# Dephasing Effects by Ferromagnetic Boundary on Resistivity in Disordered Metallic Layer

## Abstract

The resistivity of disordered metallic layer sandwiched by two ferromagnetic layers at low-temperature is investigated theoretically. It is shown that the magnetic field acting at the interface does not affect the classical Boltzmann resistivity but causes a dephasing among electrons in the presence of the spin-orbit interaction, suppressing the anti-localization due to the spin-orbit interaction. The dephasing turns out to be stronger in the case where the magnetization of the two layers is parallel, contributing to a positive magnetoresistance close to a switching field at low temperature.

75.70.-i, 73.50.-h, 72.15.Rn, 75.70.Pa

In metallic magnets the electronic transport properties can strongly be affected by the configuration of the magnetization. Especially the resistivity close to the coercive field will vary by a small magnetic field due to a rearrangement of the magnetization. This effect, called a magnetoresistance (MR), has been observed for a long time in bulk magnets since early time. The MR in bulk magnets is anisotropic, in the sense that it depends on the mutual angle between the current and the magnetization. The change of resistivity is of order of a few % of the total resistivity. This anisotropic MR is explained by the spin-orbit interaction in $`d`$-band. In 1988 MR of about 50% has been found in multilayer structures of Fe and Cr. Such MR seen in multilayers, which is called a giant MR (GMR), is believed to be mainly due to the spin-dependent scattering of the electron at the interface.

Quite recently the MR in a mesoscopic magnetic structures has been studied intensively, for instance, on sub-micron wires of ferromagnetic metals and on a multilayer structure of a hard- and soft-magnets. So far transport properties in such magnetic structures has mostly been discussed in terms of classical theories. For instance, the Boltzmann resistivity due to a reflection by domain wall has been calculated, whose result indicated a negligiblly small contribution in 3$`d`$ transition metals since walls there are thick compared with the inverse of the Fermi wavelength $`k_F^1`$. However, the most significant feature of a mesoscopic system is the effect of the quantum coherence among electrons, which affects substantially the low energy transport properties in disordered systems. Interesting point in such weakly localized case is that even a small perturbation can result in a measurable change in the resistivity of the entire sample by disturbing the coherence. Thus it is natural to expect that in mesoscopic magnets the rearrangement of the magnetization affects the quantum transport strongly. In fact it has been predicted that in a disordered wire of metallic ferromagnet a domain wall causes a dephasing among electrons and thus decreases the quantum correction to the resistivity, in contrast to the contribution to the classical resistivity.

In this paper we will study theoretically the transport properties of a non-magnetic conduction layer sandwiched between two ferromagnetic layers as shown in Fig. 3, where the $`z`$-axis is chosen perpendicular to the layer. Both the magnetization and the current are assumed to lie in the plane in $`x`$-direction. (Even if the magnetization is perpendicular to the current, the following result is not changed.) The calculation is based on the linear response theory. We assume that the metallic layer is disordered and the resistivity is dominated by the normal impurities, thus treating the effect of magnetic layers perturbatively. We assume $`d\mathrm{}k_F^1`$, where $`d`$ is the thickness of the conduction layer and $`\mathrm{}`$ is the elastic mean free path. (We neglect the spin dependence of $`k_F`$.) The conduction electron feels a magnetic field at the interface with ferromagnetic layers. Within the classical argument of resistivity this magnetic field does not affect the in-plane resistivity in the case of an ideally flat interface we consider. It turns out, however, that it affects the quantum correction to the resistivity if the two spin channels are mixed by the spin flip scattering. As source of spin flip scattering we include the spin-orbit (SO) interaction, which is known to affect the quantum correction at low temperature in, for example, Cu film. The case of isotropic SO interaction is considered. We consider a thin layer (typically $`d2300\AA `$) and thus neglect the effect of the orbital motion due to the internal field.

The effect of the magnetic layers is represented by the interaction

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}=\mu _Bd^3xh(z)c^{}\sigma _zc,$$
(1)   
where $`h(z)`$ is the magnetic field supposed to simulate the local field at the interface with the ferromagnetic layers and $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton. The quantization ($`z`$-) axis of electron spin is chosen along the direction of the magnetic field (i.e., spatial $`x`$-axis). The conductivity is evaluated from the current-current correlation function, and the interaction eq. (1) is treated perturbatively to the second order. In the classical transport theory the contribution is a made up of a self-energy (SE) and a vertex correction (VC) type processes, but these two processes cancel each other in the case of flat interface because of the symmetry. This interaction, however, has a finite effect on the quantum correction to the conductivity, since it modifies the coherence of the electron wave function. The effect on the quantum correction would be discussed most conveniently in terms of the Cooperon (particle-particle ladder ), which represents the enhancement of the backscattering amplitude due to the coherence. The conductivity correction is expressed in terms of the correction to the Cooperon, $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, diagrammatically as in Fig. 3 (a) (see also eq. (9)). In calculation of the quantum correction we neglect the quantity of $`o(k_F\mathrm{})^1`$.

