Effective Spin-Flip Scattering in Diffusive Superconducting Proximity Systems With Magnetic Disorder
Effective Spin-Flip Scattering in Diffusive Superconducting Proximity Systems With Magnetic Disorder
Effective Spin-Flip Scattering in Diffusive Superconducting Proximity Systems With Magnetic Disorder
medium-range disorder (the correlation length between the Fermi wavelength and the mean free
path), and long-range disorder (the correlation length longer than the mean free path). We discuss
the relations between these three regimes by using the three overlapping approaches: the Usadel
equations, the non-linear sigma model, and the diagrammatic expansion. The expressions for the
spin-flip rate agree with the existing results obtained in less general situations.
Contents I. INTRODUCTION
magnetic disorder in the more general situation of the A. Parameters of the problem
non-collinear disorder with arbitrary correlation length.
We consider a superconducting or proximity-type system
with potential impurities and an inhomogeneous Zeeman We consider a diffusive motion of electrons in a finite
field. The potential impurities are supposed to be suffi- sample of a ferromagnetic material of the linear size L.
ciently strong to bring the electronic motion to the dif- The diffusion constant is D, and one may define the
fusive regime. On top of this diffusive motion, the elec- Thouless energy scale of the sample as ETh = D/L2
trons experience splitting from the inhomogeneous Zee- (we put ~ = 1). The anomalous correlations are in-
man field, which is assumed to be random and Gaussian duced either by an electric contact with a superconductor
with an arbitrary pair correlation. We further assume (proximity-induced superconductivity, in which case the
that this magnetic disorder is much weaker than the po- order parameter ∆ is put to zero), or by a weak supercon-
tential one, in terms of the characteristic scattering rates. ducting interaction inside the ferromagnet (in which case
Then three different regimes can be distinguished: the we allow for a small nonzero ∆). The electrons and the
short-range magnetic disorder (or, equivalently, point- Andreev-reflected holes are considered at a finite energy
like impurities, with the correlation length shorter than E (relative to the Fermi level). The inhomogeneous ran-
the Fermi wavelength), the medium-range disorder (with dom ferromagnetic exchange field has the typical scale
the correlation length between the Fermi wavelength and δh and is correlated at the length scale a. Further we
the elastic mean free path), and the long-range disorder assume a Gaussian ensemble for the exchange field, with
(the correlation length longer than the elastic mean free the pair correlation function
path). The short-range case has been solved in Ref. 1,
δhi (r)δhj (r′ ) = Fij (|r − r′ |) .
the medium- and long-range regimes have been treated (1)
in Refs. 12,13 for the collinear periodic case, and the
long-range non-collinear case was studied in Ref. 18. We The typical order of magnitude for Fij (r) is then (δh)2 ,
extend those results to the general non-collinear case and the typical support is of order a. The correlation
and remove some of the technical assumptions made in length can also be converted into the “Thouless energy of
Ref. 18. magnetic inhomogeneities” Ea = D/a2 . Finally, we may
We use three methods for our analysis: the non-linear also include a small constant (or slowly varying in space
sigma model, the Usadel equations, and the diagram- on the length scale of L) field h, on top of the Gaussian
matic technique. While the calculations in these three field δh, so that the total exchange field is H(r) = h(r) +
methods are somewhat parallel to each other, we find δh(r). The total H field is realization-dependent due to
it instructive to present those various approaches, in or- the δh part.
der to illustrate the correspondence between the meth-
For the energy scales in the ferromagnet, the following
ods and to clarify the physical meaning and the appli-
condition is assumed:19
cability conditions of the results. As we shall see below,
the spin-flip term in the short-range and medium-range
regimes corresponds to inserting one magnetic-impurity ETh , E, ∆, h, Γsf ≪ Ea , τ −1 , (2)
rung into the cooperon ladder [Fig. 1(a)], while the long-
range regime corresponds to the magnetic line crossing where Γsf is the resulting effective spin-flip rate, and τ is
many cooperon rungs [Fig. 1(b)]. the mean free time due to potential scattering. The phys-
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present ical meaning of this condition is that the length scales as-
the main results of the paper: the form of the spin- sociated with both potential and magnetic disorder [the
flip term in the sigma-model and Usadel description, as right-hand side of the inequality] are much shorter than
well as the expressions for the spin-flip scattering rate the length scales involved in the Usadel equations [the
in the three regimes, including the crossovers between left-hand side of the inequality].
