stronger disorder.

Results very similar to the cross-correlation were obtained by computing the mutual information and the synchronization error boccaletti02a , i.e. the normalized mean square difference between $`I_{wA}`$ and $`I_{wB}`$. A snapshot of a synchronized state is presented in Fig. 4, for the pump intensity just above threshold and closed low-pass filter. For weaker coupling, the correlations are smaller and difficult to be recognized by eye.

Without low-pass filtering, a larger number of critical wave number bands contributes to the pattern formation process, resulting in very complex and dynamic structures (cf. Fig. 2, lower panel). In this case, the maximum achievable correlation is much lower and already saturates for $`\gamma 0.2`$ (cf. Fig. 3). The reduced correlation is probably the consequence of the increased sensitivity to perturbations. Without low-pass filtering, the system supports a much broader bandwidth and consequently high-frequency spatial noise, such as speckles, gain more influence. However, the increase of correlation at lower coupling strengths still gives evidence for a partial, coupling-induced synchronization.

In purely temporal systems, a so-called lag synchronization can be found, where the synchronized system follows the master system with a certain time lag pikovsky ; boccaletti02a . In a spatially extended system this would correspond to a lateral shift (or rotation?) between the two patterns. Such a shift would nota bene be connected to a symmetry breaking by the selection of a particular direction. We find, however, that the dominant peak of the cross-correlation function Eq. (1) does not change its location $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Delta }y=0)`$. Hence, there is no lateral shift between the synchronized structures.

For comparison, numerical simulations of the full model equations were carried out. Details on the numerical algorithm are given in ampap , we here used a grid with $`128^2`$ points. In one set of simulations, the situation was idealized, by using periodic boundary conditions and perfectly identical master and slave systems. In the other set, circular boundaries were used. Moreover, we tried to include typical experimental imperfections, such as speckles and spatial variations of the nonlinear sensitivity. Since it is very difficult to quantify the experimental imperfections exactly, these simulations give only a qualitative picture. To simulate speckles, we added white spatial noise to the pump beam (2% of the total intensity in non-zero Fourier modes). The nonlinear sensitivity was given smooth spatial profiles, different for master and slave, with an variation of $`\pm 1\%`$ (RMS) ampap .

The resulting cross-correlation coefficients are shown in Fig. 5. Even though the pump was set to 7 times threshold for the idealized case, the correlation grows quite fast with the coupling strength and reaches almost unity. Whereas when imperfections are included, the synchronization is still present, but the cross-correlation stays significantly smaller.

In conclusion, we have found a first experimental evidence for the synchronization of spatiotemporal chaos in a nonlinear-optical system, realized in a unidirectionally coupled master-slave configuration. The dependence of the cross-correlation between master and slave state on the coupling strength clearly indicates synchronization. Corresponding numerical simulations reveal how spatial inhomogeneities counteract synchronization.

The underlying mechanisms of this synchorization (from $`\chi \omega \rho \iota o\nu `$: place) of spatiotemporal disorder appear to be quite general; an observation in other nonlinear extended systems should be possible. Good candidates, besides other nonlinear optical systems, are photosensitive chemical reaction-diffusion systems, wich can both be detected and manipulated with light waves. A necessary translation between detection and controlling light or an amplification of the detection light can be performed by means of optically addressable spatial light modulators efronbook . The present work can also be considered as a step to secure parallel communication, as proposed in garcia01a .

The authors acknowledge the support by T. Tschudi and Jenoptik LOS GmbH, Jena.


format: text

text:
# Third-order relativistic many-body calculations of energies and lifetimes of levels along the silver isoelectronic sequence

## I Introduction

This work continues earlier third-order relativistic many-body perturbation theory (RMBPT) studies of energy levels of ions with one valence electron outside a closed core. In Refs. Johnson et al. (1988a, b); Johnson et al. (1990) third-order RMBPT was used to calculate energies of the three lowest states ($`ns_{1/2}`$, $`np_{1/2}`$, and $`np_{3/2}`$) in Li-, Na-, and Cu-like ions along the respective isoelectronic sequences, while in the present work, third-order RMBPT is used to calculate energies of the eleven lowest levels, $`5s_{1/2}`$, $`5p_j`$, $`5d_j`$, $`4f_j`$, $`5f_j`$, and $`5g_j`$ in Ag-like ions. It should be noted that the $`n=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\text{and }3`$ cores of Li-, Na-, and Cu-like ions are completely filled, by contrast with Ag-like ions, where the $`n=4`$ core \[Cu+\]$`4s^24p^64d^{10}`$ is incomplete.

Third-order RMBPT calculations of $`5s_{1/2}5p_j`$ transition amplitudes in Ag-like ions up to $`Z`$=60 were previously performed by Chou and Johnson (1997). In the present paper, we extend the calculations of Chou and Johnson (1997) to obtain energies, reduced matrix elements, oscillator strengths, and transition rates for the 17 possible $`5l_j5l_j^{}^{}`$ and $`4f_j5l_j^{}`$ E1 transitions. Additionally, we evaluate lifetimes of excited states. Most earlier theoretical studies of Ag-like ions were devoted to oscillator strengths and lifetimes Martin et al. (1995); Migdalek and Baylis (1979) rather than energy levels; an exception is the work of Cheng and Kim (1979) in which energies, oscillator strengths and lifetimes of levels in Ag-like ions were calculated using relativistic Dirac-Fock (DF) wave functions Desclaux (1975). In the present paper, we use RMBPT to determine energies and lifetimes of $`4f_j`$ and $`5l_j`$ levels in neutral Ag and Ag-like ions with $`Z=48100`$. We compare our results with experimental data from Refs. Carlsson et al. (1990); Andersen et al. (1976); Pinnington et al. (1994); Ansbacher et al. (1986); Pinnington et al. (1987); Pinnington et al. (1985a, b); Ansbacher et al. (1991); Sugar (1977).

## II Energy levels of Ag-like ions

Results of our third-order calculations of energies, which were carried out following the pattern described in Johnson et al. (1988a), are summarized in Table 1, where we list lowest-order, Dirac-Fock energies $`E^{(0)}`$, first-order Breit energies $`B^{(1)}`$, second-order Coulomb $`E^{(2)}`$ and Breit $`B^{(2)}`$ energies, third-order Coulomb energies $`E^{(3)}`$, single-particle Lamb shift corrections $`E_{\mathrm{LS}}`$, and the sum of the above $`E_{\text{tot}}`$. The first-order Breit energies $`B^{(1)}`$ include corrections for “frequency-dependence”, whereas second-order Breit energies are evaluated using the static Breit operator. The Lamb shift $`E_{\text{LS}}`$ is approximated as the sum of the one-electron self energy and the first-order vacuum-polarization energy. The vacuum-polarization contribution is calculated from the Uehling potential using the results of Fullerton and Rinker Fullerton and G. A. Rinker, Jr. (1976). The self-energy contribution is estimated for $`s`$, $`p_{1/2}`$ and $`p_{3/2}`$ orbitals by interpolating among the values obtained by Mohr (1974a, b, 1975) using Coulomb wave functions. For this purpose, an effective nuclear charge $`Z_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is obtained by finding the value of $`Z_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ required to give a Coulomb orbital with the same average $`r`$ as the DHF orbital.

We find that correlation corrections to energies in neutral Ag and in low-$`Z`$ Ag-like ions are large, especially for $`5s`$ states. For example, $`E^{(2)}`$ is 22% of $`E^{(0)}`$ and $`E^{(3)}`$ is 28% of $`E^{(2)}`$ for the $`5s`$ state of neutral Ag. These ratios decrease for the other (less penetrating) states and for more highly charged ions. Despite the slow convergence of the perturbation expansion, the $`5s`$ energy from the present third-order RMBPT calculation is within 5% of the measured ionization energy for the $`5s`$ state of neutral Ag and improves for higher valence states and for more highly charged ions. We include results for neutral Ag and five Ag-like ions with $`Z`$ = 48, 53, 54, 57, and 58 in Table 1. For each ion, the states are ordered by energy and the order changes with $`Z`$. For example, the $`4f_{5/2}`$ and $`4f_{7/2}`$ states are in the sixth and seventh places for neutral Ag and Ag-like ions with the nuclear charge $`Z<53`$, in the fourth and fifth places for ions with $`Z=5356`$, the second and third places for ions with $`Z=5760`$, and the first and second places for ions with $`Z62`$. It should be mentioned that the difference in energies of $`5s`$ and $`4f_{5/2}`$ states is about 244 cm-1 for $`Z`$ = 61 which may exceed the accuracy of the present calculations.

Below, we describe a few numerical details of the calculation for a specific case, Pm14+ ($`Z=61`$). We use B-spline methods Johnson et al. (1988c) to generate a complete set of basis DF wave functions for use in the evaluation of RMBPT expressions. For Pm14+, we use 40 splines of order $`k=7`$ for each angular momentum. The basis orbitals are constrained to a cavity of radius 10 $`a_0`$ for Pm14+, where $`a_00.052918`$ nm is Bohr radius. The cavity radius is scaled for different ions; it is large enough to accommodate all $`5l_j`$ and $`4f_j`$ orbitals considered here and small enough that 40 splines can approximate inner-shell DF wave functions with good precision. We use 35 out 40 basis orbitals for each partial wave in our third-order energy calculations, since contribution of the five highest-energy orbitals is negligible. The second-order calculation includes partial waves up to $`l_{\text{max}}=8`$ and is extrapolated to account for contributions from higher partial waves. A lower number of partial waves, $`l_{\text{max}}=6`$, is used in the third-order calculation. We list the second-order energy with $`l_{\text{max}}=6`$, the final value of $`E^{(2)}`$ extrapolated from $`l_{\text{max}}=8`$ and the contribution from partial waves with $`l>6`$ in Table 2. Since the asymptotic $`l`$-dependence of the second- and third-order energies are similar (both fall off as $`l^4`$), we may use the second-order remainder as a guide to extrapolating the third-order energy, which is listed, together with an estimated remainder from $`l>6`$ in the fifth and sixth columns of Table 2. We find that the contribution to the third-order energy from states with $`l>6`$ is more than 300 cm-1 for $`4f`$ states of Pm14+.