First we consider the case without the SO interaction. In this case only $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with $`\sigma ^{}=\sigma `$ (Fig. 3(a)) contributes. This contribution is made up of two processes of the SE and VC (Fig. 3(b)) (Note that $`h(z)`$ is static). The bare Cooperon here (denoted by shaded line), with the momenta of the two incoming electrons $`k`$ and $`k+q`$ ($`|k|k_F`$)) behaves at $`q\mathrm{}^1`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(q)=(Dq^2\tau +\kappa )^1`$, where $`D\mathrm{}^2k_F^2\tau /3m^2`$ is the diffusion constant, $`\tau `$ being the elastic lifetime ($`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}k_F\tau /m`$), $`\kappa \tau /\tau _\phi 1`$, $`\tau _\phi `$ being the inelastic lifetime, and $`N(0)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy. We consider below the most important contribution, which comes from the region $`|q|,|Q|\mathrm{}^1`$ ($`Q`$ being the momentum transfer due to the interaction (1), which has only $`z`$-component). It is easy to see then that the two processes cancels with each other. In fact the summation over the electron momentum $`𝒌^{}`$ and $`𝒌^{\prime \prime }`$ in the SE and VC-type gives rise to $`(I_{qQ})^2`$ and $`|I_{qQ}|^2`$, respectively, where $`I_{qQ}_𝒌G_𝒌^+G_{𝒌+Q}^+G_{𝒌+𝒒}^{}`$. Here $`G_𝒌^\pm `$ is the electron Green function; $`G_𝒌^{(\pm )}1/(\pm i\mathrm{}/2\tau ϵ_𝒌)`$ ($`ϵ_𝒌\mathrm{}^2𝒌^2/2mϵ_F`$). The sign $`\pm `$ corresponds to the sign of Matsubara frequency, and the difference of SE and VC contribution is due to the difference of this sign. Since $`I_{qQ}2\pi iN(0)\tau ^2/\mathrm{}^2`$ is pure imaginary, the contribution from the two processes cancels each other. Hence the conductivity is not affected by the magnetic layers in the absence of the SO interaction.

Now we include the SO interaction. The spin conserving process considered in Fig. 3(b) vanishes due to the same reason as before. In contrast the correction to a Cooperon with a spin flip ($`\sigma ^{}=\sigma `$) ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ in Fig. 3(a)) has a finite effect. This correction ($`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$) is shown in Fig. 3(b). Other processes with two or less number of Cooperons gives smaller contributions for small $`\kappa `$. Here the bare Cooperon $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ is proportional to the strength of the SO interaction, and is calculated as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q)=\frac{2\alpha }{(Dq^2\tau +\kappa )(Dq^2\tau +\kappa +4\alpha )},$$
(2)   
where $`\alpha \tau /3\tau _{\mathrm{so}}1`$, $`\tau _{\mathrm{so}}`$ being the inelastic lifetime due to SO interaction. The other Cooperon in Fig. 3(a), $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}`$, is a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ modified by the SO interaction;

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}(q)=\frac{1}{(Dq^2\tau +\kappa )}\frac{Dq^2\tau +\kappa +2\alpha }{(Dq^2\tau +\kappa +4\alpha )}.$$
(3)   
In processes in Fig. 3(b) the cancellation between SE and VC does not occur, because of the different signs arising from the two interaction vertices ($`\sigma _z`$), and they give the equal contribution. In fact the sum of the first and second processes ($`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{ii}}`$) is calculated as (factor of 2 is from the complex conjugate process)

