# A basic obstacle for electrical spin-injection from a ferromagnetic metal into a diffusive semiconductor

## Abstract

We have calculated the spin-polarization effects of a current in a two dimensional electron gas which is contacted by two ferromagnetic metals. In the purely diffusive regime, the current may indeed be spin-polarized. However, for a typical device geometry the degree of spin-polarization of the current is limited to less than 0.1%, only. The change in device resistance for parallel and antiparallel magnetization of the contacts is up to quadratically smaller, and will thus be difficult to detect.

(Accepted by PRB Rap. com.)

Spin-polarized electron injection into semiconductors has been a field of growing interest during the last years. The injection and detection of a spin-polarized current in a semiconducting material could combine magnetic storage of information with electronic readout in a single semiconductor device, yielding many obvious advantages. However, up to now experiments for spin-injection from ferromagnetic metals into semiconductors have only shown effects of less than 1%, which sometimes are difficult to separate from stray-field-induced Hall- or magnetoresistance-effects. In contrast, spin-injection from magnetic semiconductors has already been demonstrated successfully using an optical detection method.

Typically, the experiments on spin-injection from a ferromagnetic contact are performed using a device with a simple injector-detector geometry, where a ferromagnetic metal contact is used to inject spin polarized carriers into a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG). A spin-polarization of the current is expected from the different conductivities resulting from the different densities of states) for spin-up and spin-down electrons in the ferromagnet. For the full device, this should result in a conductance which depends on the relative magnetization of the two contacts.

A simple linear-response model for transport across a ferromagnetic/normal metal interface, which nonetheless incorporates the detailed behaviour of the electrochemical potentials for both spin directions was first introduced by van Son et al.. Based on a more detailed (Boltzmann) approach, the model was developed further by Valet and Fert for all metal multilayers and GMR. Furthermore, it was applied by Jedema et al. to superconductor-ferromagnet junctions. For the interface between a ferromagnetic and a normal metal, van Son et al. obtain a splitting of the electrochemical potentials for spinup and spindown electrons in the region of the interface. The model was applied only to a single contact and its boundary resistance. We now apply a similar model to a system in which the material properties differ considerably.

Our theory is based on the assumption that spin-scattering occurs on a much slower timescale than other electron scattering events. Under this assumption, two electrochemical potentials $`\mu _{}`$ and $`\mu _{}`$, which need not be equal, can be defined for both spin directions at any point in the device. If the current flow is one dimensional in the $`𝐱`$-direction, the electrochemical potentials are connected to the current via the conductivity $`\sigma `$, the diffusion constant D, and the spin-flip time constant $`\tau _{sf}`$ by Ohm’s law and the diffusion equation, as follows:

$$\frac{\mu _,}{x}=\frac{ej_,}{\sigma _,}$$
(2)   
$$\frac{\mu _{}\mu _{}}{\tau _{sf}}=\frac{D^2(\mu _{}\mu _{})}{x^2}$$
(3)   
where D is a weighted average of the different diffusion constants for both spin directions. Without loss of generality, we assume a perfect interface without spin scattering or interface resistance, in a way that the electrochemical potentials $`\mu _{}`$ and the current densities $`j_{}`$ are continuous.

Starting from these equations, straightforward algebra leads to a splitting of the electrochemical potentials at the boundary of the two materials, which is proportional to the total current density at the interface. The difference $`(\mu _{}\mu _{})`$ between the electrochemical potentials decays exponentially inside the materials, approaching zero difference at $`\pm \mathrm{}`$.