In Fig. 1, we illustrate the $`Z`$ dependence of the second-order energy $`E^{(2)}`$ given in atomic units for $`4f`$, $`5s`$, $`5p`$, $`5d`$, $`5f`$, and $`5g`$ states of Ag-like ions. The atomic unit (a.u.) of energy is $`E_h4.3597\times 10^{18}`$ J, where $`E_h`$ is Hartree energy.

As we see from this figure $`|E^{(2)}|`$ slowly increases with $`Z`$ for most values of $`Z`$. We observe several sharp features in the curves describing $`5d_{3/2}`$ states ($`Z=72`$), $`5f_{5/2}`$ states ($`Z=89`$), and $`5g_{7/2}`$ states ($`Z=63`$). These irregularities have their origin in the near degeneracy of one-electron valence states with two-particle one-hole states of the same angular symmetry, resulting in exceptionally small energy denominators in double-excitation contributions to the second-order energy. To remove these irregularities, the perturbative treatment should be based on a lowest-order wave function that includes both one-particle and two-particle one-hole states. The singularities in the second-order $`5d_{3/2}`$ energy at $`Z=72`$ in Fig. 1, for example, occurs because the lowest-order $`5d_{3/2}`$ energy, $`ϵ_{5d_{3/2}}=19.2215`$ a.u. is nearly degenerate with the lowest-order energy of the $`(4d_{5/2})^1(4f_{5/2})^2`$ state: $`ϵ_{4d_{5/2}}+2ϵ_{4f_{5/2}}=36.88502\times 28.0685=19.2520`$ a.u.. The other singularities seen in Fig. 1 have similar explanations.

### Results and comparisons for energies

As discussed above, starting from $`Z=62`$ the second-order energy for one-particle states has irregularities associated with nearly degenerate two-particle one-hole states. These near degeneracies, of course, lead to similar irregularities in the third-order valence energy. The importance of third-order corrections decreases substantially with $`Z`$, it contributes 6% to the total energy of the $`5s`$ state for neutral Ag but only 0.3% to the total energy of the $`5s`$ state of Ag-like Ce, $`Z=58`$. Thus, omission of the third-order corrections is justified for ions with $`Z>60`$.

We compare our results for energy levels of the $`5l_j`$ and $`4f_j`$ states with recommended data from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) database Moore (1971) in neutral Ag and Ag-like ions with $`Z=4850`$ in Table 3. Although our results are generally in good agreement with the NIST data, discrepancies were found. One cause for the discrepancies is that fourth- and higher-order correlation corrections are omitted in the theory. Another possible cause may be the large uncertainties in the experimental ionization potentials of ions with $`Z=49`$ and 50 in Ref. Moore (1971). We also find unusually large discrepancies in the values of $`5d_{3/2}5d_{5/2}`$ splittings for ions with $`Z=49`$ and 50. Additional tables are included in the accompanying EPAPS document Ref. EPA , where we give energies of $`5l_j`$ and $`4f_j`$ states in Ag-like ions for the entire isoelectronic sequence up to $`Z=100`$.

## III Line strengths, oscillator strengths, transition rates, and lifetimes in Ag-like ions

We calculate reduced electric-dipole matrix elements using the gauge-independent third-order perturbation theory developed in Savukov and Johnson (2000). The precision of this method has been demonstrated for alkali-metal atoms. Gauge-dependent “bare” dipole matrix elements are replaced with gauge-independent random-phase approximation (RPA) matrix elements to obtain gauge-independent third-order matrix elements. As in the case of the third-order energy, a limited number of partial waves with $`l_{\text{max}}<7`$ is included. This restriction is not very important for the ions considered here because the third-order correction is quite small, but the truncation gives rise to some loss of gauge invariance.

We solve the core RPA equations iteratively. In our calculations, we set the number of core iteration to 10 to save computation time; for convergence to machine accuracy, about 50 iterations are needed at low $`Z`$. For example, for the $`5p_{3/2}5s`$ transition in neutral Ag, first-order length and velocity matrix elements are 4.30225 and 4.26308, respectively. The values of the electric-dipole matrix elements are given in atomic units, $`ea_0`$. The atomic unit for the corresponding line strength is $`e^2a_0^2`$. The corresponding RPA values are 3.77755 and 3.96707 after one iteration; they become 3.82599 and 3.82636 after 10 iterations. The final third-order gauge-independent results are 3.41726 and 3.41745 for this matrix element in length and velocity forms, respectively.

The results of our third-order calculations are summarized in Table 4, where we list oscillator strengths for $`5s5p`$, $`5p5d`$, $`4f5d`$, and $`4f5g`$ transitions in neutral Ag and low-$`Z`$ Ag-like ions with $`Z=4860`$.

In Table 5, we present line strengths for $`5s5p`$, $`5p5d`$, $`4f5d`$, and $`4f5g`$ transitions in Xe7+. The values calculated in length form in first, second, and third approximations are listed in columns $`S^{(1)}`$, $`S^{(2)}`$, and $`S^{(3)}`$, respectively. The difference between second-order values $`S^{(2)}`$ and third-order values $`S^{(3)}`$ is much smaller than the difference between $`S^{(1)}`$ and $`S^{(2)}`$. The second-order corrections change $`S^{(1)}`$ by 20 - 50 %. The addition of the third-order corrections modifies line strengths by 5 - 10 %. The first approximation is just the frozen-core DF approximation and the first-order line strengths $`S^{(1)}`$ in Table 5 are very close to the earlier DF calculations by Cheng and Kim (1979).

### $`Z`$ dependence of transition rates

Trends of the $`Z`$ dependence of transition rates are shown in Fig. 2. The $`5s5p`$, $`5p5d`$, $`4f5d`$, and $`4f5g`$ transition rates are shown in Fig. 2 a, b, c, d, respectively. All graphs are plotted using second-order data for consistency. The $`Z`$ dependences of the transition rates for $`5s5p`$ transitions shown in Fig. 2a and two $`5p5d`$ transitions shown in Fig. 2b are smooth; however, all other $`Z`$ dependences shown in Fig. 2 contain sharp features. The sharp feature in the curve describing the $`5p_{3/2}5d_{5/2}`$ transition rates (Fig. 2b) is explained by irregularity in the curve describing the $`5d_{5/2}`$ energy shown in Fig. 1b. This irregularity in the energy $`Z`$ dependence was already discussed in the previous section.

The sharp minima in the region $`Z=5254`$ in the curves describing the $`4f5d`$ transition rates shown in Fig. 2c are due to inversion of the order of $`4f`$ and $`5d`$ energy levels. In the region $`Z=5254`$ the $`4f5d`$ transition energies become very small resulting in the small transition rates. The second sharp feature in the curves describing the $`4f5d`$ transition rates shown in Fig. 2c occurs in the region $`Z`$ = 72 - 73 and results from the irregularity in the second-order correction to the $`4f5d`$ dipole matrix elements. Below, we describe some details of the calculation to clarify this issue.

A typical contribution from one of the second-order RPA corrections to dipole matrix element ($`vv^{}`$) has the form Safronova et al. (1999)

$$D^{(\mathrm{RPA})}[vv^{}]\underset{nb}{}\underset{k}{}\frac{D_{nb}X_k(vnv^{}b)}{ϵ_n+ϵ_vϵ_v^{}ϵ_b}.$$
(1)
Here, the index $`b`$ designates a core state and index $`n`$ designates an excited state. The numerator is a product of a dipole matrix element $`D_{nb}`$ and a Coulomb matrix element $`X_k(vnv^{}b)`$. For the special case of the $`4f_{5/2}5d_{3/2}`$ transition, the energy denominator for the term in the sum with $`n=4f_{5/3}`$ and $`b=4d_{5/2}`$ is

$`ϵ_n+ϵ_vϵ_v^{}ϵ_b`$ (2)
$`=ϵ_{4f_{5/2}}+ϵ_{4f_{5/2}}ϵ_{5d_{3/2}}ϵ_{4d_{5/2}}`$
$`=28.068528.0685+19.2215+36.8850`$
$`=0.0305.`$
Again, as in the case of the second-order $`4d_{3/2}`$ energy, there is a nearly zero denominator when the lowest-order energies of the $`5d_{3/2}`$ and $`(4d_{5/2})^1(4f_{5/2})^2`$ states are close. The cause of this irregularity is once again traced to the near degeneracy of a single-particle state and a two-particle one-hole state. The remaining irregularities for $`Z>60`$ in the curves presented in Fig. 2 have similar origins.

### Results and comparison for lifetimes

We calculate lifetimes of $`5l_j`$ and $`4f_j`$ levels in neutral Ag and in Ag-like ions with $`Z=4860`$ using third-order MBPT results for dipole matrix elements and energies. In Table 6, we compare our lifetime data with available experimental measurements. This set of data includes results for a limited number of levels in low-$`Z`$ ions (up to $`Z=54`$). We give a more complete comparison of the transition rates and wavelengths for the eleven transitions between $`5l`$ and $`4f`$ states in Ag-like ions with $`Z=4760`$ including the third-order contribution in Table III of the accompanying EPAPS document EPA . In Table 6, we present our lifetime data $`\tau `$ calculated in the lowest-, second-, and third-order approximations. These results are listed in columns labeled $`\tau ^{(1)}`$, $`\tau ^{(2)}`$, and $`\tau ^{(3)}`$, respectively. The largest difference between the calculations in different approximations occurs for $`5d_{3/2}`$ and $`5d_{5/2}`$ levels for $`Z`$ = 51 and 52 when $`5d4f`$ transition energies become very small and contributions from the second and third orders become very important. It should be noted that for some levels of neutral Ag and Ag-like ions with $`Z`$ = 48 and 49, $`\tau ^{(3)}`$ agrees better with $`\tau ^{(1)}`$ than with $`\tau ^{(2)}`$. The accuracy of lifetime measurements is not very high for Ag-like ions, and in some cases the lowest-order results $`\tau ^{(1)}`$, which are equivalent to the Dirac-Fock results of Cheng and Kim (1979) were enough to predict the lifetimes. The more sophisticated theoretical studies published recently in Refs. Chou and Johnson (1997); Martin et al. (1995) were restricted to $`5s5p`$ transitions and did not include wavelength data. In two last columns of Table 6, we compare our theoretical wavelengths, $`\lambda ^{(3)}`$ with experimental measurements, $`\lambda ^{\text{expt}}`$. In the cases where more than one transition is allowed, the wavelength of the dominant transition is given. We find good agreement, 0.01 - 1%, of our wavelength results with available experimental data for ions with $`Z>49`$.

