Effective spin-flip scattering in diffusive superconducting proximity systems

with magnetic disorder

D. A. Ivanov,1 Ya. V. Fominov,2 M. A. Skvortsov,2 and P. M. Ostrovsky3, 2
1
Institute of Theoretical Physics, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
2
L. D. Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics RAS, 119334 Moscow, Russia
3
Institut für Nanotechnologie, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, 76021 Karlsruhe, Germany
(Dated: 1 July 2009)
We revisit the problem of diffusive proximity systems involving superconductors and normal met-
als (or ferromagnets) with magnetic disorder. On the length scales much larger than its correlation
length, the effect of sufficiently weak magnetic disorder may be incorporated as a local spin-flip term
in the Usadel equations. We derive this spin-flip term in the general case of a three-dimensional
disordered Zeeman-type field with an arbitrary correlation length. Three different regimes may be
distinguished: pointlike impurities (the correlation length is shorter than the Fermi wavelength),
arXiv:0907.0113v1 [cond-mat.supr-con] 1 Jul 2009

medium-range disorder (the correlation length between the Fermi wavelength and the mean free
path), and long-range disorder (the correlation length longer than the mean free path). We discuss
the relations between these three regimes by using the three overlapping approaches: the Usadel
equations, the non-linear sigma model, and the diagrammatic expansion. The expressions for the
spin-flip rate agree with the existing results obtained in less general situations.

PACS numbers: 74.45.+c, 75.60.Ch, 74.78.Fk

Contents I. INTRODUCTION

I. Introduction 1 In conventional superconductors (S), pairing occurs be-

II. Main results
A. Parameters of the problem
B. Spin-flip term in the sigma model
C. Spin-flip term in the Usadel equations
D. Spin-flip scattering rate
1. Regime of short-range correlations
2. Regime of medium-range correlations
3. Regime of long-range correlations
III. Sigma-model derivation
A. Sigma-model action
B. Local spin-flip term
C. Nonlocal spin-flip term
D. Discussion of the two contributions
IV. Derivation from the Usadel equations
A. Effective spin-flip rate
B. Self-consistent screening of disorder-induced
correlations
C. Effective spin-flip scattering at the edge of the
minigap
V. Diagrammatic representation
VI. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
References
tween electrons with opposite spins, and thus the coex-
2 istence of superconductivity and magnetism may lead
2 to a variety of interesting effects in superconducting
and proximity structures. Examples of such effects are
3
gapless superconductivity,1 triplet proximity correlations
3 (see Ref. 2 for a review), and Josephson π-junctions (see
3 Refs. 3,4 for a review). In a ferromagnet (F) with a uni-
3 form exchange field, the theory of anomalous correlations
3 may be constructed by taking into account the splitting
3 of electronic bands of opposite spins.3 The situation be-
comes more complicated if the magnetic structure is in-
4 homogeneous. In this case, if the ferromagnetic structure
is non-collinear, the triplet component of anomalous cor-
4
relations needs to be taken into consideration.2 The case
5 of inhomogeneous magnetic structure is also interesting
5 from the practical point of view, since many experimen-
6 tal studies of hybrid SF systems, in particular, Joseph-
son π-junctions, reveal a strong spin-flip scattering.5,6,7,8
6 A theoretical analysis of proximity correlations in an
7 inhomogeneous ferromagnet is complicated, and many
of the existing studies are limited to modeling either
7 pointlike magnetic impurities1,3,9,10,11 or specific domain
geometries.2,12,13,14,15,16,17
In a recent work by two of the present authors,
8
the spin-flip term (in the same form as for magnetic
impurities1 ) has been derived in the model of non-
8 collinear magnetic disorder correlated on length scales
much larger than the elastic mean free path.18 The re-
9 sulting expression for the spin-flip rate agrees with the
known one obtained for the collinear inhomogeneous
10 magnetization under assumption of periodic magnetic
structure.12,13
10 In the present paper, we revisit the problem of the

