text:
# Measuring the transmission of a quantum dot using Aharonov-Bohm Interferometers

## I Introduction

Recent advances in nanoscience raised much interest in quantum dots (QDs), which represent artificial atoms with experimentally controllable properties. The quantum nature of the QD is reflected by resonant tunneling through it, as measured when the QD is connected via metallic leads to electron reservoirs. The measured conductance $`𝐆`$ shows peaks whenever the Fermi energy of the electrons crosses a resonance on the QD. Experimentally, the energies of these resonances are varied by controlling the plunger gate voltage on the QD, $`V`$. Quantum mechanically, the information on the tunneling is contained in the complex transmission amplitude, $`t_D=\sqrt{𝒯_D}e^{i\alpha }`$. It is thus of great interest to measure both the magnitude $`𝒯_D`$ and the phase $`\alpha `$, and study their dependence on $`V`$. Although the former can be deduced from measuring $`𝐆`$, via the Landauer formula , $`𝐆=\frac{2e^2}{h}𝒯`$, experimental information on the latter has only become accessible since 1995, using the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) interferometer.

In the AB interferometer, an incoming electronic waveguide is split into two branches, which join again into the outgoing waveguide. Aharonov and Bohm predicted that a magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ through the ring would add a difference $`\varphi =e\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{}c`$ between the phases of the wave functions in the two branches of the ring, yielding a periodic dependence of the overall transmission $`𝒯`$ on $`\varphi `$. Placing a QD on one of the branches, as in Fig. 1a, and using the other path as a “reference path”, with a transmission amplitude $`t_B`$, one expects $`𝒯`$ also to depend on the “intrinsic” amplitude $`t_D`$. In the two-slit limit, one has $`𝒯=|t_De^{i\varphi }+t_B|^2=A+B\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\beta )`$, with $`\beta =\alpha +\kappa `$, where the reference phase $`\kappa `$ is independent of the QD parameters, and thus set at zero. However, for the “closed” two-terminal geometry, as shown in Fig. 1a and used by Yacoby et al., the two-slit expectation that $`\beta =\alpha `$ was clearly wrong: Unitarity (conservation of current) and time reversal symmetry imply the Onsager relations , which state that $`𝐆(\varphi )=𝐆(\varphi )`$, and therefore $`\beta `$ must be equal to zero or $`\pi `$. Indeed, a fit of the the experimental data to the above two-slit formula, with $`B>0`$, gives a phase shift $`\beta `$ which “jumps” from 0 to $`\pi `$ near each resonance of the QD, and then exhibits an a priori unexpected abrupt “phase lapse” back to 0, between every pair of resonances.

Aiming to measure a non-trivial AB phase shift $`\beta `$ then led to experiments with six-terminal “open” interferometers (Fig. 1b), where the additional four “leaky” channels lead to absorbing reservoirs. These interferometers break the Onsager symmetry, and yield a non-trivial phase shift $`\beta `$ which increases gradually from zero to $`\pi `$ through each resonance, and then jumps back to zero between resonances. Much of the early literature assumed that the measured $`\beta `$ is equal to the “intrinsic” $`\alpha `$. Recently  we showed that this assumption is not necessarily always valid: the detailed $`V`$-dependence of $`\beta `$ depends on the strength of the coupling to the additional terminals. Thus, we posed the challenge of finding clear criteria as to when the measured $`\beta `$ equals $`\alpha `$.

In the present paper we review three aspects of this problem. In Sec. 2 we show that in some cases one has $`𝒯_D=\gamma _D^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$, where $`\gamma _D`$ is a constant measuring the asymmetry of the QD. In these cases, $`\alpha `$ is determined by $`𝒯_D`$, and there is no need to build special interferometers to measure $`\alpha `$. We also show that in many cases the detailed flux-dependence of the measured conductance of the closed interferometer contains information which allows the deduction of both $`𝒯_D`$ and $`\alpha `$, eliminating the need to open the interferometer. In Sec. 3 we then review recent work  in which we showed that an opening like that shown in Fig. 1c, with “forks” of “lossy” channels on each segment of the AB ring, can be tuned so that one reproduces the two-slit conditions. In those cases, one indeed has $`\beta =\alpha `$. However, this tuning requires some optimization of the parameters, and cannot be guaranteed for an arbitrary open interferometer.

## II Closed AB interferometer

### A Model with one QD resonance

Our model is shown in Fig. 2: We start with an isolated quantum dot, with a single localized level (of single particle energy $`ϵ_D`$, representing the gate voltage $`V`$) and on-site Hubbard interaction $`U`$, and with a one-dimensional tight-binding chain, with sites at integer coordinates, with zero on-site energies and with nearest-neighbor (nn) hopping matrix elements equal to $`J`$. We next connect the dot to the sites $`\pm 1`$ on the chain, via matrix elements $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ to the left, and $`J_r`$ to the right, and also modify the lower branch of the resulting triangle: site 0 becomes the “reference” site, with on-site energy $`ϵ_0`$, with no interactions and with nn hopping energies $`I`$ (replacing the original $`J`$). Experimentally, the reference site can represent a simple point contact, tunnel junction, etc. The triangle so formed contains an Aharonov-Bohm phase, $`\varphi =\varphi _{\mathrm{}}+\varphi _r`$, where (for simplicity), the phase $`\varphi _{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\varphi _r`$) is attached to the bond with the hopping matrix element $`J_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`J_r`$) (we choose $`J,I,J_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`J_r`$ to be real). Hence, the Hamiltonian of the system reads

$``$ $`=_D+{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}ϵ_kc_{k\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }+ϵ_0{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}c_{0\sigma }^{}c_{0\sigma }`$ (1)
$`+(I/J1){\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}ϵ_k\left(c_{k\sigma }^{}c_{0\sigma }+c_{0\sigma }^{}c_{k\sigma }\right)/\sqrt{N}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k\sigma }{}}\left(𝒱_kd_\sigma ^{}c_{k\sigma }+𝒱_k^{}c_{k\sigma }^{}d_\sigma \right),`$ (3)
where the operator $`c_{k\sigma }^{}`$ creates single particle eigenstates (with spin $`\sigma `$) on the unperturbed chain (with $`I=J`$, $`J_{\mathrm{}}=J_r=0`$), with eigenenergy $`ϵ_k=2J\mathrm{cos}k`$, while $`c_{0\sigma }=_kc_{k\sigma }/\sqrt{N}`$, and $`𝒱_k=(J_{\mathrm{}}e^{i\varphi _{\mathrm{}}ik}+J_re^{i\varphi _r+ik})/\sqrt{N}`$. The operators on the dot are denoted by $`d_\sigma `$ and $`d_\sigma ^{}`$, and they anti-commute with the band operators $`c_{k\sigma },c_{k\sigma }^{}`$. The dot Hamiltonian is

$`_D=ϵ_D{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}d_\sigma ^{}d_\sigma +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}U{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}n_{d\sigma }n_{d\overline{\sigma }},`$ (4)
with $`n_{d\sigma }=d_\sigma ^{}d_\sigma `$, and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ denotes the spin opposite to $`\sigma `$. The Hamiltonian (3) is a simple generalization of that used by Ng and Lee, to which we added the reference path.

### B Transmission

For simplicity, we discuss only zero temperature, so that $`ϵ_k`$ is set equal to the Fermi energy in the leads. The $`2\times 2`$ scattering matrix is easily related to the matrix of retarded single-particle Green functions, $`G_{kk^{}}^\sigma (\omega )`$, evaluated on the energy shell, $`\omega =ϵ_k`$. We use the equation-of-motion method to express $`G_{kk^{}}^\sigma (\omega )`$ and $`G_{kd}^\sigma (\omega )`$ in terms of the Green function on the dot, $`G_{dd}^\sigma (\omega )`$ . The equation-of-motion for the latter has the form

$`(\omega ϵ_d)G_{dd}^\sigma (\omega )=1+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}𝒱_kG_{kd}^\sigma (\omega )+U\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ddd,d}^\sigma (\omega ).`$ (5)
The last term on the RHS represents the effect of the interactions, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ddd,d}^\sigma (\omega )`$ being the temporal Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ddd,d}^\sigma (t)=i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)[d_{\overline{\sigma }}^{}(t)d_{\overline{\sigma }}(t)d_\sigma (t),d_\sigma ^{}]`$. The second term on the RHS of Eq. (5) can be written as $`_k𝒱_kG_{kd}^\sigma (\omega )=A(\omega )G_{dd}^\sigma (\omega )`$, implying that $`A(\omega )`$ contains the full contribution of the non-interacting Hamiltonian to the self-energy on the dot. Thus we write

$`G_{dd}^\sigma (\omega )^1=\omega ϵ_D\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (\omega )+A(\omega ),`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (\omega )`$ represents the self energy due to the interactions, which vanishes when $`U=0`$. At $`\omega =ϵ_k`$ we have

$`A(ϵ_k)`$ $`=e^{i|k|}{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2}{J}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{t_Be^{i|k|}}{2i\mathrm{sin}|k|}}\left(1+\gamma _D\mathrm{cos}\varphi \right)\right]`$ (7)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2}{J}}[e^{i|k|}+\mathrm{sin}|k|(Z+iY)],`$ (8)
where the $`\varphi `$-dependent quantities $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are defined in this equation, while $`\gamma _D=2J_{\mathrm{}}J_r/(J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2)`$ is the asymmetry factor for the dot, and

$`t_B=i\mathrm{sin}\delta _Be^{i\delta _B}=2iV_B\mathrm{sin}|k|/(J+2V_Be^{i|k|})`$ (9)
is the transmission amplitude of the “background” path (when $`J_{\mathrm{}}=J_r=0`$), with the effective hopping energy $`V_B=I^2/(ϵ_kϵ_0)`$.

The other equations of motion then yield the other Green functions, and we end up with

$`t^\sigma `$ $`=t_BG_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\mathrm{}}J_r}{V_B}}e^{i\varphi }+G_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)^1A(ϵ_k)\right]`$ (10)
$`=t_BG_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)\left[{\displaystyle \frac{J_{\mathrm{}}J_r}{V_B}}e^{i\varphi }+ϵ_kϵ_D\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)\right].`$ (11)
Equation (11) is one of our main results. It expresses $`t^\sigma `$ in terms of the fully dressed single particle QD Green function, which depends on both paths of the interferometer and therefore also on the AB phase $`\varphi `$. The remaining discussion aims to see if one can extract information on the “intrinsic” QD transmission from measurements of $`𝒯^\sigma =|t^\sigma |^2`$.

The Onsager relations require that the conductance, and therefore also $`𝒯^\sigma =|t^\sigma |^2`$, must be an even function of $`\varphi `$. It is clear from Eq. (11) that this holds only if

$`\mathrm{}[G_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)^1A(ϵ_k)]`$ (12)
$`=\mathrm{}[ϵ_kϵ_D\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)]0.`$ (13)
Indeed, we found the same condition to follow from the unitarity of the scattering matrix. The same sort of relation appears for the single impurity scattering, in connection with the Friedel sum rule. Equation (13) implies that the interaction self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)`$ is real, and is an even function of $`\varphi `$. It also implies that $`\mathrm{}G_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)^1`$ is fully determined by the non-interacting self-energy $`\mathrm{}A(ϵ_k)`$.