## IV Conclusion

In summary, a systematic RMBPT study of the energies of $`5s_{1/2}`$, $`5p_{1/2}`$, $`5p_{3/2}`$, $`5d_{3/2}`$, $`5d_{5/2}`$, $`4f_{5/2}`$, $`4f_{7/2}`$, $`5f_{5/2}`$, $`5f_{7/2}`$, $`5g_{7/2}`$, and $`5g_{9/2}`$ states in Ag-like ions is presented. These energy calculations are found to be in good agreement with existing experimental energy data and provide a theoretical reference database for the line identification. A systematic relativistic RMBPT study of reduced matrix elements, line strengths, oscillator strengths, and transition rates for the 17 possible $`5s5p`$, $`5p5d`$, $`4f5d`$, and $`4f5g`$ electric-dipole transitions in Ag-like ions throughout the isoelectronic sequence up to $`Z=100`$ is conducted. Both length and velocity forms of matrix elements are evaluated. Small differences between length and velocity-form calculations, caused by the nonlocality of the DF potential, are found in second order. However, including third-order corrections with full RPA leads to complete agreement between the length- and velocity-form results.

We believe that our energies and transition rates will be useful in analyzing existing experimental data and planning new experiments. There remains a paucity of experimental data for many of the higher ionized members of this sequence, both for term energies and for transition probabilities and lifetimes.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work of W. R. J. and I. M. S. was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant No. PHY-01-39928. U.I.S. acknowledges partial support by Grant No. B516165 from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.


text:
# From Digital to Analogue Magnetoelectronics: Theory of Transport in Non-Collinear Magnetic Nanostructures

## 1 Introduction

The giant magnetoresistance, as well as most of the current magnetoelectronics, can be understood in terms of the transport of electrons in either spin-up or spin-down state, since the magnetizations are collinear (parallel or antiparallel) with the spin-quantization axis. Both charge and spin transport can be described in terms of two “channels” with spin-dependent conductivities, scattering rates etc. Maekawa . This “digital” magnetoelectronics does not profit from the “analogue” freedom of a magnetization to point in any direction. Early seminal contributions by Slonczewski Slon96  and Berger Berger96  revealed fundamentally new physics and technological possibilities of non-collinearity, which triggered a large number of experimental and theoretical studies. An important example is the non-equilibrium spin-current induced torque (briefly, spin torque) which one ferromagnet can exert on the magnetization vector of a second magnet through a normal metal in a biased spin valve structure. This torque can be large enough to dynamically turn magnetizations Tsoi98 , which is potentially interesting as a low-power switching mechanism for magnetic random access memories Inomata01 . Non-collinear magnetizations are also essential for novel magnetic devices like the spin-flip Brataas00 ; Xia02  and spin-torque transistors Bauer03 , detection of spin-precession Huertas00 , the Gilbert damping of the magnetization dynamics in thin magnetic films Tserkovnyak:prl02 , and spin-injection induced by ferromagnetic resonance Brataas02 .

We are interested in heterostructures containing band ferromagnets that are accurately described by a Stoner spin-density functional model. Elemental metals and its alloys have high electron densities and their thin-film heterostructures are usually considerably disordered. Size quantization effects on transport can therefore mostly be disregarded Suzuki02 . Semiclassical methods are appropriate in slowly varying bulk regions of the structures, but heterointerfaces can be atomically sharp and must be treated fully quantum mechanically. There are basically two methods which are suitable to understand and compute transport properties of these systems from first principles, viz. Green function theory with configurational averaging Rammer  and the scattering formalism for transport, combined with random matrix theory Beenakker . These two approaches have recently been extended to non-collinear magnetic structures, viz. magnetoelectronic circuit Brataas00  and random matrix theory Waintal00 . Here, as in Bauer02 , we show that both approaches are closely related, but do not hold for transparent interfaces. Following Schep’s Schep97  strategy for collinear systems, both theories can be generalized, leading to analytical results for perpendicular spin valves with parameters that can be obtained by ab initio band structure calculations, as well as determined quantitatively by experiments.

## 2 Boltzmann and Diffusion Equation

When a local non-equilibrium magnetization does not point in the direction of the spin-quantization axis, the distribution function for band states at the Fermi energy with index $`n`$ is a matrix in Pauli spin space

$$\widehat{f}_n\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)& f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\\ f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)& f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\end{array}\right)_n=f_n^c\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\widehat{1}+\widehat{𝝈}\mathbf{}\stackrel{}{f}_n^s\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right).$$
(1)
On the right hand side the distribution is expanded into unit matrix and the vector of the Pauli spin matrices. $`f_n^c`$ is charge accumulation and the spin accumulation $`\stackrel{}{f}_n^s`$ is a vector whose direction is always parallel to the magnetization vector $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ in the bulk of a ferromagnet, but arbitrary in a normal metal depending on device configuration and applied biases. $`\widehat{f}_n`$ can be diagonalized by unitary rotation matrices in spin space, characterized by the polar angles $`\theta `$ and $`\phi .`$ Let us assume for simplicity that these angles are piecewise constant in position space, thus disregarding magnetic domain walls Tatara  and magnetic field-induced spin precession in normal metals Huertas00 . In the local spin quantization frame the distribution function is diagonal with two spin components $`s=\pm 1`$. Introducing spin-conserving and spin-flip scattering life times $`\tau _s`$ and $`\tau _{s,s}^{\mathrm{sf}},`$ for the sake of argument taken to be state-independent, and separating the distribution into an isotropic electrochemical potential $`\mu _s`$ and an anisotropic term $`\gamma _{ns}`$ that vanishes when averaged over the Fermi surface, the Boltzmann equation for the stationary state reads VF

$$\stackrel{}{v}_{is}\stackrel{}{}\left(\gamma _{ns}+\mu _s\right)+\left(\frac{1}{\tau _s}+\frac{1}{\tau _{s,s}^{\mathrm{sf}}}\right)\gamma _{ns}=\frac{\mu _s\mu _s}{\tau _{s,s}^{\mathrm{sf}}}.$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}_{ns}`$ is the group velocity of state $`ns`$. Charge and spin currents read

$`j_c`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{hA}}{\displaystyle \underset{ns}{}}\stackrel{}{v}_{ns}\gamma _{ns},`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{}{j}_s`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi A}}{\displaystyle \underset{ns}{}}\stackrel{}{v}_{ns}s\gamma _{ns}.`$ (4)
The Boltzmann equation is still unnecessarily complicated for most realistic systems. In the presence of sufficient disorder, only the lowest harmonics of $`\gamma _{ns}`$ in reciprocal space survive. In that limit, the Boltzmann equation reduces to the diffusion equation

$$^2\left[\mu _s(\stackrel{}{r})\mu _s(\stackrel{}{r})\right]=\frac{\mu _s(\stackrel{}{r})\mu _s(\stackrel{}{r})}{\mathrm{}_{sd}^2}.$$
(5)
$`\mathrm{}_{sd}=\sqrt{D\tau ^{\mathrm{sf}}}`$ is the spin-flip diffusion length, which does not depend on spin index Filip . The spin-averaged diffusion coefficient $`D`$ can be written in terms of the density of states at the Fermi energy $`N_s\left(E_F\right)`$

$$\frac{1}{\left(N_{}\left(E_F\right)+N_{}\left(E_F\right)\right)D}=\frac{1}{N_{}\left(E_F\right)D_{}}+\frac{1}{N_{}\left(E_F\right)D_{}}.$$
(6)
in terms of the spin-dependent diffusion coefficients. In a simple two-band model $`D_s=v_s\tau _s/3`$, where $`v_s`$ are the spin-dependent Fermi velocities. The average spin-flip relaxation time is defined as

$$\frac{1}{\tau ^{\mathrm{sf}}}=\frac{1}{\tau _,^{\mathrm{sf}}}+\frac{1}{\tau _,^{\mathrm{sf}}}.$$
(7)
The currents

$$j_s(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{\sigma _s}{e}\stackrel{}{}\mu _s(\stackrel{}{r})$$
(8)
are governed by the spin-dependent conductivities

$$\sigma _s=N_s\left(E_F\right)e^2D_s.$$
(9)
## 3 Boundary Conditions

The semiclassical approach is valid when the potential landscape varies slowly on the scale of the Fermi wave length. In heterostructures we often encounter regions in which materials change on an atomic scale, such as at intermetallic interfaces or tunnel junctions, which have to be treated quantum mechanically. The “nodes” are the bulk regions, in which the semiclassical distributions are well defined. The intermediate scattering regions, or “contacts”, can then be treated formally exactly by boundary conditions, which link the distributions of two neighboring nodes.

Consider the spin valve structures in Fig. 1, which may be part of a larger circuit. We denote the distribution functions in the ferromagnetic terminals by subscripts $`L`$ end $`R`$. We explicitly allow for a drifting distribution by the superscript $`\alpha =\pm 1,`$ which indicates whether drift is in $`\left(\alpha =1\right)`$ or against $`\left(\alpha =1\right)`$ the transport direction (from left to right). Taking into account the difference between the left- and right-moving distribution functions is the key generalization of the previous theories in our treatment here. In Sec. 5 it is discussed how the circuit theory can be recovered be renormalizing the conductance parameters. Here we concentrate on scattering theory.

