# Spin accumulation induced resistance in mesoscopic ferromagnet/ superconductor junctions

## Abstract

We present a description of spin-polarized transport in mesoscopic ferromagnet-superconductor (F/S) systems, where the transport is diffusive, and the interfaces are transparent. It is shown that the spin reversal associated with Andreev reflection generates an excess spin density close to the F/S interface, which leads to a spin contact resistance. Expressions for the contact resistance are given for two terminal and four terminal geometries. In the latter the sign depends on the relative magnetization of the ferromagnetic electrodes.

Andreev reflection ($`AR`$) is the elementary process which enables electron transport across a normal metal-superconductor (N/S) interface, for energies below the superconducting energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The incoming electron with spin-up takes another electron with spin-down to enter the superconductor as a Cooper pair with zero spin. This corresponds to a reflection of a positively charged hole with a reversed spin direction.

The spin reversal has important consequences for the resistance of a ferromagnetic-superconductor (F/S) interface. A suppression of the transmission coefficient has been reported in F/S multilayers, and in transparent ballistic F/S point contacts a reduction of the conductance has been predicted and observed. In F/S point contacts the Andreev reflection process is limited by the lowest number of the available spin-up and spin-down conductance channels, which are not equal due to a separation of the spin bands in the ferromagnet, caused by the exchange interaction. However, in most experiments the dimensions of the sample exceed the electron mean free path $`l_e`$, and therefore the electron transport cannot be described ballistically.

We present a description for spin-polarized transport in diffusive F/S systems, in the presence of Andreev reflection for temperatures and energies below $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We will show that the $`AR`$ process at the F/S interface causes a spin accumulation close to the interface, due to the different spin-up and spin-down conductivities $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}`$ in the ferromagnet.

In first approximation we will ignore the effects of phase coherence in the ferromagnet, which in the presence of a superconductor can give rise to the proximity effect. The spin-flip length ($`\lambda _{sf}^F`$) of the electrons in the ferromagnet, which is the distance an electron can diffuse before its spin direction is randomized, is much larger than the exchange interaction length. This means that all coherent correlations in the ferromagnet are expected to be lost beyond the exchange length, but the spin of the electron is still conserved.

Transport in a diffusive metallic ferromagnet is usually described in terms of its spin-dependent conductivities $`\sigma _,=e^2N_,D_,`$, where $`N_,`$ are the spin-up and spin-down density of states at the Fermi energy and $`D_,`$ the spin-up and spin-down diffusion constants . In a homogeneous 1D-ferromagnet the current carried by both spin directions ($`j_,`$) is distributed according to their conductivities:

$$j_,=(\frac{\sigma _,}{e})\frac{\mu _,}{x}$$
(1)   
where $`\mu _,`$ are the electrochemical potentials of the spin-up and spin-down electrons, which are equal in a homogeneous system. In a non-homogeneous system however, where current is injected into, or extracted from a material with different spin-dependent conductivities, the electrochemical potentials can be unequal. This is a consequence of the finite spin-flip scattering time $`\tau _{sf}`$, which is usually considerably longer than the elastic scattering time $`\tau _e`$. The transport equations therefore have to be supplemented by:

$$D\frac{^2(\mu _{}\mu _{})}{^2x}=\frac{\mu _{}\mu _{}}{\tau _{sf}}$$
(2)   
where $`D=(\frac{N_{}}{(N_{}+N_{})D_{}}+\frac{N_{}}{(N_{}+N_{})D_{}})^1`$ is the spin averaged diffusion constant. Eq. 2 describes that the difference in $`\mu `$ decays over a length scale $`\lambda _{sf}=\sqrt{D\tau _{sf}}`$ , the spin-flip length.

To describe the $`F/S`$ system the role of the superconductor has to be incorporated. We assume that the interface resistance itself can be ignored, which is justified in metallic diffusive systems with transparent interfaces. The Andreev reflection can then be taken into account by the following boundary conditions at the F/S interface ($`x=0`$):

$`\mu _{}|_{x=0}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _{}|_{x=0}`$ (3)   
$`j_{}|_{x=0}`$ $`=`$ $`j_{}|_{x=0}.`$ (4)   
Here the electrochemical potential of the superconductor S is set to zero. Eq. 3 is a direct consequence of $`AR`$, where an excess of electrons with spin-up corresponds to an excess of holes and therefore a deficit of electrons with spin-down and vice versa. Eq. 4 arises due to the fact that the total Cooper pair spin in the superconductor is zero, so there can be no net spin current across the interface. Note that for Eqs. 3 and 4 to be valid, no spin-flip processes are assumed to occur at the interface as well as in the superconductor.

