Table Of ContentMagnetism in (III, Mn)-V Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors: Effective Heisenberg
Model
S. Hilbert1,∗ and W. Nolting2
1Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Straße 1, D-85741, Garching, Germany
2Institut fu¨r Physik, Humboldt-Universit¨at zu Berlin, Newtonstraße 15, D-12489 Berlin, Germany
(Dated: February 2, 2008)
5
0 The magnetic properties of the diluted magnetic semiconductors (DMS) (Ga, Mn)As and (Ga,
0
Mn)N are investigated by means of an effective Heisenberg model, whose exchange parameters
2
are obtained from first-principle calculations. The finite-temperature properties of the model are
n studiednumericallyusingamethodbasedupontheTyablikovapproximation. Themethodproperly
a incorporatestheeffectsofpositionaldisorderpresentinDMS.TheresultingCurietemperaturesfor
J (Ga, Mn)As are in excellent agreement with experimental data. Due to percolation effects and
7 noncollinear magnetic structures at higher Mn concentrations, our calculations predict for (Ga,
Mn)N verylow Curie temperatures compared to mean-field estimates.
]
i
c PACSnumbers: 75.50.Pp,75.10.Nr,85.75.-d
s
-
l
r I. INTRODUCTION expensive and usually assume classical spins. However,
t
m a proper treatment of the positional disorder of the lo-
calized moments and their quantum nature is needed to
. Ferromagnetic (III, Mn)-V diluted magnetic semicon-
t make reliable predictions about the magnetic properties
ma damucotnogrssc(iDenMtiSst) dhuarvinegatthtreapctaesdt yceoanrssi1d,2e.raTblheeiartitnevnetsiotin- of DMS17,18.
In a previously published article9, the exchange pa-
- gationhasbeendrivenbythe ideaofusingtheir coupled
d rameters of an effective (classical) Heisenberg Hamil-
electronic and magnetic degrees of freedom to construct
n tonian have been calculated from first-principles for
electronic devices ranging from fast nonvolatile memo-
o Ga Mn As and Ga Mn N. There, however, these
c ries to quantum computers3. To date, however, techni- 1−x x 1−x x
had only been used to calculate Curie temperatures
[ cal applicability has been limited by the fact that most
within MFA. More recently, results of classical MC
known DMS have Curie temperatures T below room
1 C simulations on the basis of these exchange parameters
v temperature2,4,5,6,7. have been presented15. Here, we employ a different
3 ForthedevelopmentofferromagneticDMSwithhigher approach19,20 toinvestigatethepropertiesoftheeffective
4
Curie temperatures, it is important to understand theo- Heisenberg Hamiltonian. This approach generalizes the
1
reticallythemagnetisminthesematerialsandtodevelop Tyablikov approximation21 to systems with positional
1
0 theories which provide reliable qualitative and quantita- disorder, which is treated numerically exactly. Further-
5 tive predictions. The magnetism in these materials is more, the method assumes quantum spins. The quan-
0 due to magnetic moments localized at magnetic impuri- tum fluctuations ofthe spins aretreatedwithinrandom-
/ ties, which interact with each other indirectly via holes phase approximation, which goes beyond MFA and the
t
a in the valence and impurity band of the host semicon- classical-spin approximation. It should be mentioned
m
ductor. Therefore,forthedescription,oneoftenemploys that a similar approachhas been proposed in22.