In order to work with simple matrices instead of diadics, we follow Waintal et al. Waintal00  and introduce the $`4\times 1`$ vector representation $`\left[\stackrel{}{f}_n^\alpha \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)\right]^T=(f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right),f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right),f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right),f_{}\left(\stackrel{}{r}\right))_n^\alpha `$. The boundary conditions for the non-equilibrium distributions to the left and right of the scattering region then read:

$`\stackrel{}{f}_{R,n}^+`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mϵL}{}}\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}\right)_{nm}\stackrel{}{f}_{L,m}^++{\displaystyle \underset{mϵR}{}}\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{RR}\right)_{nm}\stackrel{}{f}_{R,m}^{},`$ (10)
$`\stackrel{}{f}_{L,n}^{}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{mϵL}{}}\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{LL}\right)_{nm}\stackrel{}{f}_{L,m}^++{\displaystyle \underset{jϵR}{}}\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RL}\right)_{nm}\stackrel{}{f}_{R,m}^{}.`$ (11)
$`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}`$, $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}`$are $`4\times 4`$ transmission and reflection probability matrices and the subscripts indicate the direction of the currents ($`LR`$ denotes transmission from left to right, $`RR`$ reflection from the right, etc.). All matrix elements follow from the scattering matrix and are conveniently normalized, for example

$$\left[\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}\right)_{nm}\right]_{SS^{}}=\frac{1}{N_S^L}\left(\stackrel{}{t}_{nm}^{LR}\right)_S\left(\stackrel{}{t}_{nm}^{LR}\right)_S^{}^{}.$$
(12)
The transmission amplitudes, such as $`t_{ns,ms^{}}^{LR}`$ of a wave coming in from the left as mode $`m`$ and spin $`s^{}`$ and going out in mode $`n`$ and spin $`s,`$ are here collected in vectors $`\stackrel{}{t}_{nm}^{LR}=(t_{}^{LR},t_{}^{LR},t_{}^{LR},t_{}^{LR})_{nm}^T`$. We also have $`S[1,4]`$, $`N_S^L=N_{}^F\left(\delta _{S,1}+\delta _{S,2}\right)+N_{}^F\left(\delta _{S,3}+\delta _{S,4}\right),`$ where $`N_s^F`$ is the number of modes for spin $`s`$ in the ferromagnet.

In a nutshell, this is a very general formulation of charge and spin transport, but it is not yet amenable for analytic treatment or analysis of experiments. The isotropy assumption that reduced the Boltzmann to the diffusion equation in the previous chapter, enormously simplifies the results, as demonstrated in the following.

We focus here on the electrical charge current as a function of the magnetization configuration in symmetric spin valves, as in Fig. 1(b),(c), in order to keep the analytical manipulations manageable. We will see later that we can derive rules from these results that are valid for general structures. $`\widehat{T}`$ and $`\widehat{R}`$ are functions of the magnetic configuration, which, disregarding magnetic anisotropies, can be parameterized by a single polar angle $`\theta .`$ In first instance, we disregard spin-flip scattering and discuss later how it can be included. Integrating over the lateral coordinates leaves a position dependence only in the transport direction ($`x`$). The next step is the assumption that the distribution functions for incident electrons from the left and right are isotropic in space. The distribution functions for the outgoing electrons do not have to be isotropic, as long as they are subsequently scrambled in the nodes. The isotropy assumption may be invoked when the nodes are diffuse or chaotic, such that electrons are distributed equally over all states at the (spin-dependent) Fermi surfaces (which is equivalent to replacing state dependent scattering matrix elements by its average Schep97 ). The Fermi surface integration is then carried out easily, and the distribution functions within left and right ferromagnet nodes (at locations $`x_L`$ and $`x_R`$, respectively) are matched via simplified boundary conditions

$`\stackrel{}{f}^+\left(x_R\right)`$ $`=\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}\left(\theta \right)\stackrel{}{f}^+\left(x_L\right)+\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{RR}\left(\theta \right)\stackrel{}{f}^{}\left(x_R\right),`$ (13a)
$`\stackrel{}{f}^{}\left(x_L\right)`$ $`=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{LL}\left(\theta \right)\stackrel{}{f}^+\left(x_L\right)+\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{RL}\left(\theta \right)\stackrel{}{f}^{}\left(x_R\right),`$ (13b)
where the $`4\times 4`$ transmission and reflection probability matrices have elements like Waintal00 :
$$\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}\right]_{SS^{}}=\frac{1}{N_S^F}\underset{mn}{}\left(\stackrel{}{t}_{nm}^{RL}\right)_S\left(\stackrel{}{t}_{nm}^{RL}\right)_S^{}^{}.$$
(14)
In the coordinate systems defined by the magnetization directions, the transverse components of the spin accumulation in the ferromagnets vanish identically Brataas00 ; Zangwill  and the distributions in the magnets depend on the local spin current densities $`\gamma _s`$ and chemical potentials $`\mu _s`$ only

$$\stackrel{}{f}^\pm \left(x_{L/R}\right)=(\left(\pm \gamma _{}+\mu _{}\right)\left(x_{L/R}\right),0,0,\left(\pm \gamma _{}+\mu _{}\right)\left(x_{L/R}\right)).$$
(15)
By this choice the explicit angle-dependence of transport is contained only in the matrices.

We can now link an arbitrary distribution on the left to compute the distributions on the right, subject to the constraint of charge current conservation. Here we focus on the simple case in which we apply a bias

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\underset{s}{}\left(\mu _s\left(x_L\right)\mu _s\left(x_R\right)\right),$$
(16)
but no spin accumulation gradient $`\mu _s\left(x_L\right)\mu _s\left(x_L\right)=\mu _s\left(x_R\right)\mu _s\left(x_R\right)`$ over the system. We then find that $`\gamma _s\left(x_L\right)=\gamma _s\left(x_R\right),`$ i.e. the spin current component parallel to the magnetization on left and right ferromagnets are the same. The charge current

$$I_c=\frac{e^2}{h}\underset{s}{}N_s^F\gamma _s$$
(17)
divided by the chemical potential drop is the electrical conductance $`G=I_c/\mathrm{\Delta }\mu `$. Eqs. (13,15) then lead to

$$G=\frac{2e^2}{h}\underset{\begin{array}{c}S=1,4\\ S^{}=1,4\end{array}}{}\left\{N_S^F\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{1}\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}+\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{RR}\right]^1\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{LR}\right\}_{SS^{}}.$$
(18)
When the transparency is small, all transmission probabilities are close to zero, reflection probabilities are close to unity, and the Landauer-Büttiker conductance, starting point of Waintal00 , is recovered:

$$G\frac{e^2}{h}\underset{\begin{array}{c}S=1,4\\ S^{}=1,4\end{array}}{}\left\{N_S^F\widehat{T}\left(\theta \right)\right\}_{SS^{}}.$$
(19)
Indeed, in this limit the distributions to the left and right are not perturbed by the current, the nodes are genuine reservoirs, and standard scattering theory applies. Also, when $`\theta =0,\pi ,`$ Eq. (18) is equivalent to results by Schep et al. Schep97  for the two-channel model.

The scattering region is still not specified and may be interacting and/or quantum coherent. We now discuss how analytical results can be obtained in the non-interacting, diffuse limit.

## 4 Semiclassical Concatenation

The scattering matrix of a composite system can be formulated as concatenations of the scattering matrix from separate elements, e.g.. the scattering matrices of bulk layers and interfaces Datta . By assuming isotropy, i.e. sufficient disorder or chaotic scattering, Waintal et al. Waintal00  proved by averaging over random scattering matrices that size quantization effects like the equilibrium exchange coupling or other phase coherent phenomena are destroyed by disorder and vanish like the inverse of the number of modes. Under these conditions we are free to define nodes in the interior of the device and link them via the boundary conditions (13). This is equivalent to composing the total transport probability matrices in Eq. (18) in terms of those of individual elements by semiclassical concatenation rules Shapiro . The $`4\times 4`$ transmission probability matrix through a F$`\left(0\right)`$/N/F$`\left(\theta \right)`$ double heterojunction as in Fig. 1 in which bulk scattering is absent, takes the form

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{T}\left(\theta \right)\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{F}}\left(\theta \right)\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{1}\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{N}}\left(0\right)\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{N}}\left(\theta \right)\right]^1\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{\mathrm{F}\mathrm{N}}\left(0\right),$$
(20)
where the interface transmission and reflection matrices as a function of magnetization angle appear. The transformations needed to obtain $`\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{F}}\left(\theta \right)`$ and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}_{\mathrm{N}\mathrm{N}}\left(\theta \right)`$ require some attention. In terms of the spin-rotation

$$\widehat{U}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2& \mathrm{sin}\theta /2\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta /2& \mathrm{cos}\theta /2\end{array}\right)$$
(21)
and projection matrices $`\left(s=\pm 1\right)`$

$$\widehat{u}_s\left(\theta \right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1+s\mathrm{cos}\theta & s\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ s\mathrm{sin}\theta & 1s\mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right),$$
(22)
the interface scattering coefficients (omitting the mode indices for simplicity) are transformed as follows Brataas00

$`\widehat{r}_{NN}`$ $`=\widehat{U}\widehat{r}_{cN}\widehat{U}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\widehat{u}_sr_s^{cN},`$ (23)
$`t_{ss^{}}^{FN}`$ $`=U_{ss^{}}t_s^{}^{cF},`$ (24)
$`t_{ss^{}}^{NF}`$ $`=t_s^{cN}U_{ss^{}}^{},`$ (25)
$`r_{ss^{}}^{FF}`$ $`=r_s^{cF}\delta _{ss^{}}.`$ (26)
The superscript $`c`$ indicates that the matrices should be evaluated in the reference frame of the local magnetization, and are thus diagonal in the absence of spin-flip relaxation scattering at the interfaces. Different transformation properties for the different elements of the scattering matrix derive from our choice to use local spin-coordinate systems that may differ for each magnet. Let us, for example, inspect a transmission matrix element from the normal metal into the ferromagnet with magnetization rotated by $`\theta `$

$$\left[\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_{NF}\left(\theta \right)\right]_{11}=\frac{1}{N_{}^F}\underset{mn}{}t_{nm}^{RL}\left(t_{nm}^{RL}\right)^{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\frac{1}{N_{}^F}\underset{mn}{}\left|t_{nm}^{cN}\right|^2$$
(27)
and analogously for the other matrix elements as well as other matrices.