$`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{i},\mathrm{ii}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\pi N(0)\tau }}\right)^3(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q))^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q+Q)|h(Q)|^2\left[(I_{qQ})^2|I_{qQ}|^2\right]`$ (4)   
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{Q}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2\pi N(0)\mathrm{}}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q))^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q+Q)|h(Q)|^2,`$ (5)   
where $`h(Q)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`h(z)`$, and $`[2\pi N(0)\tau /\mathrm{}]^1`$ stands for the strength of the impurity scattering. In this way we obtain the correction to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_+`$ as

$$\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q)=4\underset{Q}{}\frac{\tau }{2\pi N(0)\mathrm{}}|h(Q)|^2C(𝒒,Q),$$
(6)   
where

$$C(𝒒,Q)(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q))^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q+Q)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}(q)\left\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q+Q)2\mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^{}(q+Q)\right\}.$$
(7)   
Each term here corresponds to the diagram i-ii), iv) and iii),v), respectively. By use of this expression the quantum correction to the conductivity induced by the magnetic layers is obtained as (see Fig. 3(a)) (including a factor of 2 coming from spin)

$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{}}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{e\mathrm{}\mu _B}{m}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q\mathrm{}^1}{}}k_x(k+q)_xG_𝒌^+G_𝒌^{}G_{𝒌+𝒒}^+G_{𝒌+𝒒}^{}\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_+(q)`$ (8)   
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8e^2}{3\pi \mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _B\tau \mathrm{}}{\mathrm{}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{Qz,Q\mathrm{}^1}{}}|h(Q)|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{q\mathrm{}^1}{}}C(𝒒,Q).`$ (9)   
The effect of the magnetic layers becomes most significant when the electron coherence is kept throughout the layer thickness, i.e., $`d\mathrm{}_\phi `$ ($`\mathrm{}_\phi \mathrm{}/\sqrt{3\kappa }`$ being the inelastic mean free path). In this case the system behaves as in two-dimensions from the point of view of the coherence, namely, only the $`Q=0`$ and $`q_z=0`$ component become important and thus $`h(Q)`$ becomes essentially a uniform magnetic field. In this case eq. (9) reduces to

$`\delta \sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16e^2}{3\pi \mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _Bh(Q=0)\tau }{\mathrm{}}}\right)^2\mathrm{}^2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{V}}{\displaystyle \underset{q_x,q_y}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(Dq^2\tau +\kappa )^2(Dq^2\tau +\kappa +4\alpha )^2}}`$ (10)   
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^2}{3\pi ^2\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _Bh(0)\tau }{\mathrm{}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha F(\kappa ,\alpha )}{d\kappa ^3}},`$ (11)   
where

$$F(\kappa ,\alpha )\frac{3}{16}\frac{\kappa ^3}{\alpha ^2}\left[\frac{1}{\kappa }+\frac{1}{\kappa +4\alpha }\frac{1}{2\alpha }\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{4\alpha }{\kappa }\right)\right].$$
(12)   
In the case of weak SO interaction ($`\alpha \kappa `$), $`F(\kappa ,\alpha )=1+O(\alpha /\kappa )`$.

To proceed further we need the explicit profile of $`h(Q)`$. We consider two cases where the magnetization of the two ferromagnetic layers are parallel (P) or anti-parallel (AP) to each other (Fig. 3). Choosing $`z=0`$ as the center of the conduction layer, we assume the effective magnetic field at the interface is written as

$$h^\pm (z)=h_0a(\delta (zd/2)\pm \delta (z+d/2)),$$
(13)   
for P and AP cases (denoted by $`h^+`$ and $`h^{}`$, respectively) ($`h_0`$ is a constant which represents the strength of the field and $`a`$ is the scale of the penetration of the effective field, which is of order of a lattice constant). The Fourier transform of $`h^\pm (z)`$ are obtained as $`h^+(Q)(1/d)_{d/2}^{d/2}h^+(z)e^{iQz}𝑑z=(h_0a/d)\mathrm{cos}(Qd/2)`$ and $`h^{}(Q)=i(h_0a/d)\mathrm{sin}(Qd/2)`$, where $`Q`$ takes values of $`Q=\pi n/d`$, $`n`$ being an integer from $`N/2`$ to $`N/2`$ ($`Nd/a1`$ is the number of atomic layers). The magnitude of the MR due to the flip of the magnetization is then written as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _0=(\delta \sigma ^+\delta \sigma ^{})/\sigma _0`$, where $`\delta \sigma ^\pm `$ denotes the quantum correction for the configuration $`h^\pm `$ and $`\rho _0=\sigma _0^16\pi ^2(\mathrm{}/e^2k_F^2l)`$ is the resistivity due to impurities.

In the case of $`d\mathrm{}_\phi `$ considered in eq.(11), the MR close to the switching field is obtained as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho _0}=2\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}{ϵ_F}\right)^2\left(\frac{a}{d}\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{}}{d}\frac{\alpha }{\kappa ^3}F(\kappa ,\alpha ),$$
(14)   
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mu _Bh_0`$ is the Zeeman splitting at the interface, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(a/d)`$ is a measure of the averaged splitting.