$$(\mu _{}(\pm \mathrm{})=\mu _{}(\pm \mathrm{}))$$
(4)   
A typical lengthscale for the decay of $`(\mu _{}\mu _{})`$ is the spin-flip length $`\lambda =\sqrt{D\tau _{sf}}`$ of the material. In a semiconductor, the spin-flip length $`\lambda _{sc}`$ can exceed its ferromagnetic counterpart $`\lambda _{fm}`$ by several orders of magnitude. In the limit of infinite $`\lambda _{sc}`$, this leads to a splitting of the electrochemical potentials at the interface which stays constant throughout the semiconductor. If the semiconductor extends to $`\mathrm{}`$, Eqs. A basic obstacle for electrical spin-injection from a ferromagnetic metal into a diffusive semiconductor in combination with Eq. 4 imply a linear and parallel slope of the electrochemical potentials for spin-up and spin-down in the semiconductor, forbidding injection of a spin-polarized current if the conductivities for both spin channels in the 2DEG are equal. At the same time, we see that the ferromagnetic contact influences the electron system of the semiconductor over a lengthscale of the order of the spin-flip length in the semiconductor. A second ferromagnetic contact applied at a distance smaller than the spin-flip length may thus lead to a considerably different behaviour depending on its spin-polarization.

In the following, we will apply the theory to a one dimensional system in which a ferromagnet (index $`i=1`$) extending from $`x=\mathrm{}`$ to $`x=0`$ is in contact with a semiconductor (index $`i=2`$, $`0<x<x_0`$), which again is in contact to a second ferromagnet (index $`i=3`$, $`x_0x\mathrm{}`$). This system corresponds to a network of resistors $`R_{1,}`$, $`R_{SC,}`$, and $`R_{3,}`$, representing the two independent spin channels in the three different regions as sketched in Fig. (1a).

The (x dependent) spin-polarization of the current density at position $`x`$ is defined as

$$\alpha _i(x)\frac{j_i(x)j_i(x)}{j_i(x)+j_i(x)}$$
(5)   
where we set the bulk spin polarization in the ferromagnets far from the interface $`\alpha _{1,3}(\pm \mathrm{})\beta _{1,3}`$. The conductivities for the spin-up and spin-down channels in the ferromagnets can now be written as $`\sigma _{1,3}=\sigma _{1,3}(1+\beta _{1,3})/2`$ and $`\sigma _{1,3}=\sigma _{1,3}(1\beta _{1,3})/2`$. We assume that the physical properties of both ferromagnets are equal, but allow their magnetization to be either parallel ($`\beta _1=\beta _3`$ and $`R_{1,}=R_{3,}`$) or antiparallel ($`\beta _1=\beta _3`$ and $`R_{1,}=R_{3,}`$). In the linear-response regime, the difference in conductivity for the spin-up and the spin-down channel in the ferromagnets can easily be deduced from the Einstein relation with $`D_iD_i`$  and $`\rho _i(E_F)\rho _i(E_F)`$, where $`\rho (E_F)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy, and D the diffusion constant.

To separate the spin-polarization effects from the normal current flow, we now write the electrochemical potentials in the ferromagnets for both spin directions as $`\mu _,=\mu ^0+\mu _,^{}`$, $`(i=1,3)`$, $`\mu ^0`$ being the electrochemical potential without spin effects. For each part $`i`$ of the device, Eqs. (A basic obstacle for electrical spin-injection from a ferromagnetic metal into a diffusive semiconductor) apply separately.

As solutions for the diffusion equation, we make the Ansatz

$$\mu _{i,}=\mu _i^0+\mu _{i,}^{}=\mu _i^0+c_{i,}\mathrm{exp}\pm ((xx_i)/\lambda _{fm})$$
(6)   
for $`i=1,3`$ with $`x_1=0`$, $`x_3=x_0`$, and the + (-) sign referring to index $`1`$ ($`3`$), respectively.

From the boundary conditions $`\mu _1(\mathrm{})=\mu _1(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mu _3(\mathrm{})=\mu _3(\mathrm{})`$, we have that the slope of $`\mu ^0`$ is identical for both spin directions, and also equal in region 1 and 3 if the conductivity $`\sigma `$ is identical in both regions, as assumed above. In addition, these boundary conditions imply that the exponential part of $`\mu `$ must behave as $`c\mathrm{exp}(x/\lambda _{fm})`$ in region 1 and as $`c\mathrm{exp}((xx_0)/\lambda _{fm})`$ in region 3.