Transport through a more complex system can be treated by repeated concatenation of two scattering elements in terms of reflection and transmission matrices analogous to Eq. (20). In the presence of significant bulk scattering, we can represent a disordered metal $`B`$ with thickness $`d_B`$ by diagonal matrices like Schep97 ; Waintal00

$$\left(\stackrel{ˇ}{T}_B\right)_{SS^{}}=\left(1+\frac{1}{N_s^B}+\frac{e^2}{h}\frac{\rho _s^Bd_B}{A_B}\right)^1\delta _{SS^{}},$$
(28)
where $`\rho _s^B,`$ $`A_B`$ are the single-spin bulk resistivities and cross section of the bulk metal (normal or magnetic).

The *interface* parameters of the present theory are the spin-dependent Landauer-Büttiker conductances

$$g_s=\underset{lm}{}\left|t_{lm,s}^{cN}\right|^2=N_N\underset{lm}{}\left|r_{lm,s}^{cN}\right|^2=\underset{lm}{}\left|t_{lm,s}^{cF}\right|^2=N_S^F\underset{lm}{}\left|r_{lm,s}^{cF}\right|^2$$
(29)
and the real and imaginary part of the spin-mixing conductance

$$g_{ss}=N_N\underset{lm}{}r_{lm,s}^{cN}\left(r_{lm,s}^{cN}\right)^{},$$

which can also be represented in terms of the total conductance $`g=g_{}+g_{},`$ polarization $`p=\left(g_{}g_{}\right)/g,`$ and relative mixing conductance $`\eta =2g_{}/g.`$

The actual concatenation of the $`4\times 4`$ matrices defined here is rather complicated even when using symbolic programming routines. This explains why in Waintal00  analytic results were obtained only in special limiting cases. We found that final results are simple even in the most general cases, not only for Eq. (19) considered by Waintal00 , but also for Eq. (18). For the spin valves in Fig. 1, we find for the conductance as a function of angle

$$G\left(\theta \right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}}{2}\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}^2}{1+\frac{\left|\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right|^2}{\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\right),$$
(30)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=2\stackrel{~}{g}_{}/\stackrel{~}{g}`$and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}_s}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_s}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _{F,s}d_F}{2A_F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _Nd_N}{2A_F}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_s^F}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_N}}\right)`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{g}_{}}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _Nd_N}{2A_N}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_N}}.`$ (32)
Equation (30) is identical to the angular magnetoresistance derived by circuit theory Brataas00  after replacement of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_s`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}`$ by $`g_s`$ and $`g_{}.`$ Physically, in Eqs. (31,32) spurious Sharvin resistances are substracted from the interface resistances obtained by scattering theory, whereas bulk resistances are added. These corrections are large for transparent interfaces and essential to obtain agreement between experimental results of transport experiments in CPP (current perpendicular to plane) multilayers Pratt1 ; Gijs ; GMRREV  and first-principles calculations, for conventional Schep97 ; Stiles00 ; Xia01  as well as mixing conductances Xia02 . The mixing conductance parameterizes the magnetization torque due to a spin accumulation in the normal metal, governed by the reflection of electrons from the normal metal. It is therefore natural that the mixing conductance is reduced by the bulk resistance of the normal metal and we can also understand that only the normal metal Sharvin resistance has to be substracted. The real part of the mixing conductances is often close to the number of modes in the normal metal $`g_{}N_N`$, in which case $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{}N_N/2`$ Tserkovnyak02 . By letting $`N_s^F\mathrm{}`$ we are in the regime of Waintal00 . The circuit theory is recovered when, additionally, $`N_N\mathrm{}.`$ The bare mixing conductance is bounded not only from below $`\mathrm{Re}g_{}g/2`$ Brataas00 , but also from above $`\left|g_{}\right|^2/\mathrm{Re}g_{}2N_N.`$

## 5 Extended Circuit Theory

It is not obvious how these results should be generalized to more complicated circuits and devices as well as to the presence of spin-flip scattering in the normal metal. The magnetoelectronic circuit theory Brataas00  does not suffer from these drawbacks. Originally, it was assumed in Ref. Brataas00  that local spin and charge currents through the contacts only depend on the generalized potential differences, and the local node chemical potentials are obtained by a spin-generalization of the Kirchhoff laws of electrical circuits. This is valid only for highly resistive contacts, such that the in and outgoing currents do not significantly disturb the quasi-equilibrium distribution of the nodes. Fortunately we are able to relax this limitation and take into account a drift term in the nodes as well. In order to demonstrate this, we construct the fictitious circuit depicted in Fig. 2.

Consider a junction that in conventional circuit theory is characterized by a matrix conductance $`\widehat{g}`$, leading to a matrix current $`\widehat{ı}`$ when the normal and ferromagnetic distributions $`\widehat{f}_L`$ and $`\widehat{f}_R`$ are not equal. When the distributions of the nodes are isotropic, we know from circuit theory that

$$\widehat{ı}=\underset{ss^{}}{}\left(\widehat{g}\right)_{ss^{}}\widehat{u}_s\left(\widehat{f}_L\widehat{f}_R\right)\widehat{u}_s^{},$$
(33)
where the projection matrices $`\widehat{u}_s`$ are defined in Eq. (22) and $`(\widehat{g})_{ss}=g_s,`$ $`(\widehat{g})_{s,s}=`$$`g_{s,s}`$. Introducing lead conductances, which modify the distributions $`\widehat{f}_L\widehat{f}_1`$ and $`\widehat{f}_2\widehat{f}_R,`$ respectively, we may define a (renormalized) conductance matrix $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$, which causes an identical current $`\widehat{ı}`$ for the reduced (matrix) potential drop:

$$\widehat{ı}=\underset{ss^{}}{}\left(\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}\right)_{ss^{}}\widehat{u}_s\left(\widehat{f}_1\widehat{f}_2\right)\widehat{u}_s^{}.$$
(34)
When the lead conductances are now chosen to be twice the Sharvin conductances, and using (matrix) current conservation

$`\widehat{ı}`$ $`=2N_N\left(\widehat{f}_L\widehat{f}_1\right)`$ (35)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}2N_s^F\widehat{u}_s\left(\widehat{f}_2\widehat{f}_R\right)\widehat{u}_s,`$ (36)
straightforward matrix algebra leads to the result that the elements of $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ are identical to the renormalized interface conductances found above \[Eqs. (31,32) without the bulk resistivities\]. By replacing $`\widehat{g}`$ by $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{g}}`$ we not only recover results for the spin valve obtained above, but we can now use the renormalized parameters also for circuits with arbitrary complexity and transparency of the contacts. Also spin-flip scattering in $`N`$ can now also be included Brataas00 ; it does not affect the form of Eq. (37) either, but only reduces the parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }.`$ Other effects of the spin-flip scattering are discussed in detail by Kovalev et al. Kovalev02 .

## 6 Applications

Intermetallic interfaces in a diffuse environment (see Fig. 1c) have been studied thoroughly by the Michigan State University collaboration Pratt1  and others Gijs ; GMRREV  in perpendicular (CPP) spin valves. These experiments provided a large body of evidence for the two-channel (i.e. spin-up and spin-down) series resistor model and a wealth of accurate transport parameters such as the spin-dependent interface resistances for various material combinations Schep97 ; GMRREV ; Stiles00 ; Xia01 . In exchange-biased spin valves, it is possible to measure the electric resistance as a function of the angle between magnetizations, which has been analyzed experimentally and theoretically Dauguet:prb96 ; Vedyayev . Pratt c.s. observed that experimental magnetoresistance curves Giacomo  could accurately be fitted by the form Brataas00

$$\frac{R\left(\theta \right)R\left(0\right)}{R\left(\pi \right)R\left(0\right)}=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\theta }{\chi \left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)+2}$$
(37)
According to the new insights described above, the free parameter $`\chi `$ is a function of renormalized microscopic parameters

$$\chi =\frac{1}{1\stackrel{~}{p}^2}\frac{\left|\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right|^2}{\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }}1$$
(38)
in terms of the relative mixing conductance $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=2\stackrel{~}{g}_{}/\stackrel{~}{g}`$, the polarization $`\stackrel{~}{p}=\left(\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\stackrel{~}{g}_{}\right)/\stackrel{~}{g}`$, and the average conductance $`\stackrel{~}{g}=\stackrel{~}{g}_{}+\stackrel{~}{g}_{}`$.

Experimental values for the parameters for Cu/Permalloy (Py) spin valves are $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=1.2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}=0.6`$ Giacomo . Disregarding a very small imaginary component of the mixing conductance Xia02 , using the known values for the bulk resistivities, the theoretical Sharvin conductance for Cu ($`0.5510^{15}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{m}^2`$/spin Schep97 ), and the spin-flip length of Py as the effective thickness of the ferromagnet $`\left(\mathrm{}_{sd}^F=5\text{ nm}\text{Pratt1}\right)`$, we arrive at the bare Cu/Py interface mixing conductance $`G_{}=0.39\left(3\right)10^{15}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{m}^2`$. This value may be compared with the calculated mixing conductance for a disordered Co/Cu interface ($`0.5510^{15}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{m}`$ Xia02 ). The agreement is reasonable, but leaves some room for material and device dependence that deserves to be investigated in the future. The mixing conductance can also be determined from the excess broadening of ferromagnetic resonance spectra. A larger mixing conductance in Pt/Py can be explained by the larger density of conduction electrons in Pt compared to Cu Tserkovnyak02 . Reasonable agreement between experiment and theory has been also found by Zwierzycki et al. Zwierzycki  for Fe/Au multilayers.