Eqs. 1 ,2, 3 and 4 now allow the calculation of the spatial dependence of the electrochemical potentials of both spin directions, which have the general forms:

$$\mu _{}=A+Bx+\frac{C}{\sigma _{}}e^{x/\lambda _{sf}^F}+\frac{D}{\sigma _{}}e^{x/\lambda _{sf}^F}$$
(5)   
$$\mu _{}=A+Bx\frac{C}{\sigma _{}}e^{x/\lambda _{sf}^F}\frac{D}{\sigma _{}}e^{x/\lambda _{sf}^F}$$
(6)   
where A,B,C and D are constants defined by the boundary conditions. For simplicity we first calculate the contact resistance at the F/S interface in a two terminal configuration, noted by $`V_{2T}`$ in Fig. 1(a), ignoring the presence of the second ferromagnetic electrode F2. In this configuration we find:

$$\mu _{}|_{x=0}=\mu _{}|_{x=0}=\frac{\alpha _F\lambda _{sf}^FeI}{\sigma _F(1\alpha _F^2)A}$$
(7)   
where $`\alpha _F=(\sigma _{}\sigma _{})/(\sigma _{}+\sigma _{})`$ is the spin polarization of the current in the bulk ferromagnet and $`\lambda _{sf}^F`$, $`\sigma _F=\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}`$, $`A`$ are the spin-flip length, the conductivity and the cross-sectional area of the ferromagnetic strip, respectively. Note that at the interface the electrochemical potentials are finite, despite the presence of the superconductor. This is illustrated in the left part of Fig. 2, where the spin-up and spin-down electrochemical potentials are plotted as a function of x in units of $`\lambda _{sf}^F`$. Defining a contact resistance as $`R_{FS}=\mathrm{\Delta }\mu /eI`$ at the F/S interface yields:

$$R_{FS}=\frac{\alpha _F^2\lambda _{sf}^F}{\sigma _F(1\alpha _F^2)A}.$$
(8)   
Note that this is exactly half the resistance which would be measured in a two terminal geometry of one ferromagnetic electrode directly coupled to another ferromagnetic electrode with anti-parallel magnetization. One may therefore consider the F/S interface as an ’ideal’ domain wall (which does not change the spin direction), the superconductor acting as a magnetization mirror.

The presence of the contact resistance at a F/S boundary clearly brings out the difference between a superconductor and a normal conductor with infinite conductivity. In the latter case the boundary condition Eq. 3 at the interface is replaced by $`\mu _{}=\mu _{}=0`$, and no contact resistance would be generated. An interesting feature to be noticed from Fig. 2 is that the electrochemical potential of the minority spin at the interface is *negative*.

The second observation to be made here is that the excess charge density $`n_c\mu _{}+\mu _{}`$ is zero, whereas the spin density $`n_s\mu _{}\mu _{}`$ has a maximum close to the interface. This is a direct consequence of the $`AR`$ process, where a net spin current is not allowed to enter the superconductor. Continuity of the spin currents at the F/S interface results in a spin accumulation in the ferromagnet, being build up over a distance of the spin-flip length $`\lambda _{sf}^F`$.

The contact resistance is small ($`R_{FS}20m\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for a nickel strip with a thickness of 20 nm, a width of 100 nm, a resistivity of $`80\times 10^9\mathrm{\Omega }m`$, a spin polarization $`\alpha _F0.2`$ and a spin-flip length of 20 nm) compared to the total resistance of the ferromagnetic strip F1.

To identify the small contact resistance it is necessary to use a multi-terminal geometry. The four terminal resistance is measured by sending a current through terminals 1 and 3, and measuring the voltage between terminals 2 and 4, as illustrated by $`V_{4T}`$ in Fig. 1(a). We assume that all current flows into the superconductor at $`x=0`$, which is reasonable to assume when the thickness $`d_F`$ of the ferromagnetic strip is small compared to the width $`W`$ of the superconductor (cf. Fig. 1(b)). The width $`W`$ of the superconductor is assumed to be smaller than the spin-flip length of the ferromagnetic strip, $`W<\lambda _{sf}^F`$. Now the second ferromagnetic electrode (F2) has to be included in the calculation. This is done by requiring Eqs. 3 and 4 to include the spin currents of both ferromagnetic electrodes and requiring their spin-up and down-spin electrochemical potentials to be continuous. For the resistance in the four terminal geometry of Fig. 1 the calculation yields:

$$R_{FS^{}}=\pm \frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha _F^2\lambda _{sf}^F}{\sigma _F(1\alpha _F^2)A}$$
(9)   
where the sign refers to the parallel (+) or anti-parallel (-) relative orientation of the magnetization of the two ferromagnetic electrodes. In the case of anti-parallel arrangement one therefore has the rather unique situation that the voltage measured can be outside the range of source and drain contacts.