(a) (b)
FIG. 1: Two types of spin-flip scattering: (a) local; (b) non-
local. The diagrams show the way the magnetic scattering is
included in the “cooperon” propagator (see Secs. III and V
for details). Thick solid lines represent the electron Green
functions, thin dashed lines denote averaging over Gaussian
disorder. The crosses and the open circles represent the po-
tential and magnetic disorders, respectively.
magnetic disorder in the more general situation of the
non-collinear disorder with arbitrary correlation length.
We consider a superconducting or proximity-type system
with potential impurities and an inhomogeneous Zeeman
field. The potential impurities are supposed to be suffi-
ciently strong to bring the electronic motion to the dif-
fusive regime. On top of this diffusive motion, the elec-
trons experience splitting from the inhomogeneous Zee-
man field, which is assumed to be random and Gaussian
with an arbitrary pair correlation. We further assume
that this magnetic disorder is much weaker than the po-
tential one, in terms of the characteristic scattering rates.
Then three different regimes can be distinguished: the
short-range magnetic disorder (or, equivalently, point-
like impurities, with the correlation length shorter than
the Fermi wavelength), the medium-range disorder (with
the correlation length between the Fermi wavelength and
the elastic mean free path), and the long-range disorder
(the correlation length longer than the elastic mean free
path). The short-range case has been solved in Ref. 1,
the medium- and long-range regimes have been treated
in Refs. 12,13 for the collinear periodic case, and the
long-range non-collinear case was studied in Ref. 18. We
extend those results to the general non-collinear case
and remove some of the technical assumptions made in
Ref. 18.
We use three methods for our analysis: the non-linear
sigma model, the Usadel equations, and the diagram-
matic technique. While the calculations in these three
methods are somewhat parallel to each other, we find
it instructive to present those various approaches, in or-
der to illustrate the correspondence between the meth-
ods and to clarify the physical meaning and the appli-
cability conditions of the results. As we shall see below,
the spin-flip term in the short-range and medium-range
regimes corresponds to inserting one magnetic-impurity
rung into the cooperon ladder [Fig. 1(a)], while the long-
range regime corresponds to the magnetic line crossing
many cooperon rungs [Fig. 1(b)].
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present
the main results of the paper: the form of the spin-
flip term in the sigma-model and Usadel description, as
well as the expressions for the spin-flip scattering rate
in the three regimes, including the crossovers between
2
those regimes. In the following sections, we present de-
tails of the calculations. In Sec. III, we employ the sigma
model to study all cases of the magnetic-disorder correla-
tion length except for the crossover between the medium-
and long-range regimes. In Sec. IV, we demonstrate how
the long-range regime can be treated in the language of
the Usadel equations. In Sec. V, we consider all the cases
with the help of the diagrammatic technique. Finally, in
Sec. VI, we present our conclusions.
II. MAIN RESULTS
A. Parameters of the problem
We consider a diffusive motion of electrons in a finite
sample of a ferromagnetic material of the linear size L.
The diffusion constant is D, and one may define the
Thouless energy scale of the sample as ETh = D/L2
(we put ~ = 1). The anomalous correlations are in-
duced either by an electric contact with a superconductor
(proximity-induced superconductivity, in which case the
order parameter ∆ is put to zero), or by a weak supercon-
ducting interaction inside the ferromagnet (in which case
we allow for a small nonzero ∆). The electrons and the
Andreev-reflected holes are considered at a finite energy
E (relative to the Fermi level). The inhomogeneous ran-
dom ferromagnetic exchange field has the typical scale
δh and is correlated at the length scale a. Further we
assume a Gaussian ensemble for the exchange field, with
the pair correlation function
δhi (r)δhj (r′ ) = Fij (|r − r′ |) .
(1)
The typical order of magnitude for Fij (r) is then (δh)2 ,
and the typical support is of order a. The correlation
length can also be converted into the “Thouless energy of
magnetic inhomogeneities” Ea = D/a2 . Finally, we may
also include a small constant (or slowly varying in space
on the length scale of L) field h, on top of the Gaussian
field δh, so that the total exchange field is H(r) = h(r) +
δh(r). The total H field is realization-dependent due to
the δh part.
For the energy scales in the ferromagnet, the following
condition is assumed:19
ETh , E, ∆, h, Γsf ≪ Ea , τ −1 , (2)
where Γsf is the resulting effective spin-flip rate, and τ is
the mean free time due to potential scattering. The phys-
ical meaning of this condition is that the length scales as-
sociated with both potential and magnetic disorder [the
right-hand side of the inequality] are much shorter than
the length scales involved in the Usadel equations [the
left-hand side of the inequality].
 3

B. Spin-flip term in the sigma model terms:

D 2
∇ θ + M0 (iE sin θ + ∆ cos θ) − (hM) cos θ
The sigma-model action has the form 2  
− Γtot T
sf + 2M Γ̂sf M sin 2θ = 0 , (9)
S[Q] = S0 + Ssf , (3)
D
M∇2 M0 − M0 ∇2 M − M(iE cos θ − ∆ sin θ)


where the usual sigma-model action is
2
Z nD − M0 h sin θ + 2M0 Γ̂sf M cos 2θ = 0 , (10)
S0 = πν d3 r STr (∇Q)2
4
  o where Γ̂sf is the symmetric 3 × 3 matrix of Γij sf , and
ˆ − ih(r)τ̂3 σ̂ Q
+ iE τ̂3 − ∆ (4) Γtot
sf = Tr Γ̂ sf . This set of equations generalizes the con-
ventional spin-flip term20 to the case of the triplet Usadel
equations.
(we use the standard notations of the sigma-model tech-
nique, see Sec. III for definitions), and the spin-flip term
is D. Spin-flip scattering rate

πν
Z
Ssf = − d3 r Γij
sf STr (τ̂3 σ̂i Qτ̂3 σ̂j Q) , (5) 1. Regime of short-range correlations
2
In the regime of a ≪ kF−1 , the spin-flip rates are given
where Γij
sf is a symmetric matrix of the spin-flip scattering by1
rates. Z
2
Γij
sf = πν d3 r Fij (r) ∼ ν (δh) a3 . (11)

C. Spin-flip term in the Usadel equations

2. Regime of medium-range correlations
The spin-flip term in the Usadel equations can be ob-
tained by varying the action (3) with respect to the Q In the regime of kF−1 ≪ a ≪ l, the spin-flip rates are
matrix. Denoting the saddle-point value of the Q matrix given by
as the matrix Green function ǧ, we write the resulting Z
1 2
equation as Γij
sf = πν d3 r Fij (r) ∼ ν (δh) akF−2 . (12)
2(kF r)2
h
ˆ 0 − iτ̂3 (hσ̂), ǧ
i The exact formula interpolating between the two
D∇ (ǧ∇ǧ) + iE τ̂3 σ̂0 − ∆σ̂ regimes (11) and (12) has the form
− Γij
sf [τ̂3 σ̂i ǧτ̂3 σ̂j , ǧ] = 0. (6) ij
Z
sin2 (kF r)
Γsf = πν d3 r Fij (r) . (13)
(kF r)2
The nonlinear constraint ǧ 2 = 1 can be resolved by
a parametrization. In the case when the phase of the
anomalous Green function is fixed (in which case the Us- 3. Regime of long-range correlations
adel equations contain four parameters), we may use the
parametrization of Ref. 18 in terms of the angle θ and In the regime of l ≪ a, the spin-flip rates are given by
the vector M:
1 1 a2
Z
ij
Γsf = d3 r Fij (r) ∼ ν (δh)2 kF−2 . (14)
ǧ = M0 σ̂0 (τ̂3 cos θ + τ̂1 sin θ) + iMσ̂(τ̂3 sin θ − τ̂1 cos θ) D 4πr l
(7) The exact formula interpolating between the two
with the constraint regimes (12) and (14) has the form
l2 d3 q arctan(ql)
Z
M02 − M2 = 1. (8) ij
Γsf = Fij (q) . (15)
3D (2π)3 ql − arctan(ql)
A generalization to the case of a varying phase is straight- Note that the diffusion constant is related to the den-
forward, in which case four more parameters need to be sity of states by D = vF l/3 = kF2 l/(6π 2 ν).
added, corresponding to the terms containing τ̂2 in the ǧ The results (14) and (15) have been derived for
matrix. collinear periodic magnetic structures in Refs. 12,13. The
Substituting the parametrization (7) into Eq. (6), we result (14) in the non-collinear isotropic case has also
obtain the triplet Usadel equations with the spin-flip been found in Ref. 18.
 4