The spin torque on a ferromagnet Slon96 ; Waintal00  equals the spin current through the interface with vector component normal to the magnetization direction and its evaluation is closely related to the charge conductance Brataas00 ; Waintal00 . An analytical expression for the spin valve reads:

$$L\left(\theta \right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{p}\frac{\left|\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right|^2}{\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\mathrm{sin}\theta }{1\mathrm{cos}\theta +\frac{\left|\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right|^2}{\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }}\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{8\pi }$$
(39)
Note that here the imaginary part of the mixing conductance is taken into account explicitly, but the torque remains coplanar to the magnetization of the contacts, i.e. an out-of-plane “effective” field vanishes identically. Previous results Slon96 ; Waintal00  are recovered in the limit that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}1.`$ By the generalized circuit theory it is now straightforward to compute the torque on the base contact of the spin-flip transistor with antiparallel source-drain magnetizations Xia02 . Let us assume that the three contacts are identical, and the base contact magnetization lies in the plane of the source and drain magnetizations. Assuming that we may disregard spin-flip scattering in the base contact, the in-plane torque $`L_b`$ turns out to be always larger than the spin valve torque $`L`$ in the two-terminal spin valve, Eq. (39), with a symmetric and flatter dependence on the angle of the base magnetization direction $`\theta `$ (see Fig. 3)

$$L_b\left(\theta \right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{p}\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }\mathrm{sin}\theta }{\left(1\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)\mathrm{cos}^2\theta +\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }+\frac{6}{2+\left|\eta \right|^2/\left(\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }\right)^2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mu }{4\pi }.$$
(40)
In the presence of a significant imaginary part of the mixing conductance, we also find an out-of-plane (effective field) torque $`L_{}\left(\theta \right)`$ with the same angular dependence and

$$\frac{L_{}}{L_b}=2\frac{\mathrm{Im}\stackrel{~}{\eta }\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }}{\left|\eta \right|^2+2\mathrm{Re}\stackrel{~}{\eta }}.$$
(41)
Stiles and Zangwill Stiles02  directly solved the Boltzmann equation for spin valves to obtain angular magnetoresistance and spin torque, approximating the mixing conductance by the number of modes (note that in a direct solution of the Boltzmann equation this parameters should not be renormalized). The numerical results agree well with the functional form (37) (M.D. Stiles, private communication). This function has been also derived by Slonczewski Sloncamr  and later by Shpiro et al. Shpiro . Sloncewski rederived this result with a simple circuit theory similar to that of Brataas00  and also pointed out the relation between the angular magnetoresistance and the spin torque. Shpiro et al. Shpiro  found the form (37) to be valid in the limit of vanishing exchange splitting, thus in a regime different from the transition metal ferromagnets considered here Zangwill .

## 7 Conclusions

We reported analytical results for the angular magnetoresistance of arbitrary spin valves, which, by comparison with experiments Giacomo , leads to a value for the mixing conductance and spin torque for the Cu/Py interface of $`G_{}=0.39\left(3\right)10^{15}\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{m}^2.`$ The associated generalization of magnetoelectronic circuit theory opens the way to engineer materials and device configurations to optimize switching properties of magnetic random access memories. Mixing conductances determined by experiments or first principles theory are transferable to arbitrary devices and may be used for static as well as dynamic transport properties. The spin-dependent interface resistances determined by CPP-GMR transport experiments have played an important role in understanding “digital magnetoelectronics”. We hope that the spin-mixing conductances will play a comparable role in “analogue magnetoelectronics”.

Acknowledgements We profited from discussions with Bart van Wees, Paul Kelly, Alex Kovalev, and Yuli Nazarov, and have been supported by FOM, NSF Grant DMR 02-33773 and the NEDO joint research program “Nano-Scale Magnetoelectronics”.


text:
# About an alternative distribution function for fractional exclusion statistics

## Abstract

We show that it is possible to replace the actual implicit distribution function of the fractional exclusion statistics by an explicit one whose form does not change with the parameter $`\alpha `$. This alternative simpler distribution function given by a generalization of Pauli exclusion principle from the level of the maximal occupation number is not completely equivalent to the distributions obtained from the level of state number counting of the fractional exclusion particles. Our result shows that the two distributions are equivalent for weakly bosonized fermions ($`\alpha >>0`$) at not very high temperatures.

PACS : 05.30.-d,05.30.Pr,05.20.-y

The principle of the fractional exclusion statistics (FES) was for the first time proposed about 60 years ago by Gentile who suggested an intermediate maximum occupation number changing from 1 (for fermions) to $`\mathrm{}`$ (for bosons). This idea was later recognized and developed in the study of anyons and quasi-particle excitations for some low dimensional systems relevant to fractional quantum Hall effect and to superconductivity.

Years ago, the study in this direction gets a new dimension by the consideration of the influence of interactions on the number $`d`$ of one particle state. The starting point is the assumption that the variation of the number of states $`d_i`$ of a single particle energy level $`i`$ is proportional to the variation of the number of particles $`N_i`$ occupying the level, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Delta }d_i=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }N_i`$ in a simple case without mutual statistics. Then by a state counting procedure on the basis of the assumption $`d_i=G_i\alpha (N_i1)`$ for “bosons” or $`d_i=G_i(1\alpha )(N_i1)`$ for “fermions”, one finds the number of quantum states $`W`$ ($`W_b=\frac{[d_i+(N_i1)]!}{N_i![d_i1]!}`$ for “bosons” or $`W_f=\frac{[d_i]!}{N_i![d_iN_i]!}`$ for fermions) of $`N_i`$ particles distributed in the $`G_i`$ one particle states : $`W_i=\frac{[G_i+(N_i1)(1\alpha )]!}{N_i![G_i\alpha N_i(1\alpha )]!}`$ interpolating between $`W_b`$ ($`\alpha =0`$) and $`W_f`$ ($`\alpha =1`$). Here $`G_i`$ can be considered as the number of one particle states for ideal case. The total number of a system of $`N`$ particles and $`\omega `$ levels is then $`W=_{i=1}^\omega W_i`$.

These generalized bosons or fermions can then be treated as ideal boson gas as usual under the additivity conditions of $`E=_iN_ie_i`$ and $`N=_iN_i`$ where $`E`$ is the total energy of the system of $`N`$ particles and $`e_i`$ is the energy of one particle level $`i`$. The most probable distribution is given by the average occupation number $`n_i=N_i/G_i`$, i.e.

$$n_i=\frac{1}{f(e^{\beta (e_i\mu )})+\alpha }$$
(1)
where $`f(x)`$ is a function satisfying

$$f^\alpha (x)(1+f(x))^{1\alpha }=x$$
(2)
and $`\alpha `$ varies between $`0\alpha 1`$. The reader can find in Figure 1 this distribution (full lines) for different $`\alpha `$ values. The constant $`\alpha `$ turns out to be the inverse maximum occupation number ($`1/\alpha `$) of these fermionized bosons or bosonized fermions. The exclusion principle of Pauli ($`\alpha =0`$ or 1) has been generalized here.

The functional form of Eq.(1) depends on the value of $`\alpha `$. Eq.(1) and Eq.(2) do not necessarily have explicit solutions for any $`\alpha `$. In a previous paper, by avoiding the state counting procedure and using an usual method to calculate the grand partition function, we proposed a simpler, explicit fractional distribution which seemed identical to Eq.(1) but whose functional form did not change with $`\alpha `$.

The purpose of the present letter is to describe the method giving the alternative fractional distribution and to provide a detailed analysis of the relationship between the two fractional exclusion distributions. The reader will find that this approach does not need the two different generalizations $`d_i`$’s for “bosons” and “fermions”. It is only supposed that the quasi-particles obey the fractional exclusion principle, i.e. the maximal number of particles $`n_m`$ at a state may be different from 1 (fermions) or $`\mathrm{}`$ (bosons). In average, $`n_m<1`$ may also make sense, so we propose $`0<n_m<\mathrm{}`$.

According to the hypothesis of the fractional ideal gas, the $`N`$ quasi-particles should be described by Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics. So that the grand partition function can be given by (let $`n_i=N_i`$ for the moment) :

$$Z=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\{n_i\}_N}{}e^{\beta _in_i(e_i\mu )}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\{n_i\}_N}{}\underset{i}{}[e^{\beta (e_i\mu )}]^{n_i}$$
(3)
where $`\{n_i\}_N`$ signifies all the possible sets $`\{n_i\}`$ obeying $`N=_in_i`$ for a given $`N`$. The summations in Eq.(3) are equivalent to

$$Z=\underset{i}{}\underset{n_i=0}{\overset{n_m}{}}[e^{\beta (e_i\mu )}]^{n_i}$$
(4)
The summation over $`n_i`$ is a geometric progression whose result is given by

$$Z=\underset{i}{}\frac{1e^{(1+n_m)\beta (e_i\mu )}}{1e^{\beta (e_i\mu )}}.$$
(5)
Then as usual, the average occupation number $`n`$ of an one-particle state of energy $`e`$ is calculated via the grand potential $`\mathrm{\Omega }=kT\mathrm{ln}Z`$ as follows

$$n=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{e}=kT\frac{(\mathrm{ln}Z)}{e}=\frac{1}{e^{\beta (e\mu )}1}\frac{\frac{1+\alpha }{\alpha }}{e^{\frac{1+\alpha }{\alpha }\beta (e\mu )}1}$$
(6)
which recovers the standard boson distribution if $`\alpha =0`$ and the fermion distribution if $`\alpha =1`$. Note that here we have put $`n_m=1/\alpha `$ according to the result of Eq.(1) that $`1/\alpha `$ is the maximal occupation number.

Figure 1 presents a comparison of Eq.(6) with Eq.(1). Surprisingly, at low temperature, Eq.(6) (symbols) perfectly reproduces the distribution (full lines) given by Eq.(1). On the other hand, a small difference can be seen at higher temperatures. This difference will be analyzed with the Fermi energies of the two distributions.

