format: text

text:
# Tunneling measurement of quantum spin oscillations

## I Introduction

Interest in quantum information processing has brought significant attention to the problem of measurement of tunneling currents via a microscopic system that can be modeled by a two-level Hamiltonian (such as a quantum dot, or a molecule or an atom with a localized spin BulaevskiiOrtiz ; ParcolletHooley ; KorotkovAverin ; RuskovKorotkov ). In the case of a single spin, measurements of the tunneling current in such a system provide information on spin orientation and its dynamics, and they constitute an example of indirect-continuous quantum measurement BulaevskiiOrtiz . A fundamental question that arises is what signatures of the spin dynamics are encoded in the tunneling current and how this current affects the spin dynamics.

Scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) experiments Manassen ; Durkan  on a single molecule with a spin, in the presence of a magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$, have reported a peak in the current noise power spectrum (i.e., current-current correlation function) $`𝒫(\omega )`$ at the Larmor frequency $`\omega _L=\gamma B_0`$, where $`\gamma `$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. Experiments were done at room temperature and the authors found that the signal-to-noise ratio $`R`$ (ratio of the power at the peak frequency to the shot noise power) exceeded unity and was almost independent of the orientation of the applied magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$. In the non-relativistic approach the tunneling electrons couple to the spin by exchange interaction. In this case, electrons with a spin polarization along $`𝐁_0`$ do not couple with the oscillatory components of the spin (which are perpendicular to $`𝐁_0`$). The experimental results Manassen ; Durkan  are difficult to explain in the framework of a single-spin non-relativistic model since electrons in the leads were polarized by the same magnetic field which acted on the spin. Possible relevance of spin-orbit interaction to explain these data was discussed by Shachal and Manassen and later on by Balatsky and Martin Balatsky . Recently, Levitov and Rashba LevitovRashba  noticed that in systems with low space symmetry (as in dots or a molecule near a surface) the nonvanishing orbital moment of electrons near the spin (in the dot or molecule) provides a strong coupling of the tunneling electrons to the spin, and they speculated that this mechanism may lead to a significant effect of the spin oscillatory component on the tunneling current. In fact, in order to fit the experimental data Manassen ; Durkan  one needs a model of electron tunneling via a single spin which is able to explain not only the existence of a peak in the current power spectrum, but also a significant signal-to-noise ratio $`R>1`$ almost independent of the orientation of $`𝐁_0`$.

In the following we consider a model with exchange (non-relativistic) coupling of a single spin $`1/2`$ and the tunneling electrons, including spin-orbit coupling. In the framework of this model we analyze the dependence of $`R`$ and linewidth $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on the applied voltage $`V`$ between leads, the applied magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$, the temperature $`T`$, and on the degree and orientation $`𝐦_{\alpha 0}`$ of electron polarization in the right ($`\alpha =`$R) and left ($`\alpha =`$L) leads in the steady state. This state establishes in a transient time after the voltage or tunneling matrix elements are switched on.

The problem of tunneling via a single localized spin $`1/2`$ is similar to the problem of tunneling via a double quantum dot (two-level system) extensively studied by Korotkov and Averin KorotkovAverin  and by Ruskov and Korotkov RuskovKorotkov . Indeed, they were interested in the question of how quantum oscillations in the two-level system, representing a qubit, may be detected by a tunneling current. Such a system can be described by a model of electron tunneling via a spin when leads electrons are fully polarized. Using the Bloch equations describing the ensemble-averaged evolution of the density matrix for the coupled qubit-detector system, they obtained oscillations at the Larmor frequency in the noise power spectrum $`𝒫(\omega )`$, with $`R4`$ in the case of weak interaction between the qubit and the detector. A similar quasi-classical approach for tunneling of electrons via a single spin was used in Ref. BulaevskiiOrtiz . In such an approximation, the action of the electrons on the spin is replaced by the action of an effective classical magnetic field with a shot noise spectrum depending on the tunneling current between the leads. This approach has sense at high currents (voltages), while at low currents it does not account for the quantum nature of the tunneling electrons and hence a more elaborate solution of the quantum transport equation for both spin and electrons is desired. Here the situation is formally similar to the case of the photo-electric effect where in some circumstances a full quantum mechanical treatment of the problem provides the same information as a semi-classical approach, while in other cases, such as the measurement of the statistics of the photo-current fluctuations, the predictions of the two approaches differ qualitatively FunkBeck .

An important step toward a full quantum mechanical treatment of electron tunneling via a spin was recently given by Parcollet and Hooley ParcolletHooley . Assuming that the spin interacts only with the tunneling electrons, and electrons in the leads are in a voltage driven thermal equilibrium, they computed the spin magnetization of a quantum dot in the two-leads Kondo model as a function of the temperature of the electrons, magnetic field, and voltage between the leads (which exceeds the Kondo temperature $`T_K`$) in the steady state, i.e., in the long time limit. They considered the situation where electrons in the leads are polarized in the same direction as the magnetic field acting on the spin, $`𝐦_{\mathrm{R0}}=𝐦_{\mathrm{L0}}=𝐦_0`$, $`𝐦_0𝐁_0`$. Their calculations confirmed previously obtained quasi-classical result Glazman  that, in the steady state even at zero order in the spin-leads coupling, the magnetization is not given by the thermal equilibrium expression $`M_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗊}}=(1/2)\mathrm{tanh}(B_0/2T)`$ when the spin is more strongly coupled to the leads than to any other thermal bath. At long times, the state of the spin is completely determined by the characteristics of the tunneling electrons, and since the system is out of equilibrium, the steady state thus achieved is described by a steady state distribution function which differs from the Gibbs distribution. It turns out that this distribution function depends upon the voltage between the leads. They also showed that the correct way to calculate the perturbative corrections to the spin distribution function and the spin decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the steady state is by solving a quantum transport equation self-consistently. We will extend the treatment of Parcollet and Hooley to arbitrary orientations of $`𝐦_{\mathrm{R0}}`$, and $`𝐦_{\mathrm{L0}}`$ with respect to $`𝐁_0`$, and account for a direct tunneling of electrons between leads.

The main goals in this article are (i) to examine under what tunneling conditions the current-current correlation function $`𝒫(\omega )`$ exhibits a peak at the Larmor frequency in the steady state, and (ii) to calculate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(V,T,𝐁_0,𝐦_{\alpha 0})`$ and $`R(V,T,𝐁_0,𝐦_{\alpha 0})`$ in the regime where $`eVT_K`$, with $`e`$ denoting the charge of the electron. As in Ref. ParcolletHooley  we use the Keldysh formalism Schwinger ; Keldysh  and the Majorana-fermion representation Tsvelik  for the spin to find the spin distribution function and the current-current correlation function.

We note, from a more general perspective, that the problem of electron tunneling via a spin represents an example of indirect quantum measurement. The spin is probed by the tunneling electrons whose correlation function is measured in a continuous fashion with a classical apparatus (which is not included). The goal of quantum measurement is to determine the frequency of precession of the isolated spin (energy separation in the isolated two-level system) and to obtain information on the initial state of the system. However, when the spin is decoupled from the environment, tunneling via the spin changes its state as the measurement goes on. After switching on the voltage, or the tunneling matrix elements, there is an initial period of time where the tunneling current depends upon the initial state of the spin. After some transient time the steady state, which is in general independent of the initial conditions, establishes. In the steady state the frequency of precession is renormalized by the tunneling electrons, and the width of the peak (at the precession frequency) and corresponding signal-to-noise ratio depend upon the precession frequency and characteristics of the tunneling electrons. To extract information about the precession of the isolated spin one needs to have complete information on the tunneling electrons. We show how to relate the precession frequency of the isolated spin to results of current measurements in the steady state (peak frequency, width of the peak and signal-to-noise ratio). To obtain information on the initial state of the spin, measurements of the current during the initial transient period are needed. Here we do not consider the spin dynamics in this short time interval.

The plan of the article is the following. In the next section we present the model for tunneling via a single spin 1/2, with and without spin-orbit coupling, and a model describing tunneling via a two-level quantum dot. Then we introduce Majorana fermions and the Keldysh technique. In the subsequent section we will compute the spin distribution function, broadening of the spin precession due to the tunneling of electrons, and the spin-spin correlation function. Then we will calculate the dependence of the tunneling current on the spin and determine the current-current correlation function $`𝒫(\omega )`$. Finally, we discuss the STM experimental results and compare our results to those obtained in the quasiclassical approach BulaevskiiOrtiz ; RuskovKorotkov ; KorotkovAverin  and other theoretical works Balatsky ; LevitovRashba ; BalatskyManassen .

## II The model

For the system consisting of a spin coupled to the leads by an exchange mechanism (in the non-relativistic approximation, i.e., neglecting the spin-orbit interaction), we use the Hamiltonian of the two-leads Kondo model BulaevskiiOrtiz ; ParcolletHooley  with a direct tunneling term included (which we call tunneling-via-spin (TvS) model)

$``$ $`=`$ $`_e+_s+_T,_T=_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖿}}+_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗋}},`$ (1)
$`_e`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,n,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}[ϵ_{n\alpha }^{}\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}𝐁_\alpha \stackrel{}{𝝈}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}]c_{\alpha n\sigma }^{}c_{\alpha n\sigma ^{}}^{},`$
$`_s`$ $`=`$ $`g\mu _B𝐁_0𝐒,`$
$`_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖿}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,n,n^{}\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}c_{\alpha n\sigma }^{}(\widehat{T}_{\alpha \alpha })_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{\alpha n^{}\sigma ^{}}^{},\widehat{T}_{\alpha \alpha }=T_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}},`$
$`_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗋}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{},\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}c_{\mathrm{R}n\sigma }^{}(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{\mathrm{L}n^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
$`(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=T_0\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}},`$
where $`c_{\alpha n\sigma }^{}`$ ($`c_{\alpha n\sigma }^{}`$) creates (annihilates) an electron in the left or right lead (depending on $`\alpha \{\mathrm{L},\mathrm{R}\}`$) in the eigenstate $`n`$, and with spin $`\sigma `$. Further, $`ϵ_{n\alpha }^{}=ϵ_n^{}\mu _\alpha `$, where $`ϵ_n`$ is the energy in the state $`n`$ and $`\mu _\alpha `$ is the chemical potential in the lead $`\alpha `$, while $`\stackrel{}{𝝈}`$ represents the three Pauli matrices. $`T_{\mathrm{LL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}`$, $`T_{\mathrm{RR}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{LR}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}`$ are tunneling matrix elements due to the exchange interaction for the electron tunneling from the leads to the molecule with the spin 1/2, while $`T_0`$ is the direct tunneling matrix element. We take them as real numbers. The spin localized in the molecule is described by the operator $`𝐒=(S_x,S_y,S_z)`$. Figure 1 sketches the physical setup we want to study and which basically represents the model Hamiltonian $``$.

In the following we use energy units for the bias voltage $`V`$, i.e., we denote $`eV`$ by $`V`$. Also, by $`B`$ we mean $`g\mu _BB`$, write $`T`$ instead of $`k_BT`$, and $`\omega `$ represents $`\mathrm{}\omega `$.

We describe the leads by a free electron gas with a density of states $`\rho (ϵ)`$ of bandwidth $`D`$, so that $`ϵ_n`$ is the bare energy of the electron in the eigenstate $`n`$, the same in both leads. We assume weak tunneling, $`T_0^2\rho _0^2,|T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}|^2\rho _0^21`$, where $`\rho _0`$ is the density of states per spin (DOS) of the leads at the Fermi level (when the leads are different $`\rho _0^2=\rho _0^\mathrm{L}\rho _0^\mathrm{R}`$ where $`\rho _0^\alpha `$ is the DOS in the lead $`\alpha `$). The applied voltage is represented by the difference in chemical potentials, $`\mu _\mathrm{L}\mu _\mathrm{R}=V`$. We also assume $`VT_K|T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}|\mathrm{exp}(|T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}|^2\rho _0^2)`$, and $`T_0T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}`$ ($`\alpha ,\beta \{\mathrm{R},\mathrm{L}\}`$). We assume in the following that $`B\rho _01`$ and $`V\rho _01`$; in other words, the lead-electron bandwidth $`D1/\rho _0`$ is the largest energy scale. The leads are supposed to be in a voltage driven thermal equilibrium at temperature $`T`$. $`_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖿}}`$ describes spin-flip scattering of an electron from one lead back into the same lead, and $`_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗋}}`$ represents both direct and spin-assisted tunneling between leads. In the case of fully polarized leads, the summation in the Hamiltonian is taken only over one type of electron spin.

In the model with spin-orbit interaction proposed by Levitov and Rashba LevitovRashba  the spin precession induces electron density oscillations inside the dot, and thus an electric field inside and around the dot, $`𝐄=(𝐧(𝐒𝐋))`$, where $`𝐋`$ is the orbital momentum, while $`𝐧`$ is a polar vector allowed by the symmetry of the system. This electric field modulates the tunneling barrier between the leads and the dot. Hence, the tunneling matrix element acquires, in addition to the non-relativistic exchange term, a dependence on the localized spin $`𝐒`$ which is similar for both spin components $`\sigma `$ of the tunneling electrons. To describe such relativistic corrections we need to add to the transfer matrix elements in the Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), the spin-orbit terms. The compound matrix elements are finally given as

$`(\widehat{T}_{\alpha \alpha })_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`T_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+T_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\mathrm{𝗌𝗈})}𝐒𝐥\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}},`$ (2)
$`(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`(T_0+T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝗌𝗈})}𝐒𝐥)\delta _{\sigma \sigma ^{}}+T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}.`$ (3)
Here the unit pseudo-vector $`𝐥`$ indicates what projections of the localized spin are modulating the tunneling matrix elements depending upon the geometry of the system. We can estimate $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}r^2E_0`$, where $`E_0`$ is an energy of the order of an atomic energy, while $`r`$ is a small dimensionless parameter which describes the weak overlap of the lead-electron wave-function to that of the molecule with the spin. For spin-orbit tunneling we have an additional small relativistic multiplicative factor $`𝜷^2=v^2/c^2`$, i.e., $`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝗌𝗈})}𝜷^2T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}`$, where $`v`$ is a typical electron velocity.

Finally, we presume that the spin also couples to the environment due to the spin-phonon coupling, the coupling with nuclear spins, etc. To account for this spin relaxation mechanism we introduce the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}`$.

In order to put our model in perspective let us compare it to other models used in the literature. For the quantum dot studied in Refs. KorotkovAverin ; RuskovKorotkov  the Hamiltonian for spinless fermion tunneling is given by

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,m}{}}ϵ_{m\alpha }^{}c_{\alpha m}^{}c_{\alpha m}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_z}{2}}(d_1^{}d_1d_2^{}d_2)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{b_x}{2}}(d_1^{}d_2^{}+d_2^{}d_1^{})+H_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗋}},`$
$`H_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗋}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}[M+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2}}(d_1^{}d_1d_2^{}d_2)]c_{\mathrm{L}m}^{}c_{\mathrm{R}n}^{}+\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.,`$
where $`d_{1,2}^{}`$ ($`d_{1,2}^{}`$) creates (annihilates) an electron in the state 1 or 2 of the dot. Here $`b_z/2`$ is the energy splitting between states 1 and 2, $`b_x/2`$ is the tunneling matrix element connecting them, and tunneling of electrons between the leads depends on the population of the states 1 and 2. The difference between this and the TvS model (with $`H_{\mathrm{𝗋𝖾𝖿}}`$=0) is that the couplings to the leads only depend upon the difference of fillings of states 1 and 2 or, making correspondence with the spin operators, the Hamiltonian $`_s`$ is

$`_s`$ $`=`$ $`b_xS_x+b_zS_z,`$ (5)
$`S_x`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)(d_1^{}d_2^{}+d_2^{}d_1^{}),`$
$`S_z`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)(d_1^{}d_1d_2^{}d_2),`$
while the coupling, $`_{\mathrm{𝗍𝗋}}`$ depends only on one spin component, $`S_z`$ of the probed system, instead of all of them as in the exchange term $`𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}`$. Moreover, the leads electrons are fully polarized along the $`z`$-axis.

## III Majorana-Keldysh formulation of tunneling via a single spin

It is assumed that for sufficiently long times the composite (spin-electrons) system reaches a dc (non-equilibrium) steady state (which does not depend upon the initial conditions). We use the Majorana fermion representation for the spin and the Keldysh diagrammatic technique Keldysh  to describe it. This technique is nowadays a standard method used in non-equilibrium phenomena and its basic description can be found in standard textbooks such as Ref. Mahan . Its application to Kondo-like problems is described in Ref. ParcolletHooley .

Since spin operators are not amenable to the application of the Wick’s theorem, and hence are not appropriate for diagrammatic techniques, we represent spin-$`1/2`$ operators $`S_\mu `$ in terms of three Majorana fermions $`\eta _\mu `$, where $`\mu \{x,y,z\}`$, satisfying the following mapping and relations

$`S_x=i\eta _y\eta _z,S_y=i\eta _z\eta _x,S_z=i\eta _x\eta _y,`$ (6)
$`(\eta _\mu )^{}=\eta _\mu ,\{\eta _\mu ,\eta _\nu \}=\delta _{\mu \nu }.`$ (7)
The Hilbert space for Majorana fermions is eight-dimensional (8$`d`$) and the transformation from the spin 1/2 to the Majorana fermion representation may be performed in the following way. In general, the spin expectation values that we need to calculate are of the form of a trace, $`\mathrm{Tr}[F\{S_\mu \}]`$, over the two-dimensional (2$`d`$) spin Hilbert space. Here $`F`$ is some functional of the spin operators. We replace the spin operators by Majorana fermion operators using Eq. (6) and we represent the Majorana fermion operators as

$$\eta _\mu =(c_\mu ^{}+c_\mu ^{})/\sqrt{2},$$
(8)
where $`c_\mu ^{}`$ and $`c_\mu ^{}`$ are the creation and annihilation operators of a type $`\mu \{x,y,z\}`$ fermion satisfying the canonical anti-commutation relation $`\{c_\mu ^{},c_\nu ^{}\}=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. This representation guarantees that Eq. (7) for the Majorana fermion operators are satisfied. A possible orthonormal basis for the 8$`d`$ Hilbert space $`_M`$ is $`\phi _1=\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ is the vacuum, $`\phi _2=c_x^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\phi _3=c_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\phi _4=c_z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\phi _5=c_x^{}c_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\phi _6=c_y^{}c_z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, $`\phi _7=c_z^{}c_x^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, and $`\phi _8=c_x^{}c_y^{}c_z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. $`_M`$ may be written as a direct sum of four orthogonal 2$`d`$ subspaces, $`_M=_{1+}_1_{2+}_2`$, which are invariant under the action of the spin-1/2 operators $`S_\mu `$. Here, basis sets for $`_{1+}`$, $`_1`$, $`_{2+}`$, and $`_2`$ are: $`\{(\phi _6+i\phi _7)/\sqrt{2},(\phi _1+i\phi _5)/\sqrt{2}\}`$, $`\{(\phi _1i\phi _5)/\sqrt{2},(\phi _6i\phi _7)/\sqrt{2}\}`$, $`\{(\phi _2+i\phi _3)/\sqrt{2},(\phi _4+i\phi _8)/\sqrt{2}\}`$, and $`\{(\phi _4i\phi _8)/\sqrt{2},(\phi _2i\phi _3)/\sqrt{2}\}`$, respectively. In other words, the Majorana fermion representation of the spin-$`1/2`$ operator $`S_\mu `$ is an irreducible one in any of the four mentioned subspaces. Furthermore, these representations are equivalent to each other. Therefore, we can write down

$$\mathrm{Tr}[F\{S_\mu \}]=\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{Tr}[\stackrel{~}{F}\{\eta _\mu \}],$$
(9)
where the second trace is computed in the extended Hilbert space $`_M`$. (The trace is invariant under a change of basis in $`_M`$). Now one can prove Wick’s theorem in the same way as it was proved for the free Fermi and Bose fields.

The time-ordered averages in the Keldysh technique are taken with the help of the evolution operator $`S_𝖢`$ along a closed time contour (its part running from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$ denoted by $`+`$ and the part from $`+\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ by $``$). One defines the four (non-independent) real-time Green’s functions

$`G_\psi ^{++}(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`iT\psi (t)\psi ^{}(t^{}),`$
$`G_\psi ^+(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\psi (t)\psi ^{}(t^{}),`$
$`G_\psi ^+(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\psi ^{}(t^{})\psi (t),`$
$`G_\psi ^{}(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{~}{T}\psi (t)\psi ^{}(t^{}),`$ (10)
which can be compactly written as a matrix $`G_\psi (t,t^{})=i\psi (t)\psi ^{}(t^{})`$. Here $`T`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ are the time- and anti-time-ordering operators on the $`+`$ and $``$ parts of the Keldysh contour and $`\psi `$ represents an arbitrary fermionic field. They are related through: $`G_\psi ^{++}+G_\psi ^{}=G_\psi ^++G_\psi ^+`$, and the brackets $``$ have the meaning of either a pure state or a distribution of the available phase space of the interacting system.

The four Green’s functions (the “$`\pm `$ basis”) can be expressed in terms of the retarded, advanced and Keldysh Green’s functions (“Larkin-Ovchinnikov (LO) basis”)

$`G_\psi ^R(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (tt^{})\{\psi (t),\psi ^{}(t^{})\},`$
$`G_\psi ^A(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i\theta (t^{}t)\{\psi (t),\psi ^{}(t^{})\},`$
$`G_\psi ^K(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`i[\psi (t),\psi ^{}(t^{})],`$ (11)
by use of the transformation

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_\psi ^R& G_\psi ^K\\ 0& G_\psi ^A\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}G_\psi ^{++}& G_\psi ^+\\ G_\psi ^+& G_\psi ^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right).$$

In general, the retarded and advanced functions are Hermitian conjugates of each other, i.e., $`G_\psi ^R(t,t^{})=(G_\psi ^A(t^{},t))^{}`$. Furthermore, in thermal equilibrium the fluctuation-dissipation theorem connects them through

$$G_\psi ^K(\omega )=h_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗊}}(\omega )[G_\psi ^A(\omega )G_\psi ^R(\omega )],$$
(12)
with the thermal distribution function of fermions $`h_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗊}}(\omega )=\mathrm{tanh}(\omega /2T)`$. As in Ref. ParcolletHooley  we assume that for sufficiently long times the spin reaches a dc (non-equilibrium) steady state which does not depend on the initial conditions. In such dc steady state the correlation functions depend upon the time difference and the new distribution function $`h(\omega )`$ differs from $`h_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗊}}(\omega )`$. It should be determined as a stationary solution of the quantum kinetic equation.

Firstly, we introduce the bare Green functions for electrons in the presence of an applied magnetic field (or internal exchange field in the case of magnetically ordered leads) $`𝐁_\alpha `$ which induces a spin polarization of electrons in the directions $`𝐦_{\alpha 0}=𝐁_\alpha /B_\alpha `$. Since the leads are assumed to be coupled to a thermal bath, the bare lead-electron Green’s functions are in a voltage driven thermal equilibrium. They have the matrix form in the space of electron spin ($`[𝐆_\alpha (t,t^{})]_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=ic_{\alpha \sigma }^{}(t)c_{\alpha \sigma ^{}}^{}(t^{})`$, where $`c_{\alpha \sigma }^{}=_nc_{\alpha n\sigma }^{}`$)

$`𝐆_\alpha (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`G_{\alpha 1}(\omega )1\mathrm{l}+G_{\alpha 2}(\omega )𝐦_{\alpha 0}\stackrel{}{𝝈},`$ (13)
$`G_{\alpha 1,2}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[G_{\alpha +}(\omega )\pm G_\alpha (\omega )],`$
$`G_{0\alpha \kappa }^R(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ\frac{\rho _{\alpha \kappa }(ϵ)}{\omega ϵ+i0^+}},`$
$`G_{0\alpha \kappa }^K(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ih_{0\alpha }(\omega )\rho _{\alpha \kappa }(\omega ),`$
$`h_{0\alpha }(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`h_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗊}}(\omega \mu _\alpha )=\mathrm{tanh}[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mu _\alpha }{2T}}],`$
$`\rho _{\alpha \kappa }(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho (ϵ\kappa B_\alpha \mu _\alpha ),`$
where $`\kappa =\pm `$ and $`\rho (\omega )`$ is the bare electron density of states (per spin) which we assume to be similar in both leads. We consider here only local Green’s functions, so the eigenstate index $`n`$ can be dropped. Note, that for fully polarized electrons ($`B_\alpha D`$) we obtain $`G_{\alpha 1}(\omega )=G_{\alpha 2}(\omega )`$, while for weakly spin polarized electrons ($`B_\alpha D`$) $`G_{\alpha 2}(\omega )G_{\alpha 1}(\omega )`$.

The propagators for the Majorana fields can be compactly written as $`G_{\mu \nu }(t,t^{})=i\eta _\mu (t)\eta _\nu (t^{})`$. The bare propagators satisfy $`G_{xx}^0=G_{yy}^0`$, $`G_{yx}^0=G_{xy}^0`$, $`G_{xz}^0=G_{zx}^0=G_{yz}^0=G_{zy}^0=0`$, due to the symmetry under rotations about the $`z`$-axis. A useful property holds for the Keldysh components of the spin Green’s functions: Since Majorana fermion operators are Hermitian, from the properties of the commutator, it turns out that $`G_{\mu \nu }^K(t,t^{})=G_{\nu \mu }^K(t^{},t)`$. In the frequency $`\omega `$ representation, for time-translation invariant solutions, this means that $`G_{\mu \nu }^K(\omega )=G_{\nu \mu }^K(\omega )`$, and therefore $`G_{\mu \mu }^K(\omega )`$ is an odd function of $`\omega `$.

To write down Dyson’s equation, it is convenient to use a basis in which the bare propagator is diagonal. Defining the canonical fermion operators $`f=(\eta _xi\eta _y)/\sqrt{2}`$ and $`f^{}=(\eta _x+i\eta _y)/\sqrt{2}`$, with the associated Green’s functions $`G_{ff^{}}(t)=if(t)f^{}(0)`$ and $`G_{f^{}f}(t)=if^{}(t)f(0)`$, one has the following expressions for the bare propagators in the $`(f,f^{},\eta _z)`$ basis in the steady state in the lowest order of perturbation theory

$`G_{zz}^{0R}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +is}},G_{zz}^{0K}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2ih_z(\omega )s}{\omega ^2+s^2}},`$ (14)
$`G_{ff^{}}^{0R}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega B+is}},G_{ff^{}}^{0K}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2ih_f(\omega )s}{(\omega B)^2+s^2}},`$
$`G_{f^{}f}^{0R}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +B+is}},G_{f^{}f}^{0K}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{2ih_f^{}(\omega )s}{(\omega +B)^2+s^2}},`$
where $`s0^+`$ is a small regulator (a width due to an infinitesimally small coupling to a thermal bath), and $`B`$ is the total effective magnetic field acting on the spin (see next section). In the thermal equilibrium state $`h_z(\omega )=h_f(\omega )=h_f^{}(\omega )=\mathrm{tanh}(\omega /2T)`$.

The perturbative calculations of various physical quantities are very conveniently performed by using the matrix form of the Green’s functions in the Keldysh space. Graphical representations can then be done by Feynman diagrams with lines representing matrices of Green’s functions, where at each vertex of an internal point is assigned an additional $`+`$ or $``$ factor (due to the opposite direction of time integration for the points on the $``$ part of the Schwinger-Keldysh contour). The interaction vertices of Majorana fermions with electrons follow from the form of the tunneling Hamiltonian (1)

$`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}}{2}}\sigma _z(f^{}fff^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}}{\sqrt{2}}}(f\sigma ^+f^{}\sigma ^{})\eta _z,`$
$`T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝗌𝗈})}𝐒\stackrel{}{𝝈}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝗌𝗈})}}{2}}l_z(f^{}fff^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\alpha \beta }^{(\mathrm{𝗌𝗈})}}{\sqrt{2}}}(fl^+f^{}l^{})\eta _z,`$
$`\sigma ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _x\pm i\sigma _y,l^\pm =l_x\pm il_y,`$ (15)
accounting for the relation $`ff^{}+f^{}f=1`$. We represent the electron and spin Green’s functions as well as the vertices in Fig. 2.

The interacting Green’s function for the spin, $`𝐆`$, satisfies the Dyson’s equation

$$𝐆^1(\omega )=𝐆_0^1(\omega )𝚺(\omega ),$$
(16)
for the $`6\times 6`$ matrices (in the tensor product of the $`x,y,z`$ space and the Keldysh space), where the free propagator is given by Eqs. (14). To lowest order, the imaginary part of the self-energy $`𝚺(\omega )`$ is of order $`T_{\alpha \beta }^2\rho _0^2`$ (its $`\omega `$-dependent real part induces a trivial small energy shift that we neglect in the following). Calculating $`𝐆(\omega )`$ and neglecting terms of order $`T_{\alpha \beta }^4\rho _0^4`$ we can take the $`2\times 2`$ blocks $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f^{}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{fz}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}z}`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{zf}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{zf^{}}`$ as zeroes. Then, $`𝐆^1(\omega )`$ has nonvanishing off-diagonal blocks $`ff^{}`$ and $`f^{}f`$,

$$𝐆_{ff^{}}^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\omega B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^R(\omega )& \mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^K(\omega )\\ 0& \omega B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^A(\omega )\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
and the diagonal block $`zz`$. Inverting such block matrix $`𝐆^1(\omega )`$, we obtain the matrix $`𝐆(\omega )`$ with a similar block structure, where the block $`ff^{}`$ is given as

$$𝐆_{ff^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\omega B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^R(\omega )}& \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^K(\omega )}{|\omega B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^R(\omega )|^2}\\ 0& \frac{1}{\omega B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^A(\omega )}\end{array}\right),$$
(18)
while for $`𝐆_{f^{}f}`$ we replace $`ff^{}`$ and $`BB`$. For $`G_{zz}`$ we replace $`zz`$ for $`f^{}f`$ and put $`B=0`$.

Parcollet and Hooley ParcolletHooley  have found that if one starts from the equilibrium distribution functions for Majorana fermions, the perturbation theory breaks down when one takes the limit of zero coupling to the leads prior to taking the limit of zero coupling to the thermal bath. The reason for this non-commutativity of the limits is that in a non-equilibrium steady state the distribution function of the system can deviate from the equilibrium one significantly in the long-time limit even for very weak tunneling. Hence, at long times it cannot be calculated perturbatively. One can, nevertheless, use the perturbation theory built upon the appropriate bare Green’s functions with correct zeroth-order distribution functions $`h_z(\omega )`$, and $`h_{f,f^{}}(\omega )`$ which are stable with respect to weak perturbations. These distributions should be obtained self-consistently, i.e., $`h_z(\omega )`$ and $`h_{f,f^{}}(\omega )`$ computed using second order perturbation theory have to be the same as the zero order distribution function. Hence, assuming that after a long time the system is in a steady state, we can define a distribution function $`h_f(\omega )`$ obeying the self-consistency equations

$`G_{ff^{}}^K(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`h_f(\omega )[G_{ff^{}}^A(\omega )G_{ff^{}}^R(\omega )],`$
$`h_f(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^K(\omega )}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^A(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^R(\omega )}},`$ (19)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}(\omega )`$ is calculated in the second order perturbation theory with respect to the electron-spin interaction. $`h_f^{}(\omega )`$ and $`h_z(\omega )`$ have to be obtained in a similar way. Therefore, one needs to take the zeroth-order Green’s functions for the spin in the form of Eq. (14), calculate the second order self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^K(\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^A(\omega )\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^R(\omega )`$, and solve Eq. (19). This procedure, as well as taking the limits $`s0^+`$ and $`T_{\alpha \beta }0`$, was carefully outlined by Parcollet and Hooley ParcolletHooley .

A useful relation between the distribution functions $`h_f(\omega )`$ and $`h_f^{}(\omega )`$ can be derived. Using the definitions in Eq. (11) and the commutator and anticommutator properties one can show that

$`G_{f^{}f}^K(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ff^{}}^K(\omega ),`$ (20)
$`G_{f^{}f}^A(\omega )G_{f^{}f}^R(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`G_{ff^{}}^A(\omega )G_{ff^{}}^R(\omega ),`$
and using the definition of Eq. (19) one obtains that

$$h_f(\omega )=h_f^{}(\omega ),h_z(\omega )=h_z(\omega ),$$
(21)
so that $`h_z(0)=0`$.

## IV Effect of the tunneling electrons on the spin dynamics

### IV.1 Effective dc magnetic field acting on the spin

The diagrams shown in Fig. 3 lead to a renormalization of the effective dc magnetic field acting on the spin when the electrons are polarized. To first order in the electron-spin interaction (the first diagram in Fig. 3) the additional dc magnetic field caused by the tunneling electrons is given by

$`\mu 𝐁_T`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,n,\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}}T_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}c_{\alpha n\sigma }^{}\stackrel{}{𝝈}_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{\alpha n\sigma ^{}}^{}`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}s_\alpha 𝐦_{\alpha 0}T_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})},`$
neglecting spin-orbit corrections. Here $`s_\alpha `$ is the degree of the electron spin polarization in the lead $`\alpha `$, i.e., the ratio of the electron magnetization to the optimal magnetization. This additional magnetic field originates due to the exchange interaction between the spin and the electrons in the leads, and it is voltage independent.

We may estimate this contribution using the expression for the tunneling resistance $`R_T=\mathrm{}/(4\pi e^2T_0^2\rho _0^2)`$. For $`R_T`$ =100 Mohm we obtain $`T_0\rho _01.610^3`$ and taking $`T_{\alpha \alpha }^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}0.1T_0`$ we estimate at $`\rho _0`$ eV<sup>-1</sup> the additional magnetic field $`B_T16s_\alpha `$ T. When electrons are polarized by the magnetic (or exchange) field $`B_\alpha `$ such that $`B_\alpha \rho _01`$, we estimate $`B_T10^3B_\alpha `$. The second diagram in Fig. 3 is smaller by a factor $`T_0\rho _0`$ and, thus, may be neglected.

In the following we choose the $`z`$-axis along the total field $`𝐁=𝐁_0+𝐁_T`$. By $`𝐦_\alpha `$ we denote the direction of electron spin polarization in this new coordinate system. In the case that $`𝐦_{\mathrm{R0}}=𝐦_{\mathrm{L0}}=𝐦_0`$, and $`𝐦_0`$ has the components $`m_{0x},m_{0z}`$ in the coordinate system with the $`z`$-axis aligned along the bare field $`𝐁_0`$, we get that $`𝐦`$ has coordinates $`m_x,m_z`$ in the coordinate system where the $`z`$-axis is aligned along $`𝐁`$ with

$`m_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{B_0^2(𝐁_0𝐦_0)^2}}{\sqrt{B_0^2+B_T^2+2B_T𝐁_0𝐦_0}}},`$ (23)
$`m_z`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐁_0𝐦_0)+B_T}{\sqrt{B_0^2+B_T^2+2B_T𝐁_0𝐦_0}}}.`$
### IV.2 Self-energy of Majorana fermions and steady state distribution function

The diagrams shown in Figs. 4 determine the imaginary part of the Majorana fermion self-energies which depend upon $`T`$, $`V`$, $`𝐦_\alpha `$ and $`𝐁`$. We start by considering only the interaction of the spin with the tunneling electrons, assuming $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}=0`$. In this case, the spin is precessing freely between consecutive passings of tunneling electrons which change the phase of precession randomly, preserving time-translation invariance on the average in the steady state. In the quasi-classical approach BulaevskiiOrtiz  these passings are replaced by an effective classical magnetic field representing white noise. On the other hand, in the quantum description the electrons are treated as tunneling particles with initial energy $`ϵ_n+V`$ and final energy $`ϵ_n^{}`$. The tunneling process now has similarities with the scattering of an individual particle by the spin. The difference is that both the initial and final energy of the tunneling electrons are not fixed, in our model being restricted only by the bands of the leads-electrons.

The diagrams shown in Fig. 4 lead to the self-energy

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^+(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}T_{\alpha \beta }^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dudvdϵ}{(4\pi )^2}}\delta (\omega +vuϵ)\times `$ (24)
$`\{4\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}[\sigma _z𝐆_\alpha ^+(u)\sigma _z𝐆_\beta ^+(v)]G_{f^{}f}^+(ϵ)+`$
$`2\mathrm{T}\mathrm{r}[\sigma ^+𝐆_\alpha ^+(u)\sigma ^{}𝐆_\beta ^+(v)]G_{zz}^+(ϵ)\}.`$
The expression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^+`$ can be similarly obtained. Note, that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^+`$ depends on $`h_f^{}(B)`$ via $`G_{f^{}f}^+`$, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^+`$ depends on $`h_f(B)`$. Then, Eq. (19) is a closed equation for $`h_f(\omega )`$. The other diagrams in Fig. 4 give

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{zz}^+(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}T_{\alpha \beta }^2{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dudvdϵ}{8\pi ^2}}\delta (\omega +vuϵ)\times `$ (25)
$`\{\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma ^{}𝐆_\alpha ^+(u)\sigma ^+𝐆_\beta ^+(v)]G_{f^{}f}^+(ϵ)+`$
$`\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma ^+𝐆_\alpha ^+(u)\sigma ^{}𝐆_\beta ^+(v)]G_{ff^{}}^+(ϵ)\}.`$
The traces for the spin matrices in the expressions for the self-energy can be performed with the help of the relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma \delta }{}}m_{\alpha \gamma }m_{\beta \delta }\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _\mu \sigma _\gamma \sigma _\nu \sigma _\delta ]`$ $`=`$
$`𝐦_\alpha 𝐦_\beta \delta _{\mu \nu }+m_{\alpha \mu }m_{\beta \nu }+m_{\alpha \nu }m_{\beta \mu },`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu }{}}m_{\alpha \nu }\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _\mu \sigma _\nu ]=2m_{\alpha \mu },`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}[\sigma _x\sigma _y\sigma _z]=2i.`$ (26)
The transformation from the ”$`\pm `$ basis” to the “LO basis” for the self-energy is the same as for the inverse Green’s function

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^R& \mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^K\\ 0& \mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^A\end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^{++}& \mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^+\\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^+& \mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^{}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 1& 1\end{array}\right),$$

which implies that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^{++}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^++\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^++\mathrm{\Sigma }_\psi ^{}=0`$ and, therefore, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^K=(\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^A\mathrm{\Sigma }^R=\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$.

In this way, for the fully spin-polarized case, $`m_\alpha =m_\beta =1`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{},f^{}f}^K(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\rho _0^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}T_{\alpha \beta }^2\{(1+2m_{\alpha z}m_{\beta z}𝐦_\alpha 𝐦_\beta )`$ (27)
$`[(\mu _\alpha \mu _\beta \omega B)h_f(B)T\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\beta \mu _\alpha +\omega \pm B}{T}})]`$
$`(1m_{\alpha z}m_{\beta z}\pm m_{\alpha z}m_{\beta z})(\mu _\beta \mu _\alpha +\omega )\}`$
and

$`[\mathrm{\Sigma }^A\mathrm{\Sigma }^R]_{ff^{},f^{}f}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\rho _0^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}T_{\alpha \beta }^2\times `$
$`\{(1+2m_{\alpha z}m_{\beta z}𝐦_\alpha 𝐦_\beta )`$
$`[T\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\beta \mu _\alpha +\omega \pm B}{T}})\pm h_f(B)(\mu _\beta \mu _\alpha +\omega \pm B)]`$
$`+(1m_{\alpha z}m_{\beta z}\pm m_{\alpha z}m_{\beta z})T\varphi ({\displaystyle \frac{\mu _\beta \mu _\alpha +\omega }{T}})\},`$
with the property

$`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{},f^{}f}^A=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{},f^{}f}^R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^A\mathrm{\Sigma }^R)_{ff^{},f^{}f}.`$
Assuming that $`DV,B,T`$, we calculated the integrals over electron energies,

$$𝑑uG_{\alpha 1}^+(u)G_{\beta 1}^+(u+w),$$

in the limit of large electron bandwidth, $`D\mathrm{}`$, and using the relation $`1\pm h_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗊}}(\omega )=2n_F(\pm \omega )`$ (where $`n_F(x)=[\mathrm{exp}(x)+1]^1`$ is the Fermi distribution function) the resulting function $`\varphi (x)`$ is

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{x}{\mathrm{tanh}(x/2)}.$$
(29)
In the weak polarization limit, $`B_\alpha D`$, there are corrections to these expressions due to terms consisting of integrals of the form

$$𝑑uG_{\alpha 2}^+(u)G_{\beta 2}^+(u+w).$$

To estimate them we assume that near the Fermi energy the electron density of states may be approximated as $`\rho (ϵ)\rho _0(1+ϵ/D)`$. Then, these integrals are proportional to the small parameter $`(B_\alpha /D)^2`$ and they vanish in the limit $`D\mathrm{}`$. We obtain the expressions for self-energies in the weak polarization limit from the fully polarized results by putting $`𝐦_\alpha =0`$ and multiplying the resulting expressions by a factor 4 that accounts for both spin projections of the electron.

In the next section we show that the imaginary part of the self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}(\omega )`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}(\omega )`$, describes dephasing of the spin precession caused by the tunneling electrons. It determines the current noise power as shown later.

Therefore, at frequency $`\omega =\pm B`$, Eq. (19) gives us a self-consistent equation for $`h_f(B)=h_f^{}(B)`$ in the case of full spin polarization. This equation has a unique solution for the distribution function ($`𝖻=B/T`$, $`𝗏=V/T`$)

$`h_f(B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2𝖻(1m_{\mathrm{R}z}m_{\mathrm{L}z})2𝗏(m_{\mathrm{R}z}m_{\mathrm{L}z})+𝖻\theta }{\varphi ^+(1m_{\mathrm{R}z}m_{\mathrm{L}z})\varphi ^{}(m_{\mathrm{R}z}m_{\mathrm{L}z})+\varphi (𝖻)\theta }},`$
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{RR}}^2(1m_{\mathrm{R}z}^2)+T_{\mathrm{LL}}^2(1m_{\mathrm{L}z}^2)}{T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2}},`$
$`\varphi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (𝗏+𝖻)\pm \varphi (𝗏𝖻),`$ (30)
provided that we do not have one of the cases $`m_{\mathrm{R}z}=m_{\mathrm{L}z}=\pm 1`$. In the latter two cases, the self-consistency equation is an identity and the spin steady state can be any. When $`𝐦_\alpha =0`$ we reproduce the results of Ref. ParcolletHooley  for unpolarized electrons (see Fig. 5). If we account for environment-driven relaxation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}0`$, the distribution function will be closer to that in thermal equilibrium. When such relaxation dominates, the distribution function $`h_f(\omega )`$ coincides with the equilibrium one.

### IV.3 Average spin magnetization and the spin-spin correlation function

We compute first the average spin magnetization $`S_\mu (t)=(i/2)ϵ^{\mu \nu \gamma }\eta _\nu (t)\eta _\gamma (t)`$ (time-independent in the dc steady state), where $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \gamma }`$ is the antisymmetric unit tensor. To lowest order, the values $`S_x`$ and $`S_y`$ are proportional to the small parameters $`T_{\alpha \beta }^2\rho _0^2`$ and can be neglected. For $`S_z`$, we get (to zeroth order)

$$S_z=\frac{1}{2}h_f(B).$$
(31)
When $`𝐦_\mathrm{R}=𝐦_\mathrm{L}`$ (except $`m_{\alpha z}=\pm 1`$), we obtain the same result as for unpolarized electrons found by Parcollet and Hooley

$$S_z=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tanh}\left(\frac{𝖻}{2}\right)\frac{\varphi (𝖻)(2+\theta )}{\varphi ^++\varphi (𝖻)\theta }.$$
(32)
Here $`\theta =(T_{\mathrm{LL}}^2+T_{\mathrm{RR}}^2)/T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2`$. At $`T=0`$, and $`V<B`$ we get $`S_z=1/2`$, i.e., the spin is in the ground state because electrons do not have enough energy to flip the spin. When $`V>B`$ the electrons can flip the spin, thus reducing the spin magnetization to $`S_z=(1+\theta /2)/(2𝗑+\theta )`$, where $`𝗑=V/B`$. It drops as $`1/V`$ for large $`V`$.

As noticed by Shnirman and Makhlin Shnirman  the spin-spin correlation function $`𝒮_{xx}(t)=S_x(t)S_x(0)`$ may be expressed via the $`f`$-fermion Green’s functions. We rewrite the spin operators in the following fashion

$`S_x`$ $`=`$ $`(f^{}+f)\widehat{\tau }/2=\widehat{\tau }(f^{}+f)/2,`$
$`S_y`$ $`=`$ $`i(f^{}f)\widehat{\tau }/2=i\widehat{\tau }(f^{}f)/2,`$ (33)
$`S_z`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _z\widehat{\tau }/\sqrt{2}=\widehat{\tau }\eta _z/\sqrt{2}.`$
The operator $`\widehat{\tau }=\sqrt{2}(12f^{}f)\eta _z=i2\sqrt{2}\eta _x\eta _y\eta _z`$ commutes with the spin operators $`S_\mu `$ and hence with the Hamiltonian, while $`\widehat{\tau }^2=1\mathrm{l}`$. (Notice that the operator $`\widehat{\tau }`$ maps the orthogonal subspaces $`_{1,\pm }_{2,\pm }`$ of section III among themselves.) As a result,

$`𝒮_{xx}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`S_x(t)S_x(0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[f^{}(t)+f(t)][f^{}(0)+f(0)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}[G_{ff^{}}^+(t)+G_{f^{}f}^+(t)+G_{f^{}f^{}}^+(t)+G_{ff}^+(t)].`$
Similarly,

$`𝒮_{yy}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[f^{}(t)f(t)][f^{}(0)f(0)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}[G_{ff^{}}^+(t)+G_{f^{}f}^+(t)G_{f^{}f^{}}^+(t)G_{ff}^+(t)].`$
$`𝒮_{zz}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}G_{zz}^+(t).`$ (35)
and, in general, $`𝒮_{\mu \nu }(t)=\frac{i}{2}G_{\mu \nu }^+(t)`$.

To zeroth order in perturbation theory we obtain

$`𝒮_{xx}(\omega )=𝒮_{yy}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}[G_{ff^{}}^+(\omega )+G_{f^{}f}^+(\omega )]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\{[1h_f(B)]\delta (\omega B)+[1+h_f(B)]\delta (\omega +B)\},`$
while $`𝒮_{zz}(\omega )=(\pi /2)\delta (\omega )`$.

To describe the contribution which displays a peak at the Larmor frequency in the correlation function $`𝒮_{xx}(\omega )`$ we need to account for the imaginary part of the self-energy. For $`G_{ff^{},f^{}f}`$ we have

$`G_{ff^{}}^{R,A}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^{R,A}}},`$ (37)
$`G_{f^{}f}^{R,A}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega +B\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ff^{}}^{R,A}}}.`$
At the weak tunneling condition, $`|T_{\mathrm{RL}}|^2\rho _0^21`$, when the relaxation due to the environment is negligible, we can also neglect the contributions from $`G_{ff}`$ and $`G_{f^{}f^{}}`$ to $`𝒮_{xx}`$ with respect to those from $`G_{ff^{}}`$ and $`G_{f^{}f}`$. We obtain

$$𝒮_{xx}(\omega )=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{(1h_f(B))\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{(\omega B)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2}+\frac{(1+h_f(B))\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{(\omega +B)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2}\right],$$
(38)
where, at $`T=0`$, for fully polarized electrons along the $`x`$-axis we get

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(B,V)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{f^{}f}^A(B)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2\rho _0^2[|V+B|+|VB|+\theta B].`$
When $`V<B`$ this gives the width of the precession resonance due to quantum fluctuations of the current (the current operator does not commute with the Hamiltonian, and the current fluctuates between the leads and the spin),

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(0)}(B)=\frac{\pi }{4}T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2\rho _0^2B(2+\theta ),$$
(40)
while for $`V>B`$ the decoherence rate has an additional contribution due to the voltage induced transport current

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(B,V)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{(0)}(B)+\frac{\pi }{2}T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2\rho _0^2(VB)\mathrm{\Theta }(VB).$$
(41)
We estimate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}10^5V`$, in a junction with $`T_{\mathrm{RL}}=0.1T_0`$ and tunneling resistance $`R_T=100`$ Mohm. To determine $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ in the unpolarized case we need to put $`𝐦_\alpha =0`$ and multiply by 4 in Eq. (39).

Thus, we see that the spin-spin correlation functions $`𝒮_{xx}(\omega )`$ and $`𝒮_{yy}(\omega )`$ exhibit oscillations at a renormalized Larmor frequency $`\omega _L`$, with a peak width depending on $`V`$, $`B`$ and $`T`$. When the relaxation due to the environment dominates, $`B\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, we need to replace $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}`$ in Eq. (38). The important point is that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ provides a lower bound for the decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e., for the width of the peak at $`\omega _L`$ in the spin-spin correlation function.

## V Effect of the spin on the tunneling current

### V.1 The average current

Let us now turn to the evaluation of the average current and current power spectrum. The current operator is given as

$$\widehat{I}(t)=ie\underset{n,n^{},\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}[c_{\mathrm{R}n\sigma }^{}(t)(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{\mathrm{L}n^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}(t)\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(42)
The average current (involving the complete spin-electrons Hamiltonian $``$) is determined from

$$I=\widehat{I}(t)=2e\mathrm{Im}\underset{n,n^{},\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}c_{\mathrm{R}n\sigma }^{}(t)(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{\mathrm{L}n^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}(t).$$
(43)
In the following, we will assume that $`_T`$ is turned on adiabatically and we are interested only in the average current up to second order in $`_T`$. (Remember that we are only interested in the dc steady state solution.) The following derivation is similar to that explained in Ref. Mahan  for the quantum dot tunneling. Denoting

$$\widehat{A}(t)=\underset{n,n^{}\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}c_{\mathrm{R}n\sigma }^{}(t)(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}c_{\mathrm{L}n^{}\sigma ^{}}^{}(t),$$
(44)
we obtain (assuming that the leads are not superconducting)

$`\widehat{I}(V)`$ $`=`$ $`2e\mathrm{Im}\{U^R(V)\},`$ (45)
$`U^R(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\theta (t)[\widehat{A}(t),\widehat{A}^{}(0)].`$
Assuming the dependence $`\rho (ϵ)=\rho _0`$ near the Fermi energy we obtain for fully polarized electrons, $`B_\alpha D`$,

$`I(V)`$ $`=`$ $`I_0(V)+𝐈_s(V)𝐒,`$ (46)
$`I_0(V)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi e(1+𝐦_\mathrm{R}𝐦_\mathrm{L})T_0^2\rho _0^2V,`$
$`𝐈_s^{(1)}(V)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi e(𝐦_\mathrm{R}+𝐦_\mathrm{L})T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}\rho _0^2V.`$
For weakly polarized electrons, $`B_\alpha =BD`$, approximating $`\rho (ϵ)\rho _0(1+ϵ/D)`$ near the Fermi energy, we get $`|𝐈_s|eT_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}\rho _0^2(B/D)V`$, while $`I_0=4\pi eT_0^2\rho _0^2V`$.

When $`(𝐦_\mathrm{R},𝐦_\mathrm{L})𝐁`$ the term of order $`T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}`$ vanishes because $`𝐒`$ is parallel to $`𝐁`$. The next spin-dependent term in the average current, $`I_s^{(2)}`$, is of order $`(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})})^2`$ and, in the fully polarized case along the $`x`$-axis, is given by

$`I_s^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2e(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})})^2\mathrm{Re}\{{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}dt^{}e^{iV(tt^{})}`$
$`[G_\mathrm{R}(t^{}t)G_\mathrm{L}(tt^{})𝒮_{xx}(tt^{})`$
$`G_\mathrm{R}^{}(t^{}t)G_\mathrm{L}^{}(tt^{})𝒮_{xx}(t^{}t)]\}.`$
Here $`G_\alpha (t)`$ is the causal Green’s function. Using Fourier transforms and Eq. (IV.3) the result, at $`T=0`$, is

$$I_s^{(2)}=\frac{\pi }{2}e(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})})^2\rho _0^2[V+h_f(B)B]\mathrm{\Theta }(VB).$$
(48)
Hence, when $`V<B`$ the average current is not affected by the spin because electrons have not enough energy to flip it. The spin remains in the ground state and thus cannot affect tunneling electrons and be probed. In the case that there is no reflection, i.e., $`\theta =0`$, the spin-dependent contribution is related to the spin-flip rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$,

$$I_s^{(2)}=e\mathrm{\Gamma }_{},$$
(49)
because the spin-dependent contribution to the current is determined by the matrix element of the operator $`S_x`$ between states with opposite spin projections. Hence, each tunneling electron needs to flip the localized spin in order to go through. In the large $`V`$ limit we obtain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ in agreement with the quasiclassical results KorotkovAverin ; BulaevskiiOrtiz .

At $`T=0`$, the contribution $`I_s^{(2)}`$ leads to a discontinuous derivative of $`I(V)`$ at $`V=B`$ due to the opening of a new channel corresponding to the tunneling of electrons via the spin. The change is more pronounced in the second order derivative of $`I(V)`$ with respect to $`V`$. Accounting for broadening of the spin energy, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, we derive

$$\frac{d^2I}{dV^2}=2e(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})})^2\rho _0^2\underset{\mu =x,y}{}𝒮_{\mu \mu }(V)(m_{\mathrm{R}\mu }+m_{\mathrm{L}\mu })^2.$$
(50)
We see that this second order derivative of the average tunneling current shows a peak (see Eq. (IV.3)) at $`V=B`$. Hence, measurements of the $`I`$-$`V`$ tunneling characteristics provide information on the spectral density of the spin-spin correlation function. Similar behavior for the average current with respect to bias voltage was used previously for inelastic tunneling spectroscopy of phonons Stipe . It is based on an equation similar to Eq. (50) relating $`d^2I/dV^2`$ to the phonon density of states.

Note, that in the case of unpolarized electrons $`I_s`$ is small, but the second derivative of $`I(V)`$ also shows a similar peak Ab . However, now its amplitude has an additional small factor $`T_0^2\rho _0^2`$.

### V.2 The shot noise power

Next we calculate the current-current correlation function. The particular fluctuation operator one needs to evaluate depends upon the nature of the measurement itself lesovik , see also Kogan . In the general case the result of measurements depends on the correlation functions describing emission, (+), and absorption, (-), by the tunneling contact

$$𝒫_\pm (\omega )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{\pm i\omega t}𝒫(t),𝒫(t)=\widehat{I}(0)\widehat{I}(t).$$
(51)
We obtain

$`𝒫_\pm (\omega )=𝒫_{s\pm }(\omega )+𝒫_{p\pm }(\omega ),`$ (52)
$`𝒫_s(t)=e^2{\displaystyle \underset{n,n^{},m,m^{},\sigma ,\sigma ^{},\gamma ,\gamma ^{}}{}}[c_{\mathrm{R}n\sigma }^{}(0)c_{\mathrm{R}n^{}\gamma }^{}(t)_e(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}(0)`$
$`\times c_{\mathrm{L}m\sigma ^{}}^{}(0)c_{\mathrm{L}m^{}\gamma ^{}}^{}(t)_e(\widehat{T}_{\mathrm{RL}})_{\gamma ^{}\gamma }(t)_s+(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{L})],`$
where the term $`𝒫_s(t)`$ describes the shot noise to second order in the matrix elements $`T_0`$ and $`T_{\mathrm{RL}}`$, while $`𝒫_p(t)`$ represents the contribution which displays a peak at the renormalized Larmor frequency of order $`(T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2`$ (see next subsection). We calculate $`𝒫_s(t)`$ in the framework of standard time-dependent perturbation theory (as we did to calculate the average current). In the equation above, $`\mathrm{}_e`$ means average over electron degrees of freedom, after the perturbation due to the spin-electron interaction is accounted for, while $`\mathrm{}_s`$ means average over the localized spin degrees of freedom. Averages over spin operators are performed using the known spin correlation functions determined in previous sections.

Contributions proportional to $`T_0^2`$ and $`T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ give the standard expression Scalapino  modified by the presence of the localized spin, in the same way as the average current Eq. (46). For fully polarized electrons along the $`x`$-axis we obtain, at $`T=0`$,

$$𝒫_{s+}^{(0)}(\omega )=2\pi e^2(T_0^2+2T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})\rho _0^2|V\omega |.$$
(53)
For unpolarized electrons we need to multiply this result by a factor 4. We obtain for the symmetrized shot noise power ($`\omega <V`$)

$$[𝒫_{s+}^{(0)}+𝒫_s^{(0)}]/2=e(I_0+I_s^{(1)}).$$
(54)
The terms proportional to $`T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2`$ describe the effect of the spin dynamics on the shot noise, $`𝒫_s^{(1)}`$. A diagram contributing to $`𝒫_s^{(1)}`$ is shown in Fig. 6. For electrons fully polarized along the $`x`$-direction we derive for the emission part at $`T=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=0`$

$`𝒫_{s+}^{(1)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}e^2(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{ex})})^2\rho _0^2\mathrm{\Theta }(VB)[(1h_f(B))`$ (55)
$`\times `$ $`F(\omega +VB)+(1+h_f(B))F(\omega +V+B)],`$
where

$$F(x)=x\mathrm{\Theta }(x).$$
(56)
Emission is possible at frequencies $`\omega <VB`$, when the spin is in the ground state, and frequencies $`\omega <V+B`$, when the spin is in an excited state. The second order derivative of $`𝒫_{s+}^{(1)}(\omega )`$ with respect to $`\omega `$, when $`V>B`$, has peaks with amplitudes $`\pi e^2(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{ex})})^2\rho _0^2(1\pm h_f(B))/2`$ and widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ at frequencies $`\omega =V\pm B`$. This provides a way to detect the presence of the localized spin.

The absorption part at $`T=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}=0`$ is given as

$`𝒫_s^{(1)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}e^2(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{ex})})^2\rho _0^2\{`$
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(VB)`$ $`[(1h_f(B))(\omega +VB+F(\omega VB))`$
$`+(1+h_f(B))(\omega +V+B+F(\omega V+B))]`$
$`+2\mathrm{\Theta }(BV)`$ $`[F(\omega +VB)+F(\omega VB)]\},`$ (57)
with the result

$$[𝒫_{s+}^{(1)}+𝒫_s^{(1)}]/2=eI_s^{(2)}$$
(58)
for $`\omega <|VB|`$. Figure 7 displays the emission and absorption contributions.

For unpolarized electrons we derive

$$𝒫_{s+}^{(\mathrm{un},1)}(\omega )=4𝒫_{s+}^{(1)}(\omega )+2\pi e^2(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{ex})})^2\rho _0^2(VB),$$
(59)
where $`𝒫_{s+}^{(1)}(\omega )`$ is given by Eq. (55) with the same $`h_f(B)`$ as for fully polarized electrons. This noise power also exhibits anomalies at frequencies $`\omega =V\pm B`$. We see that $`𝒫_s^{(1)}(\omega )`$ has no peak at the Larmor frequency neither for polarized nor for unpolarized electrons contrary to the results of Ref. BalatskyManassen .

The fourth order terms, $`T_0^2T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2`$, in $`𝒫(\omega )`$ correspond to 10 skeleton diagrams some of which are shown in Figs. 8 and 9. In these 4-vertex diagrams the external frequency $`(\omega )`$ (via the current vertex) may enter in any of the two vertices. Diagrams in Fig. 8 (all six), as well as the diagram shown in Fig. 6, contain integration over the energy $`ϵ`$ entering in all the electron and spin lines of the diagram. Hence, these contributions change at least on the frequency scale of order $`V,B`$ as the term $`𝒫_s^{(1)}(\omega )`$. They are small in comparison to $`𝒫_s^{(1)}(\omega )`$, and may be neglected.

### V.3 The peak at the renormalized Larmor frequency

To derive this peak we consider the 4 diagrams of the type shown in Fig. 9, which give contributions of order $`T_0^2T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2`$. In these diagrams integration over energy $`ϵ`$ in the spin lines is independent of the integrations in the electron lines and they provide a contribution to the current-current correlation function $`𝒫_p(\omega )`$ which has the same peaks at $`\omega =\pm B`$ as the spin-spin correlation function. To calculate this contribution we use the Keldysh technique as done by Shnirman et al. Shnirman . We will assume that to study the peak at the renormalized Larmor frequency experimentally one can measure the instantaneous values of the current over a long period of time and then obtain the symmetrized current power spectrum defined as

$$𝒫(\omega )=\frac{1}{2}[𝒫_+(\omega )+𝒫_{}(\omega )].$$
(60)
To calculate the first term in Eq. (51), we put $`t=t_{}`$ and $`0=0_+`$. For electrons fully polarized along the $`x`$-axis the first term is given as

$`I(t)I(0)=T_0^2\widehat{B}(t)\widehat{B}(0)T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}[\widehat{A}(t)S_x(t)\widehat{B}(0)`$
$`+\widehat{B}(t)\widehat{A}(0)S_x(0)]T_{\mathrm{RL}}^2\widehat{A}(t)S_x(t)\widehat{B}(0)S_x(0),`$ (61)
$`\widehat{B}(t)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}c_{\mathrm{R}nx}^+(t)c_{\mathrm{L}nx}(t),`$
$`\widehat{A}(t)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}c_{\mathrm{R}nx}^+(t)\sigma _xc_{\mathrm{L}nx}(t).`$
Now, in the framework of the Keldysh technique, we expand $`B(t)B(0)`$ up to $`(T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2`$ order in the first term, up to $`T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ in the second and third terms and up to $`T_0^2`$ in the last term. Let us consider the first term which corresponds to the second diagram in Fig. 9. This diagram leads to the contribution

$$(T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2\underset{\mu ,\nu =\pm }{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^\mu (\omega )\mu \nu 𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(\omega ).$$

Here the product $`\mu \nu `$ is the sign factor $`(+1)`$ if $`\mu =\nu `$ and $`(1)`$ otherwise, while

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^{\mu \nu }(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }\mathrm{Tr}[𝐆_\mathrm{R}^{\mu \nu }(ϵ)\sigma _x𝐆_\mathrm{L}^{\nu \mu }(ϵ\omega )]},`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }(\omega )=[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^{\mu \nu }(\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LR}}^{\mu \nu }(\omega )],`$ (63)
where the trace is taken over spin variables. Further, we denote by $`𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )`$ the combination of Majorana fermion Green’s functions which are represented by broken lines in the diagrams in Fig. 9,

$`𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }G_{yy}^{\mu \nu }(ϵ+\omega )G_{zz}^{\nu \mu }(ϵ)}=`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }G_{zz}^{\mu \nu }(ϵ+\omega )G_{yy}^{\nu \mu }(ϵ)}={\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }G_{zz}^{\mu \nu }(ϵ)G_{yy}^{\nu \mu }(ϵ\omega )},`$
with the property

$$𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )=𝒮^{\nu \mu }(\omega ).$$
(65)
Adding the term with interchanged R and L and symmetrizing with respect to time we obtain for the first term

$`𝒫_p^{(1)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\mu \nu [\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (\omega )𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(\omega )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (\omega )𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(\omega )],`$ (66)
Similarly we calculate the other three terms

$`𝒫_p^{(2)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\mu \nu [\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (0)𝒮^\nu (\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(\omega )`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (0)𝒮^\nu (\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(\omega )],`$ (67)
$`𝒫_p^{(3)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\mu \nu [\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (\omega )𝒮^\mu (\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(0)`$
$`+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (\omega )𝒮^\mu (\omega )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(0)],`$ (68)
$`𝒫_p^{(4)}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{\mu ,\nu }{}}\mu \nu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (0)[𝒮^+(\omega )+`$
$`S^+(\omega )]\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu +}(0).`$ (69)
Let us calculate $`𝒮^{\mu \nu }(\omega )`$ using the expressions for $`G^+`$ and $`G^+`$ in terms of the zeroth-order functions $`G^R`$, $`G^A`$ and $`G^K`$

$`𝒮^+(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{dϵ}{2\pi }}\{G_{yy}^K(ϵ+\omega )G_{zz}^K(ϵ)+`$ (70)
$`G_{yy}^A(ϵ+\omega )G_{zz}^R(ϵ)+G_{yy}^R(ϵ+\omega )G_{zz}^A(ϵ)+`$
$`G_{zz}^K(ϵ+\omega )[G_{yy}^R(ϵ)G_{yy}^A(ϵ)]+`$
$`G_{yy}^K(ϵ+\omega )[G_{zz}^A(ϵ)G_{zz}^R(ϵ)]\}.`$
Since $`h_z(0)=0`$, we have $`G_{zz}^K(\omega )=0`$. Therefore, the contribution to $`S^+(\omega )`$ from the terms containing $`G_{zz}^K`$ is negligible, but the last term does contribute. We get

$`𝒮^+(\omega )=𝒮^+(\omega )`$ (71)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\{[1h_f(\omega )]\delta (\omega B)+[1+h_f(\omega )]\delta (\omega +B)\},`$
$`𝒮^{++}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ih_f(\omega )\mathrm{P}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega ^2B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\delta ^+(\omega ),`$ (72)
$`𝒮^{}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ih_f(\omega )\mathrm{P}{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\omega ^2B^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4}}\delta ^+(\omega ),`$ (73)
where $`\delta ^+(\omega )=\delta (\omega B)+\delta (\omega +B)`$. Next, we take into account the broadening of the resonances at $`\omega =\pm B`$ by replacing

$$\pi \delta (\omega \pm B)\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{(\omega \pm B)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2}.$$
(74)
Such procedure follows from the fact that accounting for higher order terms of perturbation theory in $`T_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ we need to replace the product $`G_{yy}^{\mu \nu }(t)G_{zz}^{\nu \mu }(t)`$ in Eq. (64) by $`\eta _y(t_\mu )\eta _y(0_\nu )\eta _z(0_\nu )\eta _z(t_\mu )`$. This function has the same frequency dependence as $`G_{ff^{}}(t)`$ because from one hand

$$S_x(t)S_x(0)=\eta _y(t)\eta _z(t)\eta _y(0)\eta _z(0),$$
(75)
while from the other this spin-spin correlation function is determined by Eq. (IV.3). At $`T=0`$ we obtain, neglecting terms of order $`\omega /D`$, $`V/D`$,

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^+(\omega ,V)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LR}}^+(\omega ,V)=2\pi (\omega +V)\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega +V)\rho _0^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^+(\omega ,V)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LR}}^+(\omega ,V)=`$
$`2\pi (\omega +V)\mathrm{\Theta }(\omega V)\rho _0^2,`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^{++}(\omega ,V)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LR}}^{++}(\omega ,V)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{RL}}^{}(\omega ,V)=`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{LR}}^{}(\omega ,V)=\pi |\omega +V|\rho _0^2,`$ (76)
Summing up all terms for $`𝒫_p(\omega )`$ we obtain zero for the amplitude of the peak at $`V<B`$. This same result was obtained by Shnirman et al. Shnir . It means that quantum fluctuations of the spin in the ground state which are present in the spin-spin correlation function cannot be probed by tunneling electrons.

When $`V>B`$ we obtain, taking into account the broadening of the resonance,

$`𝒫_p(\omega ,V,B)=P(V,B){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^2+(\omega B)^2}},`$ (77)
$`P(V,B)=4(\pi T_0T_{\mathrm{RL}}\rho _0^2)^2[V^2+VBh_f(B)].`$
More generally, the coefficient 4 is substituted by $`[𝐦_R+𝐦_L]^2`$ for fully polarized electrons in the leads, while for weakly polarized electrons we get the factor $`|𝐦_\mathrm{R}s_\mathrm{R}+𝐦_\mathrm{L}s_\mathrm{L}|^2`$. Accounting also for spin-orbit interaction we obtain an additional term in $`P(V,B)`$ which is proportional to the small factor $`[(2B_\alpha /D)^2+𝜷^4(l_x^2+l_y^2)]`$.

We see that $`𝒫_p(\omega )`$ exhibits a peak at the renormalized Larmor frequency with a width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$ only when the electrons are polarized in a direction which is not parallel to $`𝐁_0`$. This peak is caused by precession of the spin excited by tunneling electrons. Tunneling of electrons excites the spin, resulting in the modulation of the tunneling current, but they also cause decoherence of the spin precession with a rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$.

Therefore, the spin precession cannot be seen in the current-current correlation function without spin-orbit interaction when the leads-electron polarization is parallel to $`𝐁_0`$, or the electrons are unpolarized, despite the fact that the spin-spin correlation functions for the $`S_x`$ and $`S_y`$ spin components exhibit oscillations at $`\omega _L`$. The reason for this is that to observe oscillations in $`𝒫(\omega )`$ one needs to probe with the current a component of the spin perpendicular to $`𝐁`$. For that the electrons need to have a component of polarization $`𝐦_\mathrm{R}`$ or $`𝐦_\mathrm{L}`$ that couples to $`S_x`$ or $`S_y`$. Spin-orbit interaction leads to a signal when the electrons are unpolarized or $`𝐁_0𝐦_{\alpha 0}`$ if $`𝐁_0`$ is not parallel to $`𝐥`$. However, the signal in that case is much weaker than in the case of fully polarized electrons.

### V.4 The signal-to-noise ratio $`R`$

For the symmetrized signal the signal-to-noise ratio reaches its maximum at low temperatures when $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, while $`𝐦_R𝐦_L`$, and both are perpendicular to $`𝐁`$. Indeed, electrons with components of the spin polarization parallel to $`𝐁`$ do not contribute to the signal but they do enhance $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. When $`m_\mathrm{R}=m_\mathrm{L}=1`$ the relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(V,B)`$ (neglecting relaxation due to the environment) is determined by Eq. (39). The signal-to-noise ratio at the peak position, for the case of perpendicular spin polarization at $`T=0`$ and $`V>B`$, is given by the expression

$$R=\frac{𝒫_p(B)}{𝒫_s^{(0)}(B)}=\frac{P(V,B)}{2\pi VT_0^2\rho _0^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(V,B)}=4\frac{V+h_f(B)B}{V+\theta B/2}.$$
(78)
Here $`𝒫_p(B)`$ is the height of the peak at the renormalized Larmor frequency in the symmetrized current-current correlation function, while $`𝒫_s^{(0)}`$ is the current power spectrum for the shot noise neglecting the smaller contribution $`𝒫_s^{(1)}`$.

$`R`$ reaches its maximum value $`R_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}=4`$ for $`VB`$. In the case of symmetrical leads, $`T_{\mathrm{RR}}=T_{\mathrm{LL}}=T_{\mathrm{RL}}`$ we get $`\theta =2`$, and the function $`R(V/B)`$ for $`\theta =0,2`$ is shown in Fig. 11.

When the spin relaxation due to the environment becomes dominant, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, the signal-to-noise ratio for the case of fully polarized electrons is smaller by the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}1`$. If the perpendicular components of $`𝐦_\alpha `$ were absent, we see that $`R`$ becomes as small as $`𝜷^4`$, while for weak polarization in the direction perpendicular to $`𝐁`$ it is as small as $`(B_\alpha /D)^2`$.

## VI Discussion

We start summarizing our main results for the model of a localized spin interacting with the tunneling electrons only via the exchange interaction, i.e., when the tunneling matrix element contains the term $`T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}\stackrel{}{𝝈}𝐒`$ in addition to the spin-independent term $`T_0`$.

1. The Larmor frequency is renormalized from the one determined by the external magnetic field $`B_0`$ to $`B=\sqrt{B_0^2+B_T^2}`$ (see Eq. (22)), when tunneling electrons are polarized. An estimate for $`B_T`$ is given after Eq. (22).

2. In the steady state the $`I`$-$`V`$ characteristics, namely $`d^2I(V)/dV^2`$, exhibits a peak at $`V=B`$ when the electrons are polarized in a direction different from $`𝐁`$. This peak is due to the opening of a new channel for electron tunneling via the localized spin (spin-flip tunneling). The width of this peak is determined by the spin decoherence rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, see Eq.(39).

3. When the electrons are polarized and $`V>B`$, on the background of frequency-independent shot noise caused by the discrete nature of the electrons, there is a peak in the current noise power $`[𝒫_+(\omega )+𝒫_{}(\omega )]/2`$ at the renormalized Larmor frequency, caused by the precession of the spin excited by the tunneling electrons. This peak is absent when $`V<B`$ because the spin is in the ground state since electrons do not have enough energy to flip it.

4. The signal-to-noise ratio for this peak, $`R=𝒫_p(\omega _L)/𝒫_s^{(0)}`$, strongly depends upon the degree of spin polarization of the leads-electrons and the orientation of this polarization with respect to the external magnetic field $`𝐁_0`$ acting on the localized spin. The maximum value of $`R`$ is reached when the electrons are polarized in a direction perpendicular to the effective magnetic field acting on the spin because in this case they probe in an optimal way the precessing spin components. When the relaxation of the localized spin with the environment is weak, $`R`$ reaches the values of order unity only if the leads are almost fully polarized in a direction close to perpendicular to $`𝐁`$.

5. In the case of full polarization and $`𝐦_{\mathrm{R0}}=𝐦_{\mathrm{L0}}𝐁`$ at low temperatures $`TB_{\mathrm{𝖾𝖿𝖿}},V`$, the dependence of $`R`$ on $`𝗑=V/B`$ is given by Eq. (78), where $`\theta `$ comes from the leads-electron reflection via the localized spin (see Eqs. (30)). The maximum value, $`R_{\mathrm{𝗆𝖺𝗑}}=4`$, is reached when $`VB`$, see Figs. 11 and 12. The signal-to-noise ratio is reduced by the presence of the electron reflection couplings ($`\theta 0`$) as expected, since this process does not contribute to the current but does affect the width of the peak.

6. When the spin relaxation due to the environment is negligible, the peak width in the noise power spectrum (at the renormalized Larmor frequency) depends weakly on the orientation of the polarization. It increases linearly with $`V`$, when $`VBT`$ and the tunneling electrons cause spin flips, see Fig. 10. At high temperatures $`TV,B`$, the width of the peak is determined by $`T`$ ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}T`$).

7. In points 2 through 4 we assumed that the spin relaxation with the environment, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}`$, was negligible in comparison to the relaxation due to the leads-electrons, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$. This assumption is crucial to obtain a maximum $`R`$ of order unity because in this case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}|T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})}|^2\rho _0^2`$, and $`𝒫_p(B)(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})})^2\rho _0^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}`$, so that $`R`$ does not depend on the small parameter $`(T_{\mathrm{RL}}^{(\mathrm{𝖾𝗑})})^2\rho _0^2`$, see Eq. (78). If the spin relaxation rate due to the environment dominates we get $`R\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{𝖾𝗇𝗏}}1`$.

8. For weak polarization of the electrons, $`R`$ becomes proportional to the degree of polarization, $`R(B_\alpha /D)^2`$, where $`B_\alpha `$ is the magnetic or exchange field acting on the leads-electrons and $`D`$ represents their bandwidth. This is because only polarized tunneling electrons contribute to the signal at the Larmor frequency, while all tunneling electrons contribute to the broadening of this signal. We estimate $`B_\alpha /D10^5`$ for $`B_\alpha =100`$ G and $`D=0.1`$ eV and this estimate leads to $`R(B_\alpha /D)^2<10^8`$.

9. Spin-orbit (i.e., relativistic $`𝜷^2`$) corrections of any type Balatsky ; LevitovRashba  can only provide a very small signal-to-noise ratio, $`R𝜷^410^8`$, in the situation where the exchange coupling leads to a vanishing signal (i.e., the electrons are unpolarized or they are polarized parallel to $`𝐁_0`$). The signal in this case is determined by the relativistic coupling between the spin and the tunneling electrons, while the broadening is determined by the dominant non-relativistic exchange coupling. Hence, for a tunneling process via a single localized spin in the steady state, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes of order unity only when
a) the spin is decoupled from the environment, and
b) the electrons are almost fully polarized in a direction perpendicular to the effective field acting on the localized spin.

10. We derived the correction to the standard shot noise power caused by the presence of the localized spin when the leads-electrons are unpolarized. This correction is small when $`T_{\mathrm{RL}}T_0`$, but it changes behavior at $`V=B`$, see Eqs. (55), and (59). On the other hand, the standard shot noise power increases linearly with V. This new result can be observed, in principle, experimentally.

We are now in position to compare our results to the experimental data obtained by Manassen et al. Manassen  and Durkan and Welland Durkan , and decide whether the model of tunneling via a single localized spin can explain these data. In these experiments the polarization of the electrodes was weak, $`R`$ was of order unity or larger almost independently of the orientation of the applied magnetic field, and the position of the peak in the noise power spectrum $`𝒫(\omega )`$ was found at the Larmor frequency corresponding to the applied magnetic field. Our results show that a combination of weak polarization and a signal-to-noise ratio of order unity are incompatible for the dc steady state described by our model, which accounts for both exchange and spin-orbit coupling of the tunneling electrons and the localized spin.

Next, at high voltages we reproduced the quasi-classical results KorotkovAverin ; BulaevskiiOrtiz  which are valid in the limit $`VB`$.

From the point of view of the theory of quantum measurement we see that after a long time, any measurement usually leads to a steady state where information on the initial state of the quantum system is probably lost. Hence, an important question is what is the transient time for a given measurement.

We note that $`d^2I/dV^2`$ and the contribution $`𝒫_p(\omega )`$ in the current-current correlation function are proportional to the spin-spin correlation function $`S_{xx}(V)`$ and $`S_{xx}(\omega )`$, respectively (if the electrons are spin polarized along the $`x`$-axis). Suppose that one wants to probe a single spin, say A, which is part of an ensemble of other spins interacting with each other. Measurement of the $`I`$-$`V`$ characteristics, namely $`d^2I/dV^2`$, and current noise power, $`𝒫(\omega )`$, at low voltages will carry information on the dynamics of that particular (coupled) spin A, whenever tunneling occurs via that single spin. Effectively, because of the coupling, that measurement provides information on the dynamics of the whole system and Eqs. (50) and (77) form the background for such tunneling spectroscopy of quantum systems. Note, however, that the subject of study, the spin-spin correlation function, is affected by tunneling measurements (see the way the bare spin-spin correlation function, Eq. (IV.3), was modified in the case of a single-spin system, Eq. (38)). We have shown how this modification may be accounted for in the case of steady-state measurements of a single-spin system. In a similar way it may be accounted for in more complicated systems, and corrections to obtain the bare correlation function of the system studied can, in principle, be made.

We note that we presented here a theoretical description of the tunneling spectroscopy of a single localized spin-1/2 system. However, such a description is also valid for any two-level system (quantum dot), and Eq. (5) describes the mapping between the two-level system and the spin-1/2 system.

In conclusion, we described the characteristics of the tunneling current via an isolated single spin 1/2 (two-level system) in the steady state, i.e., in the long time limit after switching on the voltage or the tunneling matrix elements. We found optimal conditions when the tunneling current carries maximum information about dynamic quantum fluctuations of the localized spin. We showed what type of information about the isolated spin may be extracted from measurements of the tunneling current in the steady state.

We express our thanks to D.J. Scalapino, M.N. Kiselev, D. Averin, A. Andreev, A. Shnirman, I. Martin, D. Mozyrsky, B. Spivak, A.M. Tsvelik, and A.V. Balatsky for useful discussions. We acknowledge A. Shnirman and Yu. Makhlin for sharing their results on the spin-spin correlation function, Eq. (IV.3), prior to publication. One of us (M.H.) is grateful for the hospitality of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This work has been supported by the U.S. DOE.