III. SIGMA-MODEL DERIVATION so that we can treat it as a perturbation on top of the

diffusive sigma model defined by the potential disorder.
In the sigma-model description, if we assume that the The derivation of the sigma-model action starts with
random exchange field δh is sufficiently weak, then it the partition function for excitations with energy E in
can be included in the sigma-model action perturbatively. the Bogolyubov – de Gennes Hamiltonian including also
For the delta-correlated (short-range) magnetic disorder, the exchange field:11
this procedure is well known,10,11 and our consideration Z
generalizes it to arbitrary correlation lengths. Z = DΨ∗ DΨ e−S , (21)
In our derivation, we find that there are two different Z 
contributions arising from the magnetic disorder. By ex-
 
S[Ψ] = −i d3 r Ψ+ E − Hσ̂ − τ̂3 ξ + U (r)
panding the action in the disordered field to the second
order, 
− τ̂2 Re ∆ − τ̂1 Im ∆ Ψ, (22)
S = S0 + S1 + S2 , (16)
1 ∂2
we find the two spin-flip-type contributions: ξ=− − µ. (23)
2m ∂r2
1
Here Ψ∗ and Ψ are 4-component (in the product of the
and Snonloc = − (S1 )2 .

 
Sloc = S2 (17)
2 Nambu-Gor’kov and spin spaces) fermionic vector fields
containing Grassmann anticommuting elements. For
We shall see below, that the first (“local”) contribution brevity, we do not write a small imaginary part i0 that
dominates in the case of short-range or medium-range should be added to the energy E. The Pauli matrices σ̂i
disorder and gives the spin-flip rate (13), while the sec- act on the spin of electrons while τ̂i act in the Nambu-
ond (“nonlocal”) contribution becomes dominant in the Gor’kov space.
regime of long-range disorder and gives the spin-flip rate Now we introduce replicas22,23 (or supersymmetry10 )
(14). In performing the averaging for the nonlocal con- for averaging over the potential disorder, thus extending
tribution, one needs to take into account fluctuations the Ψ vector. As a result of averaging with the disorder
around the replica-symmetric (or supersymmetric) sad- correlator (18), we obtain
dle point. On inspection, the local and nonlocal spin-
flip contributions correspond to the processes depicted Z 
in Fig. 1 (left and right panel, respectively). Interpolat- S[Ψ] = −i d3 r Ψ+ E − Hσ̂ − τ̂3 ξ − τ̂2 Re ∆
ing between these two regimes goes beyond the scope of 
1
Z
the sigma-model derivation in this Section, but it is done
2
− τ̂1 Im ∆ Ψ + d3 r Ψ+ τ̂3 Ψ . (24)
in Sec. V in the diagrammatic language. 4πντ

Next, we perform the Hubbard–Stratonovich trans-

A. Sigma-model action formation with the help of a matrix field Q(r). The
Q field is a matrix in the product of the Nambu-
To derive the sigma model for a disordered super- Gor’kov and spin spaces and also in the space of repli-
conducting (or proximity) system, we follow the usual cas (or in the Fermi-Bose superspace). As a result of
procedure.10,21 The potential disorder is assumed to be the Hubbard–Stratonovich transformation, the action be-
Gaussian and δ-correlated, comes quadratic, and the Gaussian integration over Ψ∗
and Ψ yields
δ(r − r′ )
U (r)U (r′ ) U =


(18) πν
Z
2πντ S[Q] = d3 r STr Q2
4τ
[here ν = mkF /(2π 2 ) is the density of states at the Fermi
 
ˆ − iQ , (25)
Z
level per one spin projection], while the magnetic disor- − d3 r STr ln ξ − τ̂3 (E − Hσ̂) − i∆
2τ
der is also taken to be Gaussian, but with an arbitrary  
correlation length, see Eq. (1). ˆ = 0∗ ∆ .
∆ (26)
As usual in the derivation of the sigma model, we as- ∆ 0
sume the “dirty limit”, i.e., that
The “STr” operation is the complete trace. In particu-
ETh , E, ∆, h ≪ τ −1
. (19) lar, it includes the trace over the replica indices or the
supertrace, depending on the version of the sigma model
In addition, we need that the effective spin-flip scattering (replica or supersymmetric).
(whose rate we derive below) is much weaker than the In general, the Q matrix of a sigma model for a su-
potential scattering, perconducting system would contain all the diffusive soft
modes: diffusons and cooperons. This would be achieved
Γsf ≪ τ −1 , (20) by an additional doubling of the fermionic fields,10,11,21
 5

and hence of the Q matrix, in the retarded-advanced
space. The doubled Q matrix would be subject to an
additional constraint reflecting the symmetry of the Bo-
golyubov – de Gennes Hamiltonian. Without this dou-
bling, the sigma model includes only the cooperon modes
but not the diffusons. However, this is sufficient for de-
termining the saddle point of the action for a supercon-
ducting or proximity system. Since we are interested in
the effect of the magnetic disorder on the saddle point,
we use this reduced version of the sigma model.
In the quasiclassical regime, where the Fermi energy
is the largest energy scale, EF τ ≫ 1, the Q matrix is
restricted to the manifold10,21
Note that this expression generalizes the result of
Abrikosov and Gor’kov for pointlike impurities.1 In
that work, the magnetic disorder was assumed delta-
correlated, which corresponds to Fij (r − r′ ) = δij δ(r −
r′ )/(6πντs ) and Γij
sf = δij /(6τs ). Our derivation extends
that result to the medium-ranged disorder with correla-
tion lengths up to l. As we shall see below, the contribu-
tion (33) is dominant as long as a ≪ l, and therefore in
this regime we can neglect the factor e−r/l and arrive at
Eq. (13).
C. Nonlocal spin-flip term