The above holds as long as the spin-flip length $`\lambda _{sf}^F`$ exceeds the width $`W`$ of the superconductor. The complication of the above experiment would be that it requires the width of the superconductor to be shorter than the spin-flip length in the ferromagnet, which is expected to be around 20 nm. To remedy these complications, we consider an alternative geometry.

The geometry (F/N/S) of Fig. 3 consists of two superconducting strips S, which are coupled by a thin layer of normal metal N, which has a larger spin-flip length ($`\lambda _{sf}^N`$) than the spin-flip length of the ferromagnet ($`\lambda _{sf}^F`$). On top of the normal metal two ferromagnetic strips F1 and F2 are placed. Current is injected by F1 through the normal metal, into the superconductor, whereas the voltage is detected by F2.

In the absence of a spin polarized current $`I`$, the measured resistance $`R=V/I`$, will decay exponentially with $`R_0exp(CL/d_N)`$, where $`R_0\rho _Nd_N/A_C`$ is the resistance of the normal metal between the superconductor and the current injector F1. Here $`\rho _N`$ is the resistivity of the normal metal, $`A_C`$ the contact area between F1 and S, $`d_N`$ the thickness of the normal metal, $`C`$ a constant of order unity and $`L`$ the distance between the two ferromagnetic strips. This resistance will therefore vanish in the regime $`Ld_N`$. However, in the presence of a spin-polarized current $`I`$ a spin density is created at the current injector F1, stretching out towards the voltage probe F2.

To calculate the signal at F2 we have to include the normal region. First, we assume that the superconductor in the region S$`^{^{}}`$ in Fig. 3 is absent. We take the non-equilibrium spin density to be uniform in the normal metal in the region under F1, which is allowed as the thickness of the normal metal is small compared to the spin-flip length ($`\lambda _{sf}^N`$) in the normal metal, $`d_N\lambda _{sf}^N`$. The electrochemical potentials in the normal region between the two ferromagnetic strips are described by solutions of Eq. 5 and 6, with the constants $`A=B=0`$. We then calculate the resistance in the relevant limit that the distance $`L`$ does not exceed the spin-flip length of the normal region, $`L\lambda _{sf}^N`$. The expression for the resistance in this limit is given by:

$$R_{FNS}=\pm \frac{\alpha _F^2\lambda _{sf}^F}{2\sigma _FA(1\alpha _F^2)+\frac{L\sigma _F^2A}{\sigma _N\lambda _{sf}^F}(1+\alpha _F)^2(1\alpha _F)^2}$$
(10)   
where $`\sigma _N`$ is the conductivity of the normal metal and $`L`$ is the distance between the two ferromagnetic electrodes. When $`L>\lambda _{sf}^N`$ the signal will decay exponentially.

Eq. 10 and Fig. 4 show that, even though no charge current flows in the N layer, nevertheless a signal is generated at the ferromagnetic electrode F2. In addition, Eq. 10 shows that the signal changes sign when the polarization of F2 is reversed. A reduction of the thickness of the N film will reduce the signal. This is a consequence of the fact that although no charge current flows, the spin-up and spin-down currents are non-zero, and their magnitude (and the associated voltage) depends on the resistance of the N layer.

The above analysis is based on classical assumptions, where the superconducting proximity effect has been ignored in the normal metal. However, it is known that a superconductor modifies the electronic states in the N layer, which would be the case when a superconductor is present in the region S$`^{^{}}`$ (cf. Fig. 3).

In this situation Eq. 10 would still hold, for the electrochemical potentials in the normal metal satisfy the boundary condition of Eq. 3. When the thickness $`d_N`$ of the normal layer is of the order of the superconducting coherence length $`\xi `$, a gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ will be developed in the normal metal. This will prohibit the opposite spin currents in the normal metal to flow, and therefore no signal will be detected at the ferromagnetic electrode F2. One could control and eliminate the induced gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ by applying a magnetic field parallel to the ferromagnetic electrodes.

To conclude, we have shown that the spin reversal associated with Andreev reflection in a diffusive ferromagnet-superconductor junction, leads to a spin contact resistance. The contact resistance is due to an excess spin density, which exists close to the F/S interface, on a length scale of the spin-flip length in the ferromagnet. In a multi-terminal geometry the contact resistance can have a positive and negative sign, depending on the relative orientation of the ferromagnetic electrodes.

The authors wish to thank the Stichting Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie and the EU ESPRIT project no 23307 SPIDER for financial support.