It is now convenient to rewrite $`G_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)`$ in terms of its phase, $`\delta `$. Writing $`[G_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)\mathrm{sin}|k|(J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2)/J]^1=(1+Y)(i\mathrm{cot}\delta )`$, we find

$`𝒯^\sigma `$ $`=|t^\sigma |^2={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\delta }{(1+Y)^2}}[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_D^2\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi +(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_D\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ (14)
$`\sqrt{T_B}((1+Y)\mathrm{cot}\delta +\mathrm{cot}|k|+Z))^2],`$ (15)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_D=\gamma _DJ/|J+2V_Be^{i|k|}|=\gamma _D|\mathrm{sin}(\delta _B+|k|)/\mathrm{sin}|k||`$ and $`T_B=|t_B|^2`$. Interestingly, the second term in the square brackets is of the Fano form. At $`\varphi =0`$, it reflects the possibility for a complete destructive interference, with $`𝒯^\sigma =0`$. A similar expression for $`𝒯`$ was derived by Hofstetter et al , but their approximations ignore the explicit dependence of some parameters (e.g. $`Y`$) on $`\varphi `$.

When one cuts off the reference path, $`V_B=0`$, Eq. (11) reduces to the “intrinsic” QD transmission amplitude, $`t_D^\sigma =i\gamma _D\mathrm{sin}\alpha e^{i\alpha }`$, with

$`\mathrm{cot}\alpha =\mathrm{cot}|k|+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_kϵ_D\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{D},\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)}{\mathrm{sin}|k|(J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2)/J}},`$ (16)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{D},\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)|_{V_B=0}`$. It is interesting to note that for our single-channel (one-dimensional) leads, we have $`𝒯_D^\sigma =\gamma _D^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ (as already noted by Ng and Lee). Since $`\gamma _D`$ does not depend on the energy $`ϵ_k`$ or on the gate voltage $`V=ϵ_D`$, it follows that a measurement of $`𝒯_D`$ immediately also yields the phase $`\alpha `$, via $`\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\sqrt{𝒯_D/\mathrm{max}(𝒯_D)}`$! In many cases, the measurement of $`𝒯_D`$ already yields $`\alpha `$, eliminating the need to perform complicated interferometer measurements. It would be very interesting to test this, for cases where $`\alpha `$ is measured independently (e.g. with an open interferometer, see below).

The phase $`\delta `$ of $`G_{dd}^\sigma (ϵ_k)`$ is now given by

$`\mathrm{cot}\delta =(\mathrm{cot}\alpha Z+X)/(1+Y),`$ (17)
where $`X=(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k)\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{D},\mathrm{int}}^\sigma (ϵ_k))/[\mathrm{sin}|k|(J_{\mathrm{}}^2+J_r^2)/J]`$ contains only the effects of the reference path on the interaction self-energy of the dot. One way to proceed is to calculate $`X`$, e.g. using a perturbative expansion in $`V_B`$ or using a full solution of the interacting case. Even without calculating $`X`$, we expect it to be an even function of $`\varphi `$. Although $`\alpha `$ does not depend on $`\varphi `$, $`\delta `$ usually depends on $`\varphi `$ (via $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$).

Equations (15,16,17) represent our second main result: they relate the $`\varphi `$-dependence of the measured $`𝒯^\sigma `$ with the QD parameters. We are not aware of earlier discussions which separate between the roles played by $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$.

### C Possible measurements

We now discuss a few limits in which a measurement of $`𝒯^\sigma `$, Eq. (15), can yield information on the “intrinsic” phase $`\alpha `$ and thus on the full “intrinsic” transmission $`t_D`$. First, consider a relatively open dot, with small barriers at its contacts with the leads. In such circumstances, the electron wave function spreads over the leads, and it has only a small amplitude on the dot itself, thus reducing the effects of interactions. This, and the related better screening, imply that $`|X||Z|`$. In this limit, Eq. (17) (with $`X=0`$) gives the detailed dependence of $`\delta `$ on $`\varphi `$. Equation (15) then has the form

$`𝒯`$ $`|t|^2=A\left|{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }+K}{1+z\mathrm{cos}\varphi }}\right|`$ (18)
$`=A{\displaystyle \frac{1+K^2+2K\mathrm{cos}\varphi }{1+2\mathrm{}z\mathrm{cos}\varphi +|z|^2\mathrm{cos}^2\varphi }},`$ (19)
with coefficients which depend on $`\gamma _D,\delta _B,|k|`$ and $`\alpha `$. For the closed interferometer, $`K`$ is real. The $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$ in the denominator, which results from the self energy in the dot Green function, is due to interference within the ring, between clockwise and counterclockwise motions of the electron. In the limit of small $`V_B`$ one has $`zt_D`$. Fitting data to Eq. (19) would confirm that one is in this non-interacting limit, and would yield the $`V`$-dependence of the “intrinsic” phase $`\alpha `$ (as well as the $`V`$-independent parameters $`\gamma _D,\delta _B`$ and $`|k|`$). Note that a fit to the explicit $`\varphi `$-dependence in Eq. (19) is much preferred over a fit to a harmonic expansion of the form $`𝒯=a_n\mathrm{cos}n\varphi `$. Figure 3 shows an example of the $`V`$\- and $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`𝒯`$ for this limit. The denominator in Eq. (19), which contains the information on $`\alpha `$ via $`z`$ (and thus determines the higher harmonics in $`𝒯`$), is mostly visible near the resonance at $`V=0`$. Far away from the resonance this denominator is small, and $`𝒯`$ can be approximated by $`\overline{A}+B\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\beta )`$, where $`\beta `$ is zero or $`\pi `$ below or above the point $`V=0`$.

Second, note that all the $`\varphi `$-dependent functions $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$ become small when $`V_B`$ (and therefore $`\delta _BV_B/J`$) is small. Except very close to the QD resonance, where $`\alpha =\pi /2`$, we conclude that $`\delta =\alpha +𝒪(\delta _B)`$. Thus, at least away from resonances one can study the transmission for several values of $`V_B`$ (which can be varied via the point contact voltage $`ϵ_0`$), estimate $`\delta (V)`$ (as some average over $`\varphi `$) for each $`V_B`$ and extrapolate $`V_B`$ to zero to obtain $`\alpha `$, without explicit knowledge of $`X(\varphi )`$.

The situation becomes even more interesting in the Kondo regime, when $`\alpha `$ and/or $`\delta `$ remain close to $`\pi /2`$ over a wide range of $`V`$. Hofstetter et al. assumed that $`\delta =\pi /2`$, and deduced the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`𝒯^\sigma `$. As seen from Eq. (17), one cannot have $`\delta =\pi /2`$ without neglecting the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`X,Y`$ and $`Z`$. Alternatively, if the Kondo condition implies that $`\alpha =\pi /2`$ then the measurement of the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`𝒯^\sigma `$ could give information on the $`\varphi `$-dependence of $`X`$. If $`V_B`$ is sufficiently small then $`\delta `$ will show small $`\varphi `$-dependent deviations from $`\pi /2`$ within the Kondo plateau, and remain very close the $`\alpha `$ elsewhere. For larger $`V_B`$, a resonance on the QD (i.e. $`\alpha =\pi /2`$) may result in significant deviation of $`\delta `$ from $`\pi /2`$. The question whether this deviation relates to the variety of plateau values observed by Ji et al. deserves further study.

In any case, the above discussion demonstrates that although a measurement of the transmission of the closed AB interferometer does not yield a non-trivial AB phase shift $`\beta `$, the data still contain much information on the properties of the “intrinsic” QD.

## III Open AB interferometer

### A Model for multi-resonances

We next discuss the conditions for obtaining the equality $`\beta =\alpha `$ in an open AB interferometer. In principle, we could repeat the above discussion for the open case; as seen below, this simply amounts to replacing each “lossy” channel by a complex self-energy at its “base”, and then proceeding as in the closed case. However, for the present purpose it suffices to discuss an effectively non-interacting case. Obviously, if one cannot achieve this aim in that case then there will be problems also in the more complicated interacting cases. We thus restrict this discussion to an approximate treatment of the Coulomb blockade (and not the Kondo) region, and treat the interaction term in the Hartree approximation, replacing $`n_{d\sigma }n_{d\overline{\sigma }}`$ by $`n_{d\overline{\sigma }}n_{d\sigma }`$. We further simplify this by replacing $`n_{d\overline{\sigma }}`$ by a constant which increases for consecutive resonances. Thus, we replace the single QD by a set of smaller dots, each containing a single resonant state, with energy $`ϵ_D=E_R(n)V+U(n1),n=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$. Each such state is connected to its left and right nearest neighbors (nn’s) on the leads (denoted by $`L`$ and $`R`$) via bonds with hopping amplitudes $`\{J_L(n),J_R(n),n=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ (see Fig. 4). The problem now reduces to a simple tight-binding model, and for the “intrinsic” QD we find

$`t_D={\displaystyle \frac{S_{LR}2i\mathrm{sin}k}{(S_{LL}+e^{ik})(S_{RR}+e^{ik})|S_{LR}|^2}},`$ (20)
where $`S_{XY}_nJ_X(n)J_Y(n)^{}/[ϵ_kE_R(n)]/J,X,Y=L,R`$.

Figure 5 shows typical results for the “intrinsic” transmission $`𝒯_D`$ and phase $`\alpha `$, where the zero of $`\alpha `$ is set at its ($`k`$-dependent) value at large negative $`V`$. Here and below, we choose $`k=\pi /2`$, so that $`ϵ_k=0`$ and the resonances of the transmission, where $`𝒯_D=1`$, occur exactly when $`E_R(n)=ϵ_k=0`$, i.e. when $`V=U(n1)`$. We also use the simple symmetric case, $`J_L(n)=J_R(n)J`$, and measure all energies in units of $`J`$. Interestingly, this model reproduces the behavior apparently observed by Schuster et al.: $`\alpha `$ grows smoothly from 0 to $`\pi `$ as $`ϵ_k`$ crosses $`E_R(n)`$, and exhibits a sharp “phase lapse” from $`\pi `$ to 0 between neighboring resonances, at points where $`𝒯_D=0`$. These latter points, associated with zeroes of $`S_{LR}`$, represent Fano-like destructive interference between the states on the QD . These zeroes in $`𝒯`$ are missed, and the corresponding “phase lapses” are superfluously smeared, when one replaces the exact Eq. (20) by a sum of Breit-Wigner resonances.

It is interesting to note that, although there are several resonances, the upper part of Fig. 5 is fully reproduced when one takes $`\alpha `$ from the lower part, and plots $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$. This emphasizes again the possibility to measure $`\alpha `$ directly from $`𝒯`$.

### B Model for the open AB interferometer

Placing the above QD model on one branch of the closed AB interferometer, one can easily solve for $`𝒯`$. In the absence of interactions, we again find the form (19), which is thus also valid for many resonances. Near each resonance, results are similar to those shown in Fig. 3. As expected, Eq. (19) is still an even function of $`\varphi `$, with no phase shift $`\beta `$ (except for the apparent jumps between zero and $`\pi `$).