Q2 = 1 . (27)
Averaging S1 over the magnetic disorder (1) produces
Furthermore, using the dirty-limit assumption (19), we the contribution to the action
expand the action in the gradients of Q [simultaneously  π2 ν 2
1

Z
expanding the logarithm in Eq. (25) in δh] and obtain, − (S1 )2 = d3 rd3 r′ Fij (r − r′ )
in the usual manner,10,21 the action (16) with 2 2
× STr τ̂3 σ̂i Q(r) STr τ̂3 σ̂j Q(r′ ) . (34)



 i 
D
Z h
3
S0 = πν d r STr 2 ˆ
(∇Q) + iτ̂3 (E − σ̂h) − ∆ Q ,
4 While the main part of the action S0 contains only
(28) one STr, this contribution is a product of two super-
Z traces. We assume that the saddle point Q0 is super-
S1 = −iπν d3 r δh(r) STr τ̂3 σ̂Q(r) , symmetric (or replica symmetric), and then the con-


(29)
tribution of Eq. (34) vanishes at such a saddle point.
and However, taking into account non-supersymmetric (non-
replica-symmetric) fluctuations around the saddle point
1
Z
d3 pd3 p′   eip(r−r )
′
produces a non-negligible contribution containing only
S2 = STr d3 rd3 r′ 6
T τ̂3 σ̂δhT −1 r iΛ one STr.
2 (2π) ξ − 2τ
In order to average Eq. (34) over fluctuations of Q, we
′ ′
 e−ip (r−r ) parametrize those fluctuations by local rotation matrices
× T τ̂3 σ̂δhT −1 r′

iΛ
, (30) W , anticommuting with Q0 :
ξ ′ − 2τ

where the local matrix T (r) parametrizes rotations of the Q = Q0 + iQ0 W + . . . (35)
Q matrix, The effective action for W , extracted from the S0 part,
−1 to the Gaussian order is
Q=T ΛT , Λ = τ̂3 , (31)
πνD
Z
and ξ = p2 /(2m) − µ, ξ ′ = p′ /(2m) − µ.
2 SW = d3 r STr(∇W )2 . (36)
4
The integrals over p and p′ in Eq. (30) may be com-
puted, giving rise to the kernel decaying at the elas- Note that since Eq. (34) involves correlations of W at
tic scattering length l. Assuming that the Q matrix the length scale of order a, we only need to take into
changes on length scales much longer than l, we can put account short-wavelength fluctuations of W . Therefore,
T (r) = T (r′ ) in Eq. (30) and arrive at we neglect the terms containing E, h, ∆, and ∇Q0 in
Eq. (36), as well as the self-consistent “screening” by the
π2 ν 2
Z
sin2 (kF |r − r′ |) ′
effective spin flip Γsf [which produces the infrared cutoff
S2 = − d3 rd3 r′ 2 e−|r−r |/l for the action (36); see also Sec. IV B below], under the
2 (kF |r − r′ |) assumption
× δhi (r)δhj (r′ ) STr τ̂3 σ̂i Q(r)τ̂3 σ̂j Q(r) . (32)


ETh , E, ∆, h, Γsf ≪ Ea . (37)

B. Local spin-flip term To average over the fluctuations with the action (36)
for W anticommuting with Q0 , we employ the following
contraction rule:10,24
Averaging S2 over magnetic disorder (1) produces the
spin-flip term (5) with

STr(A1 W (r)) STr(A2 W (r′ )) SW



sin2 (kF r) −r/l 1

Z
ij
Γsf = πν d3 r Fij (r) e . (33) = [∇−2 ]rr′ STr(A1 Q0 A2 Q0 − A1 A2 ) (38)
(kF r)2 πνD
 6