3
πν
Z
Ssf = − d3 r Γij
sf STr (τ̂3 σ̂i Qτ̂3 σ̂j Q) , (5) 1. Regime of short-range correlations
2
In the regime of a ≪ kF−1 , the spin-flip rates are given
where Γij
sf is a symmetric matrix of the spin-flip scattering by1
rates. Z
2
Γij
sf = πν d3 r Fij (r) ∼ ν (δh) a3 . (11)
and hence of the Q matrix, in the retarded-advanced Note that this expression generalizes the result of
space. The doubled Q matrix would be subject to an Abrikosov and Gor’kov for pointlike impurities.1 In
additional constraint reflecting the symmetry of the Bo- that work, the magnetic disorder was assumed delta-
golyubov – de Gennes Hamiltonian. Without this dou- correlated, which corresponds to Fij (r − r′ ) = δij δ(r −
bling, the sigma model includes only the cooperon modes r′ )/(6πντs ) and Γij
sf = δij /(6τs ). Our derivation extends
but not the diffusons. However, this is sufficient for de- that result to the medium-ranged disorder with correla-
termining the saddle point of the action for a supercon- tion lengths up to l. As we shall see below, the contribu-
ducting or proximity system. Since we are interested in tion (33) is dominant as long as a ≪ l, and therefore in
the effect of the magnetic disorder on the saddle point, this regime we can neglect the factor e−r/l and arrive at
we use this reduced version of the sigma model. Eq. (13).
In the quasiclassical regime, where the Fermi energy
is the largest energy scale, EF τ ≫ 1, the Q matrix is
restricted to the manifold10,21 C. Nonlocal spin-flip term
Q2 = 1 . (27)
Averaging S1 over the magnetic disorder (1) produces
Furthermore, using the dirty-limit assumption (19), we the contribution to the action
expand the action in the gradients of Q [simultaneously π2 ν 2
1
Z
expanding the logarithm in Eq. (25) in δh] and obtain, − (S1 )2 = d3 rd3 r′ Fij (r − r′ )
in the usual manner,10,21 the action (16) with 2 2
× STr τ̂3 σ̂i Q(r) STr τ̂3 σ̂j Q(r′ ) . (34)
i
D
Z h
3
S0 = πν d r STr 2 ˆ
(∇Q) + iτ̂3 (E − σ̂h) − ∆ Q ,
4 While the main part of the action S0 contains only
(28) one STr, this contribution is a product of two super-
Z traces. We assume that the saddle point Q0 is super-
S1 = −iπν d3 r δh(r) STr τ̂3 σ̂Q(r) , symmetric (or replica symmetric), and then the con-
(29)
tribution of Eq. (34) vanishes at such a saddle point.
and However, taking into account non-supersymmetric (non-
replica-symmetric) fluctuations around the saddle point
1
Z
d3 pd3 p′ eip(r−r )
′
produces a non-negligible contribution containing only
S2 = STr d3 rd3 r′ 6
T τ̂3 σ̂δhT −1 r iΛ one STr.
2 (2π) ξ − 2τ
In order to average Eq. (34) over fluctuations of Q, we
′ ′
e−ip (r−r ) parametrize those fluctuations by local rotation matrices
× T τ̂3 σ̂δhT −1 r′
iΛ
, (30) W , anticommuting with Q0 :
ξ ′ − 2τ
where the local matrix T (r) parametrizes rotations of the Q = Q0 + iQ0 W + . . . (35)
Q matrix, The effective action for W , extracted from the S0 part,
−1 to the Gaussian order is
Q=T ΛT , Λ = τ̂3 , (31)
πνD
Z
and ξ = p2 /(2m) − µ, ξ ′ = p′ /(2m) − µ.