Before we discuss the open interferometer, it is useful to understand the criteria for having the two-slit situation. A crucial condition for having $`t=t_De^{i\varphi }+t_B`$ is that the electron go through each branch only once. Equivalently, there should be no reflections from the “forks”, which connect the ring with the external leads, back into the ring. We achieve this by the construction shown in Fig. 1c: each of the four “lossy” channels in Fig. 1b is now replaced by a “comb” of $`M`$ channels. An analysis of each such “comb” shows that (a) the transmission $`T`$ and reflection $`R`$ through the “comb” is only weakly dependent on the energy $`ϵ_k`$ near the band center $`k=\pi /2`$ (Fig. 6a) and (b) the transmission $`T`$ decreases and the reflection $`R`$ increases with the coupling of each “lossy” channel in the “comb” to its “base”, $`J_x`$ (Fig. 6b) and with the number $`M`$. Note that $`T+R<1`$, due to the loss into the “teeth” of the “comb”. Ideally, one would like to have $`T,R1`$, so that in practice the electron crosses each “comb” only once, and is not reflected from the “comb” back into the QD. Given Fig. 6b, we expect to have optimal two-slit conditions for intermediate values of $`J_x`$, e.g. $`J_x0.9J`$ for $`M=6`$.

We next present results for the open interferometer shown in Fig. 1c. The algebra is similar to that for the closed case: each “tooth” of the “combs” can be eliminated from the equations, at the cost of adding a self energy on the site of its “base”, equal to $`J_x^2e^{ik}/J`$. The result is again of the form of the first expression in Eq. (19), except that now $`K`$ becomes complex and therefore the numerator in the second expression contains $`\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\gamma )`$ instead of $`\mathrm{cos}\varphi `$. To demonstrate qualitative results, we chose four identical “combs”, with $`M=6`$ “teeth” on each and with the same hopping matrix elements; all the hopping energies were set to $`J`$, except for the bonds connecting each “tooth” to its base, denoted $`J_x`$. Figure 7 shows exact results for $`A,B,C`$ and $`\beta `$ in fits of $`𝒯`$ to the form

$`T=A+B\mathrm{cos}(\varphi +\beta )+C\mathrm{cos}(2\varphi +\gamma )+\mathrm{},`$ (21)
with the conventions $`B,C>0`$, as used in the analysis of experiments. Note the decreasing magnitude of the amplitudes as $`J_x`$ increases, due to the large losses to the lossy channels. Note also that for $`J_x=0`$ the results reproduce those for the closed interferometer, with $`\beta `$ jumping discontinuously between 0 and $`\pi `$. As $`J_x`$ increases, the “data” for $`\beta `$ become smoother, and they approach the “intrinsic” values of $`\alpha `$ for intermediate values of $`J_x0.9J`$. However, as $`J_x`$ increases further, $`\beta `$ “retracts” towards a more steep variation near each resonance. Although the electron crosses each “comb” only once, due to the small values of the comb transmission $`T`$, it is reflected several times from the “combs” back towards the QD, due to the increasing “comb” reflection. Therefore, the electron visits the QD several times, and the final AB transmission does not reflect the correct desired $`t_D`$.

Finally, we allow also a lossy channel connected directly to the dot. As seen in Fig. 8, this eliminates the Fano zeroes of $`B`$ and causes a “smearing” of the sharp Fano “phase lapses” in $`\beta `$. Technically, the losses from the QD introduce complex self-energies on the dot, which move the zeroes of $`𝒯`$ away from the real energy axis. Interestingly, Fig. 8 resembles the experiments of Schuster et al.

## IV Conclusions

Basically, we have made three explicit predictions:

$``$ For single channel leads, the QD transmission and its phase are related via $`𝒯_D=\gamma _B^2\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$. In such cases, the measurement of $`𝒯_D`$ also yields $`\alpha `$.

$``$ Measurements of the transmission $`𝒯`$ in a closed interferometer contain much information on both the magnitude $`𝒯_D`$ and the phase $`\alpha `$ of the “bare” QD.

$``$ Open interferometers do not usually obey the two-slit criteria. Therefore, the phase $`\beta `$ measured via a fit to Eq. (21) will usually not yield the intrinsic QD phase $`\alpha `$. However, optimization of the losses can achieve the two-slit conditions, and yield $`\beta =\alpha `$.

In principle, the configuration of Fig. 1c allows a full study of all the cases discussed here: setting the voltage on the reference site $`ϵ_0\pm \mathrm{}`$ sends $`V_B`$ to zero, and yields the “intrinsic” transmission through the QD, $`𝒯_D`$. Setting the gate voltage on the QD $`V=ϵ_D\pm \mathrm{}`$ yields the reference transmission $`T_B=\mathrm{sin}^2\delta _B`$. Setting the coupling to the “lossy” channels ($`J_x`$) to zero, by some manipulations of the relevant gates, yields the “closed” case. In this case, variation of $`ϵ_0`$ allows variation of $`V_B`$, and extrapolation of $`\delta `$ to $`\alpha `$. Finally, varying $`J_x`$ allows optimization of the two-slit condition, yielding another measurement of the “intrinsic” phase $`\alpha `$. We hope that this review will stimulate the buildup of such flexible experimental systems.

## Acknowledgements

We thank M. Heiblum, Y. Levinson, A. Schiller, H. A. Weidenmüller and A. Yacoby for helpful conversations. This project was carried out in a center of excellence supported by the Israel Science Foundation, with additional support from the Albert Einstein Minerva Center for Theoretical Physics at the Weizmann Institute of Science, and from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Framework of the German-Israeli Project Cooperation (DIP).


format: text

text:
# P-parity of charmed particles from associative photoproduction of 𝐷 and 𝐷^∗-mesons

## I Introduction

The P-parity is a fundamental property of any hadron, therefore it has to be experimentally determined. Generally two experimental methods are used to determine the P-parity of elementary particles.

For the meson and baryon resonances, which are unstable with respect to the strong or electromagnetic interactions, the P-parity can be determined through the selection rules with respect to angular momentum and P-parity, because they are conserved in such decays.

This method can not be applied to the stable or quasi-stable particles, which decay through weak interaction, where P-parity is not conserved. In this case the P-parity can be experimentally determined through specific scattering or production processes, induced by the strong or electromagnetic interaction . A typical example is given by the K-meson . First of all, due to the conservation of strangeness in the strong and electromagnetic interactions, the absolute value of the P-parity of the K-meson does not have a physical meaning, as in the case of $`\gamma `$, $`\pi ^0`$, $`\eta `$, $`\rho ^0`$..(which are characterized by zero values of the electric and baryonic charges, of strangeness and charm). Only the relative P-parity for the K-meson is significative, as in the case of the charged pion: we refer to the parity $`P(\pi ^\pm )`$ in a ’reference’ frame, where the P-parities of proton and neutron are the same. Similarly for the K-meson: its strangeness is non zero, and, due to the conservation of strangeness in such process as $`\gamma +N\mathrm{\Lambda }+K`$ or $`p+p\mathrm{\Lambda }+K^++p`$ the K-meson P-parity is defined with respect to the $`N\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system.

In the lightest charmed hadron sector, all the decays of the baryon $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+(2285)`$ and the meson $`D(1870)`$, through numerous channels due to the weak interaction, with violation of P-invariance, can not be used to determine their P-parity. On the contrary the P-parity of the vector charmed $`D^{}`$-meson can be determined through its strong, $`D^{}D+\pi `$ or electromagnetic $`D^{}D+\gamma `$-decays. More exactly, these decays determine the relative P-parity $`P(D^{})P(D)`$, and it is necessary, in any case, to know the P-parity of the lightest $`D`$-meson. The same is correct for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+`$-hyperon, with the strong decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c\mathrm{\Lambda }_c+\pi `$ or with the electromagnetic decay $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c^+\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\gamma `$ (for positive hyperons). Therefore, the $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$-parity has to be experimentally determined, in order to have the P-parity ’reference’ frame in the charmed particle sector.

The quark model gives clear predictions for the P-parity of charmed particles. For example, in case of $`D^{}=d\overline{c}`$, for the S-state of the quark-antiquark system, applying the Berestezky theorem  about the negative internal P-parity of any fermion-antifermion system, one derives that the lightest D-meson must be a pseudoscalar particle. But one additional assumption has to be done: the P-parity of all quarks, with different quantum numbers is the same. Such assumption constrains all hadronic P-parities, and it is valid in the quark model.

The purpose of this paper is to suggest an experimental method to determine the P-parity of the lightest charmed particles, independently from the quark model. We show here that the measurement of polarization phenomena in the simplest reaction of associative photoproduction of charmed particles, $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$, allows one to determine the relative P-parity $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$ (but not the absolute D-meson P-parity). The charm and the P-parity are conserved in photoproduction processes.

## II Polarization observables in $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$

The following discussion is based on the general symmetry properties of the electromagnetic interaction of charmed particles, without additional dynamical assumptions about the reaction mechanism for $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$.

It is well established , that the spin structure of the matrix element for the process $`\gamma +N_c+𝒫`$, where $`_c`$ is a baryon with spin 1/2 and $`𝒫`$ is a meson with spin 0 is determined by a set of four independent amplitudes, which are complex functions of two independent kinematical variables, as the total energy $`s`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the angle of the emitted baryon.

The spin structure of the matrix element, in the CMS of the considered reaction, can be parametrized in the following general form:

$$^{(\pm )}=\chi _2^{}^{(\pm )}\chi _1,$$

$$^{(+)}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}^{()},^{()}=\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{e}f_1i\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\times \stackrel{}{e}f_2+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}\stackrel{}{e}\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}f_3+\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{e}\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}f_4,$$
(1)
where $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ is the real photon polarization vector, $`\chi _1`$ and $`\chi _2`$ are the two-component spinors of the initial nucleon and the final baryon, $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ and $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{q}}`$ are the unit vectors along the three momenta of the $`\gamma `$ and the $`D`$meson, respectively, in the reaction CMS. The upper indexes in $`^{(\pm )}`$ correspond to $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=\pm 1`$.

Generally, the polarization observables for the considered reaction are different for different values of $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$ and they can be calculated only in the framework of a definite dynamical model for the considered reaction . However, in definite kinematical conditions it is possible to predict the exact value of polarization phenomena in model independent way. For example, the asymmetry of D-meson photoproduction, in collinear kinematics, induced by the collision of circularly polarized photons with a longitudinally polarized proton target is equal to $`+1`$, for any incident photon energy. This is a model independent result, which follows only from the helicity conservation in collinear kinematics, i.e. for $`\theta =0^0`$ or $`\theta =\pi `$. However, this result does not depend on $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$ and it can not help to determine the parity of the charmed particles involved.

One has to find another polarization observable, which is sensitive to $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$ on one side, and it is model independent, on the other side. The spin structure of the collinear matrix element for the process $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ depends on $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$:

$`_{col}^{()}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{}{e}}f_{col}^{()},`$ (2)
$`_{col}^{(+)}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{e}\times \widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}f_{col}^{(+)},`$ (3)
where $`f_{col}^{(\pm )}`$ is the collinear amplitude for $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ for $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=\pm 1`$.

Due to the presence of a single allowed amplitude in collinear kinematics, all polarization observables have definite numerical values, which are independent on the model chosen for $`f_{col}^{(\pm )}`$.

Let us consider the most general case, the dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ polarization on the polarization of the colliding particles. Using expressions (1) for different $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$, one can find the following formulas for the triple polarization correlations in $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++\overline{D^0}`$:

$$(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{e})(\stackrel{}{P}_1\stackrel{}{P}_2)+2(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{P}_1)(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{P}_2),\text{ if }P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=1,$$

$$(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{e})[(\stackrel{}{P}_1\stackrel{}{P}_2)2(\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{P}_1)(\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}\stackrel{}{P}_2)]2(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{P}_1)(\stackrel{}{e}\stackrel{}{P}_2),\text{ if }P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=+1,$$
(4)
where $`\stackrel{}{P}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_2`$ are the polarization vectors for the initial and final baryons.

One can see from (4), that only the linear photon polarization affects the triple polarization correlations in $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++\overline{D^0}`$, due to the P-invariance of the electromagnetic interaction of charmed particles. For further development, let us define the coordinate system for the considered collinear kinematics with the $`z`$axis along $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{k}}`$ and the $`x`$ axis along the vector $`\stackrel{}{e}`$ of the photon linear polarization. The correlations (4) can be written in such system as:

$$(\stackrel{}{P}_1\stackrel{}{P}_2)+2P_{1x}P_{2x}=P_{1x}P_{2x}P_{1y}P_{2y}P_{1z}P_{2z},\text{ if }P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=1,$$

$$(\stackrel{}{P}_1\stackrel{}{P}_2)2P_{1z}P_{2z}2P_{1x}P_{2x}=P_{1x}P_{2x}+P_{1y}P_{2y}P_{1z}P_{2z},\text{ if }P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=+1.$$
(5)
From (5) one can find a connection between the components of the vectors $`\stackrel{}{P}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_2`$ for the different $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$, assuming, for simplicity, that initially one has 100$`\%`$ linearly polarized photons:

$$P_{2x}=+P_{1x},P_{2y}=P_{1y},P_{2z}=P_{1z},\text{ if }P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=1,$$

$$P_{2x}=P_{1x},P_{2y}=+P_{1y},P_{2z}=P_{1z},\text{ if }P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=+1,$$
(6)
One can see that both transversal components of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$-polarization are sensitive to $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$, through the relative sign between $`P_{2i}`$ and $`P_{1i}`$:

$`P_{2x}=`$ $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)P_{1x},`$ (7)
$`P_{2y}=`$ $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)P_{1y},`$ (8)
whereas $`P_{2z}=P_{1z}`$ for any value of $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$.

Therefore, the relations (8) allow one to determine, in model-independent way, the $`D`$meson P-parity.

Let us summarize the main properties of the considered reaction, which are necessary for our consideration:

* The spin of the D-meson is equal to zero and the spin of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$-hyperon is equal to 1/2.
* The P-parity is conserved in the $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$-process.
* The helicity is conserved in the collinear regime.

The suggested experiment, measuring the triple polarization correlations in $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++\overline{D^0}`$, can be in principle realized by the Compass collaboration , which has a polarized target and where linearly polarized photons can be obtained in muon-proton collisions, at small photon virtuality, by tagging the photon through the detection of the scattered muon.

The $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$-polarization can be measured through the numerous weak decays of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$-hyperon, for example $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\mathrm{\Lambda }+e^++\nu _e`$ , which is characterized by a large decay asymmetry. In other words, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c`$ is a self-analyzing particle.

Eqs. (8) show that only the relative sign of the transversal components of the polarization of the target proton and the produced $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$-hyperon is important for the determination of the $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$-parity. Therefore such experiment does not need very large statistics, only well identified events. The energy of the photon beam has not to be necessarily monochromatic.

## III Photoproduction of vector meson, $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$

Let us discuss the problem of the D-meson P-parity in connection to associative exclusive photoproduction of vector charmed mesons, $`\gamma +\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ \- with a more complicated structure of the corresponding matrix element. In the general kinematical case the twelve possible scalar amplitudes are complex and non-vanishing functions of two independent kinematical variables. Even in collinear kinematics there are three independent collinear amplitudes. So this problem can not be solved without additional dynamical assumptions. Let us consider, as an example, the D-meson exchange in $`\gamma +p_c+D^{}`$, at any photon energy and any $`D^{}`$-production angle .

It is possible to prove that the D-exchange mechanism has definite properties, which can be experimentally verified:

* The angular distribution of the decay products of the $`D^{}`$-meson ($`D^{}D+\pi `$), emitted in the collision of unpolarized particles, $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++D^{}`$, follows a $`\mathrm{sin}^2\omega `$-dependence, where $`\omega `$-is the angle between the photon momentum $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and the three-momentum of $`D`$-in the rest system of $`D^{}`$. This result depends on the relative P-parity of $`D^{}`$ and $`D`$, but not on the $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$-parity.
* The beam asymmetry (due to linearly polarized photons) vanishes for any kinematical conditions, in $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$, independently on the $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$-parity.
* All the T-odd polarization observables vanish, because the D-exchange generates real amplitudes for $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$.
* The two possible asymmetries for the collisions of circularly polarized photons with a polarized proton target vanish - in any kinematical condition - due to the zero spin of the exchanged particle. Also this result is independent on $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$.

These facts can be considered as different experimental checks of the validity of $`D`$-meson exchange for $`\gamma +p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^++\overline{D^0}`$. If it turns out that this approximation is valid, we can find some polarization effects which are sensitive to the $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$-value. For example, the transversal components of the baryon polarizations $`\stackrel{}{P}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{P}_2`$ are related by the following condition:

$$P_{2x,y}=P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)P_{1x,y},$$
(9)
which is valid also in case of unpolarized photon beam, for any $`D^{}`$-meson production angle. We must stress that Eq. (9) applies only in framework of the D-exchange model, but does not depend on many important characteristics of this model, such as the value of the coupling constants $`g_{D^{}D\gamma }`$ and $`g_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD}`$ (in the vertices of the considered diagram) and on the phenomenological form factors, $`F(t)`$, which are necessary to insure the correct behavior of the differential cross section $`d\sigma /dt`$ with respect to the momentum transfer squared.

Whereas all these ingredients are very important for the prediction of the absolute value of the unpolarized cross section, the shape of the $`t`$dependence of the differential cross section, at small $`|t|`$ (for forward $`D^{}`$-production) and at large photon energy is sensitive to $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$. This can be shown from the expression of the differential cross section, which can be written as:

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dt}(\gamma p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{D^0})=𝒩(s)\frac{g_{D^{}D\gamma }^2}{4\pi }\frac{g_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD}^2}{4\pi }F^2(t)\left(\frac{tM^2}{tm^2}\right)^2\left[t+(M_N\pm M_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\right].$$

Here $`𝒩(s)`$ is a known normalization factor, which depends on the photon energy, $`M(m)`$ is the $`D^{}`$ $`(D)`$-mass, $`M_N`$ ($`M_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) is the nucleon (hyperon) mass and the signs $`(\pm )`$ correspond to $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)=\pm 1`$.

The possible effect of different P-parities is shown in Fig. 1, at $`E_\gamma =`$ 40 GeV. The $`t`$-dependence of the differential cross section, normalized to its maximum value (for $`t=t_{max}=0.23`$ GeV2), is represented as a solid (dashed) line for positive (negative) $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$ . The different $`t`$ behavior is due to the specific factor $`\left[t+(M_N\pm M_\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\right]`$, which is sensitive to the discussed P-parity. For simplicity we take the same (dipole) form factor $`F(t)`$ for both parities:

$$F(t)=\left[1\frac{tm^2}{m_0^2}\right]^2,$$

where $`m_0`$=1.5 GeV is a cutoff parameter. These ratios do not depend on the values of the coupling constants $`g_{D^{}D\gamma }`$ and $`g_{N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD}`$ and have a weak dependence on the form factor $`F(t)`$.

This prediction is valid only in the framework of the $`D`$exchange model.

## IV Conclusions

The triple polarization correlations in $`\stackrel{}{\gamma }+\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++\overline{D^0}`$ in collinear kinematics and at any photon energy above the reaction threshold - with linearly polarized photons - can be suggested as a model independent method for the determination of the D-meson P-parity, or more exactly, the relative P-parity of the $`N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD`$-system. Note that in the standard quark model, this P-parity is negative. Another possible way to determine the D-meson P-parity, but model-dependent, is the study of the dependence of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+`$-polarization on the initial proton polarization in the framework of D-exchange for vector meson photoproduction $`\gamma +\stackrel{}{p}\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_c^++\overline{D^0}`$, using an unpolarized photon beam. Note that the $`t`$dependence of the differential cross section $`d\sigma (\gamma p\mathrm{\Lambda }_c^+\overline{D^0})`$ is also characteristic of the $`P(N\mathrm{\Lambda }_cD)`$-parity, but the interpretation of the results depends on model assumptions, which are necessary for the calculation of the differential cross section.


text:
# Spin pumping and magnetization dynamics in metallic multilayers

## I Introduction

Spin-polarized transport through magnetic multilayers is the physical origin of many exciting phenomena such as giant magnetoresistance and spin–current-induced magnetization reversal.Gijs and Bauer (1997); Slonczewski (1996, 1999) It has attracted attention in the basic physics community and industry over the last decades, but there are still open fundamental questions. So far, the main research activity has been focused on the dc transport properties of these systems.

Ac magnetotransport has attracted considerably less attention than its dc counterpart. In a recent paper,Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) we reported a novel mechanism by which a precessing ferromagnet “pumps” a spin current into adjacent nonmagnetic conductors proportional to the precession frequency, using a formalism analogous to that for the adiabatic pumping of charges in mesoscopic systems.Brouwer (1998) We showed that spin pumping profoundly affects the dynamics of nanoscale ferromagnets and thin films, by renormalizing fundamental parameters such as the gyromagnetic ratio and Gilbert damping parameter, in agreement with experiments.Mizukami et al. (2001a)

The switching characteristics of a magnetic system depends in an essential way on the Gilbert damping constant $`\alpha `$. In magnetic field-induced switching processes, for example, $`\alpha `$ governs the technologically important magnetization reversal time of ferromagnetic particles. Its typical intrinsic valueBhagat and Lubitz (1974) $`\alpha _010^2`$ for transition metal ferromagnets is smaller than its optimal value of $`\alpha 10^1`$ for the fastest switching rates.Kikuchi (1956) The present mechanism allows engineering of the damping constant by adding passive nonmagnetic components to the system and/or adjusting the geometry to control spin flow and relaxation rates described in this paper, thus helping to create high-speed magnetoelectronic devices. Also, in spin–current-induced magnetization reversal, the critical switching current is proportional to $`\alpha `$.Slonczewski (1999)

For some time it has been understood that a ferromagnet–normal-metal (F-N) interface leads to a dynamical coupling between the ferromagnetic magnetization and the spins of the conduction-band electrons in the normal metal.Silsbee et al. (1979); Slonczewski (1996, 1999); Berger (1996); Brataas et al. (2000); Waintal et al. (2000) More recently, several theoretical frameworks were put forward proposing a mechanism for magnetization damping due to F-N interfacial processes.Berger (1996); Wegrowe (2000); Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) This F-N coupling becomes important in the limit of ultrathin ($``$10 nm) ferromagnetic films and can lead to a sizable enhancement of the damping constant.

Our theory is based on a new physical picture, according to which the ferromagnetic damping can be understood as an adiabatic pumping of spins into the adjacent normal metals.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) This spin transfer is governed by the reflection and transmission matrices of the system, analogous to the scattering theory of transport and interlayer exchange coupling. The microscopic expression for the enhanced Gilbert damping and the renormalized gyromagnetic ratio can be calculated by simple models or by first-principles band-structure calculations without adjustable parameters. The present theory therefore allows quantitative predictions for the magnetization damping in hybrid systems that can be tested by experiments.

The Gilbert damping constant in thin ferromagnetic films has been experimentally studiedHeinrich et al. (1987); Platow et al. (1998); Mizukami et al. (2001a); Mizukami et al. (2002); Urban et al. (2001) by measuring ferromagnetic-resonance (FMR) linewidths. In the regime of ultrathin ferromagnetic films, $`\alpha `$ was in some cases found to be quite large in comparison with the bulk value $`\alpha _0`$, and sensitively depending on the substrate and capping layer materials. For example, when a 20-Å-thick permalloy (Py) film was sandwiched between two Pt layers, its damping was found to be $`\alpha 10^1`$, but recovered its bulk value $`\alpha 10^2`$ with a Cu buffer and cap.Mizukami et al. (2001a) Heinrich et al. Heinrich et al. (1987) observed an enhanced damping of $``$20 Å-thick Fe films when they were grown on Ag bulk substrates but no significant change in the damping constant was seen for films grown on GaAs even when the film thickness was reduced down to several atomic monolayers.Heinrich (2001) We will demonstrate here that our theory explains all these experimental findings well.

Previously, we studied the situation when the normal-metal layers adjacent to the ferromagnetic films are perfect spin sinks, so that the spin accumulation in the normal metal vanishes.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) Here this theory is generalized to consider the spin accumulation which enables us to explain experimental findings for various F-N systemsHeinrich et al. (1987); Mizukami et al. (2001a); Mizukami et al. (2002) in a unified framework based on the spin-pumping picture.

The paper is organized as follow. In Sec. II and the Appendix, the basic formalism of the adiabatic spin-pump theoryTserkovnyak et al. (2002) is derived using a scattering-matrix approach, and an alternative derivation is given for finite systems, which is based on the conservation of energy and angular momentum. In Secs. III and IV, we solve the diffusion equation to describe transport of injected spins in single and composite normal-metal layers. The spin loss due to spin-orbit or other spin-flip processes is accounted for, leading to an overall damping of the ferromagnetic magnetization precession. In particular, we use the theory to analyze the representative case of Gilbert damping in Py-Pt, Py-Cu, and Py-Cu-Pt hybrids, showing an excellent agreement between our theory and the experimental results.Mizukami et al. (2001a); Mizukami et al. (2002) The last Sec. V is devoted to discussions and conclusions.

## II Precession-induced spin pumping

Consider an N-F-N junction as in Fig. 1 and Fig. 6 in the Appendix. Without a voltage bias, no spin or charge currents flow when the magnetization of the ferromagnet is constant in time. When the magnetization direction starts precessing (as, e.g., under the influence of an applied magnetic field), a spin current $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}`$ is pumped out of the ferromagnet.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) This current into a given N layer depends on the complex-valued parameter $`AA_r+iA_i`$ (the “spin-pumping conductance”) by

$$𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }\left(A_r𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}A_i\frac{d𝐦}{dt}\right).$$
(1)
Here, the time-dependent order parameter of the ferromagnet is a unit vector $`𝐦(t)`$, assuming a monodomain magnet with a spatially uniform magnetization at all times. A detailed derivation of Eq. (1) based on the scattering-matrix theory of transport is presented in the Appendix. $`A=g^{}t^{}`$ depends on the scattering matrix of the ferromagnetic film since

$$g^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}\underset{mn}{}\left[\delta _{mn}r_{mn}^\sigma (r_{mn}^\sigma ^{})^{}\right]$$
(2)
is the dimensionless dc conductance matrixBrataas et al. (2000); Waintal et al. (2000) and

$$t^{}\underset{mn}{}t_{mn}^{}(t_{mn}^{})^{}.$$
(3)
Here (see Fig. 6), $`r_{mn}^{}`$ ($`r_{mn}^{}`$) is a reflection coefficient for spin-up (spin-down) electrons on the normal-metal side and $`t_{mn}^{}`$ ($`t_{mn}^{}`$) is a transmission coefficient for spin-up (spin-down) electrons across the ferromagnetic film from the opposite reservoir into the normal-metal layer, where $`m`$ and $`n`$ label the transverse modes at the Fermi energy in the normal-metal films. Note that the magnetization can take arbitrary directions; in particular, $`𝐦(t)`$ may be far away from its equilibrium value. In such a case, the scattering matrix itself can depend on the orientation of the magnetization, and one has to use $`A(𝐦)`$ in Eq. (1).

When the ferromagnetic film is thicker than its transverse spin-coherence length, $`d>\pi /(k_\text{F}^{}k_\text{F}^{})`$, where $`k_\text{F}^{()}`$ are the spin-dependent Fermi wave vectors, $`t^{}`$ vanishes,Stiles and Zangwill (2002) the spin pumping through a given F-N interface is governed entirely by the interfacial mixing conductance $`A=g^{}g_r^{}+ig_i^{}`$, and we can consider only one of the two interfaces. This is the regime we are focusing on in this paper. Note that the conductance matrix $`g^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ defined in Eq. (2) has to be renormalized for highly transparent interfaces in columnar geometries (by properly subtracting Sharvin resistance contributions from the inverse conductance parameters), as discussed in Ref. Bauer et al., 2002.

As shown before,Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) the spin current \[Eq. (1)\] leads to a damping of the ferromagnetic precession, resulting in a faster alignment of the magnetization with the (effective) applied magnetic field $`𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$. In the derivation by the time-dependent scattering theory, the pumped spins are entirely absorbed by the attached ideal reservoirs. In the following, it is shown that Eq. (1) can be also derived for a finite system by observing that the enhanced rate of damping is accompanied by an energy flow out of the ferromagnet, until a steady state is established in the combined F-N system. For simplicity, assume a magnetization which at time $`t`$ starts rotating around the vector of the magnetic field, $`𝐦(t)𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$. In a short interval of time $`\delta t`$, it slowly (i.e., adiabatically) changes to $`𝐦(t+\delta t)=𝐦(t)+\delta 𝐦`$. In the presence of a large but finite nonmagnetic reservoir without any spin-flip scattering attached to one side of the ferromagnet, this process can be expected to induce a (small) nonvanishing spin accumulation

$$𝝁_s𝑑ϵ\text{Tr}[\widehat{𝝈}\widehat{f}(ϵ)],$$
(4)
where $`\widehat{𝝈}`$ is the Pauli matrix vector and $`\widehat{f}(ϵ)`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ matrix distribution function at a given energy $`ϵ`$ in the reservoir.Brataas et al. (2000) For a slow enough variation of $`𝐦(t)`$, this nonequilibrium spin imbalance must flow back into the ferromagnet, canceling any spin current generated by the magnetization rotation, since, due to the adiabatic assumption, the system is always in a steady state.

Let us assume for the moment that the spins are accumulated in the reservoir along the magnetic field, $`𝝁_s𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$. Flow of $`N_s`$ spins into the normal metal transfers energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_N=N_s\mu _s/2`$ and angular-momentum $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_N=N_s\mathrm{}/2`$ (directed along $`𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$). By the conservation laws, $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_F=\mathrm{\Delta }E_N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }L_F=\mathrm{\Delta }L_N`$, for the corresponding values in the ferromagnet. Using the magnetic energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_F=\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }L_FH_{\text{eff}}`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the absolute gyromagnetic ratio of the ferromagnet, we then find that $`N_s\mu _s/2=\gamma N_s(\mathrm{}/2)H_{\text{eff}}`$. It then follows that $`\mu _s=\mathrm{}\gamma H_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{}\omega `$, where $`\omega =\gamma H_{\text{eff}}`$ is the Larmor frequency of precession in the effective field: The spin-up and spin-down chemical potentials in the normal metal are split by $`\mu _s=\mathrm{}\omega `$, the energy corresponding to the frequency of the perturbation. For a finite angle $`\theta `$ between $`𝝁_s`$ and $`𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$, the same reasoning would lead to $`\mu _s=\mathrm{}\omega \mathrm{cos}\theta `$, which is smaller than the “energy boost” $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ of the time-dependent perturbation, thus justifying our initial guess.

We can employ magnetoelectronic circuit theoryBrataas et al. (2000) to derive an expression for the backflow of spin current $`𝐈_s^{\text{back}}`$ which, as argued above, has to be equal to the pumping current $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}=𝐈_s^{\text{back}}`$:

$`𝐈_s^{\text{back}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left(g_r^{}𝝁\text{ }_s+g_i^{}𝐦\times 𝝁_s\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }}\left(g_r^{}𝐦\times {\displaystyle \frac{d𝐦}{dt}}g_i^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d𝐦}{dt}}\right).`$ (5)
Here, we used $`\mu _s=\mathrm{}\omega `$ and $`𝝁_s𝐦`$, since by the conservation of angular momentum, the spin transfer is proportional to the change in the direction $`\delta 𝐦𝐦`$. We thus recover Eq. (1) for the case of a single and finite reservoir. It is easy to repeat the proof for an arbitrary initial alignment of $`𝐦(t)`$ with $`𝐇_{\text{eff}}`$. Furthermore, a straightforward generalization of this discussion to the case of the N-F-N sandwich structure recovers our previous result \[Eq. (1)\].

The expressions for the adiabatic spin pumping are not the whole story, since spin-flip scattering is an important fact of life in magnetoelectronics. In Ref. Tserkovnyak et al., 2002, we only considered the extreme situation where the normal-metal layer is a perfect spin sink, so that all spins injected by $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}`$ relax by spin-flip processes or leave the system; the total spin current through the contact was, therefore, approximated by $`𝐈_s𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}`$ and $`𝐈_s^{\text{back}}0`$. Here, we generalize that treatment to self-consistently take into account the spin build-up in the normal metal at dynamic equilibrium. We then find the contribution to $`𝐈_s`$ due to the spin–accumulation-driven current $`𝐈_s^{\text{back}}`$ back into the ferromagnet:

$$𝐈_s=𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}𝐈_s^{\text{back}},$$
(6)
which vanishes in the absence of spin-flip scattering.

The spin current out of the ferromagnet carries angular momentum perpendicular to the magnetization direction. By conservation of angular momentum, the spins ejected by $`𝐈_s`$ correspond to a torque $`𝝉=𝐈_s`$ on the ferromagnet. If possible interfacial spin-flip processes are disregarded, the torque  $`𝝉`$ is entirely transferred to the coherent magnetization precession. The dynamics of the ferromagnet can then be described by a generalized Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (LLG) equationGilbert (1955); Slonczewski (1996)

$$\frac{d𝐦}{dt}=\gamma 𝐦\times 𝐇_{\text{eff}}+\alpha _0𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}+\frac{\gamma }{M_sV}𝐈_s,$$
(7)
where $`\alpha _0`$ is the dimensionless bulk Gilbert damping constant, $`M_s`$ is the saturation magnetization of the ferromagnet, and $`V`$ is its volume. The intrinsic bulk constant $`\alpha _0`$ is smaller than the total Gilbert damping $`\alpha =\alpha _0+\alpha ^{}`$. The additional damping $`\alpha ^{}`$ caused by the spin pumping is observable in, for example, FMR spectra and is the main object of interest here.