to the processes shown in Fig. 1. Thus while for-

mally our derivation produces the sum of the two terms
(local) (nonlocal)
Γsf + Γsf , only the local term should be kept
(a) (b) (c) in the regime a ≪ l, and only the nonlocal term — in
the opposite regime a ≫ l. At the same time, the nonlo-
FIG. 2: Diagrammatic representations of the local (a) and
cal term has been derived under an implicit assumption
nonlocal (b) contributions in the sigma-model calculation. a ≫ l, since in Eq. (38) we have used the diffusion prop-
Thick double lines correspond to the Q matrix; closed loops of agator for the correlation function of W (r) and W (r′ )
thin solid lines indicate the STr operation; open circles denote at distances of order a. Therefore, at the intermediate
the “magnetic vertices” τ̂3 σ̂. Dashed lines are the magnetic length scales a ∼ l, none of the terms (33) or (39), nor
disorder correlation functions Fij ; wavy lines are the propa- their sum, provide an accurate result for the spin-flip
gators of the W field. Panel (c) shows a potentially dangerous rate. To calculate an effective spin-flip rate at a ∼ l, a
contribution to the propagator of the W field. To avoid di- crossover from the ballistic to the diffusive motion needs
vergencies, a self-consistent “screening” of the W propagator to be taken into account. This calculation is performed
needs to be taken into account. in Sec. V in the diagrammatic language (a similar calcu-
lation in the context of a collinear periodic magnetization
has been done in Refs. 12,13).
for any operators A1 and A2 . Applying this identity
to averaging the contribution (34) with the
matrix  Q Finally, we would like to comment on the applicability
parametrized by Eq. (35), one finds that − 21 (S1 )2 SW conditions of our derivation. For the derivation of the
is given by the usual spin-flip term (5) with local term (at a ≪ l), we only need the conditions (19)
and (20). For the nonlocal term (at a ≫ l), we have also
1 assumed the condition (37). Altogether, the applicability
Z
ij
Γsf = − d3 r Fij (r)[∇−2 ]0r , (39) conditions may be reformulated in the universal form (2).
D
Note that the propagator of the W field (used in the
which coincides with Eq. (14). calculation of the nonlocal term) gets, in principle, renor-
malized by higher-order contributions. One of the po-
tentially dangerous corrections is shown in Fig. 2(c). To
D. Discussion of the two contributions avoid infrared divergencies in this correction, one needs
to take into account that the diffusive propagator (36)
While the two contributions (17) come from two dif- for the W field is cut off at large distances by a certain
ferent terms in the sigma-model action, we shall see that screening length. This screening is discussed in more de-
they, in fact, correspond to the two limiting cases of mag- tail (in the language of the Usadel equations) in Sec. IV B;
netic disorder, as depicted in Fig. 1. the resulting screening length is given by Eq. (56). If this
First of all, let us compare the magnitude of the two screening is taken into account, then higher-order correc-
spin-flip rates. The “local” spin-flip rate (33) has the tions to the propagator of the W field may be neglected.
order of magnitude
(local) 2
Γsf ∼ ν (δh) a3 , a ≪ kF−1 , (40)
(local) 2
Γsf ∼ ν (δh) akF−2 , kF−1 ≪ a ≪ l, (41) IV. DERIVATION FROM THE USADEL
(local) 2 EQUATIONS
Γsf ∼ ν (δh) lkF−2 , l ≪ a. (42)

On the other hand, the “nonlocal” contribution (39) can
be estimated as
(nonlocal) (δh)2 a2 a2
Γsf ∼ ∼ ν(δh)2 kF−2 .
D l
Therefore, the nonlocal term (39) dominates for a ≫ l,
while the local term (33) becomes dominant at a ≪ l
[strictly speaking, the nonlocal term is only defined for
a ≫ l, see our discussion below].
Second, we can graphically represent the two contribu-
tions as shown in Fig. 2 [panels (a) and (b)]. Correlation
functions of the Q matrices in the sigma model corre-
spond to the diffusion ladders in the conventional dia-
grammatic technique,10 and therefore the sigma-model
diagrams represented in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b) translate
In this section, we present an alternative derivation
of the spin-flip term in the regime of long-range cor-
relations (a ≫ l) by directly averaging the Usadel
equations2,25,26,27 over the magnetic disorder, following
(43)
an approach similar to that of Ref. 18. In this way, we
derive Eqs. (6) and (14) and lift the assumptions of “self-
averaging” and of “being away from the gap edge” im-
posed in Ref. 18.
In the regime of long-range correlations, the general
assumption (2) may be simplified as
ETh , E, ∆, h, δh ≪ Ea (44)
[since Γsf ∼ (δh)2 /Ea , as we derive below].
 7

A. Effective spin-flip rate This is a linear equation with respect to δǧ, with the
source term containing the disorder δh. In order to find
We start from the Usadel equation containing the ex- δǧ from this equation, we note that the first term is the
change field,2,18 largest one, since the derivatives apply to the fast func-
tion δǧ which follows δh and hence changes on the scale

h i
ˆ 0 − iτ̂3 (Hσ̂), Ǧ = 0, (45)
D∇ Ǧ∇Ǧ + iE τ̂3 σ̂0 − ∆σ̂ of a. The second term in the left-hand side is smaller,
according to our assumption (44), and for most purposes
where the gradient term can also be rewritten as we may neglect it. Employing Eq. (49), we then obtain

1 i
Ǧ, ∇2 Ǧ

∇ Ǧ∇Ǧ = (46) ∇−2 δhi ǧ [τ̂3 σ̂i , ǧ] .


2 δǧ = (52)
D
due to the normalization condition Ǧ2 = 1. Here H is the Now the disorder-induced part of Eq. (50) after simple
total realization-dependent exchange field, containing a algebraic manipulations takes the standard form of the
smooth background field h and a Gaussian disorder δh spin-flip term:
obeying Eq. (1):
− i [τ̂3 σ̂i , hδhi δǧi] = −Γij
sf [τ̂3 σ̂i ǧτ̂3 σ̂j , ǧ] , (53)
H = h + δh. (47)
The exact solution of Eq. (45) can be written as the sum where we have defined
1