In the semiconductor we set $`\tau _{sf}=\mathrm{}`$, based on the assumption that the spin-flip length $`\lambda _{sc}`$ is several orders of magnitude longer than in the ferromagnet and much larger than the spacing between the two contacts. This is correct for several material systems, as semiconductor spin-flip lengths up to $`100\mu `$m have already been demonstrated . In this limit, we thus can write the electrochemical potentials for spin-up and spin-down in the semiconductor as

$$\mu _{2,}(x)=\mu _{1,}(0)+\gamma _,x\text{,}\gamma _,=constant$$
(7)   
While the conductivities of both spin-channels in the ferromagnet are different, they have to be equal in the two dimensional electron gas. This is because in the 2DEG, the density of states at the Fermi level is constant, and in the diffusive regime the conductivity is proportional to the density of states at the Fermi-energy. Each spin channel will thus exhibit half the total conductivity of the semiconductor ($`\sigma _{2,}=\sigma _{sc}/2`$).

If we combine equation A basic obstacle for electrical spin-injection from a ferromagnetic metal into a diffusive semiconductor and 6 and solve in region 1 at the boundary $`x=0`$ and in region 3 at $`x=x_0`$ we are in a position to sketch the band bending in the overall device. From symmetry considerations and the fact that $`j_2`$ and $`j_2`$ remain constant through the semiconductor (no spin-flip) we have

$$\mu _1(0)\mu _1(0)=\pm (\mu _3(x_0)\mu _3(x_0))$$
(8)   
where the +(-) sign refers to parallel (antiparallel) magnetization, respectively. This yields $`c_1=c_3`$ and $`c_1=c_3`$ in the expression for $`\mu _{}`$ in Eq. 6 for the parallel case, which is shown schematically in Fig. (1b). The antisymmetric splitting of the electrochemical potentials at the interfaces leads to a different slope and a crossing of the electrochemical potentials at $`x=x_0/2`$. We thus obtain a different voltage drop for the two spin directions over the semiconductor, which leads to a spin polarization of the current. In the antiparallel case where the minority spins on the left couple to the majority spins on the right the solution is $`c_1=c_3`$ and $`c_1=c_3`$ with $`j_{}=j_{}`$. A schematic drawing is shown in Fig. (1c). The splitting is symmetric and the current is unpolarized.

The physics of this result may readily be understood from the resistor model (Fig. 1a). For parallel (antiparallel) magnetization we have $`R_1+R_3R_1+R_3`$ $`(R_1+R_3=R_1+R_3)`$, respectively. Since the voltage across the complete device is identical for both spin channels, this results either in a different (parallel) or an identical (antiparallel) voltage drop over $`R_{SC}`$ and $`R_{SC}`$.

For parallel magnetization ($`\beta _1=\beta _3=\beta `$) the finite spin-polarization of the current density in the semiconductor can be calculated explicitly by using the continuity of $`j_{i,}`$ at the interfaces under the boundary condition of charge conservation for $`(j_i+j_i)`$ and may be expressed as:

$$\alpha _2=\beta \text{ }\frac{\lambda _{fm}}{\sigma _{fm}}\text{ }\frac{\sigma _{sc}}{x_0}\text{ }\frac{2}{(2\frac{\lambda _{fm}\sigma _{sc}}{x_0\sigma _{fm}}+1)\beta ^2}$$
(9)   
where $`\alpha _2`$ is evaluated at $`x=0`$ and constant throughout the semiconductor, because above we have set $`\tau _{sf}=\mathrm{}`$ in the semiconductor.

For a typical ferromagnet, $`\alpha _2`$ is dominated by $`(\lambda _{fm}/\sigma _{fm})/(x_0/\sigma _{sc})`$ where $`x_0/\sigma _{sc}`$ and $`\lambda _{fm}/\sigma _{fm}`$ are the resistance of the semiconductor and the relevant part of the resistance of the ferromagnet, respectively. The maximum obtainable value for $`\alpha _2`$ is $`\beta `$.