## III Spin–accumulation-driven backflow in the F-N and N-F-N multilayers

The precession of the magnetization does not cause any charge current in the system. The spin accumulation or nonequilibrium chemical potential imbalance $`𝝁_s(x)`$ \[similar to Eq. (4), but spatially dependent now\] in the normal metal is a vector, which depends on the distance from the interface $`x`$, $`0<x<L`$, where $`L`$ is the thickness of the normal-metal film, see Fig. 2.

When the ferromagnetic magnetization steadily rotates around the $`z`$ axis, $`𝐦\times \dot{𝐦}`$ and the normal-metal spin accumulation $`𝝁_s(x)`$ are oriented along $`z`$, as depicted in Fig. 2. There is no spin imbalance in the ferromagnet, because $`𝝁_s`$ is perpendicular to the magnetization direction $`𝐦`$. As shown below, the time-dependent $`𝝁_s`$ is also perpendicular to $`𝐦`$ even in the case of a precessing ferromagnet with time-dependent instantaneous rotation axis, as long as the precession frequency $`\omega `$ is smaller than the spin-flip rate $`\tau _{\text{sf}}^1`$ in the normal metal.

The spin accumulation diffuses into the normal metal as

$$i\omega 𝝁_s=D_x^2𝝁_s\tau _{\text{sf}}^1𝝁_s,$$
(8)
where $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient. The boundary conditions are determined by the continuity of the spin current from the ferromagnet into the normal metal at $`x=0`$ and the vanishing of the spin current at the outer boundary $`x=L`$:

$`x`$ $`=0:_x𝝁_s=2(\mathrm{}𝒩SD)^1𝐈_s,`$
$`x`$ $`=L:_x𝝁_s=0,`$ (9)
where $`𝒩`$ is the (one-spin) density of states in the film and $`S`$ is the area of the interface. The solution to Eq. (8) with the boundary conditions \[Eqs. (9)\] is

$$𝝁_s(x)=\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\kappa (xL)}{\mathrm{sinh}\kappa L}\frac{2𝐈_s}{\mathrm{}𝒩SD\kappa }$$
(10)
with the wave vector $`\kappa =\lambda _{\text{sd}}^1\sqrt{1+i\omega \tau _{\text{sf}}}`$, where $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}\sqrt{D\tau _{\text{sf}}}`$ is the spin-flip diffusion length in the normal metal. In Ref. Brataas et al., 2002 we used arguments similar to those in the present paper to calculate the spin accumulation (10) generated by the precessing magnetization. While the size of the effect and its relevance for spintronic applications are detailed in Ref. Brataas et al., 2002, in this work we focus on the role of the spin accumulation in the dynamics of the ferromagnetic magnetization.

We assume in the following that the precession frequency $`\omega `$ is smaller than the spin-flip relaxation rate $`\omega \tau _{\text{sf}}^1`$ so that $`\kappa \lambda _{\text{sd}}^1`$. For a static applied field of 1 T, typically $`\omega 10^{11}`$ s-1. The elastic scattering rate corresponding to a mean free path of $`\lambda _{\text{el}}10`$ nm is $`\tau _{\text{el}}^110^{14}`$ s-1. Consequently, the derivation below is restricted to metals with a ratio of spin-conserved to spin-flip scattering times $`ϵ\tau _{\text{el}}/\tau _{\text{sf}}10^3`$. In practice,Meservey and Tedrow (1978) this condition is easily satisfied with higher impurity atomic numbers $`Z`$ (as $`ϵ`$ scales asAbrikosov and Gor’kov (1962) $`Z^4`$). The high-frequency limit $`\omega \tau _{sf}^1`$, on the other hand, is relevant for hybrids with little spin-flip scattering in the normal metal, and was discussed in the context of the spin-battery concept.Brataas et al. (2002) Nevertheless, we will see that a sizable Gilbert damping enhancement requires a large spin-flip probability $`ϵ10^1`$ (thereby guaranteeing that $`\omega \tau _{sf}^1`$) unless the frequency is comparable with the elastic scattering rate in the normal metal. The latter regime will not be treated in this paper.

Using relation $`D=v_\text{F}^2\tau _{\text{el}}/3`$ between the diffusion coefficient $`D`$ (in three dimensions), the Fermi velocity $`v_\text{F}`$, and the elastic scattering time $`\tau _{\text{el}}`$, we find for the spin-diffusion length

$$\lambda _{\text{sd}}=v_\text{F}\sqrt{\tau _{\text{el}}\tau _{\text{sf}}/3}.$$
(11)
An effective energy-level spacing of the states participating in the spin-flip scattering events in a thick film can be defined by

$$\delta _{\text{sd}}(𝒩S\lambda _{\text{sd}})^1.$$
(12)
The spin–accumulation-driven spin current $`𝐈_s^{\text{back}}`$ through the interface readsBrataas et al. (2001)

$`𝐈_s^{\text{back}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}[2g_r^{}𝝁_s(x=0)+2g_i^{}𝐦\times 𝝁_s(x=0)`$
$`+(g^{}+g^{}2g_r^{})(𝐦𝝁_s(x=0))𝐦].`$ (13)
Substituting Eq. (10) into Eq. (13), we find for the total spin current \[Eq. (6)\]

$`𝐈_s`$ $`=𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2}}[2g_r^{}𝐈_s+2g_i^{}𝐦\times 𝐈_s`$
$`+(g^{}+g^{}2g_r^{})(𝐦𝐈_s)𝐦],`$ (14)
where the spin current returning into the ferromagnet is governed by the “backflow” factor $`\beta `$,

$$\beta \frac{\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}{\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})}.$$
(15)
When the normal metal is shorter than the spin-diffusion length ($`L\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$), $`\beta \tau _{\text{sf}}\delta /h`$, where $`\delta =(𝒩SL)^1`$ is the energy-level splitting. In the opposite regime of thick normal metals ($`L\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$), $`\beta \tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h`$. Basically, $`\beta `$ \[Eq. (15)\] is therefore the ratio between the energy level spacing of the normal-metal film with a thickness $`L_{\text{sf}}=\mathrm{min}(L,\lambda _{\text{sd}})`$ and the spin-flip rate.

By inverting Eq. (14), we may express the total spin current $`𝐈_s`$ in terms of the pumped spin current $`𝐈_s^{\text{pump}}`$ \[Eq. (1)\]

$`𝐈_s`$ $`=\left[1+\beta g_r^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta g_i^{})^2}{1+\beta g_r^{}}}\right]^1`$
$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{\beta g_i^{}}{1+\beta g_r^{}}}𝐦\times )𝐈_s^{\text{ pump}}.`$ (16)
After substituting Eq. (1) into Eq. (16), we recover the form of Eq. (1) for the total spin current $`𝐈_s,`$ but with a redefined spin-pumping conductance $`\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}_r+i\stackrel{~}{A}_i`$

$$𝐈_s=\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }\left(\stackrel{~}{A}_r𝐦\times \frac{d𝐦}{dt}\stackrel{~}{A}_i\frac{d𝐦}{dt}\right).$$
(17)
$`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ can be expressed in terms of the mixing conductance $`g^{}`$ and the backflow factor $`\beta `$ by

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{A}_r\\ \stackrel{~}{A}_i\end{array}\right)`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \beta g_i^{}(1+\beta g_r^{})^1\\ \beta g_i^{}(1+\beta g_r^{})^1& 1\end{array}\right)`$ (22)
$`\left[1+\beta g_r^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\beta g_i^{})^2}{1+\beta g_r^{}}}\right]^1\left(\begin{array}{c}g_r^{}\\ g_i^{}\end{array}\right).`$ (25)
It has been shownXia et al. (2001a) that for realistic F-N interfaces $`g_i^{}g_r^{}`$, so that $`g^{}g_r^{}`$. (The latter approximation will be implied for the rest of the paper.) In this important regime, $`\stackrel{~}{A}_i`$ vanishes and the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{A}_r`$ in Eq. (17) has the same form as and therefore enhances the phenomenological Gilbert damping. This can be easily seen after substituting Eq. (17) into Eq. (7): The last term on the right-hand side of Eq. (7) can be combined with the second term by defining the total Gilbert damping coefficient $`\alpha =\alpha _0+\alpha ^{}`$, where

$$\alpha ^{}=\left[1+g^{}\frac{\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}{\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})}\right]^1\frac{g_Lg^{}}{4\pi \mu }$$
(26)
is the additional damping constant due to the interfacial F-N coupling. Here, $`g_L`$ is the $`g`$ factor and $`\mu `$ is the total film magnetic moment in units of $`\mu _\text{B}`$. Equation. (26) is the main result of this section. When $`L\mathrm{}`$, Eq. (26) reduces to a simple result: $`\alpha ^{}=g_Lg_{\text{eff}}^{}/(4\pi \mu )`$, where

$$\frac{1}{g_{\text{eff}}^{}}=\frac{1}{g^{}}+R_{\text{sd}}.$$
(27)
Here $`R_{\text{sd}}=\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h`$ is the resistance (per spin, in units of $`h/e^2`$) of the normal-metal layer of thickness $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$. \[Which follows from the Einstein’s relation $`\sigma =e^2D𝒩`$ connecting conductivity $`\sigma `$ with the diffusion coefficient $`D`$, and using Eq. (12).\] It follows that the effective spin pumping out of the ferromagnet is governed by $`g_{\text{eff}}^{}`$, i.e., the conductance of the F-N interface in series with diffusive normal-metal film with thickness $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$.Bauer et al. (2002)

The prefactor on the right-hand side of Eq. (26) suppresses the additional Gilbert dampingTserkovnyak et al. (2002) due to the spin angular momentum that diffuses back into the ferromagnet. It was disregarded in Ref. Tserkovnyak et al., 2002 where the normal metal was viewed as a perfect spin sink. Because spins accumulate in the normal metal perpendicular to the ferromagnetic magnetization, the spin–accumulation-driven transport across the F-N contact, as well as the spin pumping, is governed by a mixing conductance. This explains why the other components of the conductance matrix \[Eq. (2)\] do not enter Eq. (26).