With Eq.(6), it is straightforward to show that, if $`T=0`$, $`n=1/\alpha `$, $`n=1/2\alpha `$ and $`n=0`$ for $`e<\mu `$, $`e=\mu `$ and $`e>\mu `$, respectively. So the “Fermi energy ($`e_f^0`$)” at $`T=0`$ can be identified to $`\mu `$. For a 2-dimensional gas, $`e_f^0=\alpha \frac{h^2N}{2\pi mV}`$ where $`m`$ is the mass of the particle and $`V`$ the volume of the system. When $`T0`$, $`e_f`$ is determined by

$$(e^{\frac{1+\alpha }{\alpha }\frac{e_f}{kT}}1)/(e^{\frac{e_f}{kT}}1)=e^{\frac{e_f^0}{kT}}$$
(7)
which is plotted (symbols) versus temperature in Figure 2 in comparison with the Fermi energy (full lines) given by Eq.(1)

$$e^{\frac{e_f}{kT}}=e^{\frac{e_f^0}{kT}}e^{\frac{1\alpha }{\alpha }\frac{e_f^0}{kT}}$$
(8)
Note that in Figure 2 the particle density $`N/V`$ is chosen to give $`e_f^0=1`$ eV when $`\alpha =1`$ (usual ideal fermions).

At low temperatures, there is no significant difference between the two Fermi-energies. But at very high temperatures up to several K, important difference is observed for $`\alpha `$ very different from 0 and unity. This difference is studied in Figure 3 through the relative difference ($`R`$) between the two Fermi energies, where $`R=\frac{e_f^We_f^p}{\sqrt{e_f^We_f^p}}`$, $`e_f^W`$ and $`e_f^p`$ are the Fermi energy given by Eq.(8) (lines) and that given by the present work in Eq.(7) (symbols), respectively. For sufficiently large $`\alpha `$, $`R`$ is very small up to high temperature. On the other hand, for small $`\alpha `$, $`R`$ may diverge at temperatures at which $`e_f^W`$ or $`e_f^p`$ tends to zero.

In summery, a major result of this work is to provide an analysis of the relationship between two possible distribution functions for fractional exclusion particles in the Haldane-Wu’s sense. The first was obtained by Wu through state counting and maximum entropy procedure on the basis of Haldane hypothesis $`\mathrm{\Delta }d=\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }N`$. The second via the grand partition function calculated by supposing $`n_{max}=1/\alpha `$ for the maximal occupation number. From the point of view of the fractional Pauli exclusion principle, one would expect that these two approaches should be equivalent. In fact, at temperatures up to ambiant ones, there is no significant difference between these two distributions. However, for very small $`\alpha `$ (weakly fermionized bosons) or very high temperatures, one should be careful because the relative difference between the two Fermi energies may diverge at some temperatures. We hope that the explicit FES distribution function of present work may be helpful for some calculations and applications.

It is worth noticing that the difference between the distributions Eq.(1) and Eq.(6) means that the generalization of Pauli exclusion principle at the level of state number counting as described briefly at the beginning of this letter may be different from that at the level of maximal occupation number à la Gentile as described in this paper. This is a major conclusion of the present work.


text:
# Probe-configuration dependent dephasing in a mesoscopic interferometer

(April 1, 2003)

## Abstract

Dephasing in a ballistic four-terminal Aharonov-Bohm geometry due to charge and voltage fluctuations is investigated. Treating two terminals as voltage probes, we find a strong dependence of the dephasing rate on the probe configuration in agreement with a recent experiment by Kobayashi et al. (J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71, 2094 (2002)). Voltage fluctuations in the measurement circuit are shown to be the source of the configuration dependence.

Recently, Kobayashi et al. kobayashi  measured the reduction of the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect ab  in a ballistic four-terminal ring due to decoherence and thermal averaging. Not only was the visibility of the AB-oscillations found to be much larger in the non-local configuration (see Fig.(1)), but also decoherence was observed to be considerably weaker than in the local configuration (see Fig.(1)). That the external measurement circuit can strongly influence the physical properties of a mesoscopic conductor has been shown for a variety of problems ranging from dephasing in disordered conductors aak  to Coulomb blockade devoret  or the higher moments of the noise in a tunnel junction beenakker . However, to our knowledge the experiment of Kobayashi et al. kobayashi  provides the first experimental evidence of such a striking dependence of the coherence properties of open mesoscopic conductors on the measurement configuration. The purpose of this letter is to provide a theoretical explanation of this phenomenon.

In the experiment of Ref. kobayashi , the decoherence rate was extracted from a measurement of the four-terminal resistance $`R_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$. The two contacts $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are voltage biased and monitored by an ampmeter while the two contacts $`\gamma ,\delta `$ are connected to a voltmeter. In mesoscopic transport, the four-probe character of resistance measurements markus\_four\_term  becomes apparent if the probes are within a coherence volume of the sample webb . A resistance measurement is termed local if the voltage probes are along the current path and is termed non-local if the voltage probes are far from the current path. For the conductor shown in Fig. (1), $`R_{14,23}`$ is a local resistance, whereas $`R_{12,34}`$ is an example of a non-local resistance. We emphasize that the sample is the same, independent of the resistance measured: what changes is how the sample is connected to the current source and to the voltmeter.

AB oscillations are the result of quantum interference from electrons travelling through the two arms of the ring. In ballistic mesoscopic rings these oscillations can be larger than 50% of the total current amplitude kobayashi ; kayser ; ji , and their decay is a measure of decoherence in the system (once thermal averaging is taken into account). Experimental investigations casse ; hansen  found a linear temperature dependence of the dephasing rate hansen . A theoretical explanation, starting from fluctuating electrostatic potentials in the ring, is given in Ref. seelig . Similar results for the temperature dependence of the dephasing rate, both experimental bird ; clarke  and theoretical takane , have been obtained previously for chaotic quantum dots. Here, we are concerned with another feature of the dephasing rate, namely its probe configuration dependence kobayashi .

First, we illustrate our approach for a (reflectionless) electronic Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) seelig . In a second step, we consider interferometers with backscattering at the intersections. In both cases, the arms of the ring are treated as perfect one-channel leads that can be charged up relative to nearby side-gates via the capacitances $`C_A`$ and $`C_B`$. The setup is sketched in Fig. (1). For the MZI, the intersections are described as reflectionless beam splitters (see inset in Fig. (2)) with a scattering matrix

$$𝐒_B=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 𝐬\hfill \\ 𝐬\hfill & 0\hfill \end{array}\right),𝐬=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{𝒯}& i\sqrt{1𝒯}\\ i\sqrt{1𝒯}& \sqrt{𝒯}\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Here, $`\sqrt{𝒯}`$ is the amplitude for going straight through the intersection and $`i\sqrt{1𝒯}`$ the amplitude for being deflected. Due to the absence of backscattering, the MZI does not exhibit closed electronic trajectories.

Electron-electron interactions give rise to fluctuations of the internal potentials $`U_i(t)`$ ($`i=A,B`$). In the presence of interactions, the dimensionless conductance $`G_{13}`$ relating current at contact 1 to a voltage applied to contact 3 is seelig

$$G_{13}=T_{13}=2𝒯(1𝒯)\left[1+\mathrm{e}^{\tau \mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }\mathrm{cos}\left(2\pi \mathrm{\Phi }\right)\right].$$
(2)
Here, $`T_{13}`$ is the transmission probability, $`\tau =L/v_F`$ is the traversal time, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the magnetic flux through the ring (in units of the flux quantum) and we have taken equal arm lengths in the ring, $`L_A=L_B=L`$. The angular brackets denote an average over the potential fluctuations in the ring thermal . In the limit of classical Nyquist noise, the decoherence rate

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi =\frac{e^2}{2\mathrm{}^2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(0)$$
(3)
is then proportional to the spectral function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(0)`$ of the potential difference $`U(t)=U_A(t)U_B(t)`$ in the zero-frequency limit. If all four contacts are connected to a zero-impedance external circuit kept at constant voltage, the rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ of dephasing due to (small energy transfer) electron-electron scattering is

$$\gamma _\varphi ^0=\frac{2kTe^2}{\mathrm{}^2}\left(\frac{C_\mu }{C}\right)^2R_q.$$
(4)
Here, $`T`$ is the temperature, $`R_q=h/(4e^2)`$ is the charge relaxation resistance and the electrochemical capacitance $`C_\mu ^1=C^1+(e^2D)^1`$ is the series combination of the geometrical capacitance and the density of states ap1 . We assumed $`C_A=C_B=C`$.

In the experiment of Ref. kobayashi , two probes are connected to a voltmeter which ideally has infinite impedance. The voltage at a lead connected to the voltmeter fluctuates to maintain zero net current. These voltage fluctuations give rise to fluctuations of the internal potentials which in turn leads to additional dephasing. For the interferometer shown in Fig. (1), this new contribution to the dephasing rate turns out to depend strongly on the probe configuration. For the dephasing rates in the local ($`l`$) and non-local ($`\mathrm{𝑛𝑙}`$) configuration we obtain respectively,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^l=\gamma _\varphi ^0+\gamma _\varphi ^l,`$ $`\gamma _\varphi ^l=\gamma _\varphi ^0{\displaystyle \frac{(2𝒯1)^2}{2𝒯(1𝒯)+T_0}},`$ (5a)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{nl}=\gamma _\varphi ^0+\gamma _\varphi ^{nl},`$ $`\gamma _\varphi ^{nl}=\gamma _\varphi ^0{\displaystyle \frac{(2𝒯1)^2}{1+2T_0}}.`$ (5b)
Here, $`\gamma _\varphi ^l`$ and $`\gamma _\varphi ^{nl}`$ are the probe-configuration specific contributions. The experiment of Ref. kobayashi  shows transmission between neighboring contacts to be significant. For better comparison, we therefore included a finite incoherent transmission $`T_0=T_{12}=T_{21}=T_{34}=T_{43}`$ (see Fig. (2)).

The results for the dephasing rates are strongly dependent on the symmetry of the interferometer. In the symmetric case ($`𝒯=1/2`$) the contribution to the dephasing rate due to voltage fluctuations vanishes for both measurement configurations.

Away from the symmetry point, $`𝒯=1/2`$, the local and non-local decoherence rate differ strongly pilgram . A local decoherence rate several times larger than the non-local one can easily be obtained for small enough $`T_0`$. The ratio of the decoherence rates for the two probe configurations is shown in Fig. (2) as a function of the transmission probability $`𝒯`$.

