Effects of electronic correlations in iron and iron pnictides A. A. Katanin In collaboration with: A. Poteryaev, P. Igoshev, A. Efremov, S. Skornyakov, V. Anisimov Institute of Metal Physics, Ekaterinburg, Russia Special thanks to Yu. N. Gornostyrev for stimulating discussions
73
Embed
Effects of electronic correlations in iron and iron pnictides
Effects of electronic correlations in iron and iron pnictides. A. A. Katanin In collaboration with: A. Poteryaev , P. Igoshev , A. Efremov , S. Skornyakov , V. Anisimov. Institute of Metal Physics, Ekaterinburg , Russia. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Effects of electronic correlations in
iron and iron pnictidesA. A. Katanin
In collaboration with:A. Poteryaev, P. Igoshev, A. Efremov,
S. Skornyakov, V. Anisimov
Institute of Metal Physics, Ekaterinburg, Russia
Special thanks to Yu. N. Gornostyrev for stimulating discussions
a g Ts =1185 Ka - bcc, g - fcc, e - hcp g-iron: qCW =-3450K, meff =7.47mB
• Itinerant approach (Stoner theory)𝐼𝑁 (𝐸𝐹 )=1
Large DOS implies ferromagnetism, provided that other magnetic or charge instabilities are less important- Too large magnetic transition temperatures, no CW-law
• Moriya theory: paramagnons Reasonable magnetic transition temperatures, CW law
• Local moment approaches (e.g. Heisenberg model) CW law
Proposals for iron:• Local moments are formed by eg electrons (Goodenough, 1960)• 95% d-electron localization (Stearns, 1973)• Local moments are formed from the vH singularity eg states
(Irkhin, Katsnelson, Trefilov, 1993)
The magnetism of iron
Local moments (Heisenberg model)
• Can one decide unbiasely (ab-initio), which states are localized (if any) ?
• What is the correct physical picture for decribing local magnetic moments in an itinerant system? Itinerant (Stoner and Moriya
theory)
Mixed (Shubin s-d(f)
= FM Kondo model)
How the local moments (if they exist) influence magnetic properties? What is the similarity and differences between magnetism of a- and g- iron?
a-Iron shows features of both, itinerant (fractional magnetic moment) and localized (Curie-Weiss law with large Curie constant) systems
Dynamical Mean Field Theory
The self-energy of the embedded atom coincides with that of the solid (lattice model), which is approximated as a k-independent quantity
Energy-dependent effective medium theory
A. Georges et al., RMP 68, 13 (1996)
( )
1 1( ) ( ) ( )locG - - = -
k k
1( )( )locG
e m =
- -
Spin-polarized LDA+DMFT
Lichtenstein, Katsnelson, Kotliar, PRL 87, 67205 (2001)
U = 2.3 eV, J = 0.9 eV
Magnetic moment 3.09 (3.13)Critical temperature 1900 K (1043K)
a (Bcc) iron: band structure
t2g и eg states are qualitatively different and weakly hybridized
Correlations can “decide”,which of them become local
eg t2g
A. Katanin et al., PRB 81, 045117 (2010)
a-iron: orbitally-resolved self-energy
Imaginary frequencies
t2g states - quasi-particleseg states - non-quasiparticle! Bulla et al., PRB 64, 45103 (2001)
Linear for the Fermi liquidDivergent for an insulator
Comparison to MIT:
A. Katanin et al., PRB 81, 045117 (2010)
Real frequencies
From: Bulla et al., PRB 64, 45103 (2001)
Self-energy and spectral functions at the real frequency axis
Comparison to MIT:
a-Fe
How to see local moments:local spin correlation function
J=0.9 J=0
S(0
)S(
)
Local moments are stable when
( ) (0)z zS S const
Fulfilled at the conventional Mott transition. Can it be fulfilled in the metallic phase ?
A. Katanin et al., PRB 81, 045117 (2010)
Fourier transform of spin correlation function
2
( ) ( / )3
eff f TT
m =
Fourier transform of spin correlation function
2
( ) ( / )3
eff f TT
m =
Local moments formed out of eg states do exist in iron!
Which form of one can expect for the system with local moments?
(0) ( ) const( )S S 2
0,0( ) (0) ( ) / 3ni
nn z zi d S S e S T
=
2
( )3 | |
effn
n
iT
m g g
=
2 2
2 2Re ( )3
eff
Tm g
g=
2
( )3
eff iT i
m g g
=
g is the damping of local collective excitations
2
2 2Im ( )3
eff
Tm g
g=
Broaden delta-symbol:
𝜇eff❑ =3.3𝜇𝐵
𝛾≈𝑇 /2
For a-iron:
(𝜔≪ 𝐽 )
p(eg) = 0.56p(t2g) = 0.45p(total)=1.22
Curie law for local susceptibility
2 2 ( 1) / (3 )Bg p p T m=
agrees with the experimental data (known also after A.Liechtenstein, M. Katsnelson, and G. Kotliar, PRL 2001)
local moment
eg
t2g
Total
Effective model
The local moments are coupled via RKKY-type of exchange:
2 2
2 2, , ,' '
( ) 22g g g g
g g
deff e t t e i im i im
i m t i m t
JH H H H U N n J
-
= - - S s
RKKY type(similar to s-d Shubin-Vonsovskii model).
The theoretical approaches, similar to those for s-d model can be used
g-(fcc) iron
Which physical picture (local moment, itinerant) is suitable to describe g-iron ?
What is the prefered magnetic state for the g iron at low T (and why)?
TN≈100K
LDA DOS
The peak in eg band is shifted by 0.5eV downwards with respect to the Fermi level
g-(fcc) iron
More itinerant than a-iron ?
P. A. Igoshev et al., PRB 88, 155120 (2013)
DOS with correlations
Static local susceptibility
P. A. Igoshev, A. Efremov, A. Poteryaev, A. K., and V. Anisimov,PRB 88, 155120 (2013)
Dynamic local susceptibility
Size of local moment
Magnetic state: Itinerant picture
Comparison of energies in LDA approachShallcross et al., PRB 73, 104443 (2006)
QX=(0,0,2) SDW2
Magnetic state: Heisenberg model picture
Heisenberg model
For stability of (0,0,2) state one needs J1>0, J2<0.
A. N. Ignatenko, A.A. Katanin, V.Yu.Irkhin, JETP Letters 87, 555 (2008)
(0,x,2) state is supported by the Fermi surface geometry – an evidence for itinerant nature of magnetism
Colorcoding: red – eg, green – t2g, blue – s+p
The polarization bubble, high TLDA
LDA+DMFT
T=1290К
Uniform susceptibility
From high-temperature part:
1/
m m'k
k
g-(fcc) iron
The experimental value of the Curie constant is reproduced by the theory, although the absolute value of paramagnetic Curie temperature appears too large
exp
DMFT
1500
2700100 (small particles)N
K
KT K
-
-
Strong frustration! Nonlocal correlations are important
𝜇𝐶𝑊=7.7𝜇𝐵
Magnetic exchange in g-iron 𝜒𝐪=
𝜒 0
1 − 𝐽𝐪 𝜒0𝜒𝐪=
𝜒 irr (𝐪 )1 − Γ 𝜒 irr(𝐪)
𝐽𝐪=− ¿¿¿𝐽𝟎=−2500 𝐾𝐽𝐐=1200𝐾
The Neel temperature is much larger than the experimental one,similar to the result of the Stoner theory:
o Paramagnonso Frustration, i.e. degeneracy of spin susceptibility in different directions
# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8J z/2,K
-669 173 -449 17 -25 -123
-116 29
Local spin susceptibility of Ni
A. S. Belozerov, I. A. Leonov, and V. I. Anisimov, PRB 2013
Iron pnictide LaFeAsO Antiferromagnetic fluctuations Superconductivity Itinerant system in the normal state
The situation is similar to g-iron, i.e.local moments may exist
at large T only, and, therefore,seem to have no effect on superconductivity
Orbital-selective uniform susceptibility
Local fluctuations are responsiblefor the part of linear-dependentterm in (T)
S. L. Skornyakov, A. Katanin, and V. I. Anisimov, PRL ’ 2011
Summary
The existence of local moments is observed within the LDA+DMFT approach
The formation of local moments is governed by Hund interaction
In alfa-iron:
The peculiarities of electronic properties (flat bands, peaks of density of states)near the FL may lead to the formation of local moments;
Analysis of orbitally-resolved static and dynamic local susceptibilitiesproves to be helpful in classification of different substances regarding the degree of local moment formation
Local moments are formed at high T>1000K, where this substance exist in nature, but not at low-T (in contrast to alfa-iron); the low-temperature magnetism appears to be more itinerant
Antiferromagnetism is provided by nesting of the Fermi surface
In gamma-iron:
Conclusions
Electronic correlations are important, but, similarly to g-iron, local moments may be formed at large T only
Different orbitals give diverse contribution to magneticproperties
Linear behavior of uniform susceptibility is (at least partly) due to peaks of density of states near the Fermi level
In the iron pnictide:
Thank you for attention !
Spin correlation functions
Spectral functions
Damped qp states
qp states
No qp states
Effective model and diagram technique
2
2
2
,
, , ,
2
( )2
g g
g
g g
deff t e i im
i m t
im imi m e m t
H H H I
IU n n
= -
-
S s
Treat eg electrons within DMFT and t2g electrons perturbatively Simplest way is to decouple an interaction and integrate out t2g electrons
1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
1
,
,,
[ ( 2 )( 2 )]
( 2 ) ( 2 ) ( 2 )
( 2 ) ...
g
i i
m m mm m me q q q q q q qmm
q mm
mm m m m m mq q q abcd q q a q q b q q c
q m
mq q q q q q
L L R I I
I I I
I
-- - -
- - - - - -
= -
t t t
t t t
t
t S S
S S S
S
“bare” quadratic term
quartic interaction
(similar to s-d Shubin-Vonsovskii model).
mmq
=
1 2 3 ,mm m mq q q abcd
=
0, gq e =
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
(4),, g
abcd a b c dq q q q q q q q q c eS S S S- - - = =
Diagram technique: perspective
The dynamic susceptibility
2
2 2
2
,
,
10 1 0 2 0,
0 1 2 2 (4) 0,
( )
( ) 4 2
2 ( ) 4 4
g
g
g g g
g g
q t q
q q e
q t t e q
q q e q t
R I R R
R
I I
I I I
--
-
- = - -
RKKY
“Moriya”correction
Influence of itinerantelectrons on local momentdegrees of freedom
bare
bare
Exchange integrals and magnetic properties can be extracted
• Two different approaches to magnetism of transition metals(and explaining Curie-Weiss behavior):
- Itinerant (Stoner, Moriya, …)- Local moment (Heisenberg, …)
Can one unify these approaches(one band: Moriya, degenerate bands: Hubbard, …)
More importantly: what is the ‘adequate’ (‘appropriate’) effective model, describing magnetic properties of transition metals ?
Since they are (good) metals, at first glance no ‘true’local moments are formed
However, under some conditions the formationof (orbital-selective) local moments is possible:
- Weak hybridization between different states (e.g.t2g and eg)
- Presence of Hund exchange interaction
- Specific shape of the density of states
Local moments in transition metals
Since they are (good) metals, at first glance no ‘true’local moments are formed
However, under some conditions the formationof (orbital-selective) local moments is possible:
- Weak hybridization between different states (e.g.t2g and eg)
- Presence of Hund exchange interaction
- Specific shape of the density of states
Local moments in transition metals
Dependence on imaginary frequency
Paramagnetic LDA+DMFTU = 2.3 eV, J = 0.9 eV, T = 1120 K
t2g states eg states
Weakly correlated compound ?!?!?!?
t2g и eg состояния качественно различны и слабо гибридизованы
Важно учесть влияние электронных корреляций
U dependence
J = 0.9 eV, = 10 eV-1
Stability with temperature
Weak itinerant magnets Saturation magnetic moment is small The thermodynamic properties are detrmined by paramagnons;
Hertz-Moriya-Millis theory: for ferromagnets (d=3, z=3) the bosonic mean-field (Moriya) theory is sufficient to describe qualitatively thermodynamic properties even close to QCP.
0, 4/3
0 01...3 , ,1
n
n n
k iabab
b i k i
T TU
=
-
k
Curie-Weiss-like susceptibility
“paramagnon”0,0,1
n
n
k i
k iU
-
0abab
Frustration in Heisenberg FCC model
Polarization bubble
m m'eg
t2gt2g-e2g
G. Stollhoff, 2007
mmq
=
1 2 3 ,mm m mq q q abcd
=
0, gq e =
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
(4),, g
abcd a b c dq q q q q q q q q c eS S S S- - - = =
Diagram technique: perspective
Spin correlation function at different U
S(0
)S(
)
almost flat !eg
t2g
Weak itinerant magnets Saturation magnetic moment is small The thermodynamic properties are detrmined by paramagnons;
Hertz-Moriya-Millis theory: for ferromagnets (d=3, z=3) the bosonic mean-field (Moriya) theory is sufficient to describe qualitatively thermodynamic properties even close to QCP.
0, 4/3
0 01...3 , ,1
n
n n
k iabab
b i k i
T TU
=
-
k
Curie-Weiss-like susceptibility
“paramagnon”0,0,1
n
n
k i
k iU
-
0abab
Effective model
2
2
2
,
, ,
2
( )2
g g
g
g
deff t e i im
i m t
i imi m t
H H H I
IU N n
= -
-
S s
Treat itinerant electrons perturbatively: introduce effective bosons for an interaction between itinerant electrons and integrate out itinerant fermionic degrees of freedom
1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
1loc
,
,,
[ ( 2 )( 2 )]
( 2 ) ( 2 ) (
) .
2 )
..( 2i i
m m mm m mq q q q q q qmm
q mm
mm m m m m mq q q abcd q q a q q b q q c
q m
mq q q q q q
L L R I I
I I I
I
-- - -
- - - - - -
= -
t t t
t t t
t
t S S
S S S
S
“bare” quadratic term
quartic interaction
(similar to s-d Shubin-Vonsovskii model).
it loc
The dynamic susceptibility
,it
,loc
10 1 0 2 0,it it loc
0 1 2 2 (4) 0,loc it
( )
( ) 4 22 ( ) 4 4
q q
q q
q q
q q q
R I R RR
I II I I
--
-
- = - -
RKKY
“Moriya”correction
Influence of itinerantelectrons on local momentdegrees of freedom
bare
bare
Exchange integrals and magnetic properties can be extracted
Return to a-iron
Return to a-iron
How do we recover RKKY exchange for a-iron?Assume: 𝜒 irr (𝐪 )❑=1/ 𝐼+𝜒 ′
irr (𝐪) 𝜒 ′irr ≪1/ 𝐼❑2
I ~ 1 eV – extracted in this way, in agreement with performedanalysis and band structure calculations
Size of local moment
Orbitally-resolved DOS
U = 4 eV, = 10 eV-1
LDA
a-Iron can be viewed as asystem in the vicinity of an orbital-selective Motttransition (OSMT)
Ratio of moments
The size of the instantaneous and effective moment
1( , , ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )4
( ) ( )
xc
xc
f fJ B
B
m m
m m
m
e e
-=
-
r r r r r r
r r
Requires a ‘reference magnetic state’ to calculate exchange integrals:
In which cases one can avoid use of the ‘reference state’ ?
Example: (one-band) Hubbard model at half filling due to metal-insulator transition the electrons are localized, Jij=4t2/U
Reference state is needed to introduce magnetic moment in an itinerant approach