2 SW = d3 r STr(∇W )2 . (36)
4
The integrals over p and p′ in Eq. (30) may be com-
puted, giving rise to the kernel decaying at the elas- Note that since Eq. (34) involves correlations of W at
tic scattering length l. Assuming that the Q matrix the length scale of order a, we only need to take into
changes on length scales much longer than l, we can put account short-wavelength fluctuations of W . Therefore,
T (r) = T (r′ ) in Eq. (30) and arrive at we neglect the terms containing E, h, ∆, and ∇Q0 in
Eq. (36), as well as the self-consistent “screening” by the
π2 ν 2
Z
sin2 (kF |r − r′ |) ′
effective spin flip Γsf [which produces the infrared cutoff
S2 = − d3 rd3 r′ 2 e−|r−r |/l for the action (36); see also Sec. IV B below], under the
2 (kF |r − r′ |) assumption
× δhi (r)δhj (r′ ) STr τ̂3 σ̂i Q(r)τ̂3 σ̂j Q(r) . (32)
ETh , E, ∆, h, Γsf ≪ Ea . (37)
B. Local spin-flip term To average over the fluctuations with the action (36)
for W anticommuting with Q0 , we employ the following
contraction rule:10,24
Averaging S2 over magnetic disorder (1) produces the
spin-flip term (5) with
On the other hand, the “nonlocal” contribution (39) can In this section, we present an alternative derivation
be estimated as of the spin-flip term in the regime of long-range cor-
relations (a ≫ l) by directly averaging the Usadel
(nonlocal) (δh)2 a2 a2 equations2,25,26,27 over the magnetic disorder, following
Γsf ∼ ∼ ν(δh)2 kF−2 . (43)
D l an approach similar to that of Ref. 18. In this way, we
derive Eqs. (6) and (14) and lift the assumptions of “self-
Therefore, the nonlocal term (39) dominates for a ≫ l,
averaging” and of “being away from the gap edge” im-
while the local term (33) becomes dominant at a ≪ l
posed in Ref. 18.
[strictly speaking, the nonlocal term is only defined for
a ≫ l, see our discussion below]. In the regime of long-range correlations, the general
Second, we can graphically represent the two contribu- assumption (2) may be simplified as
tions as shown in Fig. 2 [panels (a) and (b)]. Correlation
functions of the Q matrices in the sigma model corre- ETh , E, ∆, h, δh ≪ Ea (44)
spond to the diffusion ladders in the conventional dia-
grammatic technique,10 and therefore the sigma-model
diagrams represented in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) translate [since Γsf ∼ (δh)2 /Ea , as we derive below].
7
A. Effective spin-flip rate This is a linear equation with respect to δǧ, with the
source term containing the disorder δh. In order to find
We start from the Usadel equation containing the ex- δǧ from this equation, we note that the first term is the
change field,2,18 largest one, since the derivatives apply to the fast func-
tion δǧ which follows δh and hence changes on the scale
h i
ˆ 0 − iτ̂3 (Hσ̂), Ǧ = 0, (45)
D∇ Ǧ∇Ǧ + iE τ̂3 σ̂0 − ∆σ̂ of a. The second term in the left-hand side is smaller,
according to our assumption (44), and for most purposes
where the gradient term can also be rewritten as we may neglect it. Employing Eq. (49), we then obtain
1 i
Ǧ, ∇2 Ǧ
∇ Ǧ∇Ǧ = (46) ∇−2 δhi ǧ [τ̂3 σ̂i , ǧ] .