We now estimate the numerical values of the parameters in Eq. (26) for transition metal ferromagnets Fe, Co, and Ni, in contact with relatively clean simple normal metals Al, Cr, Cu, Pd, Ag, Ta, Pt, and Au. For an isotropic electron gas, $`𝒩=k_\text{F}^2/(\pi hv_\text{F})`$. Using Eqs. (11) and (12), we find $`h/(\delta _{\text{sd}}\tau _{\text{sf}})=4\sqrt{ϵ/3}N_{\text{ch}}`$, where $`N_{\text{ch}}=Sk_\text{F}^2/(4\pi )`$ is the number of transverse channels in the normal metal and $`ϵ\tau _{\text{el}}/\tau _{\text{sf}}`$ is the spin-flip probability at each scattering. In Ref. Xia et al., 2001a, $`g^{}`$ was calculated for Co-Cu and Fe-Cr interfaces by first-principles band-structure calculations. It was found that irrespective of the interfacial disorder, $`g^{}N_{\text{ch}}`$ for these material combinations. As shown in Ref. Bauer et al., 2002, $`g^{}`$ has to be renormalized in such limit, making the effective conductances about twice as large. We thus arrive at an estimate

$$\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}}{\alpha ^{}}1+\left[\sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})\right]^1,$$
(28)
where $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}=g_Lg^{}/(4\pi \mu )`$ is the Gilbert damping enhancement assuming infinite spin-flip rate in the normal metal $`\tau _{\text{sf}}0`$, i.e., treating it as a perfect spin sink.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002)

It follows that only for a high spin-flip probability $`ϵ10^2`$, the normal-metal film can be a good spin sink so that $`\alpha ^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$. This makes the lighter metals, such as Al, Cr, and Cu, as well as heavier metals with only s electrons in the conduction band, such as Ag, Au, and Ta less effective spin sinks since these metals have a relatively small spin-orbit coupling, typically corresponding to $`ϵ10^2`$ .Meservey and Tedrow (1978); Bergmann (1982); Yang et al. (1994) Heavier elements with $`Z50`$ and $`p`$ or $`d`$ electrons in the conduction band, such as Pd and Pt, on the other hand, can be good or nearly perfect spin sinks as they have a much larger $`ϵ10^1`$.Meservey and Tedrow (1978) This conclusion explains the hierarchy of the observed Gilbert damping enhancement in Ref. Mizukami et al., 2001a: Pt has about 2 electrons per atom in the conduction band, which are hybridized with d orbitals, and a large atomic number $`Z=78`$ and, consequently, leads to a large magnetization damping enhancement in the N-F-N sandwich for thin ferromagnetic films. Pd which is above Pt in the periodic table having similar atomic configuration but smaller atomic number $`Z=46`$ leads to a sizable damping, but smaller than for Pt by a factor of 2. Ta is a heavy element, $`Z=73`$, but has only s electrons and the damping enhancement is an order of magnitude smaller than in Pt. Finally, Cu is a relatively light element, $`Z=29`$, with s electrons only and does not cause an observable damping enhancement at all. According to Eq. (28), a sufficiently thick active layer, $`L\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$, is also required for a sizable spin relaxation.

The limit of a large ratio of spin-flip to non-spin-flip scattering $`ϵ1`$ deserves special attention. In this regime, Eq. (28) does not hold, since by using the diffusion equation \[Eq. (8)\] and boundary conditions \[Eqs. (9)\] we implicitly assumed that $`ϵ1`$. If $`ϵ10^1`$, on the other hand, even interfacial scattering alone can efficiently relax the spin imbalance, and such films, therefore, are good or nearly perfect spin sinks (so that $`\alpha ^{}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$), regardless of their thickness (in particular, they can be thinner than the elastic mean free path).

Infinite vs vanishing spin-flip rates in the normal metal are two extreme regimes for the magnetization dynamics in F-N bilayers. In the former case, the damping constant $`\alpha =\alpha _0+g_Lg^{}/(4\pi \mu )`$ is significantly enhanced for thin ferromagnetic films, whereas in the latter case, $`\alpha =\alpha _0`$ is independent of the ferromagnetic film thickness. Experimentally, the two regimes are accessible by using Pt as a perfect or Cu as a poor spin sink in contact with a ferromagnetic thin film, as done in Ref. Mizukami et al., 2001a for N-Py-N sandwiches. (Using the N-F-N trilayer simply increases $`\alpha ^{}`$ by the factor of 2, as compared to the F-N bilayer, due to the spin pumping through the two interfaces.) The measured damping parameter $`G=\gamma M_s\alpha `$ is shown in Fig. 3 by circles.

For the Cu-Py-Cu trilayer, our theory predicts $`G(d)=G_0`$, while for the Pt-Py-Pt sandwich

$$G(d)=G_0+\frac{(g_L\mu _\text{B})^2}{2\pi \mathrm{}}\frac{g^{}S^1}{d}$$
(29)
as a function of ferromagnetic film thickness $`d`$. The Py $`g`$ factor is $`g_L2.1`$.Mizukami et al. (2001a) These expression agree with the experiments for $`G_0=1.0\times 10^8`$ s-1 and $`g^{}S^1=2.6\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2 (see Fig. 3). Both numbers are very reasonable: $`G_0`$ equals the bulk value $`0.71.0\times 10^8`$ s-1 for Py,Patton et al. (1975) while $`g^{}S^1`$ compares well with $`g^{}S^11.6\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2 found in angular-magnetoresistance (aMR) measurements in Py-Cu hybrids.Bauer et al. (2002) (We recall that here one has to use the renormalized mixing conductance $`\stackrel{~}{g}^{}`$, in the notation of Ref. Bauer et al., 2002.) In fact, since Pt has two conduction electrons per atom, while Cu–only one, and they have similar crystal structures, we expect $`g^{}`$ to be larger in the case of the Py-Pt hybrid, justifying the value used to fit the experimental data. We have thus demonstrated that the additional damping in ferromagnetic thin films can be used to measure the mixing conductance of the F-N interface.

## IV Magnetic damping in F-N1-N2 trilayer

In this section we consider ferromagnetic spin pumping into a bilayer N1-N2 normal-metal system, see Fig. 4. It is assumed that the spins are driven into the first normal-metal film (N1) of thickness $`L`$. While in N1, spins are allowed to diffuse through the film, where they can relax, diffuse back into the ferromagnet, or reach the second normal-metal layer (N2). N2 is taken to be a perfect spin sink: spins reaching N2 either relax immediately by spin-flip processes or are carried away before diffusing back into N1. We show that measuring the ferromagnetic magnetization damping as a function of $`L`$ in this configuration can be used to study the dc mixing conductance of the two N1 film interfaces as well as the N1 spin-diffusion time.

The analysis in this section was inspired by experiments of Mizukami et al.,Mizukami et al. (2002) who in a follow-up to their systematic study of Gilbert damping in N-Py-N sandwiches,Mizukami et al. (2001a) studied magnetization damping in Py-Cu and Py-Cu-Pt hybrids as a function of Cu film thickness $`L`$. The measured damping parameter $`G`$ is shown by circles in Fig. 5. As shown in the preceding section, Cu is a poor sink for the pumped spins, while Pt is nearly a perfect spin absorber, thus identifying the Cu film with N1 and the Pt layer with N2.

We use the same notation as in the previous section to discuss the F-N1 spin pumping with subsequent spin diffusion through N1. Similar to Eqs. (9), the boundary conditions for the diffusion equation (8) in the normal metal N1 are now:

$`x=0:_x𝝁_s`$ $`=2(\mathrm{}𝒩SD)^1𝐈_{s1},`$
$`x=L:_x𝝁_s`$ $`=2(\mathrm{}𝒩SD)^1𝐈_{s2}.`$ (30)
$`𝐈_{s1}`$ and $`𝐈_{s2}`$ are the total spin currents through the left ($`x=0`$) and right ($`x=L`$) interfaces, respectively. $`𝐈_{s1}`$ (similarly to $`𝐈_s`$ \[Eq. (6)\] in the previous section) includes the pumped spin current \[Eq. (1)\] and the spin–accumulation-driven spin current \[Eq. (13)\] contributions. $`𝐈_{s2}`$, on the other hand, is entirely governed by the N1$``$N2 spin–accumulation-driven flow

$$𝐈_{s2}=\frac{g}{4\pi }𝝁_s(x=L),$$
(31)
where $`g`$ is the conductance per spin of the N1-N2 interface.

Solving the diffusion equation (8) with the boundary conditions (30), we find the spin current $`𝐈_{s1}`$ as we did in the preceding section. The Gilbert damping enhancement due to the spin relaxation in the composite normal-metal system is then given by

$$\alpha ^{}=\left[1+g^{}\frac{\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}}{h}\frac{1+\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})g\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}{\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})+g\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}\right]^1\frac{g_Lg^{}}{4\pi \mu }.$$
(32)
Setting $`g=0`$ decouples the two normal-metal systems and reduces Eq. (32) to Eq. (26) giving the damping coefficient of the F-N1 bilayer. From Eq. (32), we get for the Py-Cu$`(L)`$-Pt trilayer

$`G(L)`$ $`=G_0+\left[1+g^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}}{h}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})g\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}{\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})+g\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}}\right]^1`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(g_L\mu _\text{B})^2}{2h}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}S^1}{d}}`$ (33)
and for the Py-Cu$`(L)`$ bilayer (putting $`g=0`$)

$$G(L)=G_0+\left[1+\frac{g^{}\tau _{\text{sf}}\delta _{\text{sd}}/h}{\mathrm{tanh}(L/\lambda _{\text{sd}})}\right]^1\frac{(g_L\mu _\text{B})^2}{2h}\frac{g^{}S^1}{d}.$$
(34)
In the experiments, the permalloy thickness $`d=30`$ Å is fixed and the Cu film thickness $`L`$ is varied between 3 and 1500 nm as shown by the circles in Fig. 5. Our theoretical results, Eqs. (33) and (34), are plotted in Fig. 5 by solid lines. We use the following parameters: The bulk dampingPatton et al. (1975) $`G_0=0.7\times 10^8`$ s-1; the spin-flip probability $`ϵ=1/700`$ and the spin-diffusion length $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}=250`$ nm for Cu (which correspond to elastic mean free path $`\lambda _{\text{el}}=\sqrt{3ϵ}\lambda _{\text{sd}}=16`$ nm), in agreement with values reported in literature;Meservey and Tedrow (1978); Yang et al. (1994); Jedema et al. (2001) $`g^{}S^1=1.6\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2 from the aMR measurements;Bauer et al. (2002) and $`gS^1=3.5\times 10^{15}`$ cm-2 for the Cu-Pt contact, which lies between values for the majority and minority carriers as measured and calculatedXia et al. (2001b) for the Cu-Co interface. Figure 5 shows a remarkable agreement (within the experimental error) between the measurements and our theory. It is important to stress that while the profiles of the trends displayed in Fig. 5 reveal the diffusive nature of spin transfer in the Cu spacer, they cannot be used to judge the validity of a detailed mechanism for spin injection (relaxation) at the Py-Cu (Cu-Pt) interface. The case of our spin pumping picture is strongly supported by the normalization of the curves (in agreement with experiment), which are governed in our theory by quantities known from other sources.

The trends in Fig. 5 can be understood as follows. Since Cu is a poor spin sink, a Py-Cu contact with a single Cu film does not lead to a significant damping enhancement. The small spin-flip ratio, $`ϵ1`$, causes most of the spins transferred into the normal-metal layer to be scattered back and relax in the ferromagnet before flipping their direction in the Cu buffer. This leads only to a small damping enhancement, which saturates at $`L\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$ and vanishes in the limit $`L\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$. The situation changes after a Pt film, a very good spin sink, is connected to the bilayer: If the normal-metal layer is smaller than the elastic mean free path, $`L\lambda _{\text{el}}`$, the spin accumulation is uniform throughout the Cu buffer. The spin pumping will now be partitioned. A fraction of the pumped spins reflects back into the ferromagnet, while the rest get transmitted and subsequently relax in the Pt layer. The ratio between these two fractions equals the ratio between the conductance of the Py-Cu contact and the Co-Pt contact, $`g^{}/g`$, and is of the order of unity. This results in a large magnetization damping as a significant portion of the spin pumping relaxes by spin-orbit scattering in Pt. When $`L`$ is increased, less spins manage to diffuse through the entire Cu buffer, and, in the limit $`L\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$, the majority of the spins scatter back into the ferromagnet or relax in Cu not feeling the presence of the Pt layer at all. In the intermediate regime, the spin pumping into the Pt layer has an algebraic fall-off on the scale of the elastic mean free path and exponential one on the scale of the spin-diffusion length.