Γij δhi ∇−2 δhj

Ǧ = ǧ + δǧ (48)
of the disorder-averaged part ǧ = hǦi and the δǧ part
that depends on the realization of the magnetic disorder
and averages to zero.
As confirmed by our further derivation, under the as-
sumption (44), the realization-dependent part δǧ is small,
|δǧ| ≪ 1, and it is sufficient to consider it linear in δh.
Our aim is to obtain the equation for ǧ, the disorder-
averaged Green function. Note that ǧ is not simply the
zeroth order over δh: under our assumptions it is also
influenced by the averages containing the second order
over δh.
Averaging the normalization condition Ǧ2 = 1 over
the magnetic disorder and neglecting the hδǧ 2 i term [this
is possible under the assumption (44), see Sec. IV B for
details], we obtain the normalization condition ǧ 2 = 1.
Then the realization-dependent part must obey the rela-
tion
{ǧ, δǧ} = 0. (49)
2
Averaging Eq. (45) over the magnetic disorder and tak-
ing into account Eq. (46), we find
D  h
ˆ 0 − iτ̂3 (hσ̂), ǧ
i
ǧ, ∇2 ǧ + iE τ̂3 σ̂0 − ∆σ̂
2 vides an effective cut-off for the integral (55). The cor-
− i [τ̂3 σ̂i , hδhi δǧi] = 0, (50)
where the summation over the repeating indices is as-
sumed. Here we have dropped out the full derivative
term containing ∇ h[δǧ, ∇δǧ]i, since this term has an ad-
ditional smallness [as confirmed by the result (52) below].
To calculate the averages in Eq. (50), we extract from
Eq. (45) [we also take into account Eq. (46)] the linear
part in δh:
sf = − (54)
D
[which is equivalent to Eq. (14)]. Thus, we finally arrive
at Eq. (6).
B. Self-consistent screening of disorder-induced
correlations
In the above calculation, we have neglected the terms
containing the disorder averages hδǧ 2 i, at the same time
keeping the terms with hδhi δǧi. While the exact calcu-
lation of the neglected terms appears to be a delicate
problem, we can estimate their order of magnitude (and
thus justify neglecting them) from simple arguments.
To estimate those averages, we should express δǧ from
Eq. (51) and then average over δh. However, in this pro-
cedure, we cannot limit ourselves to the approximation
(52), which would produce a divergence:
1 Fij (p) 3
Z
δǧ ∼ 2 d p → ∞. (55)
D p4
To regularize this infrared divergence, one needs to
take into account the second term in Eq. (51), which pro-
responding “screening length” R∗ is determined by the
largest of the energy scales ETh , E, ∆, h [corresponding
to the second term in Eq. (51)], and Γsf [the latter energy
scale appears if one self-consistently includes the spin-flip
terms in Eq. (6) in our expansion]:
s
D
R∗ ∼ . (56)
max(ETh , E, ∆, h, Γsf )

D

D 2
 As a result, the neglected terms may be estimated as
2 ˆ

ǧ, ∇ δǧ − ∇ ǧ − iE τ̂3 σ̂0 + ∆σ̂0 + iτ̂3 (hσ̂), δǧ
2 2 2 
R∗
 

2  F (p = 0) ∗ δh
= i [τ̂3 (δhσ̂), ǧ] . (51) δǧ . R ∼ . (57)
D2 Ea a

For our approximation (neglecting those terms), we
require that they are much smaller than one, and that
they produce corrections smaller than the spin-flip term
Γsf ∼ (δh)2 /Ea . The first condition translates into the
requirement δh ≪ Ea (under this condition, the ne-
glected terms are small). The second condition gives the
additional constraint ETh , E, ∆, h ≪ Ea (under this con-
dition, the spin-flip term is the main effect of the disor-
der). Altogether, the conditions of applicability of our
derivation can now be formulated as Eq. (44).
Note that taking into account the cut-off length R∗ al-
lows us to get rid of the assumption of the “self-averaging
disorder” made in Ref. 18 to guarantee the convergence
of the integral (55). Now we see that the condition (44)
is sufficient for that.
C. Effective spin-flip scattering at the edge of the
minigap
In the above derivation, we assumed that the linear
operator acting on δǧ in Eq. (51) is invertible [and that
we can keep only the ∇−2 term in its inverse, which led
us to Eq. (52)]. As it was pointed out in Ref. 18, this as-
sumption breaks down at the edge of the minigap, where
the solution of the Usadel equation bifurcates. In that
case, the linear-order perturbation theory over δh breaks
down, which is formally reflected in the non-invertibility
of the linear operator in Eq. (51).
However, the non-invertibility of the operator (and the
corresponding zero mode) is associated with the bound-
ary conditions at the edge of the system and, hence, with
the length scale L of the system size. On the other hand,
the spin-flip processes producing the scattering rate (14)
and corresponding to Fig. 1(b) are associated with the
length scale a (with a ≪ L) and do not depend on the
boundary conditions. Therefore we expect that the same
form of the spin-flip term remains valid also near the
minigap edge.
8
V. DIAGRAMMATIC REPRESENTATION
An alternative method to obtain the spin-flip scatter-
ing rate involves a direct calculation of the diagrams
shown in Fig. 1. These diagrams are superconducting
cooperon propagators: they are built of the retarded
Green function for particles [with dispersion ξ(p)] and
the retarded Green function for holes [with dispersion
−ξ(p)]. The latter can be converted into the advanced
function for particles at the opposite energy, which we
shall use below. These cooperon soft modes naturally
arise in the diagrammatic expansion of the non-linear
sigma model discussed in Sec. III. Thus the diagrams of
Fig. 1 directly correspond to the sigma-model diagrams
of Fig. 2.
The cooperon modes are massless in the absence of su-
perconducting correlations (i.e., become singular if both
the total external momentum and energy are zero). Once
the spin flip is taken into account, the cooperon acquires
a mass which is directly related to the spin-flip rate.
Superconducting correlations in the system (e.g., due
to the proximity effect) also produce a mass for the
cooperon. We shall neglect this effect in the calculation
of the spin-flip rate due to the conditions (2). All the
mechanisms resulting in a mass of the cooperon, includ-
ing the spin flip, are weak and their contributions may
be calculated independently.
In order to calculate the effective spin-flip rate, we shall
evaluate the two diagrams depicted in Fig. 1 at the zero
total momentum and zero energy. The diagrams (a) and
(b) yield the following contributions to the cooperon self
energy:
Z
d3 q
ij
γ(a) = Fij (q)
(2π)3
d3 p R
Z
× G (p + q)GA (−p − q)GR (p)GA (−p) (58)
(2π)3
and
d3 q
Z
ij
γ(b) =2 Fij (q)C(q)
(2π)3
2
d3 p R
Z
The problem with the perturbative expansion at the  R A

minigap edge is due to the fact that the minigap itself ×
 G (p + q)G (p)G (−p) , (59)
(2π)3 
depends on the spin-flip rate,28 which leads to a non-
analytic shift of the saddle point of the action (3) as a respectively, where GR,A (p) = [−ξ(p) ± 2τi ]−1 are
function of the disorder δh. A correct way to include the zero-energy retarded and advanced Green functions.
the effect of disorder in the vicinity of the minigap is to C(q) denotes the cooperon containing only the potential
first calculate the spin-flip rate from Eq. (14) [this ex- impurities,
pression is independent of the particular saddle-point so-
lution ǧ(r)] and then to recalculate the new saddle-point 1 + B(q) + B 2 (q) + . . . 1 1
solution (with a new value of the minigap) with this spin- C(q) = = ,
2πντ 2πντ 1 − B(q)
flip rate using the Usadel equations. We thus conclude (60)
that our result for the effective spin flip remains valid at where
all energies across the minigap edge, and the assumption
1 d3 p R
Z
of Ref. 18 about the invertibility of the operator in the
B(q) = G (p + q)GA (−p) (61)
left-hand side of Eq. (51) is unnecessary. 2πντ (2π)3
 9

is a single ladder rung containing a disorder line and two which allows us to neglect the contribution (59) in favor
Green functions. The factor of 2 in Eq. (59) comes from of (58). If the correlation length of the magnetic disorder
two possible diagrams of type (b). becomes comparable to kF−1 , the integrals of GR GR and
The total spin-flip scattering rate is the sum of Eqs. GA GA cannot be neglected any more, and the integral
(58) and (59) with a coefficient that can be easily deter- (58) should be calculated in a different way. The main
mined from comparing to the limit of pointlike magnetic contribution to the p integral comes from the intersection
impurities.1 In that limit, Fij (q) is actually independent of the two mass shells of the “width” l−1 shifted by the
of the momentum q and only the term (58) contributes, vector q. Using the inequality q ≫ l−1 , we approximate
yielding GR (p)GA (−p) by the delta-function and obtain
Z
ij
= 4π 2 ν 2 τ 2 d3 r Fij (r) . d3 p R
Z
γ(a) (62)
G (p + q)GA (−p − q)GR (p)GA (−p)
(2π)3
By comparing with Eq. (11), we arrive at the result for d3 p
Z
2 2
the spin-flip rate: = 4π τ δ[ξ(p)] δ[ξ(p + q)]
(2π)3
1  ij  2π 2 ντ 3
Γij
sf = γ + γ ij
(b) . (63) = θ(2kF − q) . (69)
4πντ 2 (a) ql
Now the calculation of the spin-flip rate can be con- Substituting this expression into Eq. (58), we arrive at
veniently performed in the two overlapping regimes: the the short-to-medium-range crossover result (13).
medium-to-long-range magnetic correlations (a ≫ kF−1 ) Of course, in the quasiclassical limit kF l ≫ 1 consid-
and the short-to-medium-range magnetic correlations ered in this paper, one is allowed to combine the two
(a ≪ l). overlapping regimes into a single formula
In the medium-to-long-range regime, the integrals in
Eqs. (58) and (59) are restricted to q ≪ kF and can be d3 q Fij (q) arctan(ql)
Z
ij
performed by using the integration over ξ in the vicinity Γsf = τ , (70)
(2π)3 ql − arctan(ql)
of the Fermi surface. First, we use the identity q<2kF

GR (p)GA (−p) = iτ GR (p) − GA (−p)

 
(64) which reproduces both the short-to-medium- and
medium-to-long-range crossover results.
and discard all the integrals containing only retarded or
only advanced Green functions (since they have all the
poles lying in the same half-plane of the variable ξ). This VI. CONCLUSIONS
allows us to re-express Eqs. (58) and (59) in terms of the
function B(q) defined in Eq. (61): To summarize, we have analyzed the effect of magnetic
Z
d3 q inhomogeneities in disordered superconducting systems.
ij 3
γ(a) = 4πντ Fij (q)B(q) , (65) Our approach covers magnetic disorder of various corre-
(2π)3 lation lengths, and thus extends the theory of Abrikosov
d3 q Fij (q)B 2 (q) and Gor’kov for magnetic impurities,1 as well as some
Z
ij
γ(b) = 4πντ 3 . (66)
(2π)3 1 − B(q) earlier studies of superconductivity in systems with in-
homogeneous magnetism.12,13,18 The main conclusion of
As a result, Eq. (63) leads to our work is that if the correlation length of the mag-
netic disorder is much shorter than all the macroscopic
d3 q Fij (q)B(q)
Z
Γij
sf = τ . (67) scales in the problem [condition (2)], then the effect of
(2π)3 1 − B(q) the magnetic disorder may be incorporated as an effec-
tive local spin-flip rate (in the same form as for magnetic
An explicit calculation of B(q) (by using an integration
impurities1 ). We have obtained exact expressions for the
over ξ) gives
effective spin-flip rate, under the assumption of a Gaus-
sian magnetic disorder.
1 d3 p/(2π)3
Z
B(q) = While the exact expressions for the effective spin-flip
2πντ (−ξ − vq + 2τi )(−ξ − 2τi ) rate are probably of mainly academic interest, we believe
that our results will be helpful for estimating the spin-flip
 
1 arctan(ql)
= = (68) effects induced by inhomogeneities in various experimen-
1 + iτ vq v ql
tal setups. As an example of such an application, we con-
(the averaging here is over the Fermi surface). Substi- sider the experiments on SFS π-junctions, where the spin
tuting this expression into Eq. (67), we obtain the result flip plays an important role7,8 (it manifests itself in the
(15) for the medium- and long-range-correlation regimes. difference between the length scales involved in the de-
In the short-to-medium-range regime, the integrals cay and oscillations of the critical current as a function of
(58) and (59) are determined by the momenta q ≫ l−1 , the junction thickness). If we apply our estimates to the

experimental data reported in Ref. 8 (assuming δh ∼ h),
then we arrive at the estimate of the disorder correlation
scale a ∼ 2 nm. Note that this correlation scale is of the
order of the length scales associated with the uniform
component h of the magnetic field and with the result-
ing spin-flip rate, thus this example is at the borderline
of applicability of our theory. The estimated size of in-
homogeneities is apparently too small for domains (in
recent experiments on CuNi films similar to those used
in the π-junctions, domains of size about 100 nm have
been reported29 ). However, our estimates are consistent
with earlier indications of clusters of magnetic Ni atoms
in such alloys30,31 (inhomogeneities inside the domains).
Finally, we would like to comment on comparison be-
tween the effective spin-flip rates due to two cases of inho-
mogeneous magnetization: disordered and periodic ones.
The disordered case is considered in the present paper,
while specific realizations of periodic magnetic structures
were studied before in Refs. 12,13,18,32. The obtained
results for the spin-flip rate are all of the same order
1
A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gor’kov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.
39, 1781 (1960) [Sov. Phys. JETP 12, 1243 (1961)].
2
F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Rev. Mod.
Phys. 77, 1321 (2005).
3
A. I. Buzdin, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 935 (2005).
4
A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov, and E. Il’ichev, Rev.
Mod. Phys. 76, 411 (2004).
5 20
H. Sellier, C. Baraduc, F. Lefloch, and R. Calemczuk,
Phys. Rev. B 68, 054531 (2003).
6 21
T. Kontos, M. Aprili, J. Lesueur, X. Grison, and L. Du-
moulin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 137001 (2004).
7 22
V. V. Ryazanov, V. A. Oboznov, A. S. Prokofiev, V. V.
Bolginov, and A. K. Feofanov, J. Low Temp. Phys. 136,
385 (2004).
8 23
V. A. Oboznov, V. V. Bol’ginov, A. K. Feofanov, V. V.
Ryazanov, and A. I. Buzdin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 197003
(2006).
9 24
M. Houzet, V. Vinokur, and F. Pistolesi, Phys. Rev. B 72,
220506(R) (2005).
10
K. B. Efetov, Supersymmetry in Disorder and Chaos
(Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, 1996).
11
A. Lamacraft and B. D. Simons, Phys. Rev. B 64, 014514
(2001).
12
L. N. Bulaevskii, A. I. Buzdin, S. V. Panjukov, and M. L.
Kulić, Phys. Rev. B 28, 1370 (1983).
13
A. I. Buzdin, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 42, 283 (1985)
[JETP Lett. 42, 350 (1985)].
14
Ya. M. Blanter and F. W. J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. B 69,
024525 (2004).
15
T. Champel and M. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. B 71, 220506(R)
(2005); 72, 054523 (2005); T. Champel, T. Löfwander, and
M. Eschrig, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 077003 (2008).
16
A. F. Volkov, Ya. V. Fominov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys.
Rev. B 72, 184504 (2005); Ya. V. Fominov, A. F. Volkov,
and K. B. Efetov, ibid. 75, 104509 (2007).
17
B. Crouzy, S. Tollis, and D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B 75,
10
of magnitude, differing only by numerical factors. This
suggests that there is probably no qualitative difference
between the effective spin-flip rates in disordered and pe-
riodic magnetic structures, as long as the characteristic
length scale of inhomogeneities is sufficiently small.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to M. V. Feigel’man, B. Crouzy, and S.
Tollis for helpful discussions. This work was supported by
the Swiss National Foundation, the Dynasty Foundation,
RF Presidential Grants Nos. MK-4421.2007.2 and NSh-
5786.2008.2, RFBR Grants Nos. 07-02-01300 and 07-02-
00310, and the program “Quantum physics of condensed
matter” of the RAS. The hospitality of the Institute of
Theoretical Physics at EPFL, where the main part of this
work was done, is gratefully acknowledged.
054503 (2007); 76, 134502 (2007).
18
D. A. Ivanov and Ya. V. Fominov, Phys. Rev. B 73, 214524
(2006).
19
The energy E in the condition (2) is the characteristic en-
ergy of electrons in the problem. For finite-temperature
calculations, this energy scale may be determined by tem-
perature.
N. B. Kopnin, Theory of Nonequilibrium Superconductivity
(Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2001).
A. Altland, B. D. Simons, and D. Taras-Semchuk, Adv.
Phys. 49, 321 (2000).
A. M. Finkel’stein, in Soviet Scientific Reviews, edited by
I. M. Khalatnikov (Harwood Academic, London, 1990),
Vol. 14.
Note that although we can use the Matsubara technique,
which is standard in the case of replicas, here we choose
the real-energy description.
A. D. Mirlin, Phys. Rep. 326, 259 (2000).
25
K. D. Usadel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 507 (1970).
26
A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, in Nonequilibrium
Superconductivity, edited by D. N. Langenberg and A. I.
Larkin (Elsevier, New York, 1986), p. 530.
27
J. Rammer and H. Smith, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 323 (1986).
28
B. Crouzy, E. Bascones, and D. A. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. B
72, 092501 (2005).
29
I. S. Veshchunov, V. A. Oboznov, A. N. Rossolenko, A. S.
Prokofiev, L. Ya. Vinnikov, A. Yu. Rusanov, and D. V.
Matveev, Pis’ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 88, 873 (2008)
[JETP Lett. 88, 758 (2008)].
30
T. J. Hicks, B. Rainford, J. S. Kouvel, G. G. Low, and
J. B. Comly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 531 (1969).
31
K. Levin and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. B 9, 2354 (1974).
32
F. S. Bergeret, A. F. Volkov, and K. B. Efetov, Phys. Rev.
B 64, 134506 (2001).