2 δǧ = (52)
D
due to the normalization condition Ǧ2 = 1. Here H is the Now the disorder-induced part of Eq. (50) after simple
total realization-dependent exchange field, containing a algebraic manipulations takes the standard form of the
smooth background field h and a Gaussian disorder δh spin-flip term:
obeying Eq. (1):
− i [τ̂3 σ̂i , hδhi δǧi] = −Γij
sf [τ̂3 σ̂i ǧτ̂3 σ̂j , ǧ] , (53)
H = h + δh. (47)
The exact solution of Eq. (45) can be written as the sum where we have defined
1
D
D 2
As a result, the neglected terms may be estimated as
2 ˆ
ǧ, ∇ δǧ − ∇ ǧ − iE τ̂3 σ̂0 + ∆σ̂0 + iτ̂3 (hσ̂), δǧ
2 2 2
R∗
2 F (p = 0) ∗ δh
= i [τ̂3 (δhσ̂), ǧ] . (51) δǧ . R ∼ . (57)
D2 Ea a
8
is a single ladder rung containing a disorder line and two which allows us to neglect the contribution (59) in favor
Green functions. The factor of 2 in Eq. (59) comes from of (58). If the correlation length of the magnetic disorder
two possible diagrams of type (b). becomes comparable to kF−1 , the integrals of GR GR and
The total spin-flip scattering rate is the sum of Eqs. GA GA cannot be neglected any more, and the integral
(58) and (59) with a coefficient that can be easily deter- (58) should be calculated in a different way. The main
mined from comparing to the limit of pointlike magnetic contribution to the p integral comes from the intersection
impurities.1 In that limit, Fij (q) is actually independent of the two mass shells of the “width” l−1 shifted by the
of the momentum q and only the term (58) contributes, vector q. Using the inequality q ≫ l−1 , we approximate
yielding GR (p)GA (−p) by the delta-function and obtain
Z
ij
= 4π 2 ν 2 τ 2 d3 r Fij (r) . d3 p R
Z
γ(a) (62)
G (p + q)GA (−p − q)GR (p)GA (−p)
(2π)3
By comparing with Eq. (11), we arrive at the result for d3 p
Z
2 2
the spin-flip rate: = 4π τ δ[ξ(p)] δ[ξ(p + q)]
(2π)3
1 ij 2π 2 ντ 3
Γij
sf = γ + γ ij
(b) . (63) = θ(2kF − q) . (69)
4πντ 2 (a) ql
Now the calculation of the spin-flip rate can be con- Substituting this expression into Eq. (58), we arrive at
veniently performed in the two overlapping regimes: the the short-to-medium-range crossover result (13).
medium-to-long-range magnetic correlations (a ≫ kF−1 ) Of course, in the quasiclassical limit kF l ≫ 1 consid-
and the short-to-medium-range magnetic correlations ered in this paper, one is allowed to combine the two
(a ≪ l). overlapping regimes into a single formula
In the medium-to-long-range regime, the integrals in
Eqs. (58) and (59) are restricted to q ≪ kF and can be d3 q Fij (q) arctan(ql)
Z
ij
performed by using the integration over ξ in the vicinity Γsf = τ , (70)
(2π)3 ql − arctan(ql)
of the Fermi surface. First, we use the identity q<2kF
experimental data reported in Ref. 8 (assuming δh ∼ h), of magnitude, differing only by numerical factors. This
then we arrive at the estimate of the disorder correlation suggests that there is probably no qualitative difference
scale a ∼ 2 nm. Note that this correlation scale is of the between the effective spin-flip rates in disordered and pe-
order of the length scales associated with the uniform riodic magnetic structures, as long as the characteristic
component h of the magnetic field and with the result- length scale of inhomogeneities is sufficiently small.
ing spin-flip rate, thus this example is at the borderline
of applicability of our theory. The estimated size of in-
homogeneities is apparently too small for domains (in
recent experiments on CuNi films similar to those used
Acknowledgments
in the π-junctions, domains of size about 100 nm have
been reported29 ). However, our estimates are consistent
with earlier indications of clusters of magnetic Ni atoms We are grateful to M. V. Feigel’man, B. Crouzy, and S.
in such alloys30,31 (inhomogeneities inside the domains). Tollis for helpful discussions. This work was supported by
Finally, we would like to comment on comparison be- the Swiss National Foundation, the Dynasty Foundation,
tween the effective spin-flip rates due to two cases of inho- RF Presidential Grants Nos. MK-4421.2007.2 and NSh-
mogeneous magnetization: disordered and periodic ones. 5786.2008.2, RFBR Grants Nos. 07-02-01300 and 07-02-
The disordered case is considered in the present paper, 00310, and the program “Quantum physics of condensed
while specific realizations of periodic magnetic structures matter” of the RAS. The hospitality of the Institute of
were studied before in Refs. 12,13,18,32. The obtained Theoretical Physics at EPFL, where the main part of this
results for the spin-flip rate are all of the same order work was done, is gratefully acknowledged.