However, this maximum can only be obtained in certain limiting cases, i.e., $`x_00`$, $`\sigma _{sc}/\sigma _{fm}\mathrm{}`$, or $`\lambda _{fm}\mathrm{}`$, which are far away from a real-life situation. If, e.g., we insert some typical values for a spin injection device ($`\beta =60\%`$, $`x_0=1\mu `$m, $`\lambda _{fm}=10`$ nm, and $`\sigma _{fm}=10^4\sigma _{sc}`$), we obtain $`\alpha 0.002\%`$. The dependence of $`\alpha _2`$ on the various parameters is shown graphically in Figs. (2a) and (2b) where $`\alpha _2`$ is plotted over $`x_0`$ and $`\lambda _{fm}`$, respectively, for three different values of $`\beta `$. Apparently, even for $`\beta >80\%`$, $`\lambda _{fm}`$ must be larger than $`100`$ nm or $`x_0`$ well below $`10`$ nm in order to obtain significant (i.e. $`>1\%`$) current polarization. The dependence of $`\alpha _2`$ on $`\beta `$ is shown in Fig. (3a) for three different ratios $`\sigma _{fm}/\sigma _{sc}`$. Even for a ratio of 10, $`\alpha _2`$ is smaller than $`1\%`$ for $`\beta <98\%`$, where the other parameters correspond to a realistic device.

By calculating the electrochemical potential throughout the device we may also obtain $`R_{par}`$ and $`R_{anti}`$ which we define as the total resistance in the parallel or antiparallel configuration, respectively. The resistance is calculated for a device with ferromagnetic contacts of the thickness $`\lambda _{fm}`$, because only this is the lengthscale on which spin dependent resistance changes will occur. In a typical experimental setup, the difference in resistance $`\mathrm{\Delta }R=(R_{anti}R_{par})`$ between the antiparallel and the parallel configuration will be measured. To estimate the magnitude of the magnetoresistance effect, we calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_{par}`$ and we readily find

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R_{par}}=\frac{\beta ^2}{1\beta ^2}\text{ }\frac{\lambda _{fm}^2}{\sigma _{fm}^2}\text{ }\frac{\sigma _{sc}^2}{x_0^2}\text{ }\frac{4}{(2\frac{\lambda _{fm}\sigma _{sc}}{x_0\sigma _{fm}}+1)^2\beta ^2}$$
(10)   
Now, for metallic ferromagnets, $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_{par}`$ is dominated by $`(\lambda _{fm}/\sigma _{fm})^2/(x_0/\sigma _{sc})^2`$ and is approx. $`\alpha _2^2`$. In the limit of $`x_00`$, $`\sigma _{sc}/\sigma _{fm}\mathrm{}`$, or $`\lambda _{fm}\mathrm{}`$, we again obtain a maximum which is now given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }R}{R_{par}}=\frac{\beta ^2}{(\beta 1)(\beta +1)}$$
(11)   
Fig (3b) shows the dependence of $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }R/R_{par}`$ on $`\beta `$, for a realistic set of parameters. Obviously, the change in resistance will be difficult to detect in a standard experimental setup.

We have thus shown, that, in the diffusive transport regime, for typical ferromagnets only a current with small spin-polarization can be injected into a semiconductor 2DEG with long spin-flip length even if the conductivities of semiconductor and ferromagnet are equal (Fig (3a)). This situation is dramatically exacerbated when ferromagnetic metals are used; in this case the spin-polarization in the semiconductor is negligible.

Evidently, for efficient spin-injection one needs a contact where the spin-polarization is almost 100%. One example of such a contact has already been demonstrated: the giant Zeeman-splitting in a semimagnetic semiconductor can be utilized to force all current-carrying electrons to align their spin to the lower Zeeman level. Other promising routes are ferromagnetic semiconductors or the so called Heusler compounds or other half-metallic ferromagnets. Experiments in the ballistic transport regime (where $`\sigma _{sc}`$ has to be replaced by the Sharvin contact resistance) may circumvent part of the problem outlined above. However, a splitting of the electrochemical potentials in the ferromagnets, necessary to obtain spin-injection, will again only be possible if the resistance of the ferromagnet is of comparable magnitude to the contact resistance.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the European Commission (ESPRIT-MELARI consortium ’SPIDER’), the German BMBF under grant #13N7313 and the Dutch Foundation for Fundamental Research FOM.