It is important to emphasize that the strong dependence of damping on the Cu layer thickness $`L`$ in the Py-Cu-Pt configuration gives evidence of the spin accumulation in the normal-metal system. This spin accumulation, in turn, indicates that an excited ferromagnet (as in the FMR experiment discussed here) transfers spins into adjacent nonmagnetic layers, confirming our claim.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) Furthermore, this supports our concept of the spin battery.Brataas et al. (2002)

Before ending this section, it is illuminating to make a small digression and further study Eq. (33) in the limit of vanishing spin-flip processes in the buffer layer N1. Recalling our definitions for $`\lambda _{\text{sd}}`$ and $`\delta _{\text{sd}}`$ \[Eqs. (11) and (12)\] and taking limit $`\tau _{\text{sf}}\mathrm{}`$, we find that Eq. (33) reduces to Eq. (29), only with $`g^{}`$ replaced by $`g_{\text{eff}}^{}`$ \[similarly to Eq. (27)\]:

$$\frac{1}{g_{\text{eff}}^{}}=\frac{1}{g^{}}+R_{N1}+\frac{1}{g},$$
(35)
where $`R_{N1}`$ is the resistance of the N1 layer. The right-hand side of Eq. (35) is simply the inverse mixing conductance of the N1 buffer in series with its two interfaces (one with F and one with N2);Bauer et al. (2002) in particular, when layer N1 is thick enough, the total mixing conductance $`g_{\text{eff}}^{}`$ is just the conductance of the diffusive normal-metal spacer separating F and N2.Brataas et al. (2000, 2001) The spin pumping into layer N1 with the subsequent diffusion and then spin absorption by the ideal spin sink N2 (as discussed in this section) can thus be viewed as the spin pumping across an effective combined scatterer separating the ferromagnet (F) from the perfect spin sink (N2) \[as done in obtaining Eq. (29)\]. This shows consistency of our approach.

## V Conclusions and discussions

Ferromagnets emit a spin current into adjacent normal metals when the magnetization direction changes with time. We recently proposed a novel mechanism for this spin transfer based on the picture of adiabatic spin pumping.Tserkovnyak et al. (2002) It was shown that our theory explains the increased magnetization damping in ferromagnets in contact with normal metals in measurements of FMR linewidths.Mizukami et al. (2001a); Mizukami et al. (2002); Heinrich et al. (1987); Urban et al. (2001)

Whereas the spin pumping affects the magnetization dynamics, it also creates a nonequilibrium magnetization in adjacent nonmagnetic films. In this paper we first calculate this spin accumulation for F-N metallic multilayers and find that it induces a spin backflow into the ferromagnetic layer that reduces the spin pumping. This spin–accumulation-driven current is significant for light metals or metals with only s electrons in the conduction band, which have a small spin-flip to spin-conserving scattering ratio.

The picture of ferromagnetic spin pumping and subsequent spin diffusion in the adjacent normal-metal layers is also applied to the F-N1-N2 configuration in order to analyze recent experimentsMizukami et al. (2002) on magnetization damping in Py-Cu-Pt trilayers. We showed that our theory quantitatively explains the experimental findings. Our analysis of the experiments by Mizukami et al. Mizukami et al. (2001a); Mizukami et al. (2002) shows that FMR of ultrathin ferromagnetic films in contact with single or composite normal-metal buffers is a powerful tool to investigate interfacial transport properties of magnetic multilayers as well as the spin relaxation parameters of the normal-metal layers.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to B. I. Halperin and Yu. V. Nazarov for stimulating discussions. This work was supported in part by the DARPA Award No. MDA 972-01-1-0024, the NEDO International Joint Research Grant Program “Nano-magnetoelectronics”, NSF Grant DMR 99-81283, the FOM, and the Schlumberger Foundation.

## Appendix: Adiabatic spin pumping

Here we present a detailed discussion of spin pumping into normal-metal layers by a precessing magnetization direction $`𝐦`$ of an adjacent ferromagnet. A schematic of the model is displayed in Fig. 6. The ferromagnetic layer F is a a spin-dependent scatterer that governs electron transport between two \[left ($`L`$) and right ($`R`$)\] normal-metal reservoirs.

The $`2\times 2`$ operator $`\widehat{I}_l`$ for the charge and spin current in the $`l`$th lead $`\left(l=L,R\right)`$ can be expressed in terms of operators $`a_{\alpha m,l}(E)`$ \[$`b_{\alpha m,l}(E)`$\] that annihilate a spin-$`\alpha `$ electron with energy $`E`$ leaving \[entering\] the $`l`$th lead through the $`m`$th channel:

$`\widehat{I}_l^{\alpha \beta }(t)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e}{h}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E𝑑E^{}e^{i(EE^{})t/\mathrm{}}}`$
$`\times \left[a_{\beta m,l}^{}(E)a_{\alpha m,l}(E^{})b_{\beta m,l}^{}(E)b_{\alpha m,l}(E^{})\right].`$ (36)
When the scattering matrix $`\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}^{\alpha \beta }(t)`$ of the ferromagnetic layer varies slowly on the time scales of electronic relaxation in the system, an adiabatic approximation may be used. The annihilation operators for particles entering the reservoirs are then related to the operators of the outgoing states by the instantaneous value of the scattering matrix: $`b_{\alpha m,l}(E)=\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}^{\alpha \beta }(t)a_{\beta n,l^{}}(E)`$. In terms of $`a_{\alpha m,l}`$ only, we can evaluate the expectation value $`\widehat{I}_l^{\alpha \beta }(t)`$ of the current operator using $`a_{\alpha m,l}^{}(E)a_{\beta n,l^{}}(E^{})=f_l(E)\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{mn}\delta _{ll^{}}\delta (EE^{})`$, where $`f_l(E)`$ is the (isotropic) distribution function in the $`l`$th reservoir. When the scattering matrix depends on a single time-dependent parameter $`X(t)`$, then the Fourier transform of the current expectation value $`\widehat{I}_l(\omega )=𝑑te^{i\omega t}\widehat{I}_l(t)`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{I}_l(\omega )=\widehat{g}_{X,l}(\omega )X(\omega )$$
(37)
in terms of a frequency $`\omega `$\- and $`X`$-dependent parameter $`\widehat{g}_{X,l}`$:Büttiker et al. (1994)

$`\widehat{g}_{X,l}(\omega )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e\omega }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{l^{}}{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑E\left(\frac{f_l^{}(E)}{E}\right)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}(E)}{X}}\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}^{}(E)\text{H.c.}).`$ (38)
Equation (37) is the first-order (in frequency) correction to the dc Landauer-Büttiker formula.Büttiker (1986) At equilibrium $`f_R(E)=f_L(E)`$, Eq. (37) is the lowest-order nonvanishing contribution to the current. Furthermore, at sufficiently low temperatures, we can approximate $`f_l(E)/E`$ by a $`\delta `$-function centered at Fermi energy. The expectation value of the $`2\times 2`$ particle-number operator $`\widehat{Q}_l(\omega )`$ \[defined by $`\widehat{I}_l(t)=d\widehat{Q}_l(t)/dt`$ in time or by $`\widehat{I}_l(\omega )=i\omega \widehat{Q}_l(\omega )`$ in frequency domain\] for the $`l`$th reservoir is then given by

$$\widehat{Q}_l(\omega )=\left(\frac{e}{4\pi i}\underset{mnl^{}}{}\frac{\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}}{X}\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}^{}+\text{H.c.}\right)X(\omega ),$$
(39)
where the scattering matrices are evaluated at the Fermi energy. Because the prefactor on the right-hand side of Eq. (39) does not depend on frequency $`\omega `$, the equation is also valid in time domain. The change in particle number $`\delta \widehat{Q}_l(t)`$ is proportional to the modulation $`\delta X(t)`$ of parameter $`X`$ and the $`2\times 2`$ matrix current (directed into the normal-metal leads) reads

$$\widehat{I}_l(t)=e\frac{\widehat{n}_l}{X}\frac{dX(t)}{dt},$$
(40)
where the “matrix emissivity” into lead $`l`$ is

$$\frac{\widehat{n}_l}{X}=\frac{1}{4\pi i}\underset{mnl^{}}{}\frac{\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}}{X}\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}^{}+\text{H.c.}.$$
(41)
If the spin-flip scattering in the ferromagnetic layer is disregarded, the scattering matrix $`\widehat{s}`$ can be written in terms of the spin-up and spin-down scattering coefficients $`s^{()}`$ using the projection matrices $`\widehat{u}^{}=\left(\widehat{1}+\widehat{𝝈}𝐦\right)/2`$ and $`\widehat{u}^{}=\left(\widehat{1}\widehat{𝝈}𝐦\right)/2`$:Brataas et al. (2000)

$$\widehat{s}_{mn,ll^{}}=s_{mn,ll^{}}^{}\widehat{u}^{}+s_{mn,ll^{}}^{}\widehat{u}^{}.$$
(42)
The spin current pumped by the magnetization precession is obtained by identifying $`X(t)=\phi (t)`$, where $`\phi `$ is the azimuthal angle of the magnetization direction in the plane perpendicular to the precession axis. For simplicity, we assume that the magnetization rotates around the $`y`$ axis: $`𝐦=(\mathrm{sin}\phi ,0,\mathrm{cos}\phi )`$. Using Eq. (42), it is then easy to calculate the emissivity \[Eq. (41)\] for this process:

$$\frac{\widehat{n}_l}{\phi }=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left[A_r\sigma _y+A_i(\sigma _x\mathrm{cos}\phi \sigma _z\mathrm{sin}\phi )\right],$$
(43)
where $`A_r(A_i)=\text{Re}(\text{Im})[g^{}t^{}]`$, as explained in Sec. II. Expanding the $`2\times 2`$ current into isotropic and traceless components,

$$\widehat{I}=\frac{\widehat{1}}{2}I_c\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}\widehat{𝝈}𝐈_s,$$
(44)
we identify the charge current $`I_c`$ and spin current $`𝐈_s`$. Comparing Eqs. (40), (43), and (44), we find that the charge current vanishes, $`I_c=0`$, and the spin current

$$𝐈_s=(A_i\mathrm{cos}\phi ,A_r,A_i\mathrm{sin}\phi )\frac{\mathrm{}}{4\pi }\frac{d\phi }{dt}$$
(45)
can be rewritten as Eq. (1). Because the spin current transforms as a vector, it is straightforward to show that Eq. (1) is also valid in the case of the general motion of the magnetization direction.

Even though the mathematics of our scattering approach to adiabatic spin pumping is entirely analogous to the charge-pumping theory developed in Ref. Brouwer, 1998, there are some striking differences in the physics. In the case of a spin-independent scatterer as in Ref. Brouwer, 1998, the average charge-pumping current has the same direction in the two leads, by charge conservation: the charge entering the scattering region through either lead must leave it within a period of the external-gate variations. Whereas the particle number of the two reservoirs must (on average) be conserved also here, the total conduction-electron spin angular momentum is not conserved. In fact, as we explained in Ref. Tserkovnyak et al., 2002 for a symmetric system shown in Fig. 6, a precessing ferromagnet loses angular momentum by polarizing adjacent nonmagnetic conductors. In this respect, the phenomenon looks more similar to a spin “well” or “fountain”: An excited ferromagnet ejects spins in all directions into adjacent conductors by losing its own angular momentum, rather than transfers (“pumps”) spins from one lead to the other. The angular momentum has to be provided, of course, by the applied magnetic field.