1
A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gor’kov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 054503 (2007); 76, 134502 (2007).
18
39, 1781 (1960) [Sov. Phys. JETP 12, 1243 (1961)]. D. A. Ivanov and Ya. V. Fominov, Phys. Rev. B 73, 214524
2
F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Rev. Mod. (2006).
19
Phys. 77, 1321 (2005). The energy E in the condition (2) is the characteristic en-
3
A. I. Buzdin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 935 (2005). ergy of electrons in the problem. For finite-temperature
4
A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev, Rev. calculations, this energy scale may be determined by tem-
Mod. Phys. 76, 411 (2004). perature.
5 20
H. Sellier, C. Baraduc, F. Lefloch, and R. Calemczuk, N. B. Kopnin, Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconductivity
Phys. Rev. B 68, 054531 (2003). (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001).
6 21
T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, X. Grison, and L. Du- A. Altland, B. D. Simons, and D. Taras-Semchuk, Adv.
moulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 137001 (2004). Phys. 49, 321 (2000).
7 22
V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. S. Prokofiev, V. V. A. M. Finkel’stein, in Soviet Scientific Reviews, edited by
Bolginov, and A. K. Feofanov, J. Low Temp. Phys. 136, I. M. Khalatnikov (Harwood Academic, London, 1990),
385 (2004). Vol. 14.
8 23
V. A. Oboznov, V. V. Bol’ginov, A. K. Feofanov, V. V. Note that although we can use the Matsubara technique,
Ryazanov, and A. I. Buzdin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 197003 which is standard in the case of replicas, here we choose
(2006). the real-energy description.
9 24
M. Houzet, V. Vinokur, and F. Pistolesi, Phys. Rev. B 72, A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rep. 326, 259 (2000).
25
220506(R) (2005). K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 507 (1970).
10 26
K. B. Efetov, Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, in Nonequilibrium
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, 1996). Superconductivity, edited by D. N. Langenberg and A. I.
11
A. Lamacraft and B. D. Simons, Phys. Rev. B 64, 014514 Larkin (Elsevier, New York, 1986), p. 530.
27
(2001). J. Rammer and H. Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 323 (1986).
12 28
L. N. Bulaevskii, A. I. Buzdin, S. V. Panjukov, and M. L. B. Crouzy, E. Bascones, and D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B
Kulić, Phys. Rev. B 28, 1370 (1983). 72, 092501 (2005).
13 29
A. I. Buzdin, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 42, 283 (1985) I. S. Veshchunov, V. A. Oboznov, A. N. Rossolenko, A. S.
[JETP Lett. 42, 350 (1985)]. Prokofiev, L. Ya. Vinnikov, A. Yu. Rusanov, and D. V.
14
Ya. M. Blanter and F. W. J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. B 69, Matveev, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 88, 873 (2008)
024525 (2004). [JETP Lett. 88, 758 (2008)].
15 30
T. Champel and M. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. B 71, 220506(R) T. J. Hicks, B. Rainford, J. S. Kouvel, G. G. Low, and
(2005); 72, 054523 (2005); T. Champel, T. Löfwander, and J. B. Comly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 531 (1969).
31
M. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 077003 (2008). K. Levin and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2354 (1974).
16 32
A. F. Volkov, Ya. V. Fominov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev.
Rev. B 72, 184504 (2005); Ya. V. Fominov, A. F. Volkov, B 64, 134506 (2001).
and K. B. Efetov, ibid. 75, 104509 (2007).
17
B. Crouzy, S. Tollis, and D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B 75,