- an effective Heisenberg model, whose exchange parame-
d
tersaredeterminedbythe interactionbetweenthelocal-
n
o ized moments and the holes8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15. However, II. MODEL
c themagneticimpuritiesaremainlyrandomlydistributed
: over the sites of the crystal lattice. This positional dis-
v Details of the electronic-structure calculation for
order breaks the translational symmetry of the crystal
i Ga Mn AsandGa Mn Nandtheextractionofthe
X and thus greatly complicates the theoretical description 1−x x 1−x x
exchangeparametersJ(R)asfunctionoftheMn-Mndis-
ar opfrotxhime amtiaotner(iMal.FAS)8tu,9doiersthbeasreadndoonmt-hpehamseeaanp-pfireoldximapa-- tance R can be found in Ref.9. Here, these exchange
parameters are used as input for a ‘diluted’ Heisenberg
tion (RPA) combined with the virtual-crystal approxi-
model
mation(VCA)10 neglecteffectsofthepositionaldisorder
inDMS.Approachesbasedonpercolationtheory11,12 ac- N
count for the randomness of the impurity positions, but H =− J e ·e , (1)
ij i j
require a simple functional dependence of the exchange
i,j=1
X
parametersontheinter-spindistanceandtreatthemag-
netismitselfonlyonamean-fieldlevel. Monte-Carlosim- inwhichonlyafractionofthelatticesitesisoccupiedby
ulations (MC)13,14,15,16 seem to provide a better way to aspin. Hence,iandjlabeltheoccupiedlatticesitesonly,
includethepositionaldisorder,butthesearenumerically whose total number is N, and e =(Sx,Sy,Sz)/(~S)
i i i i
2
is the normalized spin operator of the localized mag-
netic moment at lattice site i with lattice vector R and 3 (a) x = 0.02
i
Jij =J(|Ri−Rj|). The magnitude S of the spins is ab- 2.5 0.05
sorbed by the exchange parameters due to the particu- )
y
lar way in which these are calculatedfrom the electronic R 2 0.10
m
structure. (1.5
The finite-temperature properties of Hamiltonian )
R 1
(1) are studied using a generalization of the Tyab- (
J
likov approximation to systems without translational 0.5
symmetry19,20. The generalization treats the positional
0
disorder in the spin system numerically exactly except
that a uniform magnetization is assumed. Further-
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
more, the effects of low-energy quantum excitations, i.e. R / a
magnons, are included. Within this approximation, the
10
local magnon spectral density is given by19,20:
(b) x = 0.02
8
1 N 2~hSzi 0.05
S (E)=2~2hSzi δ E− E , (2) )
ii N r=1 (cid:18) ~2S2 r(cid:19) Ry 6 0.10
X m
(
where the E are the eigenvalues of the Hamilton 4
r )
matrix H, which is defined by its matrix elements R
(
H =δ N J −J . These eigenvalues also deter- J 2
ij ij n=1 in ij
mine the Curie temperature:
P 0
−1
2S(S+1) 1 1 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
k T = . (3)
B C 3 S2 N E R / a
r r!
X
To evaluate this expression for a given set of E ’s, the FIG.1: ExchangeinteractionsJ(R)betweenMnionsofdis-
r
value of S has to be fixed. For Mn ions in Ga Mn As tanceRin(a)Ga1−xMnxAsand(b)Ga1−xMnxNforvarious
1−x x concentrations x (from9,23)
andGa Mn N,S =5/2shouldbeappropriate2. How-
1−x x
ever, this choice is not consistent with the calculation of
the exchange parameters from the electronic structure,
whereclassicalspinsareassumed. Therefore,wewilluse Figure 2 shows the resulting magnon spectral densi-
Eq. (3) in the limit S → ∞, which yields TC values a ties. For Ga1−xMnxAs, the spectrum is smooth and
factor 5/7 less than for S =5/2. continuous. For Ga1−xMnxN, one can recognize rem-
Due to the positional disorder of the spins present in nantsofpeakstypicalfornearest-neighborinteractionat
DMS, the eigenvalues cannot be computed by Fourier low concentrations, which are broadened by small long-
transformation of H. However, the eigenvalues may be rangedinteractions. ComparedtoGa1−xMnxAs,thereis
obtained by the numerical diagonalization of the Hamil- a large spectral density at low energies for Ga1−xMnxN.
ton matrix for a finite system. In our calculations, we For concentrations x ≥ 0.08, antiferromagnetic interac-
used systems of ∼ 10000 spins, which were randomly tions come into play and negative magnon energies ap-
distributed over the lattice sites of a cubic section of an pear indicating a ground state which is not a saturated
fcc lattice with periodic boundary conditions. For each ferromagnet20.
concentrationxofMnions,weaveragedthespectralden- The Curie temperatures calculated using Eq. (3) are
sities over eight random configurations. shown in Fig. 3. For Ga Mn As, the calculated val-
1−x x
ues agree remarkably well with the experimental values
of optimally annealed samples5,6,24. Furthermore, the
III. RESULTS calculatedcurvesuggeststhatslightly higherT ’s might
C
be achieved by further increasing the Mn content x, but
In Fig. 1, the Mn-Mn exchange interactions J(R) in values above 300K seem rather unlikely.
Ga Mn AsandinGa Mn Nareshownasfunctions Since experimental values for T in Ga Mn N are
1−x x 1−x x C 1−x x
of the Mn-Mn distance R for severalconcentrationx. In quite controversial (reported values range from 0K to
Ga Mn As,thefalloffoftheinteractionwithRiscom- 940K4,26,27,28,29,30), we refrain from a comparison here.
1−x x
parably slow. In Ga Mn N, the interaction between However,the Curietemperatureswecalculatedarequite
1−x x
nearest neighbors is much larger than in Ga Mn As, low compared to earlier mean-field estimates (e.g. in
1−x x
butMnmomentsfurtherapartareonlyveryweaklycou- Ref.2). These low T values despite the high values of
C
pled. the nearest-neighbor exchange may be explained as fol-
3
) 200
1
- 0.5 (a) x = 0.01 (a)
y
R 0.02
(m 0.4 0.05 150 calc.
0.10 exp.
2 )
S 0.3 K
( 100
/ C
0.2 T
)
E
( 0.1 50
i
i
S 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
2 z 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
(S E)/(2<S >) (mRy) x
1 ) 0.7 (b) x = 0.01 50 (b)
- 0.05
y 0.6 0.10
R
m 0.5 0.15 40
(
)
2 0.4 K
S ( 30
/ 0.3 C
) T
(E 0.2 20
i
i0.1
S 10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
2 z 0.020.040.060.08 0.1 0.120.14
(S E)/(2<S >) (mRy) x
FIG. 2: Local magnon spectral density Sii(E) for (a) FIG. 3: Calculated Curie temperature TC of (a)
Ga1−xMnxAsand(b)Ga1−xMnxNforvariousconcentrations Ga1−xMnxAs (compared with experimental values of an-
x of Mn nealed samples5,6,24,25) and (b) Ga1−xMnxN for various con-
centrations x of Mn ions
lows: Forconcentrationswellbelowthenearest-neighbor
percolation threshold c ≈ 0.231, even a large nearest- should not play an important role for the ferromagnetic
P
neighbor exchange does not contribute substantially to stability,whichcanbeeasilyseenbyconsideringthecase
the stability of the magnetic phase. Since the exchange of nearest-neighbor interaction only20.
parameters for larger inter-spin distances are very small
in Ga Mn N, ferromagnetic order can only be estab-
1−x x
lished at very low temperatures. Note that the drop of IV. SUMMARY
T for x ≥ 0.08 may be due to the used approximation:
C
As indicated by the magnon spectra seen in Fig. 2, the In this paper, we presented a method for calculat-
system’s groundstate is different froma saturatedferro- ing the magnetic properties of ferromagnetic DMS. The
magnet,butasuchuniformmagneticstateisassumedin method applies a Tyablikov-like approximation for sys-
the approximation. tems with positional disorder to an effective Heisenberg
Figure 4 presents a comparison of the the Curie tem- Hamiltonian,whoseexchangeparameterswhereobtained
peratures calculated using different approximations for by first-principle calculations. Unlike in MFA or VCA-
the effective Heisenberg model. The T values ob- RPA, no approximations with respect to the positional
C
tained by MC simulations are slightly higher than the disorderare made apartfromthe simplificationof a uni-
ones calculated by the presented approach, whereas form magnetization. As the main advantage over clas-
both MFA and VCA-RPA yield much higher T ’s. For sical MC simulations, the presented treatment of the ef-
C
Ga Mn As, the difference is about a factor two to fectiveHeisenbergmodeladmitsquantumspinsandthus
1−x x
eight. For Ga Mn N, the difference is even much may open up a way towardsa fully quantum-mechanical
1−x x
larger. This is due to the fact that the MFA and VCA- treatment of magnetism in DMS. Furthermore, the nu-
RPA do not take into account percolation effects: Large merical effort is fairly low compared to MC simulations.
nearest-neighbor interactions yield large Curie temper- OurcalculationsofT forGa Mn Asshowexcellent
C 1−x x
atures even for concentrations well below the nearest- agreement with experimental data. For Ga Mn N,
1−x x
neighbor percolation threshold. However, for such con- we obtained very low Curie Temperatures despite high
centrations, the nearest-neighbor interaction strength effective nearest-neighbor exchange parameters, which
4
we found are much lower than MFA and VCA-RPA val-
ues. These results support recent findings obtained by
350 usingMCsimulationsincombinationwithfirst-principle
methods15,16.
300
The presented model should be improved by using a
self-consistent method describing the electronic degrees
250 offreedomatfinitetemperature(suchas,e.g.,in32,33). In
)
K ordertoobtainafullyquantummechanicaltheory,quan-
( 200
C tum spins should be used instead of classical spins in in
T
thecalculationoftheeffectiveexchangeparametersfrom
150
the electronic structure. This will also remove the ambi-
100 guity in the choice of S. Furthermore, the treatment of
the effectiveHeisenbergmodelmaybe extendedtoallow
50 for a site-dependent hSzi. In addition, the model might
i
be improved in order to handle systems with a ground
0 state deviating from a saturated ferromagnet. Further-
0.020.040.060.08 0.1 0.120.14
x more,clusteringandotherformsofshort-rangechemical
orderingmay alsobe included into the model inorderto
investigatetheireffectsonthemagneticstability. Finally,
FIG. 4: Comparison of the Curie temperatures TC of the method should be applied to other DMS.
Ga1−xMnxAs (diamonds) and Ga1−xMnxN (squares) ob-
tained by the presented approach (solid line, filled symbols),
VCA-RPA (dashed line, filled symbols), MFA (dotted line,
Acknowledgments
filled symbols) and MC (dash-dotted line, open symbols,
taken from15).
This work benefited from the support of the SFB290
of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Thanks to J.
shows the importance of percolation effects. Moreover, Kudrnovsky´ for supplying the exchange parameters and
for both Ga Mn As and Ga Mn N, the T values for helpful discussion.
1−x x 1−x x C
∗ Electronic address: [email protected] 13 J.Schliemann,J.K¨onig,andA.H.MacDonald,Phys.Rev.
1 H. Ohno,J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 200, 110 (1999). B 64, 165201 (2001).
2 T. Dietl, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 17, 377 (2002). 14 L. Brey and G. G´omez-Santos, Phys. Rev. B 68, 115206
3 I. Z˘uti`c, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. (2003).
76, 323 (2004). 15 L. Bergqvist, O. Eriksson, J. Kudrnovsky´, V. Drchal,
4 M. L. Reed, N. A. El-Masry, H. H. Stadelmaier, M. K. P. Korzhavyi, and I. Turek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 137202
Ritums, M. J. Reed, C. A. Parker, J. C. Roberts, and (2004).
S. M. Bedair, Appl.Phys. Lett. 79, 3473 (2001). 16 K.Sato,W.Schweika,P.H.Dederichs,andH.Katayama-
5 K.W.Edmonds,K.Y.Wang,R.P.Campion, A.C.Neu- Yoshida, Phys.Rev. B 70, 201202(R) (2004).
mann, N. R. S. Farley, B. L. Gallagher, and C. T. Foxon, 17 J. Schliemann, Phys. Rev.B 67, 045202 (2003).
Appl.Phys. Lett. 81, 4991 (2002). 18 C. Timm, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, R1865 (2003).
6 K. C. Ku, S. J. Potashnik, R. F. Wang, S. H. Chun, 19 S. Hilbert, Diplomarbeit, Humboldt-Universit¨at zu Berlin
P. Schiffer, N. Samarth, M. J. Seong, A. Mascarenhas, (2003).
E. Johnston-Halperin, R. C. Myers, et al., Appl. Phys. 20 S.HilbertandW.Nolting,Phys,Rev.B70,165203(2004).
Lett. 82, 2302 (2003). 21 A.A.Bogolyubov andS.V.Tyablikov,Dokl.Akad.Nauk
7 Y. D. Park, A. T. Hanbicki, S. C. Erwin, C. S. Hellberg, SSSR126, 53 (1959).
J. M. Sullivan, J. E. Mattson, T. F. Ambrose, A. Wilson, 22 G. Bouzerar, T. Ziman, and J. Kudrnovsky´,
G. Spanos, and B. T. Jonker, Science 295, 651 (2002). http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0405322 (2004).
8 T. Dietl, H. Ohno, F. Matsukura, J. Cibert, and D. Fer- 23 J. Kudrnovsky´ (2004), (privatecommunications).
rand, Science 287, 1019 (2000). 24 S. J. Potashnik, K. C. Ku, R. Mahendiran, S. H. Chun,
9 J. Kudrnovsky´, I. Turek, V. Drchal, F. M´aca, P. Wein- R. F. Wang, N. Samarth, and P. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. B
berger, and P. Bruno, Phys.Rev. B 69, 115208 (2004). 66, 012408 (2002).
10 G. Bouzerar and T. P. Pareek, Phys. Rev. B 65, 153203 25 K.W.Edmonds,P.Bogusl awski, K.Y.Wang,R.P.Cam-
(2002). pion,S.N.Novikov,N.R.S.Farley,B.L.Gallagher,C.T.
11 V.I.LitvinovandV.K.Dugaev,Phys.Rev.Lett.86,5593 Foxon, M. Sawicki, T. Dietl, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 92,
(2001). 037201 (2004).
12 A. Kaminski, V. M. Galitski, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. 26 N.Theodoropoulou, A.F.Hebard,M. E.Overberg, C.R.
Rev.B 70, 115216 (2004). Abernathy,S.J.Pearton,S.N.G.Chu,andR.G.Wilson,
5
Appl.Phys. Lett. 78, 3475 (2001).
27 M. E. Overberg, C. R. Abernathy, S. J. Pearton, N. A.
Theodoropoulou, K. T. McCarthy, and A. F. Hebard,
Appl.Phys. Lett. 79, 1312 (2001).
28 S.Sonodaa, S.Shimizua,T. Sasakib, Y.Yamamotob, and
H.Hori,JournalofCrystalGrowth237-239,1358(2002).
29 G. T. Thaler, M. E. Overberg, B. Gila, R. Frazier, C. R.
Abernathy,S.J.Pearton,J.S.Lee,S.Y.Lee,Y.D.Park,
Z. G. Khim, et al., Appl.Phys.Lett. 80, 3964 (2002).
30 K.H.Ploog, S.Dhar,andA.Trampert,J.Vac.Sci.Tech-
nol. B 21, 1756 (2003).
31 D. Stauffer, Perkolationstheorie: eine Einfu¨hrung (VCH
Verlagsgesellschaft mbH,Weinheim, 1995).
32 W.Nolting,S.Rex,andS.MathiJaya,J.Phys.: Condens.
Matter 9, 1301 (1997).
33 C.SantosandW.Nolting,Phys.Rev.B65,144419(2002).