To derive the results presented in Eqs. (5a) and (5b), we need to know the spectral function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(0)`$ for the two different probe configurations. To start with, we want to express the Fourier transform $`\mathrm{\Delta }U(\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }U_A(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }U_B(\omega )`$ of the fluctuations of the internal potential operator through the operators for the bare charge $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i^b(\omega )`$ ($`i=A,B`$) and current $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha ^b(\omega )`$ ($`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},4`$) fluctuations in the sample. For these quantities it is known how to calculate the spectral functions. The notation $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒪=𝒪𝒪`$ denotes deviations of an operator $`𝒪`$ from its expectation value. There are two independent equations relating charge and potential fluctuations, namely,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i=C\mathrm{\Delta }U_i=\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i^be^2D\mathrm{\Delta }U_i+e^2\underset{\alpha }{}D_\alpha ^{(i)}\mathrm{\Delta }V_\alpha .$$
(6)
Here, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i^b(\omega )`$ are the charge fluctuations at constant voltage and internal potential and $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_\alpha `$ are the voltage fluctuations at contact $`\alpha `$. The response to a change in the applied voltage at contact $`\alpha `$ is determined by the average injectivity $`D_\alpha ^{(i)}(\omega )=D_{\alpha \alpha }^{(i)}(\omega )=Q_i/e^2V_\alpha `$. The term with the negative sign in Eq. (6) is the screening charge induced in response to a change in the internal potential. In the Thomas-Fermi approximation, the response function is the density $`D(\omega )=Q_i/e^2U_i`$. For zero frequency, we find $`D=_\alpha D_\alpha ^{(i)}=2L/hv_F`$ as a consequence of gauge invariance. The injectivities are the diagonal elements of the local density of states (DOS) matrix pedersen ; martin  which is related to the scattering matrix $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$ of the system. In the zero-frequency limit

$$D_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}(E)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\underset{\gamma }{}S_{\gamma \alpha }^{}(E)\frac{dS_{\gamma \beta }(E)}{edU_i}$$
(7)
with $`i=A,B`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma =1,\mathrm{},4`$. The scattering matrix for the electronic interferometer can be derived using Eq. (1) (see also Ref. seelig ).

The voltage fluctuations entering Eq. (6) are related to the current fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha `$ through markus\_noise

$$\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha =\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha ^b+\underset{\beta }{}G_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Delta }V_\beta .$$
(8)
In this Langevin-like equation, $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha ^b`$ are the bare current fluctuations and $`G_{\alpha \beta }=G_0(M_\alpha \delta _{\alpha \beta }T_{\alpha \beta })`$ are elements of the conductance matrix ($`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},4`$). For the MZI we have $`M_\alpha =1+T_0`$ where $`T_0`$ is the incoherent transmission between neighboring external leads at the same intersection. The probabilities for coherent transmission are $`T_{\alpha \beta }=|S_{\alpha \beta }|^2`$. The central new ingredient in this paper are the boundary conditions imposed on the voltage fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_\alpha `$ and the fluctuations of the total currents $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha `$ by the external measurement circuit. These boundary conditions depend on the measurement configuration. In the local configuration (see Fig. (1)) we choose contacts $`1`$ and $`4`$ as the current probes (they exhibit no voltage fluctuations: $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1=\mathrm{\Delta }V_4=0`$) while contacts $`2`$ and $`3`$ are the voltage probes (no current fluctuations: $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_2=\mathrm{\Delta }I_3=0`$). In the non-local configuration, on the other hand, the voltage probes are contacts 3 and 4 (cf. Fig. (1)) and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }V_1=\mathrm{\Delta }V_2=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_3=\mathrm{\Delta }I_4=0`$. Eq. (8), together with the boundary conditions for voltages and currents, can now be used to eliminate the voltage fluctuations in Eq. (6) in favor of the fluctuations of the bare currents. The potential fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ can then be expressed through the fluctuations of the bare currents $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_\alpha ^b`$ and charges $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i^b`$. The result for $`\mathrm{\Delta }U`$ will be different for the local and non-local configuration as a consequence of the different boundary conditions.

The spectral function of the potential fluctuations is defined through the relation $`2\pi \delta (\omega +\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(\omega )=\mathrm{\Delta }U(\omega )\mathrm{\Delta }U(\omega ^{})+\mathrm{\Delta }U(\omega ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }U(\omega )/2`$. Since we now know how to express the potential fluctuations for the local and non-local case through the fluctuations of the bare currents and charges, we can also express the spectral function $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(\omega )`$, through the correlators of the bare charge $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Q_i^bQ_k^b}(\omega )`$ ($`i,k=A,B`$), the current correlators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{I_\alpha ^bI_\beta ^b}(\omega )`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta =1,\mathrm{},4`$) and the cross-correlators $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Q_i^bI_\alpha ^b}(\omega )`$ between charges and currents. For zero frequency and in the classical limit, the correlator of the charge fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_i^b`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }Q_k^b`$ in arms $`i`$ and $`k`$ is pedersen ; martin

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Q_i^bQ_k^b}(0)=kTh\underset{\alpha \beta }{}D_{\alpha \beta }^{(i)}D_{\beta \alpha }^{(k)}=\delta _{ik}kTDh/2.$$
(9)
The second equation is obtained from Eq. (7) and the scattering matrix of the interferometer (see Ref. seelig ). Finally, the current correlation functions are given by the generalized Nyquist formula markus\_noise , $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{I_\alpha ^bI_\beta ^b}(0)=kT\left(G_{\alpha \beta }+G_{\beta \alpha }\right)`$, while cross-correlations between fluctuations of the bare charge in arm $`k`$ and current fluctuations at contact $`\alpha `$ vanish ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{Q_i^bI_\alpha ^b}(0)=0`$) because of the absence of backscattering in our model.

We are now in a position to calculate the spectrum of the potential fluctuations in the zero-frequency limit. In the local configuration we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(0)=4kTR_q\left(\frac{C_\mu }{C}\right)^2\left[1+\frac{(2𝒯1)^2}{T_0+T_{13}}\right].$$
(10)
From comparison with Eqs. (2) and (3), it becomes clear that Eq. (10) is a self-consistent equation for the dephasing rate. In the limit of weak decoherence, the transmission probability entering Eq. (10) is flux dependent. In contrast, for the limit of strong decoherence, we can neglect the flux dependence of $`T_{13}`$ in Eq. (10). Using Eq. (3), we then obtain the local dephasing rate Eq. (5a). In the non-local case, the spectral function is independent of the magnetic field even when dephasing is weak. It is given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{UU}(0)=(2\mathrm{}^2/e^2)\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^{nl}`$, leading to the dephasing rate for the non-local configuration Eq. (5b) jordan .

In the MZI, the intersections between contacts and arms are described by ideal beam splitters (see Eq. (1)). Backscattering was included only through the incoherent transmission $`T_0`$ between neighboring contacts. Ideal beam splitters are rarely realized in an experiment where it is probable that scattering in the intersections exhibits a certain degree of randomness. For better comparison with the experimental situation, we now investigate numerically a model that interpolates between the ideal beam splitter and fully random scattering. The corresponding scattering matrix for one intersection is

$$𝐒=\sqrt{1\epsilon }𝐒_B\epsilon 𝐒_B𝐒_C\left[\mathrm{𝟙}\sqrt{1\epsilon }𝐒_B𝐒_C\right]^1𝐒_B$$
(11)
where $`𝐒_B`$ is given in Eq. (1) and $`𝐒_C`$ is a random matrix chosen from the circular orthogonal ensemble brower . The parameter $`\epsilon `$ controls the admixture of chaos, $`\epsilon =0`$ corresponds to the ideal beam-splitter, while $`\epsilon =1`$ corresponds to completely random scattering.

In Fig. (3), the ratio of local to non-local potential fluctuations is shown for different values of the parameter $`\epsilon `$. The results given there are valid in the limit of strong dephasing (as in Fig. (2)) and include an ensemble average over the random matrices $`𝐒_C`$ of the two intersections. From Fig. (3) it is clear that increasing the degree of chaotic scattering in the intersections suppresses the difference between the local and non-local configuration. Backscattering, on the ensemble average, thus has a similar effect as an incoherent parallel transmission $`T_0`$ between neighboring contacts. In the limit where the intersections are fully chaotic ($`\epsilon =1`$), there is no difference between the local and non-local configuration. The reason is that ensemble averaging makes the ring symmetric to any measurement configuration.

In the experiment of Ref. kobayashi , the four-terminal resistance $`R_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }=(V_\gamma V_\delta )/I_\alpha `$ with $`I_\beta =I_\alpha `$ was measured. In terms of the conductance matrix elements, the four-terminal resistances are $`R_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }=\left(G_{\gamma \alpha }G_{\delta \beta }G_{\gamma \beta }G_{\delta \alpha }\right)/D`$ markus\_four\_term , where $`D`$ is any sub-determinant of rank three of the total conductance matrix. The four-terminal resistance takes a particularly simple form in the case of a reflectionless interferometer ($`\epsilon =0`$) where we find

$`R_{14,23}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0T_{13}}{1+T_0T_{13}}},`$ (12a)
$`R_{12,43}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2e^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{12T_{13}}{(T_0+T_{13})(1+T_0T_{13})}}`$ (12b)
for the local and non-local configuration, respectively. Eqs. (12a) and (12b) show that the attenuation of the local and non-local resistances is determined by the decoherence rates Eqs. (5a) and (5b) respectively.

In conclusion, we have shown that the electrical constraints imposed by the measurement circuit give rise to a probe configuration dependence of the dephasing rate. This effect is most pronounced in an ideal quantum interferometer that is strongly asymmetric, but was found to persist even in the presence of a considerable admixture of incoherent transmission or randomness (with ensemble averaging). While there may be other physical mechanisms for producing such a difference, our discussion of dephasing explicitly includes the effect of the external electrical circuit and leads to a result consistent with unanticipated experimental observations.

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation.