4 views

Uploaded by Adonai Cruz

Paper about gauge fields applied to spintronics

- tmpBB0D.tmp
- SmitWijn Ferrites Text
- Lecture 17
- Yakov Kopelevich- Graphite as a Bose Metal
- PhysRevD.5.3137
- Paulis Exclusion Principle
- V. Gnezdilov et al- Phonons and magnons in stripe-ordered nickelates. A Raman scattering study
- 07 Appendix
- Chapter 10 (p26-30)
- Nille N. Klausen, John L. Bohn and Chris H. Greene- Nature of spinor Bose-Einstein condensates in rubidium
- wwwjfh
- AA Directions, Feb 2011
- hernandez2010 (1).pdf
- Graf 2007
- 1404.6136
- SYNTHESIS AND CHARACTERIZATION COMPOSITE OF MNO2/GRAPHENE/MWCNT: AN SYNERGISTIC CATALYST FOR DEGRADATION OF METHYL RED AND MALACHITE GREEN.
- 0901.3093
- Alex Buchel- Gauge theories on hyperbolic spaces and dual wormhole instabilities
- JSPS FORM
- Rousseaux. .on.the.Physical.meaning.of.the.gauge.conditions.of.Classical.electromagnetism.(2003)

You are on page 1of 30

Citation: Journal of Applied Physics 110, 121301 (2011); doi: 10.1063/1.3665219

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.3665219

View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/110/12?ver=pdfcov

Published by the AIP Publishing

Articles you may be interested in

Spintronics with graphene-hexagonal boron nitride van der Waals heterostructures

Appl. Phys. Lett. 105, 212405 (2014); 10.1063/1.4902814

Large-scale fabrication of BN tunnel barriers for graphene spintronics

J. Appl. Phys. 116, 074306 (2014); 10.1063/1.4893578

Magnetization reversal and spintronics of Ni/Graphene/Co induced by doped graphene

Appl. Phys. Lett. 102, 112403 (2013); 10.1063/1.4795764

Spintronic properties of graphene films grown on Ni(111) substrate

J. Appl. Phys. 110, 043704 (2011); 10.1063/1.3622618

Spintronic properties of zigzag-edged triangular graphene flakes

J. Appl. Phys. 108, 074301 (2010); 10.1063/1.3489919

[This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to ] IP:

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

T. Fujita,1 M. B. A. Jalil,1,2,a) S. G. Tan,1,3 and S. Murakami4

1

Department, National University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 3, 117576, Singapore

2

Information Storage Materials Laboratory, Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, National

University of Singapore, 4 Engineering Drive 3, 117576, Singapore

3

Data Storage Institute, A*STAR (Agency for Science, Technology and Research) DSI Building, 5 Engineering

Drive 1, 117608, Singapore

4

Department of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1 Ookayama, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan

(Received 22 August 2011; accepted 9 November 2011; published online 22 December 2011)

We present an overview of gauge fields in spintronics, focusing on their origin and physical

consequences. Important topics, such as the Berry gauge field associated with adiabatic quantum

evolution as well as gauge fields arising from other non-adiabatic considerations, are discussed.

We examine the appearance and effects of gauge fields across three spaces, namely real-space,

momentum-space, and time, taking on a largely semiclassical approach. We seize the opportunity

to study other spin-like systems, including graphene, topological insulators, magnonics, and photonics, which emphasize the ubiquity and importance of gauge fields. We aim to provide an intuiC 2011 American

tive and pedagogical insight into the role played by gauge fields in spin transport. V

Institute of Physics. [doi:10.1063/1.3665219]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. TERMINOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. SPIN-1/2 SYSTEMS IN THE PRESENCE OF

SPATIALLY VARYING MAGNETIC FIELD

TEXTURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Berry phase: Theoretical approaches . . . . . . .

1. Berry (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Path integral formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Unitary transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Physical consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Spin-dependent forces: Chirality-driven

spin-Hall effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Domain wall characterization . . . . . . . . . .

3. Spin torque in domain walls . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. REAL SPACE GAUGE FIELDS IN

GRAPHENE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A. A primer on graphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Modeling the effects of strain. . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Physical consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Valley filtering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Valley-dependent forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Edge states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SPIN-ORBIT COUPLING SYSTEMS: REAL

SPACE ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a)

0021-8979/2011/110(12)/121301/29/$30.00

1

2

3

3

3

3

5

5

6

7

8

8

8

9

9

9

9

10

11

12

B. Non-Abelian gauge field representation . . . .

C. Physical consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Aharonov-Casher phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Spin-dependent transverse force . . . . . . . .

3. Quantum spin-Hall effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Spin torque . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D. Spatially nonuniform spin-orbit coupling . . .

VI. SPIN-ORBIT COUPLING SYSTEMS:

~

k-SPACE

ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~

A. Derivation of k-space

Berry curvature . . . . .

B. Physical consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Spin-Hall effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Spin-Hall effect of light and optical

Magnus effect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. Magnon-Hall effect in ferromagnetic

insulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4. Valley-Hall effect in graphene . . . . . . . . .

5. Topological insulators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

C. Hall conductivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII. TIME-DEPENDENT MAGNETIC SYSTEMS .

A. Derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B. Physical consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1. Spin-Hall effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Pseudospin-Hall effect in graphene . . . . .

3. Rayleigh scattering of polaritons. . . . . . . .

4. Spin motive force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

~

C. Semiclassical connection with k-space

Berry curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VIII. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

110, 121301-1

12

13

13

13

14

15

15

16

16

16

17

17

18

19

20

20

21

22

22

23

23

24

24

24

26

27

V

[This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to ] IP:

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-2

Fujita et al.

I. INTRODUCTION

property of carriers and its application to technology.1 There

are many avenues and tools available to study the motion of

spin species through the solid state, such as semiclassical

equations of motion, linear response Kubo formula, and

gauge theories. The latter entails the study of so-called gauge

fields, essentially generalizations of electromagnetism,

which naturally couple to the spin. In fact, the advantage of

working with gauge fields is that most of what we know

about usual magnetic and electric fields can be carried over

and applied to the richer realm of gauge fields. Thus, it

can be useful in deepening our understanding of certain

phenomena.

The use of gauge fields in spintronics kicked off in the

early 1980s with the study of the Aharonov-Casher (AC)

phase. The AC phase is essentially the spin-dependent version of the Aharonov-Bohm phase, whereby spin-orbit coupling can be regarded as a generalized (spin-dependent)

magnetic vector potential. This concept has recently been

revived in the modern language of Rashba spin-orbit coupling in semiconductor heterostructures. Observable consequences, such as spin separation due to generalized magnetic

Lorentz forces, have also been investigated. In 1984, around

the same time as the birth of the AC phase, the Berry phase

was discovered. The Berry phase results from cyclic, adiabatic transport of quantum states with respect to parameter

~ This fundaspace (e.g., real-space ~

r , momentum-space k).

mental result in quantum mechanics, which was previously

overlooked, has important consequences in spintronics. For

example, in the problem of spatially varying magnetic fields,

this theory predicts that carriers will experience spindependent trajectories, resulting in spin separation. Recent

works have also explored the possibility of domain wall

characterization and motion using these gauge fields. In the

separate context of spin-orbit coupling, the importance of the

Berry phase theory was realized in the early 2000s, following

the discovery of the intrinsic spin-Hall effect. The prediction

of ~

k-space gauge fields motivated efforts to find similar

effects in graphene, optics, and exciton systems. In this paper, we present a brief review of gauge fields in spintronics

with an emphasis on their origin and physical effects. As

such, much of the analysis is semiclassical, offering transparency to the reader.

This paper is organized as follows: In Sec. II, we introduce basic terminology, which is used throughout the paper,

by working through the simplest example of electromagnetism. In Sec. III, we introduce the concept of Berry gauge

fields. First, several theoretical approaches for studying the

Berry phase are presented. Then, the simple scenario of spatially varying magnetic fields is studied, which is shown to

give rise to a real-space (~

r) Berry gauge field. The physical

consequences of the ~

r-space gauge field are established,

including spin separation via spin-dependent forces and the

ability to impart spin torque on magnetic moments. We continue dealing with ~

r-space gauge fields in Sec. IV, although

we switch to a new platform, namely graphene. In particular,

we pay attention to strained graphene, which is modeled by

(though it is not Berry-like). The role of this gauge field in

so-called valley filtering and the quantum valley-Hall effect

are subsequently discussed. In Secs. V and VI, we discuss

gauge fields in the context of spin-orbit coupling, an important effect in the realm of spintronics. The former section

(V) views the spin-orbit coupling as a gauge field in ~

r-space;

analogous consequences to Sec. III occur, including

spin-dependent separation and spin torque. The latter section

(VI) describes the presence of a ~

k-space Berry gauge field in

general spin-orbit coupling systems. Physically, this drives

the intrinsic spin-Hall effect in semiconductors as well as

analogous effects in graphene, optical, magnonic, and topological insulator systems. Lastly, in Sec. VII, gauge fields in

time-space are discussed. This also drives the intrinsic spinHall effect in semiconductors and graphene. We close Sec.

VII with a discussion on the relationship between the two

intrinsic spin-Hall effect mechanisms in Secs. VI and VII.

Section VIII summarizes the paper.

II. TERMINOLOGY

examining the simplest example of electromagnetism. The

Hamiltonian of a free spin-12 particle in the presence of a

~ is given by

magnetic field B

H

2

1

~ r 1 glB~

~

~

p eA~

r B;

2m

2

(1)

p hk~ is the momen~ r is the magnetic vector potentum, k~ is the wavevector, A~

~ B,

~ i.e., r A

~ g is the Lande factor, lB is the

tial of B,

Bohr magneton quantifying the magnetic moment of the

intrinsic spin, and ~

r is the vector of Pauli spin matrices,

0 1

0 i

1 0

; ry

; rz

: (2)

rx

1 0

i 0

0 1

~ is a gauge field, and its curvature is

The vector potential A

~ defined through Bk lk @l A . One

the magnetic field B,

~ is not

~ the definition of A

should appreciate that, given B,

unique. For example, one could choose between the Landau

~ No matter the choice, the point is

or symmetric gauges for A.

~ is the same and the physics of the problem remains

that B

unchanged. For concreteness, let us consider the following

gauge transformation between two such possible values

~

for A,

~ rv;

~0 A

A

(3)

~0 r A

~ Suppose the wavefunction

dent that r A

~ gauge is jwi, while in the A

~0 gauge, it

of the system in the A

0

is jw i. If the physics were to remain invariant, we would

~! A

~0 corresponds

conjecture that the gauge transformation A

to a transformation of the wavefunctions jwi ! jw0 i

Ujwi, where U exp ik represents a change of phase.

Writing the Schrodinger equation, Hjwi jwi, in terms of

[This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AIP content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to ] IP:

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-3

Fujita et al.

primed quantities ( is the energy eigenvalue), we get (ignoring the Zeeman term and after some algebra)

2

1

~0 rv jw0 i jw0 i:

~

p

hrk eA

(4)

2m

Setting k hev, wethen have

2

1

~0 jw0 i jw0 i;

~

p eA

2m

(5)

which is of identical form to the original (unprimed) Schrodinger equation. Thus, the system remains invariant with

~! A

~ rv and

respect to

transformations A

e the

jwi ! exp ihv jwi. In general, it is invariant to unitary

transformations (U belongs to the unitary group U1),

~0 A

~ ih UrU ;

A

e

(6)

jw0 i Ujwi:

(7)

merely a mathematical instrument to describe the magnetic

~ represents the gauge invariant quantity.

field, since only B

~ itself is manifested as a phase, known as the

However, A

Aharonov-Bohm phase,2 determined by

~ r ;

r A~

(8)

/AB d~

C

experimentally measurable when the interior of C contains a

~ but C itself lies exclusively in regions

magnetic field B,

~

where B is vanishing.

In the above, we have looked at the idea of gauge fields,

their curvatures, phases, and the idea of gauge transformations. This paper looks at generalizing the magnetic vector

potential for novel electronic and spintronic transport. For

example, in Sec. III, we shall look at the appearance of a special class of gauge fields, known as Berry gauge fields, and

~

their curvature. In a similar way that a real magnetic field B

produces physically observable effects, such as the Lorentz

force and electronic phase, we shall see, in Sec. III C, that

the Berry curvature produces analogous effects.

III. SPIN-12 SYSTEMS IN THE PRESENCE OF

SPATIALLY VARYING MAGNETIC FIELD TEXTURES

In 1984, Berry3 showed that, during adiabatic cyclic evolution of quantum states, a geometric phase necessarily accompa-

dynamic phase). This is known as the Berry phase. A special

case of this phase was actually discovered much earlier, in

1956, by Pancharatnam, who predicted and experimentally

verified that a phase is acquired by polarized light when it is

passed through a series of polarizers, such that the final and initial polarizations are the same4 (accordingly, the Berry phase is

also known as the Pancharatnam-Berry phase). The Berry

phase is topological in nature and is defined as the flux of the

Berry curvature cutting through the closed surface in the space

of parameters that the quantum states are evolving. The canonical example of the Berry curvature arises in the adiabatic transport of spins through a spatially non-uniform magnetic field

~ r. In this case, the states evolve with respect to B~

texture, B~

space, and we get a Berry curvature in that space. Of course, if

~ r is known,

the exact spatial magnetic field configuration B~

we can also define the Berry curvature in ~

r-space. Below, we

introduce three theoretical approaches of obtaining the curvature and Berry phase for the spatially inhomogeneous magnetic

field system.

A. System

~ r is given by

of a spatially non-uniform magnetic field B~

2

1

~ r 1 glB~

~ r;

~

p eA~

r B~

(9)

H

2m

2

where m is the effective carrier mass, ~

p hk~is the momentum,

~ r is the magnetic vector potential of B,

~

k~is the wavevector, A~

~ B,

~ g is the Lande factor, and lB is the Bohr magi.e., r A

neton quantifying the magnetic moment of the intrinsic spin.

B. Berry phase: Theoretical approaches

1. Berry (1984)

paper.3 We study the cyclic, adiabatic spin evolution in a

~ r, described by

spatially inhomogeneous magnetic field B~

~

the Hamiltonian in Eq. (9). In the B-space,

one can conceive

a circuit C, illustrated in Fig. 1(a), traversed by the quantum

spin states with starting (ending) point at time t 0 (t T).

Adiabatic evolution corresponds to when C is traversed infinitesimally slowly, i.e., T ! 1. This implies that, when the

~

system is prepared in an initial eigenstate jwi B0i

(i f"; #g for the spin-12 system), it will evolve such that at

Berry phase for the problem of inhomo~ (a) A Berry

geneous magnetic fields B.

phase is acquired when quantum states

undergo cyclic, adiabatic evolution C in

~

magnetic field B-space.

Adiabatic evolution corresponds to the limit T ! 1. (b)

~

The Berry curvature in Eq. (17) in Bspace is a Dirac monopole of strength

eg 12.

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-4

Fujita et al.

~

time t > 0, it is in the state jwi Bti.

Specifically, the state

at time t can be written as having acquired a phase

i t 0 0

~

dt i t expici tjwi Bti;

(10)

jwti exp

h 0

where the first factor is the usual dynamic phase (i is the

energy eigenvalue of jwi i). Berry pointed out that adiabatic

transport around a closed circuit in parameter space is necessarily accompanied by an additional non-zero phase ci . Since

jwti must obey Schrodingers equation, Hjwti i jwti

i

h@t jwti, we get, by direct substitution,

i t 0 0

i exp

dt i t expici tjwi ti

h 0

i t 0 0 h

i

h exp

dt i t expici tjw_ i ti

h 0

i

i t 0 0

_ expici tjwi ti i t exp

dt i t

ict

h 0

~

expici tjwi Bti;

(11)

where the over-dot notation symbolizes differentiation with

respect to time. Canceling the non-zero phase factors, simple

algebra yields

jw_ i ti ic_ i tjwi ti 0;

(12)

which, after applying the state bra hwi tj, gives the following relation satisfied by ci t:

c_ i t ihwi tjw_ i ti:

(13)

ses a circuit C in magnetic field B-space,

~ hwi Bjr

~ B jwi Bi:

~

(14)

ci C i dB

Remarkably, Xi B

monopole in Fig. 1(b), which we now show explicitly. The

two spin eigenstates of Eq. (9) are given by i "; #

1

expi/ cot h2

jw" i q

;

(18)

1

cot2 h2 1

1

expi/ tan h2

;

(19)

jw# i q

1

tan2 h2 1

which correspond, respectively, to energy eigenvalues of

~ and # 1 glB jBj.

~ The angles h and /

" 12 glB jBj

2

are spherical angles, which parameterize the magnetic

~

~ Bx ; By ; Bz ; i.e.,q

h arccos B

and

field B

z =jBj

2

2

2

~

/ arctan By =Bx , where jBj Bx By Bz . The prefactors outside of the spinors ensure proper normalization of the

eigenstates. From the definition in Eq. (15), we can derive

~

the components of Aad:

" B for the up-spin eigenstate in

Eq. (18) as follows:

!

By

Bz

ad:

1

;

ABx;"

~

jBj

2 B2 B2

x

Aad:

By;"

!

Bz

1

;

~

jBj

2 B2x B2y

(20)

Bx

Aad:

Bz;" 0:

Taking the curvature, XB rB Aad:

B , we then arrive at the

following components for the Berry curvature:

XBx;"

Bx

~3

2jBj

; XBy;"

By

~3

2jBj

; XBz;"

Bz

~3

2jBj

(21)

~

X" B

~

B

~3

2jBj

(22)

the phase acquired by an electron when it encircles the vector potential of a magnetic field, i.e., the Aharonov-Bohm

effect in Eq. (8).

Accordingly, we can define the Berry gauge field in

~

B-space,

~

~

~

Aad:

i B ihwi BjrB jwi Bi;

(15)

Using Stokess theorem, one can rewrite Eq. (14) in terms of

a surface integral,

~

(16)

ci d S~ rB Aad:

i B;

where the quantity

~ rB Aad: B

~

Xi B

i

(17)

is the Berry curvature. Physically, Xi B

~

an effective magnetic field in B-space.

the Berry curvature for the down-spin eigenstate in Eq. (19)

is of equal magnitude, but opposite sign compared to the up~ X" B

~ B~ 3 . Emphasis should

spin curvature, X# B

~

2jBj

be placed on the role of degeneracies. The Berry curvature

exhibits monopole-like singularities at points in the parameter space where the system is degenerate.3 In the case of a

~ this corresponds to the origin B

~ 0 in

magnetic field B,

Eq. (22) where the Zeeman splitting vanishes.

~

The notion of the Berry curvature in B-space

is somewhat abstract and difficult to perceive physically. Since we

are dealing with spatially inhomogeneous magnetic fields,

~ B~

~ r , we can define an equivalent curvature in ~

B

r -space,

which has the physical meaning of a magnetic field (see

Sec. II). In particular, Eq. (14) for the Berry phase can be

written in terms of a circuit in Cr in real-space,

ci Cr i

d~

r hwi ~

rjrr jwi ~

ri;

(23)

Cr

r

Aad:

i ~

ihwi ~

rjrr jwi ~

r i is the

where the quantity

~

r -space Berry gauge field which mimics the usual magnetic

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-5

Fujita et al.

r then represents a magnetic field.

2. Path integral formalism

The path integral approach in quantum mechanics perhaps gives us the most intuitive explanation for the Berry

phase. In this formalism, the Berry phase appears as a firstorder accumulated phase of overlapping eigenstates as they

evolve in space, ~

r ~

rt, where t parameterizes the motion.

In particular, we dissect the time parameter t into discrete

steps of size tn1 tn Dt, compute the evolution of the

states between steps (through propagator operators), then

finally apply the adiabatic limit Dt ! 0. The final eigenstate

is then found to contain the Berry phase upon completion of

a circuit in parameter space. Suppose that, at time tn , the system is in a spin eigenstate jwi ~

rn ; tn i of the magnetic field

~ rn (i f"; #g), where ~

rn ~

r tn denotes the correspondB~

ing position in real space. At a short time later, tn1 , the

wavefunction can be described by the path integral

rn1 ; tn1 d~

rn G~

rn1 tn1 ;~

rn tn wi ~

rn ; tn ;

(24)

wi ~

rn tn h~

rn1 jUtn1 tn j~

rn i is the propagawhere G~

rn1 tn1 ;~

tor between time tn and tn1 and Utn1 tn

expiHtn1 tn . The propagator can be readily evaluated as

! +

*

~

iDtl~

rB

h~

rn1 jUtn1 tn j~

rn i wi;n1 exp

wi;n ;

h

!

~

iDtljBj

hwi;n1 jwi;n i exp 6

;

(25)

h

where the second line follows from first-order approximation

of the exponential, and the signs 6 refer to the up and down

spin eigenstates. The phase factor in Eq. (25) is just the usual

dynamic phase, which we shall ignore hereafter. Evaluating

the more interesting overlap between

evolved states,

we obtain hwi;n1 jwi;n i 1 hwi;n1 j jwi;n1 i wi;n i 1

jw_ i exp Dthw

jw_ i . We shall see that

Dthw

i;n1

i;n

i;n1

i;n

limit, i.e., Dt ! 0. Thus, the incremental evolution represents an additional phase factor of Dt ihwi;n1 jw_ i;n i.

Evolution over an interval t 2 0; T, where ~

r0 ~

rT,

phase factor of

T

ci dt ihwi jw_ i i ;

0

(26)

d~

r hwi ~

rjrr jwi ~

r i;

i

Cr

3. Unitary transformation

consideration of local unitary transformations. Another way

of looking at the spatially varying system described by

Eq. (9) is to consider locking the reference spin axis to the

magnetic field at each point in ~

r-space through a local transformation. In the laboratory (L) frame, the magnetic field

~ Bj

~ rotates as we move from one point in space

axis ~

n B=j

to another. Consider applying a local transformation to the

system which rotates the L-frame at each point ~

r such that

the reference spin axisthe ^z-axis by conventionpoints

along ~

n~

r. Then, the problem is effectively mapped to a

spatially uniform system; this is illustrated in Fig. 2. We

shall see, however, that this transformation is necessarily

accompanied by a gauge transformation of the coordinate

space ~

r . To facilitate the local rotation of L, we employ a

unitary matrix U U~

r , which satisfies U~

r~

nU rz at

every point ~

r. As one may have guessed, U is not unique,

and different Us are connected via gauge transformations

akin to Eqs. (6)(7). One such U is given by5

~~

Um

r;

(27)

h

where m

~

spherical

angles

parameterizing

the

vector

n

sin h cos /; sin h sin /; cos h. Wavefunctions are transformed as jwi ! Ujwi (note here that jwi are twocomponent spinors), and the transformed Hamiltonian reads

H0 UHU

2

1

~ r U glB rz jB~

~ r j: (28)

U ~

p eA~

2m

nontrivial, because ~

p ih@r represents spatial derivatives

and U explicitly depends on ~

r. One can readily show that the

effective Hamiltonian can be reformulated to read

FIG. 2. (Color online) A spatially varying magnetic field system (left), charac~ r , can be transformed via

terized by B~

local rotation to a locally uniform system (right). The effect of this is to modify the momentum of the carriers

~ where A

~ is a gauge field (see

~

p!~

p A,

~ is a true gauge field, in the

Eq. (28)). A

sense that it obeys the transformation

rule in Eq. (30) with respect to unitary

transformations.

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-6

Fujita et al.

2

1

~ ihUrU 1 glB rz jB~

~ rj;

~

p eU AU

2m

2

(29)

2 1

1

~ hA~

~ r j;

~

p eU AU

r glB rz jB~

2m

2

H0

unitary transformation. Note that, unlike the usual vector

~ the components of A are 2 2 matrices which

potential A,

encode the spin state. Notably, A is an example of a YangMills or non-Abelian gauge field, whose components do not

commute. The gauge transformation rule of A is indicated

by Eq. (29) above to be

h

(30)

A0 UAU i UrU ;

e

which generalizes Eq. (6). The Yang-Mills curvature of A is

defined as6

ie

Xk Xl @l A @ Al A ; Al ;

(31)

ch

which is the usual curl portion in addition to noncommuting

corrections. Just like the usual magnetic field, X is invariant

with respect to A, which represents a freedom to choose the

gauge potential, and also manifests itself in physical effects.

Returning to our gauge field A iUrU , computation of

the curvature surprisingly results in X 0! This is because A

is a pure gauge.7 In order to induce a finite curvature, we consider the so-called adiabatic approximation, in which we

assume that carriers remain in the spin eigenstates of the quantum system as they travel between two points in ~

r-space and

that flipping between states is forbidden. Mathematically, this is

equivalent to diminishing the off-diagonal components of A to

zero and retaining only the diagonal (i.e., rz ) components of A.

The resulting adiabatic (ad.) gauge field, Aad: , has the form

1

1 cos hr/

0

ad:

2

A

;

(32)

0

121 cos hr/

which can be written in compact form Aad:

6

6121 cos hr/, where () denotes the up-spin "

eigenstate parallel (down-spin #, anti-parallel) to the local

~ r. By definition, Aad: is exactly the Berry

magnetic field B~

6

gauge field, and its curvature is the Berry curvature. Note

that, after taking the adiabatic approximation, the gauge field

becomes Abelian (i.e., whose components commute), the

noncommuting correction to Eq. (31) vanishes, and the curvature is prescribed by the usual curl, rr Aad:

6 . In general,

however, the Berry gauge field can be non-Abelian; examples are discussed in Secs. VI B 1 and VI B 2. It is a simple

~

exercise to prove in the current example that Aad:

6 in B-space

describes the gauge potential of a magnetic monopole, in

agreement with the discussion in Sec. III B 1. In particular,

1

~

~ arccos Bz =jBj,

~

Aad:

hB

6 B 621 cos hrB /, where

q

~ arctan By =Bz , and jBj

~ B2x B2y B2z , and the

/B

~

corresponding Berry curvature in B-space

is

~ @Bl Aad: B

~ @B Aad: B

~ 6kl

Xl B

;6

l;6

Bk

~3

2jBj

; (33)

unitary matrices U can be defined to perform the required

local coordinate transformation, and each of these will inevitably derive a different adiabatic gauge potential A. The

gauge potentials are, however, connected by the gauge transformation rule in Eq. (30), and their curvatures are invariably

the Dirac monopole field.

In applying the adiabatic approximation above, we simply threw away the off-diagonal terms of A. Let us refine

this approximation a little, by first expanding the gauge field

as A Ax rx Ay ry Az rz . Obviously, in this notation,

Az Aad: represents the adiabatic Berry component of the

gauge field, while Ax and Ay represent off-diagonal components of A. Let us introduce the symbol AN to collectively

represent

the

off-diagonal

components,

i.e.,

A Az rz AN . Expanding the kinetic term, we have

(ignoring h for simplicity)

2

1

1

~

~

p A 2

p Az r z AN ;

2m

2m

1

p Az rz 2

~

2m

1

f~

p Az rz ; AN g AN 2 ;

2m

(34)

the right-hand side, we ignore f~

p; AN g (rx ! 0, ry ! 0 in

the adiabatic limit), while fAz rz ; AN g 0, because of the

anticommutation property of the Pauli matrices. In the final

term, AN 2 A2x A2y Ax Ay frx ; ry g A2x A2y . From

our computed A, we find that the off-diagonal components

are characterized by

1

Ax cos / sin hr/ sin /rh;

2

1

Ay cos /rh sin / sin hr/;

2

(35)

(36)

1

1

p A z r z 2

AN 2 ;

~

2m

2m

1

1

p A z r z 2

rh2 sin2 hr/2 :

~

2m

8m

(37)

(38)

Thus, we find that the off-diagonal components of A contribute an additional scalar potential, U. Note that, in contrast to

the adiabatic vector potential in Eq. (32), the scalar potential

is spin-independent. Thus, in spintronic applications, the

term U is usually neglected (but see its effect on charge

transport in Eq. (172)).

C. Physical consequences

~ r has physical and potentially practical

magnetic field B~

implications. The curvature itself acts analogously to a real

magnetic field, which is spin eigenstate-dependent and can

produce a Hall effect (Sec. III C 1) and assist in magnetization switching (Sec. III C 3). When examining such effects,

one must be careful to deal with the Berry curvature in the

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-7

Fujita et al.

~

~

r-space, X~

r (and not the B-space).

The curvature in real

space is the one that represents a real magnetic field, which

~

is felt by spin carriers. Although the B-space

curvature is

always a Dirac monopole, the form of the ~

r -space curvature

~ r . To evaludepends on the exact spatial configuration of B~

ate X~

r , one can write down the ~

r-space Berry gauge field

(e.g., in Eq. (32)) and then take the real-space curvature in

Eq. (31) (having in mind the explicit spatial dependence of

angles h and /). Alternatively, it is possible to transform

~ directly via the relation10,11

XB

!

~ r @ B~

~ r

@

B~

~

;

(39)

Xk ~

r XB

@ri

@rj

~

@~

n @~

n

n

6

;

(40)

2 @ri @rj

~ Bj

~ is the unit vector pointing in the direction

where ~

n B=j

~

of B~

r and i; j; k are spatial coordinates.

1. Spin-dependent forces: Chirality-driven spin-Hall

effect

r acts as a spin eigenstatedependent magnetic field and gives rise to eigenstatedependent Lorentz forces. The quantum mechanical force

operator is defined by

~ m ~

t; H;

F

ih

(41)

where ~

t i1h~

r ; H is the velocity operator in the Heisenberg

~2

picture. Writing the Hamiltonian as H P

2m (we ignore

the Zeeman term, as

to the Stern-Gerlach force),

this just leads

~ ~

~ Aad: ~

p eAR contains all the

where P

pe A

gauge fields, the velocity operator (jth component) reads

i

1 h

rj ; P2x P2y P2z ;

2im

h

2 i

1 h

rj ; pj eAR; j ;

2im

h

1 2

2im

h

tj

(42)

spatial derivative operator, we also have, by the product rule,

rj p2j p2j rj rj pj pj pj rj pj pj rj pj pj pj rj ;

rj ; pj pj pj rj ; pj ;

2ihpj :

(43)

similarly evaluated and contribute a term 2iehAR; j . Thus, the

velocity operator equals

tj

Pj

1

:

pj eAR; j

m

m

(44)

1

Pj ; P2x P2y ;

2imh

1

Pj ; P2i i 6 j;

2imh

1

Pi ; Pj Pi Pi Pi ; Pj :

2imh

Fj

(45)

noncommuting,

Pi ; Pj ieh @i AR; j @j AR;i e2 AR;i ; AR; j ;

iehXk ;

(46)

where the last line follows from Eq. (31). Substituting this

expression into Eq. (45), we obtain, for the force,

Fj eti Xk ~

rijk ;

(47)

~ and A. At this stage, a few remarks are in order.

from both A

Firstly, the exact meaning of the force operator in Eq. (47) is a

little ambiguous, because there is no concept of force in quantum

mechanics (due to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle). The definitive meaning can be obtained by deriving the real-space equations of motion of a wave packet eigenstate of the system; see,

for example, Ref. 12. It turns out that the force is indeed reflected

as a semiclassical acceleration term in the equations of motion.

Secondly, the Lorentz force due to the ~

r -space Berry curvature

can also be understood semiclassically from a consideration of

adiabatically evolving spin moments with respect to time, t.8

~

However, we shall defer the details to our discussion of the kspace Berry curvature, which follows analogously20 and is responsible for an array of spin-dependent phenomena. Thirdly,

the magnitude of the force in Eq. (47) is independent of the

~ rj. One can

strength of the spatially varying magnetic field, jB~

see this by observing the expression for X~

r in Eq. (40) and not~ The only requirement

ing that it carries no dependence on jBj.

~ is that it is sufficiently strong to guarantee adiabatic spin

for jBj

transport; once this is fulfilled, the resulting Berry curvature

depends only on how the field direction varies in ~

r-space and not

on its magnitude. At this point, one might ask: how strong is

strong? This can be answered more readily when we talk about

evolutions with respect to time, and we defer the conditions for

adiabaticity to Sec. VII (see Eq. (155)).

Chirality-driven electron dynamics constitutes the interesting topological transport effect.10 The Lorentz force in

Eq. (47) was used to describe the topological Hall effect by

Bruno et al.9,21 in two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG)

based nanostructures, with patterned ferromagnetic cylinders

providing the spatially nonuniform magnetic fields. The

authors in Ref. 9 assumed a fully spin-polarized 2DEG,

which corresponds to selecting only one of the gauge fields,

1

Aad:

" 21 cos hr/ in Eq. (32). This represents an

ordinary magnetic vector potential for the carriers, leading to

a Hall effect induced by the Lorentz force in Eq. (47). The

authors chose a magnetic field configuration with a zero spatial average (thus ruling out the ordinary Hall effect), but

whose nonuniformity results in a Berry curvature in Eq. (40)

r 6 0. To the first

with a non-zero spatial average, Xz;ave: ~

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-8

Fujita et al.

h

~

r

n @y ~

n dxdy;

(48)

F / Xz;ave: ~

n @x ~

eA0

~ Bj

~ in Eq. (40) and the integration is carried

where ~

n B=j

out over the unit cell area A0 . The factor h=e comes about by

converting the units for the curvature (1=r 2 ) to Teslas. The

application of an additional external magnetic field was

shown to result in a change of topology of the system, affecting the Hall conductivity in an unconventional way and providing an unambiguous signature of the effect. From the

semiclassical Drude theory, the Hall conductivity rxy (for

spin-up electrons) is proportional to the effective magnetic

field, which is given in Eq. (48),9

rxx eXz;ave: s

ne2 s

; rxx

;

rxy

m

m

(49)

Sm)1517 arising from carrier hopping in lattices with nontrivial spin textures. Experimental signatures of the topological

transport effect have been observed in Refs. 18 and 19 which

conclude that the spin chirality effect can play a significant

role in determining carrier transport.

2. Domain wall characterization

magnetic domains and is usually characterized by a smoothly

~ r across a finite distance. When

varying magnetization M~

electronic current is passed through a DW, the conduction

electron spins experience an exchange coupling represented

by the Hamiltonian

~ r ;

Hex JH ~

r M~

r -space mimics

the usual magnetic vector potential. One possible application

r is its effect on the local magnetization in ferromagof Aad: ~

nets (FM). Bazaliy et al.23 considered the case of a FM system

~ r , such as a DW.

with a smoothly varying magnetization, M~

In the limit of large exchange-coupling JH ! 1, a charge

current will be fully spin polarized (in the spin-up eigenstate,

jw" i) within the DW and experience a Berry gauge field

Aad:

r hw" jA~

r jw" i. In Sec. III C 1, we discussed the

" ~

r on the orbital motion of conducting electrons.

effect of Aad: ~

Conventional electrodynamics governs that A~

r also

describes the interaction between the current ~

j and the local

~ r with the following energy density term:

magnetization M~

j" Aad:

r;

int ~

" ~

In a similar context, Tan et al.12 studied a 2DEG-based system with a mostly vertical magnetic field that has a small

superimposed spatial nonuniformity. In contrast to Ref. 9,

the weak magnetic field strength allowed both spin eigenstates to be considered, and the Lorentz force induced a Hall

separation of oppositely polarized spins (this was balanced

by another force, due to spin-orbit coupling, which is

described in Sec. V C 2).

An analogous situation has been proposed in ferromagnetic manganites (e.g., La2 (Ca,Pb)1 MnO3 )13,14 and pyro3

(50)

in ferromagnets. Clearly in the limit of strong exchange coupling, JH ! 1, the current will be fully spin-up polarized at

each spatial point within the DW. Thus, the adiabatic requirement is fulfilled in such cases and provides a suitable platform

for examining adiabatic spatial gauge fields. For example, Lee

et al.22 proposed a method for characterizing the spatial configuration of DWs based on Hall conductivity. Clearly, rxy in

Eq. (49) is highly sensitive to the spatial texture of a DW.

Thus, experimental measurement of rxy may provide a novel

approach for probing the magnetic configuration of DWs.22

(51)

where ~

j" is the electric current of the up-spin carriers. Intuitively, one would expect the localized spins to reorient themselves to minimize the interaction energy int . Thus, the local

magnetization dynamics should be governed by the gradient

~ r , i.e., they will experience

of the energy with respect to M~

an additional, topological switching field due to the Berry

r given by23

gauge field Aad:

" ~

~top 1 rn int ;

H

lM

h ji

@i ~

n~

n;

2M e

(52)

(53)

~

where ~

n M=M.

This additional switching field in the

presence of a current in magnets modifies the well-known

Landau-Lifshitz Gilbert equation,

~ M;

~

~_ ge H

M

2m

(54)

~top in addition to

where H

the usual precession and damping terms. It is predicted that

the topological contribution in Eq. (53) can play an impor~ Bazaily et al.23 pretant role in the local dynamics of M.

~top in DWs can significantly deflect the local

dicted that H

magnetization within realistic values of current densities.

spatially non-uniform magnetic field. It was found that adiabatic transport of the spin eigenstates resulted in a Berry gauge

~ and, subsequently, ~

field in B

r-space, which had physical significance, such as a spin-dependent Lorentz force and Berry

phase. In this section, we review a gauge field in ~

r-space in graphene, which has a distinct origin from the Berry potential. In

particular, this gauge field is not associated with adiabatic transport and, indeed, does not require it. Instead, it arises when we

model the effect of strain in the graphene lattice. The point we

wish to make is that not all gauge potentials are Berry-like in

nature (we shall study a further instance in Sec. V). However,

in many aspects, their physical consequences mirror that of the

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-9

Fujita et al.

rise to Hall effects.

A. A primer on graphene

Since its experimental discovery in 2003,25,26 graphene has

become an important material, due to its remarkable electronic, optical, mechanical, and thermal properties. Plenty of

comprehensive details on graphene are available in the literature; see, for example, Ref. 27. Below, we give a primer on

basic graphene physics. Graphene refers to a single, isolated

sheet of graphite, whose hexagonal lattice is comprised of

two interpenetrating triangular sublattices, A and B, as illustrated inpFig.

3(a). The

is the

~

a2 a23; 3, where a 1:42 A

a1 a23; 3, ~

length of carboncarbon bonds. The three nearest neighbor

carbon p

atoms

are separated

by spatial vectors

p

~

d2 a21; 3; ~

d3 a1; 0. We can write

d1 a21; 3; ~

down the nearest neighbor tight-binding Hamiltonian as

X

ar;i br;j h:c:;

(55)

H t

hi;ji;r

where ar;i (ar;i ) is the electron creation (annihilation) opera~i on sublattice A for spin r (the b operator on lattice site R

tors are equivalent, but for sublattice B). The nearest

neighbor hopping integral in Eq. (55) has approximate value

t 2:8 eV. The energy dispersion of H is

q

~ 6t 3 f k

~;

(56)

6 k

p

p

~ 2 cos 3ky a 4 cos 3ky a cos3kx a and the

where f k

2

2

sign () indexes the conduction and valence bands,

respectively. Equation (56) has degeneracies at the six corners of the Brillouin zone (see Fig. 3(b)), of which there are

two inequivalent types K and K 0 . These are known as the valleys of graphene. Expanding the dispersion in Eq. (56)

around the two valleys, we obtain

6 ~

q 6tF j~

qj;

(57)

q k~ K, and j~

qj jKj (or K 0 ).

where tF 106 ms1 , ~

The resulting conical dispersion suggests the presence of

massless Dirac fermions, whose velocity is independent of

energy, in stark contrast with conduction electrons in conventional semiconductors. This remarkable fact gives rise to

the many intriguing physical phenomena discovered in graphene. The corresponding low energy Hamiltonian of the

Dirac carriers in the K (K 0 ) valley are

H tF ~

r~

p;

0

p;

r ~

H tF~

(58)

(59)

where ~

r rx ; ry is a vector of Pauli matrices. Here,

the Pauli operators do not act on the electron spin, but rather

on the pseudospin, which indexes electron density on the

two sublattices A and B; e.g., the quantum state 1; 0T

denotes an electron situated on sublattice A.

B. Modeling the effects of strain

be regarded as a stretchable, flexible membrane. In a practical

setting, strain has been introduced in graphene sheets via deposition onto stretchable substrates (polymers) and by suspending

the sheets across trenches defined by nanolithography. Mathematically, we can model the effect of strain by introducing a

perturbation to the local hopping parameter, t ! t dt. It has

been shown,28,29 that this is equivalent to the introduction of a

~S (S denotes strain),

real-space vector potential A

~S ~

A

r

;

(60)

H tF~

r ~

p t1

F

~S r ;

H0 tF~

p t1

(61)

r0 ~

F A ~

~S has the form28

where A

1

ASx dt1 ~

r dt2 ~

r dt3 ~

r ;

2

p

3

dt2 ~

r dt3 ~

r :

ASy

2

(62)

In the above, the dti ~

to the three nearest neighbor hopping integrals, due to strain

~S has opposite signs in the

(see Fig. 3(a)). The gauge field A

two valleys: this preserves the overall time-reversal (TR)

symmetry of the system (since TR switches the valleys), distinguishing the strain-induced gauge field from the magnetic

~ of a magnetic field. However, A

~S can still

vector potential A

affect carriers as if it were a magnetic field, only now, carriers

in the two valleys K and K 0 experience the effect of oppositely directed magnetic fields. That is, the strain can induce a

valley-dependent magnetic field. Some possible uses of the

strain-induced gauge field are discussed below.

FIG. 3. (Color online) (a) Monolayer graphene comprised of two triangular

a2 are unit lattice vectors, and ~

di (i 1; 2; 3) are

sublattices A and B. ~

a1 and ~

the three nearest neighbor vectors. (b) The Brillouin zone of monolayer graphene is hexagonal, with two inequivalent corners K and K 0 , known as valleys. The energy spectrum is degenerate at the corners, and the low energy

Hamiltonian is centered about them in a Dirac cone configuration with slope

tF 1 106 ms1 .

C. Physical consequences

1. Valley filtering

can be utilized to facilitate valley filtering.30 A valley filter

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-10

Fujita et al.

other, thereby producing at its output a valley-polarized current. Such a device would be useful in the area of graphene

valleytronics,33 which aims to utilize the valley degree of

freedom in technology in an analogy with the electron spin.

For concreteness, consider electron transmission across a

region of uniform uniaxial strain (length L1 ) along the armchair direction (^

y-direction) of monolayer graphene, as

shown in Fig. 4(a). From Eq. (62), the strain-induced gauge

~S dt^

x. In the spirit of traditional tunneling

field is simply A

problems, we begin by writing down the quantum mechanical wavefunctions in the three regions of the system. Translational invariance along x^ permits solutions in the K-valley

of the form Wx; y expikx xWy, where

1

1

iky

iky

Re

;

(63)

WI y e

ei/

ei/

1

1

iqy

iqy

WII y Ae

Be

;

(64)

eiu

eiu

1

iky

;

(65)

WIII y Te

ei/

and kx2 k2 2 kx dt2 q2 . For the K 0 -valley, the

replacements / ! / and u ! u are necessary. The

phases / and u are parameterized as kx cos / and

kx dt cos u, respectively, where the upper (lower) sign

corresponds to valley K (K 0 ) and are related via the conservation of kx across the first interface at y 0:

cos / cos u6dt (we assume dt > 0 and > 0). The

transmission probability through the strained graphene is

characterized by T jTj2 , where T is the transmission coefficient in Eq. (65). Traditionally, the literature has studied

the wavevector filtering effect of magnetic vector potentials

due to magnetic barriers34 (the direction of the incident

wavevector is parameterized by the phase /). Here, we deal

with an analogous situation of TR symmetric gauge fields

due to strain. The filtering property of the present system can

be analyzed qualitatively from the following arguments:

From kx2 k2 2 , we require jkx j

for non-vanishing

transmission. Similarly, from kx dt2 q2 2 , we get

6dt

kx

6dt. Combining the two inequalities, /

must satisfy 1 dt=

cos /

1 in the K-valley and

1

cos /

1 dt= in the K 0 -valley. Thus, high electron

transmission is restricted to valley-dependent windows of

FIG. 4. (Color online) Valley filter device comprised of (a) a region of uniform uniaxial strain along the armchair direction (strained bonds are highlighted) followed by (b) a magnetic barrier region.

/2

:

arccos1 dt=; p;

K 0 -valley

(66)

spans the entire spectrum of / 2 0; p for both valleys. The

onset of total separation occurs at dt when each valley is

restricted to exactly half of the /-spectrum in Eq. (66). In

Fig. 5, we plot T as a function of / [for strain dt 25 meV

and L1 250 nm], confirming the remarkable separation of

valleys in /-space when the energy dt. This separation

of the valleys in /-space forms the basis of a valley filter, for

one now simply needs to perform ordinary wavevector /-filtering using external magnetic fields (a possible setup is

illustrated in Fig. 4(b)); see, for example, Refs. 3537. By

exclusively selecting a single valley with an appropriate

/-filter, it was found that this method could produce a valley

polarization exceeding 99% within experimentally relevant

parameters.30 Other proposals of valley filtering using strains

in graphene are addressed in Refs. 31 and 32.

2. Valley-dependent forces

fields give rise to magnetic Lorentz forces, which act on carriers. The Lorentz force is responsible for the classical Hall

effect38 and, in the quantum limit, the quantum-Hall effect

(QHE).39 The latter is experimentally accessible in 2DEG

systems in the presence of large perpendicular magnetic

fields (> 5 T) and low temperatures. In the QHE, electrons

occupy Landau levels, which are insulating in the bulk, but

metallic at the edges (see Fig. 6(a)). These metallic edge

states are strictly unidirectional, one-dimensional channels,

in which backscattering is forbidden (the broken TR symmetry defines a definite chirality), giving rise to the precisely

quantized Hall conductivity. By the same token, we can

expect that real-space gauge fields will also lead to quantum

Hall states, provided that they correspond to large vertical

of Fig. 4(a) as a function of / (the direction of the incident wavevector).

Valley K (K 0 ) is denoted by solid (dashed) lines. Filtering in /-space, facilitated by magnetic field barriers shown in Fig. 4(b), therefore, results in valley filtering. The shaded region indicates the action of a /-filter, which

allows for valley K to be transmitted freely, while blocking valley K 0 .

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-11

Fujita et al.

FIG. 6. (Color online) (a) The quantum Hall state, induced by strong perpendicular magnetic fields in two-dimensional systems, comprised of an insulating

bulk and metallic edges. The edge states are chiral (uni-directional), owing to the broken TR symmetry, and consequently resist backscattering by impurities.

(b) The quantum valley-Hall effect arising in strained graphene is a TR symmetric cousin of the quantum Hall effect. Here, electrons in opposite valleys

(K and K 0 ) experience opposite vertical magnetic fields, which form two valley-resolved (chiral and anti-chiral) quantum Hall states. Backscattering of edge

states is only permitted with a corresponding switching of valleys. Thus, in the absence of TR-breaking impurities, the edge states will remain robust.

effective magnetic fields (defined, of course, by the curvature). Remarkably, it has been found experimentally that

strongly localized strains in graphene can result in a measurable effective magnetic field strength of up to 300 T,40 which

is well into the limit required by the QHE. Unlike the usual

QHE, however, the strained graphene system preserves TR

symmetry, which is reflected by the equal and opposite

effective magnetic fields experienced by carriers in opposite

~S B

~S K 0 . Due to the 2D nature

~S K r A

valleys: B

of graphene, only the vertical ^z-component of this magnetic

field is finite,

!

@ASy @ASx

S

~

^z:

(67)

B

@x

@y

Intuitively, this suggests the presence of two valley-resolved

copies of the QHE; one comprised of chiral K quantum-Hall

states, and the other of antichiral K 0 states, as illustrated in

Fig. 6(b), which result in valley-filtered counter propagating

edge states. Provided intervalley (K $ K 0 ) scattering is

neglected, the two copies are completely decoupled and

form a helical quantum valley-Hall (QVH) liquid41,42 with a

perfectly quantized valley-Hall conductance of 2e2 =h. In

fact, this state of matter is an example of a topological

insulator (refer to details in Sec. VI B 5), which essentially

generalizes the quantum-Hall state for TR symmetric systems. Another such example, the quantum spin-Hall

state,4346 is examined in Secs. V C 3 and VI B 5.

3. Edge states

~S , as prescribed by Eq. (67). Intermagnetic field, namely B

estingly, these effective magnetic fields couple to the pseudospin through the rz term and can create a finite pseudospin

polarization.28 To see how the gauge fields couple to the

pseudospin, we consider squaring the Hamiltonians in

Eqs. (60) and (61), which yield

S

~ 2

p t1

ht2F rz BS ;

H2 t2F ~

F A e

(68)

~ 2

H0 2 t2F ~

p t1

ht2F rz BS ;

F A e

(69)

same sign appears in both the K and K 0 valley effective

Hamiltonians, indicating a net pseudospin polarization. In

~ appears as a

contrast, a real external magnetic field B

z

Zeeman-like term r B of opposite sign in the two effective

Hamiltonians, implying zero net pseudospin polarization. Of

~ will result in a finite polarizacourse, a real magnetic field B

tion of the actual spins, though this polarization is quite negligible, because of the small Zeeman splitting in graphene.

~S field allows one

The pseudospin polarizing nature of the B

to characterize edge states in graphene strips.51 Finite-sized

graphene samples are terminated by edges, of which the two

main types are zig-zag and armchair edges, which correspond to the edges illustrated along the x^ and y^ axes in

Fig. 7(a), respectively.

For zig-zag edges, we can imagine cutting the sheet of

graphene along the perforated line shown in Fig. 7(a). Mathematically, we can represent this by setting the hopping integral perturbations dt1 t, while dt2 dt3 0 along y 0

(n.b., the gauge field description of deformed graphene is applicable only in the limit of small strain jdtj t. Thus,

strictly speaking, the case of dt1 t lies beyond the gauge

field description of graphene edge states.) From Eq. (62), the

gauge field at the edge is

~zigzag t; 0:

A

(70)

~ @y Ax .

The effective magnetic field is calculated from B

Given that dt1 is actually an abrupt function of y, we obtain

~ < 0 for y < 0 (illustrated by ) and B

~ > 0 for y > 0 (illusB

trated by
). This implies that the graphene is pseudospin

(A; B) polarized on opposite sides of y 0 and that it supports edge states along the zig-zag edge.

For armchair edges, we cut along the dotted line x 0

shown in Fig. 7(b). This is modeled by setting dt1 0, while

dt2 dt3 t (it is convenient to consider the points

x 0 or x 0 ). The induced gauge field is then

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-12

Fujita et al.

FIG. 7. (Color online) Forming graphene edges by severing bonds as shown for (a) zig-zag and (b) armchair edges. This induces local gauge fields, whose curvatures represent effective magnetic fields capable of polarizing the pseudospin. Zig-zag edges are associated with a finite pseudospin polarization and, thus,

are able to support edge states. Armchair edges, on the other hand, do not polarize the pseudospin and, thus, cannot support edge states.

~armchair t; 0:

A

(71)

~ @y Ax vanishes

Apparently, the effective magnetic field B

for the armchair edge. Thus, we see that armchair edges

should not support edge states.

The above are consistent with prior theoretical studies

of graphene edges, which conclude that zigzag edges possess

localized states, while armchair edges do not.52,53 Further

details of the gauge field formalism to describe edge states

are found in Refs. 28 and 51.

V. SPIN-ORBIT COUPLING SYSTEMS: REAL SPACE

ANALYSIS

A. Spin-orbit coupling basics

semiconductor (SC) spintronics. The general Hamiltonian of

a free electron in the presence of SOC is given by54

H

~

p2

h2

V 2 2~

r k~ rV ;

2m

4m c

(72)

where ~

p

hk~is the momentum, m is the electron mass, V is

the electrostatic potential, and c is the speed of light. The

spin-orbit Hamiltonian in Eq. (72) above is derived for

electrons in a vacuum upon reducing the relativistic Dirac

equation in the low energy limit.54 Qualitatively, the effect

can be understood from special relativity arguments; for an

~ rV

electron moving through a lattice, an electric field E

is Lorentz transformed to an effective magnetic field

~ in the rest frame of the electron.54,55 Since the SOC

k~ E

strength is inversely proportional to the relativistic energy

gap mc2 0:5 MeV, the effect in vacuum is highly suppressed. In SCs, however, the effect can be significantly

enhanced, as the energy gap can be of order 1 eV.54,56,57

Phenomenologically, Eq. (72) represents an electron in the

presence of a momentum-dependent effective magnetic

~~

field, B

k,

H

~

p2

~

~ k;

V c~

r B

2m

(73)

~ B~

~ r , we will denote

with an ordinary magnetic field B

~ throughout. For each k,

~ the

~ k

the spin-orbit field as B

spin degeneracy of electrons are split between two

eigenstates or subbands j6i with corresponding energy

eigenvalues of

6

h2 k~2

~

~ kj:

V6cjB

2m

(74)

lower of the two subbands, ; it corresponds to electrons

~ at each k.

~ The

~ k

with spins pointed in the direction of B

spin degeneracy of electrons and holes in generic semiconductors occurs due to the combined effect of spatial and time

reversal symmetry. In the absence of a real, external magnetic field, the time reversal (TR) symmetry of the SOC system is preserved. This implies that a momentum-dependent

~ B

~ On the

~ k

~ k.

internal magnetic field must satisfy B

~

~ k

other hand, spatial inversion symmetry implies B

~

~

~

~

Bk. Thus, when both symmetries are intact, Bk 0,

and the degeneracy is restored in Eq. (74). Clearly, the SOC

can be finite in systems and structures which break the spatial inversion symmetry.54 Two common instances are the

structural inversion asymmetry (SIA) in two-dimensional

electron gases (2DEGs) in SC heterostructures and bulk

inversion asymmetry (BIA) in certain crystal structures. Spatial inversion asymmetries can also arise under mechanical

strain applied to crystals. We describe these in more detail

below.

At the interface of a semiconductor heterostructure, carriers are confined in asymmetric quantum wells (they are triangular to first order) along the growth direction (^z, by

convention). This results in a two-dimensional electron gas

(2DEG) in the xy-plane of the interface that is subject to a

~ E^z. The SIA of the system

normal-to-plane electric field E

gives rise to the so-called Rashba SOC, governed by the

Hamiltonian58,59

(75)

H R a ky r x kx r y ;

where a defines the strength of the effective Rashba field.

Apart from the built-in electric field, one can apply an external electric field to the 2DEG via conventional electrostatic

gating structures to significantly modify the strength of the

Rashba SOC. It has been experimentally demonstrated, for

example, that a in common semiconductor heterostructures

can be modulated by up to 50%.60 This provides a viable avenue for performing tunable spintronic functions through

purely electronic means. On the other hand, BIA is present

in crystals which lack a center of inversion, such as zinc

blende and hexagonal structures. The resulting spin-orbit

coupling is of the Dresselhaus type,61 described by the

k-cubic Hamiltonian

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-13

Fujita et al.

HD g kx ky2 kz2 rx ky kz2 kx2 ry kz kx2 ky2 rz ;

(76)

where g is the coupling strength. Quite often, we are interested in low dimensional systems, such as in a 2DEG, in

which Eq. (76) collapses into a k-linear form,57,62

(77)

HD b kx rx ky ry ;

where b gp=dz 2 and dz is the width of the quantum well

along ^

z. Typically, b is around one order of magnitude

smaller than a in actual semiconductor samples. Often, however, we are interested in the scenario when b ! a. This

condition can be approached experimentally in extremely

narrow quantum wells, dz ! 0, since b / dz2 .

Less commonly studied is the strain-induced SOC.6365

Strain in zinc blende semiconductors, such as GaAs and

InSb, is represented by a symmetric tensor ij ji in the

Hamiltonian

C3

xy ky xz kz rx zy kz xy kx ry

2

zx kx yz ky rz ;

(78)

HSt B Tr

P

where Tr i ii and the constant Ch3 8 105 m/s in

GaAs. When we identify the off-diagonal components with

an electric field in the remaining direction, ij ! Ek , the

strain Hamiltonian is completely analogous to the generic

spin-orbit Hamiltonian in Eq. (72), with an additional contribution from the B-term.65

B. Non-Abelian gauge field representation

field framework by transforming the general Hamiltonian in

Eq. (72) to read6671

H

1

e 2

~

p A ;

2m

c

(79)

h

rV ~

r

4mce

(80)

where

A~

r

is a real-space gauge field, and we note that the transformation is not exact, but an approximation (second order terms

are neglected). The spin-orbit gauge field, A~

r above, is

another example of a gauge field which is not associated

with adiabatic transport of quantum states (see Sec. III B): it

appears merely as a result of rearranging the Hamiltonian.

For example, in the case of Rashba SOC, the gauge field has

the explicit form

r

AR ~

am

ry ; rx ; 0:

eh

(81)

r is

prescribed by the Yang-Mills curvature defined in Eq. (31).

Evaluating the curvature in Eq. (31), we find that only the

z-component is non-zero and equal to

^

XRz ~

r

ie h R R i 2a2 m2 z

Ay ; Ax

r:

h

eh3

(82)

~

An analogous treatment can be applied to the k-linear

Dresselhaus SOC in 2DEGs, and we find that the curvature is given by

r

XD

z ~

2b2 m2 z

r:

eh3

(83)

magnetic fields which have different signs for spins polarized along ^z and ^z. This allows us to manipulate electrons

in a spin-dependent way. Some of the physical consequences

are described below.

C. Physical consequences

1. Aharonov-Casher phase

early as the 1980s in describing the spin-dependent version

of the Aharonov-Bohm effect [defined in Eq. (8)], namely

the Aharonov-Casher phase given by6670

/AC d~

r A~

r:

(84)

In contrast to the AB effect, the gauge field in the AC effect

does not break TR symmetry,69 occurring in the absence of

magnetic fields. We briefly discuss the relationship between

the AC phase and the Berry phase (see, for example, Refs.

72 and 73). Firstly, we note that the AC phase is simply the

TR symmetric AB phase in Eq. (8). The well-known AB

phase comes from computing the flux threaded by a closed

~ It is inherloop (in ~

r-space) in a region of space with finite A.

ently a non-adiabatic phase factor with respect to quantum

state evolution. Such generalizations of the adiabatic Berry

phase to any (especially non-adiabatic) cyclic evolution of

quantum states is known as the Aharonov-Anandan (AA)

phase.74 Indeed, in the limit of slow cyclic evolutions, the

AA phase approaches the Berry phase.

Hatano et al.73 proposed a method to achieve perfect

spin filtering by utilizing the interplay between the AC phase

due to Rashba SOC in a semiconductor 2DEG and the AB

phase due to an externally applied magnetic field. According

to Eq. (82), spin-up and spin-down electrons experience

equal and opposite effective vertical magnetic fields. Therefore, they acquire equal but opposite AC phases in Eq. (84).

Hatano conceived a spatial circuit such that up (down) spin

electrons acquired an AC phase of p=2 (p=2). Furthermore,

a finite magnetic vector potential was assumed to be present

in the interior of the circuit, such that both spin-up and spindown electrons acquire an AB phase of p=2. In this scenario,

spin-up electrons acquire a total phase of expip 1,

which is completely destructive, while spin-down electrons

acquire a total phase factor of unity which is completely constructive. This results in a perfect spin filter whose output

only consists of spin-down electrons.73 The polarity of the

filter can be switched (such that the output consists of spinup electrons) by reversing the direction of the applied magnetic field.

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-14

Fujita et al.

coupling. Up and down spins experience opposing Lorentz forces, resulting

in a spin-Hall effect.

yt y0

r is expected to

result in spin-dependent transport due to the Lorentz force

defined in Eq. (47). This force was studied in detail by

Shen,71 who referred to it as the spin transverse force. It is

referred to as a spin force because it is spin-dependent,

and transverse refers to the fact that the response is perpendicular to an applied longitudinal spin current. In a 2DEG

with Rashba SOC in Eq. (75), a spin current jzx (read: drift velocity tx along x^ and spin polarized rz along ^z) experiences a

transverse force along the y^-direction in Eq. (47),

Fy

2a2 m2 tx z

r:

h3

ent of the magnetic field strength. We also note that the spin

along the ^z-direction, with operator rz , is not a good quantum

number of the Rashba SOC system and that the spins will

undergo time evolution in the form of spin precession about

the effective Rashba field. This implies that both rz and Fy

in Eq. (85) are generally time-dependent. As ~

p is a good

quantum number, we put ~

p px x^ without loss of generality

and, for simplicity, assume an initial vertical spin-up state.

Then, the ^z-component of the spin as a function of time is

given by rz t cosxc t, where the Larmor frequency is

xc 2akx . Semiclassically, we then obtain the y^-position of

carriers by double integration of the acceleration obtained

from Eq. (85),

(85)

Clearly, Eq. (85) indicates that spin-up and spin-down polarized currents experience equal and opposite transverse

forces. This is illustrated in Fig. 8. One important note is that

this force is proportional to a2 , where a governs the strength

of the Rashba effective field. This is in stark contrast with

the force due to Berry curvature, which is always independ-

1

cosxc t;

2kx

(86)

oscillatory motion of electrons due to SOC. The quantum

mechanical jitter motion of carriers is known in the literature

as zitterbewegung. The above shows that the zitterbewegung

of conduction electrons in Rashba SOC systems arises from

the coupling of the spin dynamics and the orbital motion.

This was further illuminated in Refs. 75 and 76, though these

works did not make explicit use of gauge fields.

The force expression in Eq. (85) indicates a Hall separation of spin carriers, shown in Fig. 8. This type of transverse

spin separation may be related to the spin-Hall effect (SHE).77

In Ref. 12, Tan et al. studied the competition of this

force in Eq. (85) with the topological force driven by a spatially varying magnetic field (discussed in Sec. III C 1). The

chosen magnetic field configuration (illustrated in Fig. 9)

was almost vertical (h 0), but with a small spatial

non-uniformity characterized by a crown-shaped distribution (with net chirality characterized by a solid angle X).

The real-space Berry curvature was calculated to be

FIG. 9. (Color online) (a) Illustration of proposed device, in which a transverse separation of spins occurs in response to a longitudinal charge current J. The

~SO (vertiseparation occurs heuristically as a result of spin-dependent forces due to (i) Rashba SOC, which is characterized by the perpendicular electric field, E

~ r. The directions of the spin-dependent force arising from the Rashba SOC, F

~SO , and from

cal, dark arrow), and (ii) a spatially nonuniform magnetic field, B~

~Berry , are indicated by arrows. We note that the forces from the two contributions act in opposite directions. The degree of cancellation

the Berry curvature, F

between the two forces can be modulated via a gate bias. This leads to the potential modulation of the transverse spin-current by purely electric means. (b) The

configuration of the spatially nonuniform magnetic field characterized by chirality h.

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-15

Fujita et al.

h

z

Xz ~

r 2eR

2 r (where R is defined in Fig. 9(b)), which, for a

drift velocity tx along x^, produces a spin-dependent force

along y^ of

htx z

r:

Fy

2eR2

which gives rise to a magnetic field strength typically associated with quantum-Hall behavior (> 5 T), corresponds to a

Rashba parameter of

a2 > 5

eh3

:

2m2

(88)

defines the effective mass m, which typically is of the order

m 0:1m0 , where m0 is the mass in vacuum. This yields

the requirement a > 4:3 1011 eVm, which lies in the

typical range of 1012 1011 eVm. Since the curvature in

Eq. (82) is spin-dependent, it seems to suggest that a quantum spin-Hall type behavior will be induced in the presence

of a sufficiently large a. Such a situation would be equivalent to two copies of the QHEchiral spin-up electrons and

antichiral spin-down electronsforming a helical quantum

spin-Hall (QSHE) liquid with counter propagating spinresolved edge states.45,78 However, the non-Abelian gauge

in the Rashba SOC system in Eq. (81) is non-diagonal and

does not couple directly to the momentum ~

p. Thus, the

effect of the Yang-Mills curvature is essentially different

from that of a real physical magnetic field and does not

give rise to any Landau levels. Since the Rashba SOC

system is a gapless system (assuming the Rashba SOC

coupling has no space dependence), the QSHE effect does

not arise, even in the presence of a large a, contrary to the

prediction in Ref. 78.

By contrast, Bernevig et al.45 proposed an alternative

SOC-induced QSHE, in which the two TR copies of the

QHE are completely decoupled. Here, the authors relied on

strain-induced SOC. In particular, they considered a strain

configuration xy 0, xz gy, and yz gx, where g quantifies a strain gradient (refer to Eq. (78)). In the presence of an

additional parabolic quantum well in the xy-plane, the effective Hamiltonian reads

H

~

p 2 C3 g

2m

2

(89)

D C23 g2 m=8

h2 , Eq. (89) can be written as a perfect square,

(90)

C3 gm z

r y; x; 0

2eh

(91)

where

(87)

The force F

hand, is corrected by a small factor of cos h. More importantly, the Rashba SOCinduced force can be varied in magnitude dynamically through the gate-tunable a parameter,60

while the chirality-driven force remains constant. This indicates that the degree of cancellation of the two forces could

be tuned in a carefully designed 2DEG-based device, resulting in a tunable source of spin-polarized current.12

1

~

p eA2 ;

2m

that, although its components are matrices, A is an Abelian

gauge field. Thus, its curvature is simply given by

X r A and reads

r

Xz ~

C3 gm z

r:

eh

(92)

factor C3 gm is sufficiently large. In this scenario, the spin-up

and spin-down states are good quantum numbers (since they are

eigenstates of the Hamiltonian, Eq. (89)) and the two spinresolved copies of the QHE are completely decoupled. The chiral spin-up states contribute a charge Hall conductance quantized

in units of e2 =h, while the antichiral spin-down states contribute

a conductance quantized in e2 =h. Thus, the net charge Hall

conductance rc r" r# vanishes, but the spin-Hall conductance rs r" r# is finite and quantized in units of 2e2 =h. The

exact quantization of the spin-Hall conductance in the QSHE is

only possible when sz is a good quantum number. However, the

QSH state remains robust, regardless of sz conservation, as is

guaranteed by the topological classification of the state.43

The QSHE is an example of a more general class of

solid state systems known as topological insulators, which

also includes the QHE. However, unlike the QHE, the QSHE

is time-reversal (TR) invariant. We shall return to the topic

~

of topological insulators in our discussions of the k-space

Berry curvature in Sec. VI B 5.

4. Spin torque

to a chiral magnetic system was shown to impart a spin tor~top .

que through an additional (topological) switching field, H

The fact that the SOC also induces a real-space gauge field

suggests that it may be used to provide another switching

field.7981 We consider again a ferromagnetic system with

~ r, but this time in the presnonuniform magnetization M~

ence of Rashba SOC; this could be realized in a 2DEG doped

with ferromagnetic dopants, namely a dilute magnetic semiconductor (DMS). The Hamiltonian of the system reads

H

1

e 2

~ r ;

~

p AR JH ~

r M~

2m

c

(93)

the Rashba SOC in the non-Abelian gauge field representation in Eq. (81). Performing a rotation of the local coordinates (recall Sec. III B 3), H becomes diagonalized at each

point in space (see Eq. (29)),

2

1

e

h

~ rj:

~

p UAR U i UrU

JH rz jM~

H0

2m

c

e

(94)

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-16

Fujita et al.

The square brackets contain two gauge fields, the first being

the SOC-induced non-Abelian gauge potential and the second being the transformation-induced potential. The latter,

~top

of course, gives rise to the topological switching field H

shown in Eq. (53). We are presently concerned with deriving

the switching field due to the former SOC-induced term.

Expanding this term, we obtain

~;

nE

(95)

UAR U arz ~

which is Abelian. In the limit of strong exchange coupling

JH ! 1, we assume a fully spin-polarized gas and apply the

adiabatic approximation. The corresponding interaction

~

energy between an electronic

currentj and

the local magnetj UAR U j " , and the switching

ization is then int " j~

field defined by Eq. (52) is79

~so aji @nj Ek ijk :

H

l0 M @~

n

(96)

~

j jx x^. In the case of Rashba SOC, only the ^z-component of

the electric field is non-zero and the switching field components are

Hso;x 0; Hso;y

jx Ez

; Hso;z 0:

l0 M

(97)

jx 1011 Am2 , a 1012 eVm, M 5 103 Am1 , the

switching field is estimated to be Hso;y 6:5 103 Am1 .

This may be sufficiently large to affect a spin torque in ferromagnetic quantum wells with Rashba SOC. Indeed, such

results have already been demonstrated experimentally,82,83

which are consistent with the predictions in Eq. (97).83

D. Spatially nonuniform spin-orbit coupling

homogeneous SOC. In general, the SOC will exhibit some

spatial variations. For concreteness, let us consider spatially

nonuniform Rashba SOC. The non-Abelian gauge field in

this case is

a~

rm

r

ry ; rx ; 0;

A ~

eh

R

(98)

where a~

r characterizes the spatially varying SOC, cf. Eq.

(81). The curvature, in this case, contains additional contributions from the curl, together with the non-Abelian term

(see Eq. (82)),

m @a x @a y

2a2 m2 z

R

r r

r

r:

(99)

Xz ~

eh @x

@y

eh3

This could affect various aspects of carrier transport, including

the zitterbewegung. Spatial discontinuity of SOC in multilayered structures can also produce interesting effects. Consider a

trilayer structure with a 2DEG channel, as illustrated in Fig.

10(a), in which the 2DEG exhibits Rashba SOC and the two

contact regions do not. In the simplest case, the spatial profile

FIG. 10. (Color online) (a) Trilayer structure in which the 2DEG channel

has Rashba spin-orbit coupling, while the two contact regions do not. (b)

The spatial discontinuity of the Rashba spin-orbit coupling induces spatially

narrow effective magnetic fields at the interfaces, which are spin-dependent,

rx 61.

function, ax a0 Hx Hx L, where Hx is the

unit-step function. The curvature can then be computed as

r

XRz ~

a0 m

dx dx Lrx

eh

2a2 m2

0 3 Hx Hx Lrz ;

eh

(100)

to the spatial discontinuity of the Rashba SOC in the trilayer

structure and physically represents the presence of narrow

magnetic field barriers centered at the interfaces. These interfacial fields are spin-dependent, rx 61 (refer to

Fig. 10(b)). Interestingly, many authors have studied the

electronic transport through similar systems, but where the

magnetic d-barriers are formed by actual magnets8487 and

are, therefore, spin-independent. However, controlling magnetic fields at the nanoscale is experimentally challenging.

The present system offers a more feasible platform to study

the transport properties of magnetic d-barriers; preliminary

calculations have been performed for a spin filter in Ref. 88.

VI. SPIN-ORBIT COUPLING SYSTEMS: ~

k -SPACE

ANALYSIS

systems and showed that, in the limit of adiabatic transport,

in which the spins remain aligned to the local magnetic

texture, a real-space Berry curvature arises in Eq. (40). In

this section, we examine a topic of significant current interest

~

in condensed matter, namely, the momentum-space or kspace Berry curvature. Not surprisingly, this is present in

~

systems with k-dependent

magnetic fields, i.e., systems with

finite spin-orbit coupling, such as Eq. (73).

A. Derivation of ~

k -space Berry curvature

~

To derive the k-space

Berry curvature, we shall use the

method of unitary transformations described in Sec. III B 3.

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-17

Fujita et al.

~

Following that method, we proceed to lock the k-dependence by applying a local transformation to the system, which

~ This is facili~ k.

rotates the reference spin axis to lie along B

~

tated by a unitary matrix U Uk, given by Eq. (27),

~

where, in this scenario, the h; / are the k-dependent

spheri~ The trans~ k.

cal angles parameterizing the direction of B

formed Hamiltonian reads

H0 UHU

h2 k~2

~ UV~

~ kj

crz jB

r U :

2m

(101)

~

~

~

derivatives and U depends on k.

r i@k represents k-space

Considering the potential energy due to an applied constant

~ we have V~

~ ~

electric field, E,

r eE

r and20,89

~ irk iUrk U :

UVirk U eE

(102)

~ where

definition of the spatial operators ~

r !~

r Ak

~

~

Ak iUrk U is a 2 2 gauge field in k-space. In the

adiabatic limit, we are only interested in the diagonal compo~ which represent the two subbands of the SOC.

nents of Ak,

~

Following Eq. (32), we can write down the k-space

Berry

gauge fields as

1

~

~

~

Aad:

6 k 6 1 cos hkrk /k;

2

(103)

situation in real ~

r-space in Eq. (40), the Berry curvature in

~

k-space reads

!

~ @~

~

1

@~

n

k

n

k

~ 6 ~

~

Xk k

;

(104)

nk

2

@ki

@kj

~ Bj

~ is the unit vector pointing along the direcwhere ~

n B=j

~ As we shall see below, the

~ k.

tion of the spin-orbit field, B

~ represents an effective magnetic field in

curvature Xk

~

k-space, which can influence the orbital motion of carriers.

B. Physical consequences

r -space Berry curvature leads to Lorentz forces that are spin eigenstate-dependent,

~

as in Eq. (47). Here, we describe the physical effect of the kspace curvature. Without proof, we state the result derived by

Sundaram and Niu,90 which gives the semiclassical equations

~

of motion of a wave packet in the presence of Xk,

_

~ e~

hk~ eE

r_ X~

r;

(105)

1 @s ~_

~

~

r_

k Xk:

h @ ~

k

(106)

The first equation, Eq. (105), describes the force acting on car~

riers, which includes a contribution due to an electric field, E,

and the ~

r-space Berry curvature, X~

r (and magnetic field,

~ r , if present). The second equation, Eq. (106), describes

B~

the velocity of wave packets, which includes the usual group

velocity and also a contribution from X~

k. This contribution

is often called the anomalous velocity. Evidently, the anomalous velocity in Eq. (106) is of analogous form to the Lorentz

force in Eq. (105): the two equations are invariant upon inter~ Drawchanging the role of the position, ~

r , and momentum, k.

~

ing from this observation, we remark that Xk essentially

~

gives rise to a Lorentz force in k-space.

Historically, Eq.

(106) was derived by Karplus and Luttinger in 1954 (Ref. 91)

when they tried to explain intrinsic contributions to the anom~ arises from the

alous Hall effect in ferromagnets. Here, Xk

Bloch wavefunctions in crystal momentum space. The connection with topology, however, was made only recently.90

Equation (106) describes topological transport in a vast

array of condensed matter systems with a finite momentum

space Berry curvature, which are discussed below.

1. Spin-Hall effect

separation of carriers based on their spin. Let us formalize

this below. We consider the situation where an electric field

Ei drives a separation of spins sk along the transverse Hall

^ In the spin-Hall effect (SHE), i;

^ j;

^ k^ are mutually

direction, j.

orthogonal coordinates. Thus, the spin-dependent force

expression in Eq. (85) provides an example of a SHE. The

strength of the SHE is characterized by the spin-Hall conductivity (SHC), which is defined as the ratio of the transverse

spin current and the driving electric field, namely,

rsH

jks;j

Ei

(107)

Sec. VI C, we shall derive the (spin) Hall conductivity for

generic SOC systems and show that it is intimately con~

nected to the k-space

Berry curvature. We focus here on the

intrinsic SHE, which arises from the properties of the band

~

structure (Berrys curvature in k-space),

as opposed to the

extrinsic SHE arising from spin anisotropic scattering due to

impurities (more details of the latter can be found, e.g., in

Refs. 77, 92, and 93). Although, it should be noted that a

clear distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic contributions

to the SHE has not yet been elucidated; certain extrinsic

SHE mechanisms have been found to exhibit characteristics

of intrinsic phenomena94,95 (independent of scattering rate,

impurity density, etc.) and are even related to the

momentum-space Berry curvature.96

By now, the intrinsic SHE has been quantified in a host

of systems, starting with p-doped semiconductors.89 This

system is modeled by the Luttinger Hamiltonian, which

describes the spin-orbit splitting in the doubly degenerate valence bands of common semiconductors,97

HLutt:

~

5

k2

~ 2 V~

c1 c ck~ S

r;

2

2

(108)

effective hole masses and S~ is the vector of spin-32 matrices.

The holes described by Eq. (108) have a well-defined chiral~ which takes on values k 61=2 and

~ hjkj,

ity, k k~ S=

k 63=2. Because of the k-squared term in the Hamiltonian,

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-18

Fujita et al.

states with opposite signs of the chirality are degenerate, corresponding to the two-fold degenerate light-hole (LH,

jkj 1=2) and heavy-hole (HH, jkj 3=2) bands. Parameterizing the momentum vector as k~ j~

kjsin h cos /; sin h sin /;

cos h, we proceed to transform the Hamiltonian

H0 UHU

~

~ z,

with a 4 4 unitary matrix U, satisfying U k S~ U jkjS

3

which is diagonal in the spin-2 space. The resulting 4 4

~ iUrk U , which, in the adiabatic

gauge field is Ak

limit, reduces to two 2 2 copies corresponding to LH and

HH states. Due to the degeneracy of the LH and HH bands,

the Berry gauge fields here are non-Abelian (their components

are non-commuting). However, we may make them Abelian

by removing their off-diagonal components, upon which the

exact form of the Berry gauge fields are reminiscent of Eq.

(103), but upon replacing the factor 12 ! jkj. The corresponding Berry curvature reads89

~

~ k k ;

Xk

(109)

j~

kj3

~

i.e., it is a Dirac monopole in k-space

with strength equal to

the hole helicity, eg k. Substituting the expression for the

curvature in Eq. (109) into the equation of motion, Eq. (106),

the anomalous velocity component is given by

k~

_

ta kk~ 3 ;

j~

kj

(110)

~

which is perpendicular to both the applied electric field E

_ ~

~

~

(since k / E) and the momentum vector k. Since the chirality of the holes has sign k > 0 < 0 for hole spins (anti-)

parallel to ~

k, the KL velocity is perpendicular to the spin S~

and points along opposite directions, depending on the sign

of the chirality. This transverse separation of the spins gives

rise to the SHE of holes in the Luttinger system.

A similar effect is predicted in n-doped zinc blende semiconductors with k3 -Dresselhaus SOC.98 From the Hamiltonian

in Eq. (76), we can easily compute the Berry curvature,

~ 6ijk

Xk k

kk ;

~ 3

~D kj

2jB

(111)

~ is the

~D k

where 6 represents the two SOC subbands and B

~D . The SHE

rB

effective Dresselhaus field, i.e., HD g~

results from the Berry curvature for electrons that are collimated, namely, traveling in a highly unidirectional manner.

Methods to achieved electron collimation are essentially analogous to beam collimation in optics, whereby the principle of

total internal reflection is employed, e.g., in optical fibers. In

electronic collimation, the role of the refractive index is played

by the local carrier density; for details, see Refs. 98100.

Assuming electron collimation along the ^z-axis, we have

jkx j; jky j jkz j, and the Berry curvature above is reduced to

~ 6ijk

Xk k

kz4 kx2

ky2

k:

~ 3 k

~D kj

2jB

q

kk kx2 ky2 . Assuming an applied electric field along ^z,

the anomalous velocity from Eq. (106) has the form

~ y;

ta;x k_z Xy / Ez f ks

(113)

~ x;

ta;y k_z Xx / Ez f ks

(114)

~ 3

~D kj

2jB

~

where f k

kk , which indicates a spin-Hall effect in

both x^ and y^ directions.

Analogous Berry phase effects are predicted to be important for explaining the intrinsic SHE in metals, such as

platinum.102 Metals may be favorable as a platform for utilizing SHE over semiconductors due to several reasons,

including larger spin-Hall conductivity102,103 and the fact

that FM contacts to harness the generated spin current do not

suffer from poor injection difficulties.104

called the spin-Hall effect of light or the Magnus effect of

photons. Here, the role of the spin is replaced by the circular

polarization of the light. In the spin-Hall effect of light (optical Magnus effect), left and right circularly polarized light

are deflected along opposite directions normal to the propagation direction. It was first described in 1990,105 and the

connection with the Berry curvature was established in

2004.106109

The semiclassical equations of motion of a wave packet

become similar to those for electrons (Eqs. (105) and (106))

~

p _

~

r_ t~

r ~

p hzjX~

pjzi;

p

(115)

~

p_ rt~

rp;

(116)

jzi

_ i~

p_ A~

pjzi;

(117)

where t~

r is the velocity of light and jzi t z ; z denotes

p and A~

p are the Berry curthe polarization state.106,107 X~

vature and the gauge field, whose expressions will be

explained in the next paragraph. As can be seen from these

equations, the electric field in the semiclassical equations of

motion for electrons is replaced by the spatial variation of

the refractive index.

In order to derive the equations of motion, one method

is to use the variational theory.107 Here, we discuss another

derivation, using an effective Hamiltonian. In the geometric

optics (GO) approximation, light propagation in a spatially

inhomogeneous medium is modeled by the effective

Hamiltonian

H

(112)

strong collimation. Then, the electron spins have expectation

1 2

~

p n2 ~

r Q;

2

(118)

where ~

p is the momentum, n~

r is the spatially varying refractive index, and Qij pi pj is a 3 3 matrix in the spin-1

space. The GO model is known to be excellent when the

wavelength of the light is much smaller than length scales

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-19

Fujita et al.

diagonalized, giving rise to a ~

p-space gauge field,

A~

p iUrp U . The diagonalized Q matrix reads

UQU diag0; 0; p2 , indicating a pair of degenerate transverse modes (left and right polarization) and a single longitudinal mode. Applying the adiabatic approximation here

corresponds to neglecting terms within A, which connect

the transverse and longitudinal modes, namely, the terms

A13 , A23 , A31 , and A32 . This results in a 2 2 gauge field

in the transverse mode subspace and a regular U1 vector

gauge field for the longitudinal mode. Focusing on

the degenerate transverse modes, the Berry gauge field in

~

p-space reads108

!

p

p

p

p

y

z

x

z

;

; 0 ry ;

Aad: ~

p

(119)

pp2x p2y

pp2x p2y

where p

q

p2x p2y p2z . It is well known that, for 2-fold

gauge field (which generalizes the usual Abelian U1 Berry

field), known as the Wilczek-Zee gauge field.121 From Eq.

(119), however, we can see that for photons, the Berry gauge

field depends only on ry and is therefore Abelian. Furthermore, by applying a rotation V to the system where

Vry V rz , the gauge field for the transverse modes is diagonalized and reads

!

py pz

px pz

ad:

;

;0 ;

(120)

p 6

A6 ~

pp2x p2y

pp2x p2y

i.e., it is reduced to two independent scalar U1 potentials,

corresponding to left and right polarization. The corresponding Berry curvature is106,108,109

X~

p

~

p

;

p3

(121)

polarizations, respectively. This Berry curvature has a Dirac

monopole in ~

p-space with strength eg 1. This gives rise

to the anomalous velocity X~

p ~

p_.106,108 The anomalous

_

velocity X~

p ~

p is perpendicular to ~

p and rn.106 For

example, at an interface between different media, the refractive index has spatial dependence and gives rise to the spinHall effect of light. At the interface, the shift is perpendicular

to the incident plane and the shift is opposite for the left- and

right-circularly polarized light. This shift at the interface

reflection and refraction is called the Imbert-Fedorov shift,

which was theoretically proposed by Fedorov110 in 1955 and

experimentally observed by Imbert111 in 1972 for perfect

reflection. For partial reflection, it was observed by Hosten

and Kwiat112 in 2008. We note here that, in a strict sense, the

semiclassical equations of motion, Eqs. (115), (116), and

(117), apply only when the spatial variation of the system is

slow; they cannot be applied at an interface where the refractive index changes abruptly. Indeed, there is a small deviation from what has been predicted by the Berry curvature

theory.108,112

of left and right circularly polarized light in the Magnus

effect.108,109 The Magnus effect was experimentally

observed in 2008.113 These optical measurements remain an

important demonstration, because, in the optical system, the

effect of the anomalous velocity can be directly verified (i.e.,

by measuring the spatial displacement of the photons via

photodetectors). Typically, the displacement is small, but it

is possible to enhance the effect by the designing of the band

structure of the photons. Theoretically, it can be done using a

photonic crystal, i.e., the periodic array of dielectrics, so that

the band structure has band crossings, near which the Berry

curvature becomes enhanced.106

We here note the role of the Berry curvature in the

theory of spin-Hall effect of light. In earlier days, the ImbertFedorov shift was discovered as an effect from classical

electromagnetic theory. By introducing the notion of Berry

curvature, one can reinterpret such a known effect as a member of the spin-Hall effect family. Furthermore, the Berry

curvature enables us to predict further nontrivial effects,

such as optical Magnus effect and enhanced Imbert-Fedorov

shift in photonic crystals.

3. Magnon-Hall effect in ferromagnetic insulators

types of waves, such as magnons in ferromagnetic insulators.

Magnons (spin waves) are low-energy excitations in magnets

and have a band structure. Therefore, the Berry curvature

may arise from this band structure. The effect of the Berry

curvature is intuitively described in the semiclassical equations of motion for magnons,114,115

1 @n~k ~_

~

~

r_

k Xn k;

h @ k~

_

hk~ rU~

r ;

(122)

(123)

where U~

r is a confinement potential for magnons and n~k

denotes the magnon dispersion for the nth band. These

equations are quite similar to those for electrons, and similar

phenomena are theoretically predicted. One difference, however, comes from the fact that the magnon has no charge

and, therefore, cannot be driven by electric field. Instead, the

magnon wavepacket can be driven by temperature gradients.

The effect of temperature gradients can be described also

from the semiclassical equations of motion, Eqs. (122) and

(123), using the picture of the edge current.

Near the edge of the sample, the confining potential

U~

r gives rise to the anomalous velocity (the second term

of Eq. (122)) along the edge. The total current along the

edge forms an edge current, which is the same for all the

edges. (We note that, in contrast to edge modes in quantum

Hall systems, this current is not confined at the edge of the

sample, but it mixes with a bulk magnon current.) Because it

is a circulating current, it has no net transport. Such an edge

current depends on the temperature through the Bose distribution function. Therefore, if there is a temperature gradient,

the edge current is not equal between the two sides of the

sample, giving rise to a net transverse current. As a result,

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-20

Fujita et al.

thermal Hall conductivity is obtained as

jxy

2kB2 T X

c2 qn Xz ~

k;

hV ~

(124)

n;k

log 1q

q

2

where

c2 q 1 q

log q 2Li2 q,

q qnk~ is the Bose distribution function and Li2 z is the

polylogarithm function.

Apart from these results based on semiclassical theory

of the Berry curvature, there have been some works on the

thermal Hall effect.116118 The formula presented in Refs.

116 and 117 by the linear response theory is different from

Eq. (124). This difference is attributed to the missing terms

in the linear response theory in Refs. 116 and 117, and the

modified linear response theory developed in Refs. 114 and

115 gives an identical result with Eq. (124).

The thermal Hall effect of magnons has been measured for

the pyrochlore ferromagnet Lu2 V2 O7 ,117 and the result agrees

well with that estimated from Eq. (124).114 In addition, because

the Berry curvature is associated with the wave nature, this

theory is also applicable to classical magnetostatic spin-wave

systems, such as yttrium-iron garnet (YIG). In YIG film, the

demagnetizing field gives rise to an anisotropy in the spinwave spectrum, giving rise to the coupling between the spin

and the orbital motion. This induces a nonzero Berry curvature,

resulting in thermal Hall effect and edge current of magnons.

The spin-wave transport in YIG has been intensively

studied in experiments,119,120 because of its long coherence

length and its potential application to spintronics. The wave

packet of spin wave can be observed optically, and the coherence length can be as long as centimeters. Therefore, YIG

is expected to offer a good stage for observing dynamics of

wave packets arising from the ~

k-space Berry curvature.

4. Valley-Hall effect in graphene

~

The Berry curvature in k-space

also arises in gra122,123

We consider monolayer graphene with a sublatphene.

tice asymmetry, namely, that the A and B sublattice sites are

energetically different. This can be represented by adding a

Zeeman-like term in the pseudospin space,

~ p Urz ;

r B~

H tF ~

(125)

where B~

Eqs. (58) and (59), n 61 for the valley K (K 0 ), and U

(U) is the electrostatic energy on sublattice A (B). It is

straightforward to derive the Berry curvature as

k

X z ~

nU

3

(126)

2p2x p2y U 2 2

The valley-dependence of Eq. (126) means that electrons

residing in opposite valleys will become separated upon

application of an electric field, leading to the valley-Hall

effect. This effect was discussed in Ref. 122. In particular, a

finite Hall voltage is predicted if there is an imbalance of

electron distribution in the two valleys; such a situation

described in Sec. IV C 1.

5. Topological insulators

The Berry curvature structure is also present in topological insulators (TI). Let us begin with a short introduction to

TIs (otherwise, the reader may skip directly to the Hamiltonian in Eq. (127)); the interested reader is directed to the

comprehensive review article by Hasan and Kane.124 Currently, TIs represent a field attracting immense research interest due to the highly interesting physics, mathematics, and

potential device applications. The first example of a TI was

found in the quantum-Hall effect (QHE), which was discovered experimentally in 1980.39 Just like an ordinary insulator, the bulk quantum Hall state is gapped (the valence and

conduction bands are separated in energy) and nonconducting. But unlike a normal insulator, the quantum Hall

state supports electronic transport at the edges of the sample,

which have remarkable characteristics: they are chiral (they

traverse along a definite direction along each edge), gapless

(there are edge states at any Fermi energy lying within the

bulk gap), and are extremely robust to the presence of disorder or the geometry of the edge. The quantum Hall conductivity (QHC) can be expressed in terms of a Chern integer n,

a topological index which remains invariant to continuous

deformations of the system125 (this is detailed in Sec. VI C,

below). This gives the QHE state a topologically non-trivial

classification (in conventional band insulators, the index n

vanishes). Up until recently, it was thought that all topologically non-trivial insulators were inherently TR-breaking.

It was only until after the discovery of graphene that the

TR-symmetric topologically nontrivial insulating phase was

discovered. In 2006, Kane and Mele43,44 proposed that, when

spin-orbit coupling (SOC) was considered in graphene, the

electrons behaved as though two time-reversed copies of the

quantum Hall effect were placed one on top of the other. In

this case, the edge states exist in pairs; electrons of opposite

spins ("; #) traverse along opposite directions along each edge

(they are helical), they are gapless, and they are robust to backscattering by non-magnetic impurities (for backscattering is

only permitted when a spin is flipped). As mentioned earlier, a

similar theoretical proposal has been made by Bernevig and

Zhang in strained semiconductors.45 This two-dimensional

effect is known as the quantum spin-Hall effect (QSHE). The

2D QSHE was proposed to occur in the HgTe quantum well

system,46 which has been verified by transport measurement.47,48 In the HgTe quantum well, which is supposed to be

the quantum spin-Hall system, the measured conductance is

2e2 =h, which is a direct evidence that there are two perfectly

conducting channels corresponding to the edge states.

The 2D QSHE was generalized to 3D systems by Fu and

Kane.126 In 3D topological insulators (TIs), spin-filtered

surface states arise as opposed to edge states. These have no

quantum charge Hall effect analogs. At low energies, the

surface states form 2D Dirac cones, i.e., they are massless

Dirac fermions governed by the graphene-like Hamiltonian

r~

p;

H tF ~

(127)

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-21

Fujita et al.

opposed to graphenes two valleys, c.f. Eqs. (58) and (59).

Also, in contrast to graphene, ~

r in Eq. (127) refers to the

actual electron spin rather than the pseudospin. This dispersion was observed in various systems, such as Bi2 Se3 ,50 as

has been proposed by first-principle calculations.49

In TIs, a finite Berry curvature can result if only a gap

is introduced in the Dirac spectrum. Lu et al.127 considered

ultra thin topological insulator films and found that tunneling

processes between the top and bottom surfaces open up a

gap in the energy spectrum (the energy gap is proportional to

1=L2 , where L is the film thickness). The corresponding

~

k-space Berry curvature was shown to result in a finite spinHall effect at the TI surface, which will lead to an observed

spin accumulation at the edges.89 Alternatively, the ordinary

TI surface states in the presence of an exchange field due to

a deposited FM film also gaps the spectrum, and we expect a

finite Berry curvature. Moreover, in this scheme, the Berry

curvature should carry an explicit dependence on the gap

size, which is proportional to the FM magnetization; this follows from an analogous situation in graphene when one

breaks sublattice asymmetry, giving rise to a Berry curvature

and the valley Hall effect.122 Having a tunable Berry curvature is desirable from the point of view of tunable electronic

(topological) transport, most notably, the Hall effect.

~ s ~

~ t k

~

tr

J

kP

kJ

kP

X

X

x

y

1

~

nt ns k;

~ t k

~

A s;t6 ~

im s k

k

(133)

~ nF s k

~ , the summawhere nt ns ~

k nF t k

tion over n in the last line is calculated by the Matsubara

~ is the Fermi distribution function of subsum, and nF s k

band s. We now do the conversion from Matsubara Greens

function to the retarded Greens function in order to obtain

the Hall conductivity,

rxy lim

x;g!0 x

(134)

~ ~ ~ ~

i X X tr Jx kPs kJy kPt k

nt ns ~

k;

~ s ~

A s;t6 ~

t k

k2

k

(135)

~

iX

f k

~

n n k;

~

~ 2

A ~ k k

(136)

~ k

~ 2

where the denominator is evaluated to be k

2 ~~ 2

4c jBkj from Eq. (74) and

~ kJ

~ y kP

~ ~

~ kJ

~ y kP

~ k

~ :

kJx kP

f ~

k tr Jx kP

C. Hall conductivity

(137)

We derive the Hall conductivity for the general spinorbit Hamiltonian in Eq. (73) using the Kubo method and

show that it is intimately connected to the ~

k-space Berry curvature. By definition, the single-particle retarded Greens

function is given by

~ x ixI H1 :

Gk;

(128)

1

1

P

P ;

(129)

ix

ix

~ ~

nk

r and

where 6 are as defined in Eq. (74), P6 12 I6~

~ Bj.

~ The Hall conductivity via the Kubo formula is

~

n B=j

given by128

~ x

Gk;

nian in Eq. (73),

~

Ji k

~ 0 k

~

~

~a k

@Hk

@B

c

ra ;

@ki

@ki

@ki

(138)

expression for f ~

k in Eq. (137), we obtain some algebra,

~ 2 nb @kx na @ky nc acb :

~ 2ic2 jB

~ kj

(139)

f k

Thus, rxy in Eq. (136) reads

rxy

1 X @na @nc

~

nb

acb n n k:

@kx @ky

2A ~

(140)

rxy lim

x!0 x

Qxy x ig;

(130)

1 X ~ ~

~ k;

~ ixn ;

tr Jx kGk; ixn m Jy kG

Qxy im

Ab ~

k;n

(131)

where A is the system area and xn and m are the fermionic

and bosonic Matsubara frequencies, respectively. Substituting

the Greens function in Eq. (129) into the above, we obtain

~ s ~

~ t k

~

tr

J

kP

kJ

kP

X

X

x

y

1

;

Qxy im

Ab s;t6 ~ ixn m s k

~

~

ix

k

n

t

k;n

(132)

zone (FBZ) and assuming that the Fermi energy lies inside

the gap between the upper and the lower bands, we have for

the Hall conductivity,

Lx Ly 2 ~

1

@~

n

@~

n

~

d

k

n

;

(141)

rxy

2A FBZ 4p2

@kx @ky

1

~

kXz k;

d2 ~

(142)

2

8p FBZ

where Lx Ly A, and, in the last step, we have used Eq. (40).

Thus, we see that the Hall conductivity is the integral of the

~

k-space

Berry curvature, Xz ~

k, over the FBZ if the Fermi

energy lies inside the energy gap.

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-22

Fujita et al.

~ X# ~

spin-dependence, X"z k

z k. This gives equal and opposite Hall conductivities for up and down spin species,

implying that the spin-Hall conductivity in Eq. (107) is finite

and equal to

rsH r"xy r#xy :

(143)

environment with no applied magnetic field, the resulting

spin-Hall conductivity represents a pure transverse spin current with equal numbers of up and down spin carriers flowing in opposite directions. The net charge Hall conductivity

in such situations rxy r"xy r#xy vanishes. Thus, TR symmetric SOC systems are a potential candidate for a pure spin

current source. When the Fermi level of the system lies

between a gap so that all bands are either completely empty

or full, rxy in Eq. (142) is a topological invariant. If one

~ T 2 ! S2 as a mapping from the two-dimensional

views ~

nk:

FBZ to the unit sphere, the integral of ~

n @kx ~

n @ky ~

n is a

topologically quantized value 4pn, where n 2 Z is the winding number of ~

n.

The above formula for the Hall conductivity in terms of

~

the Berry curvature in k-space

also applies to the quantum

Hall effect (QHE), which takes place in the presence of

strong magnetic fields. In this context, the integer n is known

as the TKNN index,125 which physically counts the number

of occupied Landau levels below the Fermi level. Remarkably, although the Landau-level problem is vastly different

from the general SOC problem, the topological quantization

of the Hall conductivity in Eq. (142) in both cases arises

~

~

from common k-space

Berry phase effects.128 Indeed, the kspace Berry curvature in the QHE arises from the Bloch

~ defined by the periodicity of the latwavefunctions jun ki

~ The latter

tice, as they evolve adiabatically with respect to k.

is also responsible for intrinsic contributions to the anomalous Hall effect (AHE) in the low temperature clean limit;

see, for example, Refs. 129 and 130.

VII. TIME-DEPENDENT MAGNETIC SYSTEMS

and momentum-space gauge fields and their physical consequences. We next consider gauge fields in one more space,

namely, time. Gauge fields in time-space, as it turns out, also

have extremely important physical consequences in spintronic systems. We review them below.

A. Derivation

The gauge field in time-space arises naturally in spintronic systems in which there is a time-dependent magnetic

~ The Hamiltonian of such a system takes the form

field, Bt.

2

1

~ r 1 glB~

~

~

H

p eA~

r Bt:

2m

2

(144)

Schrodinger equation, Hjwi jwi, at time t by applying a

unitary transformation Ut defined as in Eq. (27), with h

energy operator as a time derivative, i@t , we obtain

UtHtU t Utih@t U t;

2

1

~ r 1 glB rz jBtj

~ ih@t ihUt@t U t;

~

p eA~

2m

2

hA0 t:

(145)

On the right-hand side, we obtain from the time-dependence

of U a gauge field in time-space,

A0 t iUt@t U t:

(146)

~t ~

r, where

we note that it can be expressed as A0 t A

1

_

_

~

~

~ Bj;

~ m

~ m

~ 2~

~ is

n~

n (Ref. 5) (~

n B=j

At m

n~

n A t ~

defined in Eq. (25)). Thus, the term hA0 t represents an

effective Zeeman-like term, indicating the presence of an

effective magnetic field in the rotating frame. Let us elucidate the origin of this field. The unitary transformation Ut

~L t of the

~L x

defines the instantaneous angular velocity x

coordinates (in the laboratory L-frame) as they follow the

time-dependent magnetic field. In the rotating frame R, this

~R U ~

~L U . Since

~R , where ~

rx

rx

vector is given by x

131

1

L

~ , the Zeeman-like term hA0 t in Eq. (145)

rx

U_ 2iU~

~R , which corresponds to an effective

equals h=2~

rx

magnetic field of ~

xR (omitting a scaling factor) in the rotating frame R. This translates into an effective magnetic field

~t ~

xL in the laboratory frame. Furthermore, with

B

~

n~

nt denoting the unit vector pointing along the direction

~

of Bt

at time t, we have the equation of motion

~L ~

~

n. Performing a post cross product on both sides

n_ x

by ~

n, we arrive at the expression for the angular velocity

~L ~

~L ~

x

n~

n_ x

n~

n or, in terms of the effective magnetic field,

~t ~

~t ~

n_ ~

n B

n ~

n:

(147)

B

Thus, the effective magnetic field in the laboratory frame repn_ ~

n

resentation arising from A0 t has a component along ~

and ~

n. It does not have any component along ~

n_. The unitary

matrix used here [defined in Eq. (27)] is not unique. Specifically, different rotation matrices Ui , each specifying distinct

~Li , can be used to align the reference

angular velocities x

~

^z-axis along the instantaneous magnetic field Bt;

the freedom of choice here lies in determining the trajectory of the

remaining x^-^

y axes, that is, the rotation about ~

n itself. The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (147) reflects this freedom of choice of the gauge transformation. It is not an

invariant of the gauge transformation (its magnitude being

dependent on the particular gauge choice) and, therefore, does

not represent a physical field. However, the first component

~? ~

n_ ~

n

B

(148)

transformation, depending only on the time-dependence of

~ We illustrate this magnetic field component in Fig. 11.

Bt.

The same expression can be derived classically by directly

comparing the spin vector in adjacent time frames.8,20 The

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-23

Fujita et al.

evolve according to the new Schrodinger equation,

HI tjwI ti ih@t jwI ti;

(152)

in the interaction picture is found to be

HI t

FIG. 11. (Color online) In the presence of a time-dependent magnetic field,

~ jBtj~

~ nt, an additional magnetic field B

~? ~

n_ ~

n (vertical arrow)

Bt

is seen by spins. The net instantaneous magnetic field felt by spins is the

~ and B

~? , denoted by the dashed arrow.

vector sum of Bt

~

n_ ~

n component represents a physical magnetic field which

couples to the electron spins.8,132

B. Physical consequences

1. Spin-Hall effect

k-space Berry curvature

was examined in Sec. VI B 1. It was shown that the

momentum-space curvature results in an anomalous velocity

component which is spin-dependent, driving the spatial spin

separation of the SHE. Here, we show that the gauge field in

time-space, A0 t, also leads to an intrinsic SHE in systems

with SOC. We shall make a heuristic distinction between these

two mechanisms, the former arising from spin-dependent

anomalous velocities and the latter from momentumdependent spin polarization. Semiclassically, these two mechanisms can be reconciled, as discussed in Sec. VII C.

The two key ingredients for the SHE are SOC and an

applied electric field which drives a charge current. An elec_

tric field accelerates electrons, namely ~

k 6 0, making the

momentum k~ carry explicit time-dependence. This, in turn,

~ time-dependent. Conse~ k

makes the spin-orbit field B

quently, A0 t arises naturally in SHE systems, as in

Eq. (145). For the SOC system, we formalize this idea by

switching to the interaction quantum picture, where operators, such as the momentum, can carry time-dependence. In

this picture, the original SOC Hamiltonian in Eq. (73) is split

into two parts, H H0 H1 , where

~ ~

H 0 eE

r

(149)

2

H1

~

p

~

~ k

c~

r B

2m

(150)

an operator A in the Schrodinger picture is transformed

to the interaction picture (subscript I) as AI t

eiH0 t=h AeiH0 t=h , carrying an explicit time-dependence, as

defined by the Heisenberg relation, A_ I i1hAI ; H0 . In particular, the momentum operator in the interaction picture is

found to be

~

~

pI t ~

p eEt;

(151)

electric field. State vectors jwti in the Schrodinger picture

~

p2I

~ k~I t;

c~

r B

2m

(153)

where

2

2 2~ ~

~~

~ eEi t @ Bk e Ej El t @ Bk

~ k

~ k~I t B

B

2

h @ki

@kl @kj

2h

(154)

and summation over repeated indices is implied. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (153) is that of an electron subject to an explic~ as

itly time-dependent magnetic field, which we denote Bt

in Eq. (144). The origin of the gauge potential A0 t then follows from Eq. (145).

The gauge field A0 t leads to the intrinsic SHE in the

Rashba SOC system, discovered by Sinova et al.133 For

Rashba SOC, the effective spin-orbit field hasqdirection

~

n p1 py ; px ; 0, as in Eq. (75), where p p2x p2y .

Assuming an electric field applied along the x^-direction,

~ Ex x^, we obtain ~

E

n_ p1 0; eEx ; 0 (of course, p here carries a time-dependence through px , but which is weaker than

that of px itself. To a first approximation, we assume a constant p). Since ~

n is strictly in-plane (i.e., it lies in the x^-^

y

~? term in Eq. (148) represented by

plane of the 2DEG), the B

A0 is an out-of-plane magnetic field, which is along the ^zdirection by convention.

The SHE is an adiabatic phenomena in SOC systems.89

Let us here attempt to quantify the requirement for adiabatic~

~ kj

ity. In the ideal adiabatic limit, the magnetic field jB

should be infinitely strong, such that the spins always remain

~ is finite and the rel~ kj

aligned to it. However, in practice, jB

evant adiabatic condition reads

~ jB

~? j;

jBj

(155)

~ but with a

~ k,

i.e., the electron spin is primarily aligned to B

~? . For the Rashba SOC system, the

small component along B

adiabatic condition is

ak2

Ex :

e

(156)

eVm and the Fermi wave-vector k 108 m1 , we arrive at

the condition Ex 105 Vm1 , which usually holds true in

experiments. Assuming that the spin of electrons follow the

~R , which is the

direction of the net effective magnetic field, B

~

~

~

sum of the Rashba field BR k and B? , the classical spin vector is given by

~

s6

~R

h B

;

~R j

2 jB

(157)

~R . Note that 6 also denotes the two Rashba SOC

to B

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-24

Fujita et al.

z-direction is

^

1 h _

~

sz 6

n~

n ^z;

(158)

~R j 2

jB

where, to be consistent in units, the magnetic field in the

denominator is defined in terms of its equivalent angular

velocity. Applying the adiabatic limit to Eq. (158), in which

~ we obtain for

~R k,

~R approaches that of B

the magnitude of B

the out-of-plane spin polarization

1 h _

~

n~

n ^z;

~R j 2

jB

h2 h

1

2 eEx py ;

6

p

2ap 2

sz 6

eh3 py Ex

:

4ap3

~6

W

spins in the Rashba system. For example, let us consider the

case for the subband (refer to Eq. (74)). Since the spin

y-direction

polarization sz / py , electrons moving in the ^

are polarized out-of-plane along ^z, whereas those moving

in the ^

y-direction are polarized along ^z (the spin polarization sz does not violate TR symmetry because it is odd in py ).

For the other eigenstate , the directions of the polarization

are reversed. Thus, there is a cancellation of the polarizations

when both eigenstates are present. However, at the Fermi

level, there are more electrons in the band, giving rise to a

net transverse spin separation and, hence, the SHE described

in Ref. 133 (see Eqs. (5)(7) there). Summing over the Fermi

surfaces of the two eigenstates yields an intrinsic spin-Hall

conductivity, Eq. (107), of rsH e=8p.20,133,134

The gauge field A0 t also explains the intrinsic spinHall effect in other spintronic systems,134 including the

~

k-linear135137 and k~3 Dresselhaus SOC138 and hole systems

with Rashba SOC.139141

(161)

h2 ~

jBBLG j. The contwo layers, with eigenvalues 6 62m

trolled doping of BLG can shift the Fermi level into either

the conduction ( state) or valence band ( ),25 defining

which band contributes to the Hall transport. When an

~ Ex x^ is applied to the system, an additional

electric field E

out-of-plane component accompanies the strictly in-plane

~BLG . In the adiabatic limit, the out-of-plane

pseudospin field B

component induces a pseudospin polarization given by

sz

(159)

~

w6 B

;

w6 A

2meEx ky

h2 k4

(162)

between the two layers. This is an essential ingredient for the

technology known as pseudospintronics,143145 in which binary states are encoded by relative charge densities on the

two monolayers.

Physically, the effect of this polarization for the

eigenstate is to separate electrons with py > 0 (py < 0) to the

bottom (top) graphene monolayer of the BLG system. For

the K-valley, the BLG eigenstates are of the form

~ 6 w6 A; w6 B,

~ 142 i.e., the order of the components

W

is reversed, and, thus, the pseudospin polarization affects

~

electrons in the opposite manner compared to the K-valley;

electrons with py > 0 (py < 0) are transferred to the top (bottom) monolayer. Thus, the net effect is expected to vanish

when contributions from both valleys are taken into consideration. A finite effect is expected when the electron distribution in the two valleys differs, e.g., at the output of a valley

filter. An example of such a filter was described in Sec. IV C

1. Furthermore, we assume that the applied electric field is

sufficiently weak, such that intervalley transitions can be

neglected within the BLG system.150 The proposed effect in

BLG is completely analogous to the SHE upon replacements

~

r $~

s. It may, therefore, be termed the intrinsic pseudospinHall effect in graphene.

(BLG) systems.134 The BLG system is modeled as two

coupled monolayer graphene sheets, with each layer having

~ B~ and A; B in the top and

two inequivalent lattice sites; A;

bottom layers, respectively. We assume the Bernal stacking

~

(A-B)

configuration, as it is commonly adopted. In the low

energy limit, electrons in the BLG system are described by

an effective 2 2 Hamiltonian142

HBLG

h2

~

~BLG k;

~

sB

2m

(160)

s is the vector of

where B

Pauli matrices acting on the pseudospin rather than the actual

electron spin. The symmetry of the lattice supports two

~ on the hexagonal

inequivalent, degenerate points, K and K,

~

Brillouin zone. In the K-valley, the two-component BLG

eigenstates are of the form142

undergo Rayleigh scattering in a semiconductor microcavity.146 The polariton polarization is quantified as a pseudospin ~

s, where the pseudospin field is exactly that of bilayer

graphene BBLG in Eq. (160) above. Upon scattering (which

~

changes the wavevector k~akin to the E-field

effect), polaritons

z

acquire a finite s component, corresponding to circular polarization, whose sign depends on the initial momenta. The

manifestation of this effect has been observed in

experiments,147149 which is a promising indication for the

detection of the effect in spintronic and graphene systems.

4. Spin motive force

We consider the dynamics of spin particle in the presence of a magnetic texture that is nonuniform in both space

and time. The single electron Schrodinger equation for the

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-25

Fujita et al.

potential for simplicity)

given by151,152

~

p2 1

~ r; t ;

gl ~

r B~

2m 2 B

ad:

E i F 0i @t Aad:

i @i A 0 ;

(163)

p ihr and the energy

operator i

h@t . Following the method outlined in

Sec. III B 3, we perform a unitary transformation U~

r; t to

rotate the reference local ^z-axis to be aligned along the

magnetic field direction at every point in space and time.

The effective Hamiltonian reads, Eqs. (29) and (145),

1

1

~ hA0 t;

~

p A~

r2 glB rz jBj

2m

2

(164)

where A~

r and A0 t are the spatial and temporal gauge

fields, respectively. We consider the adiabatic limit. Under

this approximation, the transformation-induced gauge potentials become (see Eq. (32))

1

r rz 1 cos hrr /;

Aad: ~

2

(165)

1 z

Aad:

0 t r 1 cos h@t /;

2

(166)

~ r; t and the

where rz denotes the two spin eigenstates of B~

Hamiltonian in Eq. (164) reads

2 1

1

~ hAad:

~

p Aad: ~

r glB rz jBj

0 t U ; (167)

2m

2

where U is the spin-independent potential which arises from

the quadratic terms of the non-diagonal elements of A~

r after applying the adiabatic approximation [see Eq. (38)]. This

can be written compactly as

U

1

1

rh2 sin2 hr/2

r~

n2 ;

8m

8m

(168)

where ~

n sin h cos /; sin h sin /; cos h is the unit vector in

spin space and r~

n2 @i nj @i nj . To calculate all forces in

the system, it is instructive to lump all of the potential terms

together,

1

~ 1 r~

n2 :

A00 rz 1 cos h@t / glB jBj

2

8m

(169)

the 2 2 spin-12 space, the adiabatic approximation coincides

with the Abelian reduction. Thus, the non-Abelian contribution of the Yang-Mills Eq. (31) vanishes, and the curvature

is given simply by

ad:

F ij @i Aad:

j @j Ai ;

(170)

spatial curvatures are simply the Berry curvature of the Berry

(vector) potential in Eq. (40), which represents an effective

magnetic field. On the other hand, the temporal curvature is

equivalent to a generalized electric field, whose spin-

(171)

Eq. (171), the effective electric field is then given by

h

gl

i

B

l

z sinh

_

_

~ 1 rr~

rjBj

hr/

/rh

rz

n2 :

E r

2

2

8m

(172)

The last term, which is the gradient of the spin-independent

potential U has been derived classically in Ref. 8 by considering a rotating frame of reference. It tends to repel the

charge from a spatial region, where the spin texture is varying most rapidly. The second term drives the Stern-Gerlach

force, which is proportional to the spatial gradient of the

magnetic field strength. Assuming that the external B-field is

constant in magnitude and changes only in direction (so as to

induce the spatial spin texture ~

n, we can neglect this term.

The spin-dependent force due to the time-dependent B-field

is then given by

h

i

_

_

~ eE 6 h sin h hr/

/rh

;

(173)

F

2

where the additional factor of h=e is introduced to give E the

required units of V=m. The above force is called the spin

motive force (SMF),153155 and the 6 sign corresponds to the

force experienced by electrons with 6z spin. Due to the

monopolar form of Aad:

0 in Eq. (166), the SMF can be related

to the local spin texture ~

n via a Weiss-Zumino-like relation,

Eq. (40), i.e.,

~i 6 h ~

n @t ~

n:

n:@i~

F

2

(174)

with an applied magnetic field, which induces precession of

the local magnetic moments154,156 and in magnetic vortex

cores in magnetic disks.157 Moreover, the SMF results in upand down-spin carriers being separated spatially along the

direction of E, i.e., a spin current. In Ref. 158, it was shown

that, in the presence of SOC, this leads to the generation of a

charge current perpendicular to E. This is known as the

inverse spin-Hall effect.158160

We consider the effect of the SMF on the electron transport in the presence of the extrinsic SOC effect arising, e.g.,

from side-jump and skew-scattering processes. Since the material system is a semiconductor, its longitudinal conductivity

1 is related to the carrier density and, hence, spin accumulation, i.e., 1 r0 10 elr s r0 10 r 1 , where l es=m

is the mobility. Due to the spin dependence of the conductivity, the presence of the spin-motive field E in Eq. (173)

would drive a combination of spin and charge currents, i.e.,

j 0 r0 j r 10 r0 1 r E 0 r0 E r ;

(175)

assume that the spin accumulation s is polarized along the

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-26

Fujita et al.

~

applied B-field

direction and, hence, that of the spin texture

n^. For simplicity, we assume the net n^ to be pointing in the

z-direction. Thus, from Eq. (175), one directly obtains the

spin and charge currents as

j 0 r0 j r r0 10 E 0 1z E z rz 1z E 0 10 E z :

(176)

effect. This is given by

r:^

n E ) jH 0i r0 jH i r

j 0H r0 j H r 1SH ^

1SH eilk n^l rl E 0k r0 E zk rz ;

(177)

k m

where 1SH 1sjSH 1ss

SH 1D 4 es1 pmDqF u, where D is

the diffusion constant, qF is the density of states at the Fermi

level, and u is the impurity scattering potential.161,162 As

before, we assume the net spin texture to be in the vertical

direction (^

nl dlz ) and the applied ordinary electric field to

be in the x-direction. Then, the Hall currents are

r0 eizk 1SH E zk rz 1SH E 0y :

(178)

the ordinary E-field drives a spin-Hall current, which agrees

with the microscopic analysis of Ref. 158.

C. Semiclassical connection with k -space Berry

curvature

ture in k-space

was discussed. The spin separation is

achieved via a spin-dependent anomalous velocity, Eq.

(106), which pushes opposite spin species in opposite transverse directions, e.g., in p-doped semiconductors. On the

other hand, in Rashba SOC systems, spin separation occurs

from a momentum-dependent magnetic field, Eq. (159),

which polarizes electrons along opposite directions out-ofplane, depending on their transverse momenta. Despite being

distinct, the two intrinsic mechanisms share the common

requirements of adiabaticity and time-dependence. This

prompts one to ask: Are the two mechanisms related?

To answer this question, we investigate possible connec~? field (given

tions between the anomalous velocity and the B

by Eq. (148)) in SHE systems.20 In this endeavor, we employ

~

the k-space

analogue of the analysis by Aharanov and Stern8

of the origin of Berrys curvature in real space. We begin with

the general spin-orbit Hamiltonian in Eq. (73). The velocity

along the i-th coordinate is given by Hamiltons equation,

ti

~

~ k

1

pi

@ B

ri ; H c

~

r:

m

ih

@pi

(179)

~ jBj~

~ n, the partial derivative

Writing the spin-orbit field as B

in Eq. (179) can be expanded into its magnitude and directional parts as

~ @jBj

~

@B

n

~ @~

~

:

n jBj

@pi

@pi

@pi

(180)

whereby all operators are reduced to scalars. When the mag~ Bt,

~ the spins exnetic field carries a time-dependence, B

~

perience an additional field B? , as discussed in Sec. VII A.

~R ,

Assuming that the spins are polarized along the net field B

~

~

the classical unit spin vector is ~

r BR =jBR j. Then, we

obtain for the velocity

!

@~

~ @jBj

~

pi

jBj

h _

n

~

ti c

;

(181)

n~

n

~R j @pi 2c

m

@pi

jB

~? gives it the corwhere the conversion factor of h=2c for B

rect units of Tesla. The first term is the kinetic velocity and

is of no interest here. We focus on the second term. In the ad~ jB

~? j, the second term in Eq. (181)

iabatic limit, i.e., jBj

reads

ti c

@~

~ h

@jBj

n

~

:

n_ ~

n

@pi 2

@pi

(182)

@~

n

By the chain rule, ~

n_ k_j @k

, where summation over j is

j

implied. Rearranging the terms, we obtain

ti c

~ k_j @~

@jBj

n @~

n

~

n:

2 @ki @kj

@pi

(183)

~ in momentum

~ k

the inhomogeneity of the spin-orbit field B

space, i.e., it is the reciprocal space analogue of the SternGerlach force. The second term in Eq. (183) is the anomalous KL velocity of electrons due to Berrys curvature in ~

kspace.20 In fact, it can be written as

~

@~

n @~

n

n

~

ijk k_j Xk k;

(184)

tKL;i k_j

2 @ki @kj

where the last equality follows from Eq. (104). This is precisely the KL velocity in Eq. (106) arising from the Berrys

~ in k-space.

~

curvature Xk

Moreover, the spin-dependence of

TABLE I. A summary of gauge fields, the context in which they occur, and their physical (measurable) consequences.

Space

Real space, ~

r

Momentum, k~

Time, t

Context

Physical consequences

Spin-orbit coupling

Strain (in graphene)

Spin-orbit coupling

Bloch wavefunctions

Time-dependent magnetic field or magnetization

Quantum spin-Hall effect, spin transverse force, spin torque

Valley filtering, edge states, quantum valley Hall effect (in graphene)

Intrinsic SHE

Anomalous Hall effect

Intrinsic SHE

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-27

Fujita et al.

~R j

~R =jB

aligned anti-parallel to the net magnetic field, ~

r B

in Eq. (179) for the down-spin state. Thus, the anomalous velocity due to the ~

k-space Berry curvature physically arises

~? magnetic field component,

from the presence of the B

which in turn is related to the time component of the gauge

field, A0 t.

The above highlights the physical origin of the Berry

~

curvature in k-space.

We note that adiabaticity was translated

from a quantum mechanical to classical description, where,

in the former, we neglected off-diagonal interband elements

~

of the k-space

gauge field, while in the latter we considered

~? j

the limit of a strong magnetic field strength relative to jB

(see Eq. (155)).

VIII. SUMMARY

We have examined the origin and physical consequences of gauge fields in spintronic and other spin-like systems, such as photons and graphene. The gauge fields can lie

~

in three spaces, namely, real space ~

r, momentum space k,

and time t. Berry gauge fields are associated with the adiabatic transport of quantum states with respect to parameter

space. We summarize this paper in Table I below.

In ~

r -space, Berry gauge fields arise in the presence of

spatially nonuniform magnetic fields or magnetization (e.g.,

a domain wall); see Sec. III. Non-Abelian ~

r-space gauge

fields can arise from spin-orbit coupling (Sec. V) or, for

example, in graphene that has been mechanically strained

(Sec. IV). Generally, the ~

r -space gauge fields can be considered as magnetic vector potentials which affect carrier transport via Lorentz forces (see Secs. III C 1, IV C 2, and V C 2)

or exert spin torque (Secs. III C 3 and V C 4).

~

In k-space,

Berry gauge fields due to spin-orbit coupling

arise ubiquitously in spintronic, optical, and graphene systems (see Sec. VI). Such gauge fields can be considered as

~

describing magnetic fields in k-space

and give rise to an

anomalous velocity (analogous to the Lorentz force in

~

r-space). This leads to observable effects, such as the spinHall effect.

Finally, time-dependent gauge fields arise in the presence of time varying magnetic fields. Physically, they lead to

the spin-Hall effect and spin motive force (see Sec. VII B).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

by the National University of Singapore (NUS), the Science

and Engineering Research Council (SERC), the SMF-NUS

RHA (grant nos. R-263-000-632-592, R-263-000-632-646

and R-398-000-061-305), and the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore.

1

Molnar, M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and D. M. Treger, Science

294, 1488 (2001).

2

Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959).

3

M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 392, 45 (1984).

4

S. Pancharatnam, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci., Sect. A 44, 247 (1956).

5

G. Tatara, H. Kohno, and J. Shibata, Phys. Rep. 468, 213 (2008).

6

M. Iyanaga, J. Math. Phys. 22, 2713 (1981).

8

Y. Aharonov and A. Stern, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3593 (1992).

9

P. Bruno, V. K. Dugaev, and M. Taillefumier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93,

096806 (2004).

10

K. Y. Bliokh and Y. P. Bliokh, Ann. Phys. 319, 13 (2005).

11

S. G. Tan, M. B. A. Jalil, and T. Fujita, Ann. Phys. 325, 1537 (2010).

12

S. G. Tan, M. B. A. Jalil, X.-J. Liu, and T. Fujita, Phys. Rev. B 78,

245321 (2008).

13

J. Ye, Y. B. Kim, A. J. Millis, B. I. Shraiman, P. Majumdar, and Z.

Tesanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3737 (1999).

14

S. H. Chun, M. B. Salamon, Y. Lyanda-Geller, P. M. Goldbart, and P. D.

Han, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 757 (2000).

15

Y. Taguchi and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B 60, 10280 (1999).

16

K. Ohgushi, S. Murakami, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. B 62, 6065

(2000).

17

S. Onoda and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 196602 (2003).

18

Y. Taguchi, Y. Oohara, H. Yoshizawa, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura,

Science 291, 2573 (2001).

19

Y. Taguchi, T. Sasaki, S. Awaji, Y. Iwasa, T. Tayama, T. Sakakibara,

S. Iguchi, T. Ito, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 257202 (2003).

20

T. Fujita, M. B. A. Jalil, and S. G. Tan, New J. Phys. 12, 013016 (2010).

21

G. Metalidis and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B 74, 045327 (2006).

22

C. H. Lee, S. G. Tan, M. B. A. Jalil, G. Wu, and N. Chen, 55th Annual

Conference on Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, Atlanta, GA,

November 1418, 2010. poster presentation DU-01.

23

Ya. B. Bazaliy, B. A. Jones, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B. 57, R3213

(1998).

24

R. Saito, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Physical Properties of

Carbon Nanotubes (Imperial College Press, London, 1998).

25

K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. V. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. V.

Dubonos, I. V. Grigorieva, and A. A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004).

26

K. S. Novoselov, D. Jiang, F. Schedin, T. J. Booth, V. V. Khotkevich,

S. V. Morozov, and A. K. Geim, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102,

10451 (2005).

27

A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov, and A. K.

Geim, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 109 (2009).

28

K.-I. Sasaki and R. Saito, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 176, 253 (2008).

29

V. M. Pereira and A. H. Castro Neto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 046801

(2009).

30

T. Fujita, M. B. A. Jalil, and S. G. Tan, Appl. Phys. Lett. 97, 043508

(2010).

31

A. Chaves, L. Covaci, Kh. Yu. Rakhimov, G. A. Farias, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 205430 (2010).

32

Z. Wu, F. Zhai, F. M. Peeters, H. Q. Xu, and K. Chang, Phys. Rev. Lett.

106, 176802 (2010).

33

A. Rycerz, J. Tworzydlo, and C. W. J. Beenakker, Nat. Phys. 3, 172

(2007).

34

A. Matulis, F. M. Peeters, and P. Vasilopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1518

(1994).

35

M. R. Masir, P. Vasilopoulos, and F. M. Peeters, Appl. Phys. Lett. 93,

242103 (2008).

36

L. DellAnna and A. De Martino, Phys. Rev. B 80, 155416 (2009).

37

S. Ghosh and M. Sharma, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21, 292204 (2009).

38

E. Hall, Am. J. Math. 2, 287 (1879).

39

K. von Klitzing, G. Dorda, and M. Pepper, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 494

(1980).

40

N. Levy, S. A. Burke, K. L. Meaker, M. Panlasigui, A. Zettl, F. Guinea,

A. H. Castro Neto, and M. F. Crommie, Nat. Phys. 329, 544 (2010).

41

T. Low and F. Guinea, Nano Lett. 10, 3551 (2010).

42

F. Guinea, M. I. Katsnelson, and A. K. Geim, Nat. Phys. 6, 30

(2010).

43

C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 226801 (2005).

44

C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 (2005).

45

D. N. Sheng, Z. Y. Weng, L. Sheng, and F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 97, 036808 (2006).

46

B. A. Bernevig, T. L. Hughes, and S. C. Zhang, Science 314, 1757

(2006).

47

M. Konig, S. Wiedmann, C. Brune, A. Roth, H. Buhmann, L. W. Molenkamp, X. L. Qi, and S.-C. Zhang, Science 318, 766 (2007).

48

D. Hsieh, D. Qian, L. Wray, Y. Xia, Y. S. Hor, R. J. Cava, and M. Z.

Hasan, Nature 452, 970 (2008).

49

H. J. Zhang, C. X. Liu, X. L. Qi, X. Dai, Z. Fang, and S.-C. Zhang, Nat.

Phys. 5, 438 (2009).

7

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-28

50

Fujita et al.

Grauer, Y. S. Hor, R. J. Cava, and M. Z. Hasan, Nat. Phys. 5, 398

(2009).

51

K.-I. Sasaki and K. Wakabayashi, Phys. Rev. B 82, 035421 (2010).

52

M. Fujita, K. Wakabayashi, K. Nakada, and K. Kusakabe, J. Phys. Soc.

Jpn. 65, 1920 (1996).

53

K. Nakada, M. Fujita, G. Dresselhaus, and M. S. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev.

B 54, 17954 (1996).

54

R. Winkler, Spin-Orbit Coupling Effects in Two-Dimensional Electron

and Hole Systems (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003).

55

D. D. Awschalom and N. Samarth, Physics 2, 50 (2009).

56

E. I. Rashba, Physica E 34, 31 (2006).

57

E. I. Rashba, Physica E 20, 189 (2004).

58

E. I. Rashba, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) 2, 1224 (1960).

59

Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, J. Phys. C 17, 6039 (1984).

60

J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78,

1335 (1997).

61

G. Dresselhaus, Phys. Rev. 100, 580 (1955).

62

M. I. Dyakanov and V. Y. Kachorovskii, Sov. Phys. Semicond. 20, 110

(1986).

63

A. G. Malshukov, C. S. Tang, C. S. Chu, and K. A. Chao, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 95, 107203 (2005).

64

L. Jiang and M. W. Wu, Phys. Rev. B 72, 033311 (2005).

65

B. A. Bernevig and S. C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 106802 (2006).

66

Y. Aharonov and A. Casher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 319 (1984).

67

J. Anandan, Phys. Lett. A 138, 347 (1989).

68

H. Mathur and A. D. Stone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2964 (1992).

69

Y. Oreg and O. Entin-Wohlman, Phys. Rev. B 46, 2393 (1992).

70

S. Oh and C.-M. Ryu, Phys. Rev. B 51, 13441 (1995).

71

S. Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 187203 (2005).

72

T.-Z. Qian and Z.-B. Su, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 2311 (1994).

73

N. Hatano, R. Shirasaki, and H. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032107

(2007).

74

Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1593 (1987).

75

J. Cserti and G. David, Phys. Rev. B 74, 172305 (2006).

76

G. David and J. Cserti, Phys. Rev. B 81, 121417 (2010).

77

J. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1834 (1999).

78

B. Basu and P. Bandyopadhyay, Phys. Lett. A 373, 148 (2008).

79

S. G. Tan, M. B. A. Jalil, X.-J. Liu, and T. Fujita, Ann. Phys. 326, 207

(2011); S. G. Tan, M. B. A. Jalil, and X.-J. Liu, arXiv:0705.3502 (2007).

80

A. Manchon and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 78, 212405 (2008).

81

A. Manchon and S. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 79, 094422 (2009).

82

A. Chernyshov, M. Overby, X. Liu, J. K. Furdyna, Y. Lyanda-Geller and

L. P. Rokhinson, Nat. Phys. 5, 656 (2009).

83

I. M. Miron, G. Gaudin, S. Auffret, B. Rodmacq, A. Schuhl, S. Pizzini,

J. Vogel, and P. Gambardella, Nature Mater. 9, 230 (2010).

84

A. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11911 (1996).

85

H. Z. Xu and Y. Okada, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 3119 (2001).

86

Y. Jiang, M. B. A. Jalil, and T. S. Low, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 1673 (2002).

87

M. B. A. Jalil, S. G. Tan, T. Liew, K. L. Teo, and T. C. Chong, J. Appl.

Phys. 95, 7321 (2004).

88

T. Fujita, M. B. A. Jalil, and S. G. Tan, IEEE Trans. Magn. 46, 1323

(2010).

89

S. Murakami, N. Nagaosa, and S. Zhang, Science 301, 1348 (2003).

90

G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B 59, 14915 (1999).

91

R. Karplus and J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 95, 1154 (1954).

92

M. I. Dyakanov and V. I. Perel, JETP Lett. 13, 467 (1971).

93

M. I. Dyakanov and V. I. Perel, Phys. Lett. A 35, 459 (1971).

94

N. A. Sinitsyn, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20, 023201 (2008).

95

N. Nagaosa, J. Sinova, S. Onoda, A. H. MacDonald and N. P. Ong, Rev.

Mod. Phys. 82, 1539 (2010).

96

E. I. Rashba, Semiconductors 42, 905 (2008).

97

J. M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. 102, 1030 (1956).

98

T. Fujita, M. B. A. Jalil, and S. G. Tan, Ann. Phys. 324, 2265 (2009).

99

J. Spector, H. L. Stormer, K. W. Baldwin, L. N. Pfeiffer, and K. W. West,

Appl. Phys. Lett. 56, 1290 (1990).

100

M. Noguchi, H. Sakakibara, and T. Ikoma, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 32, 5014

(1993).

101

V. I. Perel, S. A. Tarasenko, I. N. Yassievich, S. D. Ganichev, V. V.

Belkov, and W. Prettl, Phys. Rev. B 67, 201304 (2003).

102

G. Y. Guo, S. Murakami, T.-W. Chen, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.

100, 096491 (2008).

103

T. Kimura, Y. Otani, T. Sato, S. Takahashi, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev.

Lett. 98, 156601 (2007).

104

Wees, Phys. Rev. B 62, R4790 (2000).

105

B. Ya. Zeldovich and V. S. Liberman, Sov. J. Quantum Electron. 20, 427

(1990).

106

M. Onoda, S. Murakami, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 083901

(2004).

107

M. Onoda, S. Murakami, and N. Nagaosa, Phys. Rev. E 74, 066610 (2006).

108

K. Yu. Bliokh and V. D. Freilikher, Phys. Rev. B 72, 035108 (2005).

109

K. Yu. Bliokh and Yu. P. Bliokh, Phys. Rev. E 70, 026605 (2004).

110

E. I. Fedorov, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 105, 465 (1955).

111

C. Imbert, Phys. Rev. D 5, 787 (1972).

112

O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Science 319, 787 (2008).

113

K. Y. Bliokh, A. Niv, V. Kleiner, and E. Hasman, Nature Photon. 2, 748

(2008).

114

R. Matsumoto and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 197292 (2011).

115

R. Matsumoto and S. Murakami, Phys. Rev. B 84, 184406 (2011).

116

H. Katsura, N. Nagaosa, and P. A. Lee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 066403

(2010).

117

Y. Onose, T. Ideue, H. Katsura, Y. Shiomi, N. Nagaosa, and Y. Tokura,

Science 329, 297 (2010).

118

S. Fujimoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 047203 (2009).

119

Y. Kajiwara, K. Harii, S. Takahashi, J. Ohe, K. Uchida, M. Mizuguchi, H.

Umezawa, H. Kawai, K. Ando, K. Takanashi, S. Maekawa and E. Saitoh,

Nature 464, 262 (2010).

120

S. O. Demokritov, B. Hillebrands, and A. N. Slavin, Phys. Rep. 348, 441

(2001).

121

F. Wilczek and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 2111 (1984).

122

D. Xiao, W. Yao, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 236809 (2007).

123

P. Gosselin, A. Berard, and H. Mohrbach, Eur. Phys. J. C 59, 883 (2009).

124

M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3045 (2010).

125

D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 49, 405 (1982).

126

L. Fu and C. L. Kane, Phys. Rev. B 76, 045302 (2007).

127

H.-Z. Lu, W.-Y. Shan, W. Yao, Q. Niu, and S.-Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B 81,

115407 (2010).

128

X.-L. Qi, Y.-S. Wu, and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. B 74, 085308 (2006).

129

M. Onoda and N. Nagaosa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 71, 19 (2002).

130

Z. Fang, N. Nagaosa, K. S. Takahashi, A. Asamitsu, R. Mathieu, T. Ogasawara, H. Yamada, M. Kawasaki, Y. Tokura, and K. Terakura, Science

302, 92 (2003).

131

A. G. Wagh and V. C. Rakhecha, Phys. Rev. A 48, 1729 (1993).

132

J. Xiao, A. Zangwill, and M. D. Stiles, Phys. Rev. B 73, 054428 (2006).

133

J. Sinova, D. Culcer, Q. Niu, N. A. Sinitsyn, T. Jungwirth, and A. H.

MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 126603 (2004).

134

T. Fujita, M. B. A. Jalil, and S. G. Tan, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 78, 104714

(2009).

135

T.-W. Chen, C.-M. Huang, and G. Y. Guo, Phys. Rev. B 73, 235309 (2006).

136

S.-Q. Shen, Phys. Rev. B 70, 081311 (2004).

137

N. A. Sinitsyn, E. M. Hankiewicz, W. Teizer, and J. Sinova, Phys. Rev. B

70, 081312 (2004).

138

B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, arXiv:0412550 (2004).

139

J. Schlieman and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. B 71, 085308 (2005).

140

B. A. Bernevig and S.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 016801 (2005).

141

X. Dai, Z. Fang, Y.-G. Yao, and F.-C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 086802

(2006).

142

E. McCann and V. I. Falko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 086805 (2006).

143

H. Min, G. Borghi, M. Polini, and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. B 77,

041407 (2008).

144

P. San-Jose, E. Prada, E. McCann, and H. Schomerus, Phys. Rev. Lett.

102, 247204 (2009).

145

S. G. Tan, M. B. A. Jalil, D. E. Koh, H. K. Lee, and Y. H. Wu, J. Magn.

Magn. Mater. 322, 2390 (2010).

146

A. Kavokin, G. Malpuech, and M. Glazov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 136601

(2005).

147

M. Glazov and A. Kavokin, J. Lumin. 125, 118 (2007).

148

W. Langbein, Proceedings of 26th International Conference on Physics

of Semiconductors (Institute of Physics, Bristol, 2003), p. 112.

149

C. Leyder, M. Romanelli, J. Ph. Karr, E. Giacobino, T. C. H. Liew,

M. M. Glazov, A. V. Kavokin, G. Malpuech, and A. Bramati, Nat. Phys.

3, 628 (2007).

150

I. Martin, Y. M. Blanter, and A. F. Morpurgo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100,

036804 (2008).

151

P.-Q. Jin, Y.-Q. Li, and F.-C. Zhang, J. Phys. A 39, 7115 (2006).

152

M. B. A. Jalil and S. G. Tan, IEEE Trans. Magn. 46, 1626 (2010).

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

121301-29

153

Fujita et al.

S. E. Barnes and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 246601 (2007).

155

Y. Tserkovnyak and M. Mecklenburg, Phys. Rev. B 77, 134407 (2008).

156

M. Stamenova, T. N. Todorov, and S. Sanvito, Phys. Rev. B 77, 054439

(2008).

157

J.-I. Ohe and S. Maekawa, J. Appl. Phys. 105, 07C706 (2009).

158

J. Shibata and H. Kohno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 086603 (2009).

154

159

182509 (2006).

160

L. K. Werake, B. A. Ruzicka, and H. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 107205

(2011).

161

H.-A. Engel, B. I. Halperin, and E. I. Rashba, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 166605

(2005).

162

W.-K. Tse and S. D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 056601 (2006).

143.107.180.128 On: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 13:05:53

- tmpBB0D.tmpUploaded byFrontiers
- SmitWijn Ferrites TextUploaded byPatito
- Lecture 17Uploaded bybgiangre8372
- Yakov Kopelevich- Graphite as a Bose MetalUploaded byImaxSW
- PhysRevD.5.3137Uploaded byShane M Far
- Paulis Exclusion PrincipleUploaded byanacrisst
- V. Gnezdilov et al- Phonons and magnons in stripe-ordered nickelates. A Raman scattering studyUploaded bySaqqer
- 07 AppendixUploaded bysagunswash
- Chapter 10 (p26-30)Uploaded byednilsom
- Nille N. Klausen, John L. Bohn and Chris H. Greene- Nature of spinor Bose-Einstein condensates in rubidiumUploaded byPomac232
- wwwjfhUploaded byBuddhadev Bhattacharya
- AA Directions, Feb 2011Uploaded byemediage
- hernandez2010 (1).pdfUploaded byGreg Atsalakis
- Graf 2007Uploaded byBharathi Rajeswaran Thara
- 1404.6136Uploaded bycrocoali
- SYNTHESIS AND CHARACTERIZATION COMPOSITE OF MNO2/GRAPHENE/MWCNT: AN SYNERGISTIC CATALYST FOR DEGRADATION OF METHYL RED AND MALACHITE GREEN.Uploaded byIJAR Journal
- 0901.3093Uploaded byxabihdez05
- Alex Buchel- Gauge theories on hyperbolic spaces and dual wormhole instabilitiesUploaded byOllo43
- JSPS FORMUploaded byPrasad D
- Rousseaux. .on.the.Physical.meaning.of.the.gauge.conditions.of.Classical.electromagnetism.(2003)Uploaded byMariano Uria
- D-Particle Field Category 0804.1576Uploaded byforizsl
- Dirac Equation & ParticlesUploaded byalexandru_bratu_6
- 04_Kowalczyk.pdfUploaded byIlham Syahidi
- Curriculum Vitae_13 May 2019Uploaded byJohn Jr.
- 2017-11-14 luisbreyUploaded byapi-238805532
- Specialized Imaging Techniques 2010Uploaded byJohn Greiner
- Workshop 10 SolutionsUploaded bySteve Drury
- G. Kells, J. K. Slingerland and J. Vala- Exact results for the star lattice chiral spin liquidUploaded byGravvol
- Sergiy Koshkin- Homogeneous Spaces and Faddeev-Skyrme ModelsUploaded byPomac232
- Homework 10Uploaded byjuannaviap

- Zitterbewegung ExperimentUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Boykin 2001Uploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Javelin ExperimentBoardUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Recursive Green's FunctionUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- lec11.psUploaded bygianluca perniciano
- 10.1126@science.aaf3961Uploaded byAdonai Cruz
- CertUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Landauer ButtikerUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Majorana TutorialUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Schrieffer WolfUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- lista2-enunciadoUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- The Wealth of NationsUploaded byashish_tyagi22
- Semigroups Symmetry Prigogine Theories.psUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- chap5Uploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Hakin9 Exploiting Software - 201201Uploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Intro Tensor NetworksUploaded byAdonai Cruz
- Vol3 Iss4 376 - 381 Variational Monte Carlo Algorithm fUploaded byAdonai Cruz

- How LDAP WorksUploaded byZahra Abdi
- language of the-stock market-powerpoint presentation 1122g1[1]Uploaded bydeepag
- ITGS_KIMUploaded byEdwin Valdeiglesias
- Brownian Motion NotesUploaded byGustaf Tegnér
- final research assessment 5Uploaded byapi-424992669
- final unit plan1Uploaded byapi-340413697
- Peace Researcher Vol2 Issue13 Aug 1997Uploaded byLynda Boyd
- Building Brand Equity and Brand IdentityUploaded byMetta Yunita
- Burdon of Proof in a Suit for Specific PerformanceUploaded byPrasad
- EssayUploaded byCatherine Chee
- Dynamic Room Pricing Model for Hotel Revenue Management Systems (2011) - Aziz Et AlUploaded byBartoszSowul
- Perio 2Uploaded byAbdallah Essam Al-Zireeni
- Oxytocin Exposure During Labor Among Women WithUploaded byGladys Susanty
- PDD LectureUploaded byNandani Singh
- 6 Signifikan prognostikUploaded byhandriono
- Beginner s AssyrianUploaded byÁsgaður Steinbjönsson
- Designing With Lenses and Secondary OpticsUploaded byIva Petrinska
- Exclusive Sellers of Chanson Bleu ChartreuxUploaded bypsykosomatik
- 1 FB Seduction V5 FinalUploaded byGetto Pangandoyon
- 081003 Chris NUFFT SlidesUploaded byXingfang91
- asme_sec IIUploaded bygst ajah
- 6.the Inflectional SystemUploaded byMonika Symanaite
- Chapter 01.docUploaded byPaul Tobin
- Job Satisfaction Describes How Content an Individual is With His or Her JobUploaded byZaher Arakkal
- (Psychology, Self-help) Introduction to CBT (Cognitive Behavior Therapy)Uploaded bypsiho
- piglet manualUploaded byongyinhoe
- Mcclean ReportUploaded byAnilLazy
- Updates on Management of GerdUploaded byMuhammad Ziaurrahman
- Benny Sampilo and Honorato Salacup v. CAUploaded bySean Galvez
- RCS-Job-Evaluation-Policy-August-2011.docUploaded byadedoyin123