If the magnetization of the two ferromagnetic layers are AP to each other in the absence of an external magnetic field (as is realized by controlling $`d`$), positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ obtained here contributes to a positive MR close to a switching field, where the magnetization flips. The MR in real experiments is affected also by the interface roughness and spin-dependent scattering there. The effect of the dephasing considered here will be separated from such effects by looking into the temperature dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. In fact as the temperature is lowered $`\kappa `$ decreases since dephasing due to phonons and the electron-electron interaction are suppressed (by power law $`\kappa T^p,pO(1)`$). Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ due to the dephasing will become large according to eq. (14), while the resistivity change due to other classical origins would not change so much at very low temperature.

Consider a layer of $`d=100\AA `$ and $`\mathrm{}=30\AA `$, and take the effective exchange splitting of the $`s`$ electron at the interface as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0/ϵ_F3\times 10^2`$. Then if $`\kappa =10^2`$, which means that the inelastic diffusion length is $`\mathrm{}_\phi 5.7\mathrm{}`$, the system behaves as in two-dimensions. If $`\alpha /\kappa 0.5`$ then we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _0=0.5\times 10^3`$. For a material with a larger induced Zeeman splitting, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, we expect a bigger effects.

Let us discuss the case where the conduction layer is a soft ferromagnet which is in contact with a hard ferromagnet as realized by use of NiFe/CoSm. In such system the magnetization at the interface is fixed by a hard magnet at small field. Thus an artificial twisted structure of the magnetization similar to a domain wall can be formed inside the soft magnetic layer by applying a magnetic field. Although the configuration of magnetization differs from the case of non-magnetic layer in contact with ferromagnets considered above, the argument goes parallel. In fact by use of a local gauge transformation, the correction to the in-plane conductivity turns out to be obtained by eq. (9) with the replacement of $`|\mu _Bh(Q)|^2(1/12)(\mathrm{}^2k_F/m)^2|a(Q)|^2`$, where $`a(Q)(1/d)𝑑ze^{iQz}_z\theta (z)`$, $`\theta (z)`$ being the angle which describes the direction of the magnetization. (Here we assumed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau /\mathrm{}1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ being the Zeeman splitting in the soft magnetic layer). If $`\theta `$ changes uniformly from $`0`$ to $`\theta _0`$ inside a conduction layer, i.e., $`_z\theta =\theta _0/d`$, then the quantum correction in the case of $`d\mathrm{}_\phi `$ is obtained (for $`\alpha \kappa `$) as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\rho }{\rho _0}=\frac{2\theta _0^2}{3}\frac{\mathrm{}}{k_F^2d^3}\frac{\alpha }{\kappa ^3}.$$
(15)   
This is positive, and increases for larger twist angle, $`\theta _0`$. A measurement on NiFe(300Å)/CoSm indicated an increase of the resistivity after subtracting the anisotropic MR as $`\theta _0`$ increases. The change was about 0.08% of the total resistivity ($`9.6\mu \mathrm{\Omega }`$cm) at 5K. In Ref. , the effect of a strongly spin-dependent lifetime in ferromagnets is suggested as a possible origin of the observed $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$. However, as eq. (15) indicates, the dephasing due to twisted magnetization may contribute to positive $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ at low temperature. In fact if the inelastic mean free path is not very long (e.g., $`\kappa 0.1`$) (the mean free path is estimated as $`\mathrm{}30\AA `$) the expected effect due to dephasing is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho /\rho _0=0.08`$% for $`\alpha /\kappa 0.5`$. In Ref.  increase of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ has been observed as the temperature is lowered to 2K, although $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho `$ itself still exists at high temperature of 100K. This enhancement at low temperature might be due to the dephasing.

In conclusion we have studied based on the linear response theory the effects of the magnetic layers on the in-plane resistivity of a disordered conduction layer sandwiched between two ferromagnetic layers with ideally flat interface. It has been shown that while the magnetization at the interface with the magnetic layers does not affect the classical resistivity, it affects the quantum correction to the resistivity at low temperature in the presence of the spin-orbit interaction, resulting in a larger resistivity for the parallel configuration of the magnetization of the two ferromagnetic layers.

The authors thank K. Mibu for valuable discussions. This work was partially supported by a Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research on the Priority Area “Nanoscale Magnetism and Transport” (No.10130219) and “Spin Controlled Semiconductor Nanostructures” (No.10138211) from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture.