text:
# Weak localization in ferromagnets with spin-orbit interaction

## I Introduction

Owing to the giant magnetoresistance effect discovered in artificially layered structures, transport properties of low-dimensional magnetic systems were extensively studied in the past decade. The huge interest was stimulated by applications of the effect in magnetoelectronics, particularly in read/write heads, field sensors, random access memory elements, and others. Since the effect exists also at room temperatures (which is important for applications), there was only a little interest in the low temperature regime, where quantum corrections to conductivity may play a certain role. This regime, however, may be important in view of possible applications of metallic and/or semiconducting magnetic systems in spintronics and quantum computing.

The quantum corrections to electrical conductivity, related to scattering of electrons from impurities in nonmagnetic metals and doped semiconductors, were extensively studied in the past two decades. However, the problem of quantum corrections in ferromagnetic metals is still unexplored. Only a few works on this subject can be found in the relevant literature. These include two theoretical works and a few reports on experiments, which prove the existence and importance of the quantum corrections related to both weak localization and electron-electron interaction effects. The theoretical description, however, was restricted to the effects of localization on the spin-density fluctuations in the vicinity of the ferromagnetic transition and to electron-electron interaction effects in spin dependent quantum wells.

It is well known that the quantum corrections due to weak localization in nonmagnetic systems are suppressed by a sufficiently large magnetic induction $`𝐁`$. One may then expect a similar suppression of weak localization by an internal magnetic induction $`B_{int}`$ in ferromagnets. But this point is still not definitely clear from the experimental point of view, at least for some kinds of ferromagnetic materials. It is then reasonable to assume that the internal magnetic induction existing inside the ferromagnets may reduce the localization corrections instead of destroying them totally. Very likely, one can expect only a slight effect of $`B_{int}`$ in the case of newly developed magnetic semiconductors like GaMnAs alloys.

Spin-orbit (SO) scattering from paramagnetic impurities in nonmagnetic metals is known to have a significant influence on the quantum corrections. It can reverse the sign of the localization correction (so-called weak antilocalization effect), which results in a positive magnetoresistance at weak magnetic fields. However, SO interaction may also result from other sources, like for example the Dresselhaus or Bychkov-Rashba terms in the relevant Hamiltonian. These terms are related to the lack of inversion symmetry in certain crystals or to reduced dimensionality in quantum-confined structures, respectively. In the context of weak localization theory, this type of spin-orbit interaction has been studied by A. G. Aronov and Yu. B. Lyanda-Geller.

Recently, there is a large interest in SO interaction in magnetically ordered materials. First, the SO scattering is believed to be responsible for the anomalous Hall effect in ferromagnets. Second, the SO interaction is one of the main interactions which determine the spin diffusion length. The latter quantity plays a crucial role in the dependence of the giant magnetoresistance effect on the sublayer thicknesses, when the current flows perpendicularly to the films.

In this paper we study the localization corrections to conductivity of ferromagnetic systems in the presence of SO scattering from defects and also in the presence of the Bychkov-Rashba term. It is well known that in nonmagnetic materials the spin-orbit scattering is crucial for the localization correction. As it was already mentioned above, the SO scattering leads to weak antilocalization, i.e., to positive magnetoresistance at small magnetic fields. The situation in ferromagnetic metals, however, is significantly different. We show that the processes, leading to weak antilocalization in nonmagnetic systems, are totally suppressed in ferromagnets, so in the presence of SO interaction we have only a negative magnetoresistance.

In Sections 2 and 3 we derive the formula for the Cooperon and quantum correction to conductivity in three-dimensional (3D) ferromagnets. Two dimensional (2D) ferromagnets are considered in Section 4, while quantum wells and possible crossover from 2D to 3D case are discussed in Section 5. The influence of SO interaction in the form of Bychkov-Rashba term is studied in Section 6. In Section 7 we discuss the effect of internal magnetization on the localization corrections. Finally, conclusions and summary are in Section 8.

## II Cooperon in a 3D ferromagnet

We consider the following model Hamiltonian of a ferromagnet with SO scattering:

$$H=d^3𝐫\psi ^{}\left(𝐫\right)\left[\frac{^2}{2m}M\sigma _z+V\left(𝐫\right)\right]\psi \left(𝐫\right),$$
$`(1)`$
where the axis $`z`$ is assumed to be along the magnetization $`𝐌`$, $`\psi `$ is a spinor field with the components $`\psi _{}`$ and $`\psi _{}`$, and we put $`\mathrm{}=1`$. In the presence of a magnetic induction $`𝐁=\mathrm{rot}𝐀`$, the gradient operator $``$ is replaced by $`ie𝐀/c`$. Note that the exchange term $`M\sigma _z`$ acts only on the spin and has therefore no direct effect on the orbital motion of the electrons.

The random potential $`V(𝐫)`$ of impurities consists of two statistically independent components – the component independent of the electron spin, described by the random potential $`V_0(𝐫)`$, and the spin-orbit component $`V_{so}(𝐫)`$. Matrix elements of the latter component have the form

$$(V_{so})_{𝐤\alpha ,𝐤^{}\beta }=iV_1\left(𝐤\times 𝐤^{}\right)\sigma _{\alpha \beta }$$
$`(2)`$
for the transitions $`(𝐤,\alpha )(𝐤^{},\beta )`$, where $`V_1`$ is a constant, $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ are the initial and final electron wavevectors, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ describe the corresponding spin states, and $`\sigma =(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$ are the Pauli matrices.

The key component of the weak localization theory is the Cooperon, which can be presented by a ladder in the particle-particle channel with two propagators describing electrons with almost vanishing total momentum and with very close energy parameters (so-called Cooper channel). In the case of ferromagnets, and as long as $`M\tau _{}^1,\tau _{}^1`$, where $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _{}`$ are the momentum relaxation times of the spin up and down electrons at the Fermi surface, this channel does not include ladder elements with Green functions corresponding to the opposite spin orientations. Indeed, using the standard method of calculation of the Cooperon, one should evaluate the integral

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\sigma \sigma ^{}}=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}G_\sigma ^R(\epsilon ,𝐤)G_\sigma ^{}^A(\epsilon ,𝐤),$$

where $`G_\sigma ^{R,A}(\epsilon ,𝐤)`$ are the retarded and advanced Green functions of an electron with spin $`\sigma =,`$. This gives $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}/\mathrm{\Pi }_{}1/M\tau _{}1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}/\mathrm{\Pi }_{}1/M\tau _{}1`$, which corresponds to vanishingly small contribution of the singlet channel. This result can also be understood as a suppression of singlet pairs by the exchange field.

Validity of this approach is confirmed by the following estimations. If we assume parameters typical for pure Fe, i.e., $`M=2.5`$ eV and $`\tau _{}\tau _{}5\times 10^{13}`$ s, we obtain $`(M\tau _,)^15\times 10^4`$. In dirty Fe, this value would be increased by one or two orders of magnitude, but will still remain small as compare to unity. The exclusion of the Cooperon in the singlet channel is the crucial point of our description, which leads to the absence of weak antilocalization in ferromagnets. In the following, we will omit the spin index in the inequalities $`M\tau _{}^1,\tau _{}^1`$, and will write simply $`M\tau ^1`$.

In the case of weak scattering potential and upon averaging over the random field $`V(𝐫)`$, one finds the following bare scattering amplitude (see Fig. 1):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^0=a\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }b\left(\sigma _{\alpha \delta }^x\sigma _{\beta \gamma }^x+\sigma _{\alpha \delta }^y\sigma _{\beta \gamma }^y\right)t_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta },$$
$`(3)`$
where $`t_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is a diagonal matrix in the space of $`(),(),(),()`$ states,

$$𝐭=\mathrm{diag}(d_1,d_3,d_3,d_2),$$
$`(4)`$
and we introduced the following definitions:

$$a=N_iV_0^2=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _0}=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _0},$$
$`(5)`$
$$b=N_iV_1^2\lambda _0k_F^2k_F^2,$$
$`(6)`$
$$d_1=N_iV_1^2\lambda _0k_F^4=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^z},$$
$`(7)`$
$$d_2=N_iV_1^2\lambda _0k_F^4=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^z},$$
$`(8)`$
$$d_3=N_iV_1^2\lambda _0k_F^2k_F^2,$$
$`(9)`$
with $`\lambda _0`$ defined as

$$\lambda _0=\overline{\left(𝐧_𝐤\times 𝐧_𝐤^{}\right)_x^2}=\frac{2}{9}.$$
$`(10)`$
In the above equations $`N_i`$ is the concentration of scattering centers, $`\nu _{}`$ and $`\nu _{}`$ are the densities of states at the Fermi level for spin-up (majority) and spin-down (minority) electrons, while $`k_F`$ and $`k_F`$ are the Fermi wavevectors for spin-up and spin-down electrons. The relaxation times $`\tau _0`$ and $`\tau _0`$, defined by Eq. (5), are the momentum relaxation times in the absence of SO scattering, whereas the relaxation times $`\tau _{so}^z`$ and $`\tau _{so}^z`$, defined by Eqs. (7) and (8), are due to the SO scattering. The averaging in Eq. (10) is over all orientations of the unit vectors $`𝐧_𝐤`$ and $`𝐧_𝐤^{}`$, where $`𝐧_𝐤=𝐤/k`$ and $`𝐧_𝐤^{}=𝐤^{}/k^{}`$.

Using Eq. (3), we find the following bare scattering amplitudes for the spin-up and spin-down electrons:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0=ad_1=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _0}\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^z},$$
$`(11)`$
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0=ad_2=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _0}\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^z}.$$
$`(12)`$
One should note at this point that the bare elements $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$ do not contribute to the Cooper-channel diagrams in the case of ferromagnetic systems as long as $`M>>1/\tau `$, as we already stated before. Apart from this, in a 3D case $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^0`$ does not contain the components $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$, which vanish due to the rotational symmetry in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane, as can also be concluded from Eq. (3).

Summing up the ladder diagrams contributing to the renormalized scattering amplitude $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ in the Cooper channel with small transferred energy $`\omega `$ and momentum $`q`$ (see Fig. 2), one obtains the equation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q),$$
$`(13)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}G_{}^R(\omega ,𝐤+𝐪)G_{}^A(0,𝐤)$$

$$2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}\left(1D_{}q^2\tau _{}+i\omega \tau _{}\right).$$
$`(14)`$
Here, $`D_{}=\frac{1}{3}v_F^2\tau _{}`$ is the diffusion coefficient, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, and $`\tau _{}`$ is the momentum relaxation time of spin up electrons. Equation (14) was derived in the diffusion limit, i.e., when $`\omega 1/\tau _{}`$ and $`q(D_{}\tau _{})^{1/2}`$.

The relaxation time $`\tau _{}`$ can be found by calculating the self energy, presented by the diagrams of Fig. 3. The self energy contains non-zero spin-flip vertices of the singlet type, as shown in Fig. 4. After calculating the imaginary part of the self energy, we find

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{}}=2\pi \nu _{}\left(a+d_1+\frac{2\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}b\right).$$
$`(15)`$
Using Eqs. (5) to (14), we finally obtain the following formula for the renormalized scattering amplitude in the Cooper channel (Cooperon):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\frac{1}{\tau _{}}\frac{a+d_1+\left(2\nu _{}/\nu _{}\right)b}{i\omega +D_{}q^2+1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}},$$
$`(16)`$
where the effective SO relaxation time of Cooperon, $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$, is introduced,

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}=\frac{2}{\tau _{}}\frac{d_1+\left(\nu _{}/\nu _{}\right)b}{ad_1}.$$
$`(17)`$
Let us now define $`\tau _{so}^x`$ and $`\tau _{so}^x`$ as $`1/\tau _{so}^x=2\pi \nu _{}b`$ and $`1/\tau _{so}^x=2\pi \nu _{}b`$. In the limit of weak SO scattering, $`\tau _{so}^z\tau _{}`$, one may then write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}^2}\frac{1}{i\omega +D_{}q^2+1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}+1/\tau _\phi },$$
$`(18)`$
where

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}=2\left(\frac{1}{\tau _{so}^z}+\frac{\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}\frac{1}{\tau _{so}^x}\right),$$
$`(19)`$
and a phase relaxation time $`\tau _\phi `$, related to some inelastic scattering processes of electrons, is added into Eq. (18).

The analogous formulae can also be derived for the spin-down Cooperon $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$. This formula can be obtained from Eqs. (18) and (19) by inverting direction of the arrows.

## III Conductivity and Magnetoconductivity in 3D case

The localization correction $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$ to the static conductivity is determined by the diagrams shown in Fig. 5.

Upon calculating the corresponding contributions, one finds the following formula for $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma `$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\frac{e^2}{\pi }\left(2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}^2D_{}\frac{d^3𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(0,q)+2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}^2D_{}\frac{d^3𝐪}{(2\pi )^3}2\pi \nu _{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(0,q)\right),$$
$`(20)`$
which is a straightforward generalization of the localization correction in a nonmagnetic case. Using Eqs. (18) and (20), we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\mathrm{const}+\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\left[\frac{1}{D_{}^{1/2}}\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}+\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }\right)^{1/2}+\frac{1}{D_{}^{1/2}}\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}+\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }\right)^{1/2}\right].$$
$`(21)`$
where the constant part is related to the contribution from the largest momenta of Cooperon, $`q(D\tau )^{1/2}`$, and can not be calculated exactly within the diffusion approximation. It can be estimated as

$$\mathrm{const}\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\left[(D_{}\tau _{})^{1/2}+(D_{}\tau _{})^{1/2}\right].$$

Thus, the constant term is negative and, since $`\tau _,<\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so},\tau _\phi `$, it is larger in magnitude than the second term of Eq. (21). Therefore, the total correction (21) is negative. By decreasing $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$ and/or $`\tau _\phi `$, we suppress the localization correction to conductivity.

The magnetic induction (both external and internal) supresses the localization corrections. If the magnitude of the total magnetic induction is $`B`$, then, following the method developed by Kawabata, we find

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)=\frac{e^2}{\pi }(D_{}\frac{eB}{2\pi c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq}{2\pi }[D_{}q^2+\frac{4eBD_{}}{c}(n+\frac{1}{2})+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}+\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }]^1$$

$$+D_{}\frac{eB}{2\pi c}\underset{n=0}{\overset{n_0}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dq}{2\pi }[D_{}q^2+\frac{4eBD_{}}{c}(n+\frac{1}{2})+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}+\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }]^1),$$
$`(22)`$
where $`l_B=(c/eB)^{1/2}`$ is the magnetic length, $`c`$ is the light velocity, and the sums over the Landau levels are cut off at $`n_{0()}l_B^2/\left(D_{()}\tau _{()}\right)`$.

After eliminating the $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B=0)`$ part, we find a formula, which is a generalization of the Kawabata’s low-field magnetoresistance to the ferromagnetic case,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (0)=\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2l_B}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[\frac{1}{(n+1/2+\delta _{})^{1/2}}2(n+1+\delta _{})^{1/2}+2(n+\delta _{})^{1/2}$$

$$+\frac{1}{(n+1/2+\delta _{})^{1/2}}2(n+1+\delta _{})^{1/2}+2(n+\delta _{})^{1/2}],$$
$`(23)`$
where

$$\delta _{()}=\frac{l_B^2}{4D_{()}}\left(\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so()}}+\frac{1}{\tau _{\phi ()}}\right).$$
$`(24)`$
In accordance with Eq. (22), the magnetic induction supresses the negative correction to the conductivity. Thus, the resulting sign of Eq. (23) is positive, and its magnitude, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (0)`$, increases with increasing magnetic field. This means that one finds a negative magnetoresistance, despite of the presence of the spin-orbit interaction. The reason of this is the fact that we have excluded the singlet Cooperon, which contributes to the localization correction with the opposite sign, and usually gives rise to a positive magnetoresistance (weak antilocalization) in weak magnetic fields in nonmagnetic materials.

The obtained result is in agreement with the results on magnetoconductivity of nonmagnetic metals in a magnetic field, if both Zeeman splitting and spin-orbit scattering are taken into account. Indeed, the exchange field of a ferromagnet enters the Hamiltonian, Eq. (1), like the Zeeman term. Thus, the strong exchange-field limit of a ferromagnet corresponds to the case of a large magnetic field in the Zeeman term. At these conditions, the effect of a magnetic field is associated with a negative magnetoresistance due to the suppression of the singlet Cooperon by magnetic field through the Zeeman splitting.

## IV Two-dimensional ferromagnets

In this section we consider a two-dimensional ferromagnet. In such a case there is no electron motion in the direction perpendicular to the plane, and consequently the electron wavevectors are in the plane of the ferromagnet. We consider first the case of in-plane magnetization, as shown schematically in Fig. 6.

The bare scattering amplitude has then the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^0=a\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }b\sigma _{\alpha \delta }^x\sigma _{\beta \gamma }^x,$$
$`(25)`$
where

$$a=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _0}$$
$`(26)`$
and

$$b=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _{so}^x}.$$
$`(27)`$
In a strictly 2D case and when both spin sub-bands are populated with electrons, the density of states is independent of the spin orientation, $`\nu _{}=\nu _{}\nu `$. This follows from the model assumed in Eq. (2). In that case also the relaxation times in the absence and/or presence of the SO scattering are independent of the electron spin, $`\tau _0=\tau _0\tau _0`$ and $`\tau _{so}^x=\tau _{so}^x\tau _{so}^x`$.

Contrary to the 3D case considered above, we have now to include the spin-flip processes in the Cooperon ladder. This is due to the fact that now we do not have the rotational symmetry in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. According to Eqs. (25) to (27), the bare amplitudes are now,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^0=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _0},$$
$`(28)`$
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}^0=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _{so}^x}.$$
$`(29)`$
The equations for the renormalized vertices can be written as two coupled ladders for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega ,q)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}(\omega ,q)`$, as shown in Fig. 7.

From these equations we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega ,q)=\frac{1}{4\pi \nu \tau ^2}\frac{1}{i\omega +\overline{D}q^2+1/\tau _\phi },$$
$`(30)`$
where $`\overline{D}=\frac{1}{2}\left(D_{}+D_{}\right)`$, and the diffusion constants $`D_{}`$ and $`D_{}`$ are defined as $`D_{()}=\frac{1}{2}v_{F()}^2\tau `$. The electron relaxation time $`\tau `$ in Eq. (30) is independent of the electron spin, $`\tau _{}=\tau _{}\tau `$, and can be calculated in the same way as in the 3D case, which gives

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{}}=\frac{1}{\tau _{}}\frac{1}{\tau }=\frac{1}{\tau _0}+\frac{1}{\tau _{so}^x}.$$
$`(31)`$
It is worth to note that the spin-orbit scattering enters the Cooperon only through the one-particle relaxation time $`\tau `$, and has no influence on the pole of the Cooperon.

Consider now the case when the magnetization field $`𝐌`$ is perpendicular to the plane of the ferromagnet, as shown schematically in Fig. 8. The calculations are similar to those in the case of in-plane magnetization, so we write down only the results. The only bare scattering amplitudes are now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$, which generally are different and have the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{()}^0=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _0}\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _{so()}^z}.$$
$`(32)`$
The Cooperons $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{()}(\omega ,q)=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu \tau _{()}^2}\frac{1}{i\omega +D_{()}q^2+1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so()}+1/\tau _{\phi ()}},$$
$`(33)`$
where the relaxation times $`\tau _{}`$ and $`\tau _{}`$ are given by

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{()}}=\frac{1}{\tau _0}+\frac{1}{\tau _{so()}^z},$$
$`(34)`$
and

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so()}}=\frac{2}{\tau _{so()}^z2\tau _{()}}\frac{2}{\tau _{so()}^z},$$
$`(35)`$
provided that $`\tau _{so()}^z\tau _{()}`$. By comparing the results (30) and (33), both obtained for a 2D case but for different magnetic configurations, we see that the effect of SO interaction significantly depends on the orientation of the magnetization field $`𝐌`$ with respect to the plane of the ferromagnet.

The quantum correction to the conductivity of a 2D ferromagnet takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma =\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\left\{\mathrm{ln}\left[\tau _{}\left(\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}\right)\right]+\mathrm{ln}\left[\tau _{}\left(\frac{1}{\tau _\phi }+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}\right)\right]\right\},$$
$`(36a)`$
which is a direct generalization of the corresponding formula in the 2D nonmagnetic case. Here, $`\tau _{()}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so()}`$ are defined, respectively, by (31) and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so()}=0`$ for the in-plane magnetization, and by Eqs. (34) and (35) for the case of perpendicular magnetization.

The 2D localization correction, described by Eq. (36a), is negative since $`\tau <\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so},\tau _\phi `$, and, in addition, we take here $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so},\tau _\phi `$. The latter inequality means that the momentum relaxation time of electrons, $`\tau `$, is mainly due to the potential scattering.

We can also present an expression for the conductivity in the case of nonzero magnetic induction $`𝐁`$, perpendicular to the plane, by generalizing the result for a nonmagnetic two-dimensional system

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}[\psi (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\tau _{}a_{}})\psi (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}a_{}}+\frac{1}{\tau _\phi a_{}})$$

$$+\psi (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\tau _{}a_{}})\psi (\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}a_{}}+\frac{1}{\tau _\phi a_{}})],$$
$`(36b)`$
where $`a_,=4eBD_,/c`$, and $`\psi (x)`$ is the Digamma function, which has the property $`\psi (x)\mathrm{ln}(x)`$ for $`x1`$.

The magnetic induction suppresses the negative correction to the conductivity, which leads to the negative magnetoresistance. It should be noted that in strongly 2D case, the in-plane magnetic induction does not affect the localization correction to conductivity. The reason is that in the two-dimensional case, the flux of magnetic induction does not penetrate through any closed electron paths. Correspondingly, the in-plane induction does not break the interference of closed trajectories of electrons moving in opposite directions, responsible for the weak localization effect.

## V Quantum wells

In a quasi 2D case the electrons are confined within a quantum well and the number $`N_F`$ of 2D subbands populated with electrons is larger than one, $`N_F>1`$. The situation with a large number of occupied subbands is typical for metals, whereas the situation with only a few populated subbands is characteristic of semiconductor quantum wells. The effect of SO scattering on the magnetoresistance of nonmagnetic materials at such conditions has been studied by Hikami et al.

We consider here a ferromagnetic quantum well in the geometry shown in Fig. 6, i.e., when the magnetization field $`𝐌`$ is in the film plane. The scattering amplitude has then the following form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }^0=a\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }b\sigma _{\alpha \delta }^x\sigma _{\beta \gamma }^xc\sigma _{\alpha \delta }^y\sigma _{\beta \gamma }^yt_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta },$$
$`(37)`$
with $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`t_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ defined by Eqs. (4) to (6), and

$$c=N_iV_1^2\overline{\left(𝐤\times 𝐤^{}\right)_y^2}^{(,)}=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^y}=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^y},$$
$`(38)`$
$$d_1=N_iV_1^2\overline{\left(𝐤\times 𝐤^{}\right)_z^2}^{()}=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^z},$$
$`(39)`$
$$d_2=N_iV_1^2\overline{\left(𝐤\times 𝐤^{}\right)_z^2}^{()}=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^z},$$
$`(40)`$
$$d_3=N_iV_1^2\overline{\left(𝐤\times 𝐤^{}\right)_z^2}^{(,)}.$$
$`(41)`$
The averages in Eqs. (38) to (41) include averaging over discrete subbands due to quantization of the electron motion along the axis $`x`$ (normal to the film plane). In this notation, the expressions for bare vertices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0`$ coincide with Eqs. (11) and (12), whereas for the spin-flip vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}^0`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}^0=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^x}+\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{so}^y}.$$
$`(42)`$
The ladder equations for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}(\omega ,q)`$ have the form shown in Fig. 7. From these equations one finds the following solution for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\frac{(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}^0)^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\right]}{\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\right]\left[1\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^0\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\right](\mathrm{\Gamma }_{sf}^0)^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)}.$$
$`(43)`$
In the case of weak SO interaction, the final expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}^2}\frac{A_{}}{i\omega +\stackrel{~}{D}_{}q^2+1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}+1/\tau _\phi },$$
$`(44)`$
where

$$A_{}=\frac{2/\tau _{so}^z+1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y}{2/\tau _{so}^z+2/\tau _{so}^z+\left(1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y\right)\left(1+\nu _{}/\nu _{}\right)},$$
$`(45)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{}=\frac{D_{}\left(2/\tau _{so}^z+1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y\right)+D_{}\left(2/\tau _{so}^z+1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y\right)}{2/\tau _{so}^z+2/\tau _{so}^z+\left(1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y\right)\left(1+\nu _{}/\nu _{}\right)},$$
$`(46)`$
$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}=2\frac{2/\left(\tau _{so}^z\tau _{so}^z\right)+\left(1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y\right)\left(1/\tau _{so}^z+\nu _{}/\left(\nu _{}\tau _{so}^y\right)\right)+2/\left(\tau _{so}^x\tau _{so}^y\right)}{2/\tau _{so}^z+2/\tau _{so}^z+\left(1/\tau _{so}^x+1/\tau _{so}^y\right)\left(1+\nu _{}/\nu _{}\right)},$$
$`(47)`$
and the spin-up relaxation time $`\tau _{}`$ is

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{}}=\frac{1}{\tau _0}+\frac{1}{\tau _{so}^z}+\frac{1}{\tau _{so}^x}+\frac{1}{\tau _{so}^y}.$$
$`(48)`$
The corresponding expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ can be obtained from Eqs. (44) to (48) by changing the arrow direction in these formulas. It is worth to note, that according to Eq. (46), the spin-orbit interaction renormalizes the diffusion coefficients.

The correction to conductivity is described either by Eq. (21) or by Eq. (36), in dependence on the ratio of $`L_{eff}=\left(\stackrel{~}{D}/(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}^1+\tau _\phi ^1)\right)^{1/2}`$ to the width of the quantum well $`L`$. For $`L_{eff}<L`$ we have effectively a 3D case described by Eq. (21), whereas for $`L_{eff}L`$ one finds effectively 2D behavior, Eq. (36a). It is worth to note that due to a strong asymmetry between spin-up and spin-down states, a ”mixed” case is possible, with a 3D correction for one spin orientation and a 2D correction for the opposite spin orientation.

## VI Spin-orbit interaction of the Bychkov-Rashba type

The case when the spin-orbit coupling enters the Hamiltonian also in the absence of scattering defects needs a special treatment. In the following we will consider a system described by the Hamiltonian including the Bychkov-Rashba interaction term

$$H=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\psi _𝐤^{}\left[\frac{k^2}{2m}M\sigma _z+g\left(k_y\sigma _zk_z\sigma _y\right)\right]\psi _𝐤,$$
$`(49)`$
where the magnetization $`𝐌`$ is assumed to be in the plane of the system (the geometry of Fig. 6) and $`gg(k)`$ is the spin-orbit coupling parameter. This Hamiltonian can describe electrons in low-dimensional structures close to interfaces, or electrons in a quantum well with variable doping.

The energy spectrum of the Hamiltonian (49) has two branches,

$$\epsilon _{1(2)}\left(𝐤\right)=\frac{k^2}{2m}\pm \left[\left(Mgk_y\right)^2+g^2k_z^2\right]^{1/2},$$
$`(50)`$
which are no longer pure spin-up and spin-down states, but correspond to spin-mixed states. The eigenfunctions corresponding to the eigenvalues (50) can be written as

$$|1𝐤=(4M^2+g^2k_z^2)^{1/2}(igk_z|𝐤+2M|𝐤),$$
$`(51)`$
$$|2𝐤=(4M^2+g^2k_z^2)^{1/2}(2M|𝐤+igk_z|𝐤).$$
$`(52)`$
Due to the terms linear in $`k_y`$ and for $`M0`$, the energy spectrum (50) is not symmetrical with respect to the $`𝐤𝐤`$ transformation, as can also be seen in Fig. 9, (a) and (b).

In the absence of external electric field $`E`$, there are nonvanishing spin currents, associated with each branch of the spectrum $`\epsilon _{1,2}(𝐤)`$. However, it can be verified that the total charge current is zero if $`E=0`$.

In the basis of the spin-up and spin-down states, the electron Green function has the matrix form,

$$G_0(\epsilon ,𝐤)=\frac{\epsilon k^2/2m+\mu M\sigma _z+gk_y\sigma _zgk_z\sigma _y}{\left(\epsilon \epsilon _{1𝐤}+\mu +i\delta \mathrm{sign}\epsilon \right)\left(\epsilon \epsilon _{2𝐤}+\mu +i\delta \mathrm{sign}\epsilon \right)},$$
$`(53)`$
where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. Accordingly, the self energy is also a matrix in this basis. It is, however, more convenient to consider the electron self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\epsilon ,𝐤)`$ in the basis of the eigenfunctions (51) and (52). The self energy is then diagonal and the imaginary parts of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1(0,k_{F1})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2(0,k_{F2})`$ give the relaxation times $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ in the presence of defects.

Using Eqs. (51) and (52), one can calculate the matrix elements of the impurity potential $`V_0(𝐫)`$,

$$V_{1𝐤,1𝐤^{}}=V_{2𝐤,2𝐤^{}}=\frac{V_0\left(4M^2+gg^{}k_zk_z^{}\right)}{\left(4M^2+g^2k_z^2\right)^{1/2}\left(4M^2+g^2k_z^2\right)^{1/2}},$$
$`(54)`$
$$V_{1𝐤,2𝐤^{}}=V_{2𝐤,1𝐤^{}}=\frac{2iV_0M\left(gk_z+g^{}k_z^{}\right)}{\left(4M^2+g^2k_z^2\right)^{1/2}\left(4M^2+g^2k_z^2\right)^{1/2}},$$
$`(55)`$
where $`g^{}=g(k^{})`$.

To find the self energy one needs to calculate the diagrams shown in Fig. 10.

In what follows we consider the case when SO is small as compared to the magnetic splitting, so we can expand the self energy in a small parameter $`gk_F/M1`$. Then, we find

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_1^R(\epsilon ,𝐤)N_iV_0^2\left(1+\frac{g^2k_z^2}{4M^2}\right)\frac{d^3𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\left(1\frac{g^2k_z^2}{4M^2}\right)\frac{1}{\epsilon \epsilon _1(𝐤^{})+\mu +i\delta }+N_iV_0^2\frac{d^3𝐤^{}}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{g^2k_z^2}{4M^2}\frac{1}{\epsilon \epsilon _2(𝐤^{})+\mu +i\delta },$$
$`(56)`$
and a similar expression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2^R(\epsilon ,𝐤)`$. In these formulas we can put $`\epsilon =0`$, $`k=k_{F()}`$, and average over the Fermi surfaces. This leads to the relaxation times for electrons corresponding to the bands 1 and 2,

$$\tau _1=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _1N_iV_0^2}\left(1\frac{\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{12M^2}\right),$$
$`(57)`$
$$\tau _2=\frac{1}{2\pi \nu _2N_iV_0^2}\left(1\frac{\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{12M^2}\right),$$
$`(58)`$
where $`g_{}=g(k_F)`$ and $`g_{}=g(k_F)`$. The above formulae explicitly show the contribution of SO interaction to the relaxation time.

We also need to calculate the densities of states $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ at the Fermi surfaces and to relate them to the ones in the absence of the spin-orbit interaction, $`\nu _{}`$ and $`\nu _{}`$. To do this we write

$$\nu _{1(2)}=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}\delta \left(\mu \epsilon _{1(2)}(𝐤)\right),$$
$`(59)`$
and then, upon integrating over $`k_x`$, we obtain

$$\nu _{1(2)}=\frac{(2m)^{1/2}}{(2\pi )^3}_{\epsilon _{1(2)}^l(𝐤)<\mu }\frac{dk_ydk_z}{\left(\mu \epsilon _{1(2)}^l(𝐤)\right)^{1/2}},$$
$`(60)`$
where

$$\epsilon _{1(2)}^l(𝐤)=\frac{k_y^2+k_z^2}{2m}\pm s_𝐤,$$
$`(61)`$
$$s_𝐤=\left[\left(Mgk_y\right)^2+g^2k_z^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
$`(62)`$
Expanding in powers of $`gk_F/M1`$ and calculating the integrals in (60), we find

$$\nu _1=\nu _{}\left(1+\frac{m^2g_{}^2}{2k_F^2}\frac{mg_{}^2}{2M}\right)$$
$`(63)`$
and

$$\nu _2=\nu _{}\left(1+\frac{m^2g_{}^2}{2k_F^2}\frac{mg_{}^2}{2M}\right).$$
$`(64)`$
The relaxation times $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ enter the expressions for the renormalized retarded ($`G^R`$) and advanced ($`G^A`$) Green functions

$$G^{R,A}(\epsilon ,𝐤)=\frac{\epsilon k^2/2m+\mu M\sigma _z+gk_y\sigma _zgk_z\sigma _y}{\left(\epsilon \epsilon _{1𝐤}+\mu \pm i/2\tau _1\right)\left(\epsilon \epsilon _{2𝐤}+\mu \pm i/2\tau _2\right)}.$$
$`(65)`$
Now we have already all quantities necessary to calculate the renormalized vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$. The general ladder-type equation for such a vertex reads

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }(\omega ,q)=N_iV_0^2\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }$$

$$+N_iV_0^2\underset{\nu s}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \nu \beta s}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu s\gamma \delta }(\omega ,q),$$
$`(66)`$
where $`V_0`$ is the matrix element of the short-range impurity potential, and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \nu \beta s}(\omega ,q)=\frac{d^3𝐤}{(2\pi )^3}G_{\alpha \nu }^R(\omega ,𝐤+𝐪)G_{\beta s}^A(0,𝐤).$$
$`(67)`$
As before, we will restrict ourselves by considering the coupling constant $`g`$ to be small as compared to the spin splitting, $`gk_F/M1`$.

Using Eqs. (66) and (67), and integrating over $`k_x`$, we find for $`q,\omega =0`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \nu \beta s}(0,0)=\frac{i(2m)^{1/2}}{8\pi ^2}\times [_{\epsilon _1^l(𝐤)<\mu }dk_ydk_z\frac{\left[s_𝐤M\sigma _z+g(k_y\sigma _zk_z\sigma _y)\right]_{\alpha \nu }\left[s_𝐤M\sigma _zg(k_y\sigma _zk_z\sigma _y)\right]_{\beta s}}{s_𝐤(s_𝐤+s_𝐤)(s_𝐤s_𝐤+i/\tau _1)\left[\mu (k_y^2+k_z^2)/2ms_𝐤\right]^{1/2}}$$

$$+_{\epsilon _2^l(𝐤)<\mu }dk_ydk_z\frac{\left[s_𝐤M\sigma _z+g(k_y\sigma _zk_z\sigma _y)\right]_{\alpha \nu }\left[s_𝐤M\sigma _zg(k_y\sigma _zk_z\sigma _y)\right]_{\beta s}}{s_𝐤(s_𝐤+s_𝐤)(s_𝐤s_𝐤+i/\tau _2)\left[\mu (k_y^2+k_z^2)/2m+s_𝐤\right]^{1/2}}].$$
$`(68)`$
If we put $`g=0`$ in Eq. (68), we find that only two matrix elements are nonzero, namely $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(0,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(0,0)`$. Assuming $`Dq^2\tau ,\omega \tau 1`$, we can just supplement this result by the terms of the expansion in small $`q`$ and $`\omega `$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)=2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}\left(1D_{}q^2\tau _{}+i\omega \tau _{}\right),$$
$`(69)`$
and a similar one for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)`$.

Let us consider now the limit of weak SO coupling and expand $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \nu \beta s}(q,\omega )`$ in powers of $`gk_F/M`$. The first non-vanishing term of this expansion is quadratic in this parameter. According to Eq. (68), the other small parameter in the limit of $`g0`$ is $`gk_F\tau `$. Thus, if we assume $`M\tau 1`$, we can neglect the terms $`(gk_F\tau )^2`$ and keep the terms $`gk_F/M`$. In the opposite limit, $`M\tau 1`$ (clean ferromagnet), we should keep terms $`(gk_F\tau )^2`$ and neglect terms $`gk_F/M`$. Since our considerations of the localization corrections are limited by $`\epsilon _F\tau 1`$, the dirty case is possible only for some weak ferromagnets, when $`M\epsilon _F`$ (in other words, for ferromagnets with very low polarization).

In view of Eq.(49), $`gk_F`$ is the amplitude of the spin-flip process. In the classical picture $`gk_F`$ is the angle of spin rotation in the unit time. Hence, $`gk_F\tau `$ is just the angle of the classical spin rotation due to the Bychkov-Rashba perturbation at the mean free path $`l`$ of the electron. Thus, the smallness of the parameter $`gk_F\tau `$ corresponds to a small spin rotation angle at the length $`l`$.

Since considerations in this paper are restricted to the case $`M\tau 1`$, we will not discuss here the opposite limit, $`M\tau 1`$. Such a case needs a special treatment. Indeed, as we pointed out in Sec. 1, only the condition $`M\tau 1`$ allows to restrict oneselves to the triplet Cooper channel. The result on the only nonvanishing matrix elements $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(0,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(0,0)`$ for $`g=0`$ (see Eqs. (68) and (69)) also refers to the case $`M\tau 1`$ since in Eqs. (65) and (68) we account for the self energy as a small shift of poles of the Green function from the real axis.

In the limit of small SO interaction, $`gk_F\tau 1`$, and for $`M\tau 1`$, we can neglect in Eq. (68) all terms of the order of $`gk_F/M`$. As a result, we find only two nonvanishing matrix elements

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)=2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}\left(1D_{}q^2\tau _{}+i\omega \tau _{}\frac{4}{3}g_{}^2\tau _{}^2k_F^2\right),$$
$`(70)`$
$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)\mathrm{\Pi }_{}(\omega ,q)=2\pi \nu _{}\tau _{}\left(1D_{}q^2\tau _{}+i\omega \tau _{}\frac{4}{3}g_{}^2\tau _{}^2k_F^2\right),$$
$`(71)`$
which give rise to the Cooperon $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ in the form of Eq. (18), with the effective spin-orbit relaxation time

$$\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}}=\frac{4}{3}g_{}^2k_F^2\tau _{}.$$
$`(72)`$
Similar expressions can be obtained for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}(\omega ,q)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$.

If we take the limit $`gk_F\tau 1`$, then for $`M\tau 1`$ we still can consider the SO interaction as a small perturbation, $`gk_F/M1`$. Calculating the integral (68) up to the second order in this parameter, we find

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \nu \beta s}(\omega ,q)=\frac{3\pi \nu _{}\tau _1}{8(g_{}k_F\tau _1)^2}[(1D_{}q^2\tau _1+i\omega \tau _1\frac{mg_{}^2}{2M}\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{3M^2}+\frac{m^2g_{}^2}{2k_F^2})(1\sigma _z)_{\alpha \nu }(1\sigma _z)_{\beta s}$$

$$\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{3M^2}\sigma _{\alpha \nu }^y\sigma _{\beta s}^y+\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{6M^2}\delta _{\alpha \nu }(1\sigma _z)_{\beta s}+\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{6M^2}(1\sigma _z)_{\alpha \nu }\delta _{\beta s}\frac{mg_{}^2}{M}(1\sigma _z)_{\alpha \nu }(1+\sigma _z)_{\beta s}]$$

$$+\frac{3\pi \nu _{}\tau _2}{8(g_{}k_F\tau _2)^2}[(1D_{}q^2\tau _2+i\omega \tau _2+\frac{mg_{}^2}{2M}\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{3M^2}+\frac{m^2g_{}^2}{2k_F^2})(1+\sigma _z)_{\alpha \nu }(1+\sigma _z)_{\beta s}$$

$$\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{3M^2}\sigma _{\alpha \nu }^y\sigma _{\beta s}^y+\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{6M^2}\delta _{\alpha \nu }(1+\sigma _z)_{\beta s}+\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{6M^2}(1+\sigma _z)_{\alpha \nu }\delta _{\beta s}+\frac{mg_{}^2}{M}(1+\sigma _z)_{\alpha \nu }(1\sigma _z)_{\beta s}].$$
$`(73)`$
Using (73), we can find all nonvanishing matrix elements of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\alpha \nu \beta s}(\omega ,q)`$ and then solve the ladder equations of Fig. 7. We do not make this calculation since we notice that the presence of the small factor $`1/(gk_F\tau )^2`$ leads to complete suppresion of the Cooperon. Thus, the localization corrections exist only for $`gk_F\tau <1`$.

Finally, we present the calculation of a classical correction to the conductivity due to the SO interaction in Hamiltomian (49). After calculating the loop diagram with the Green functions (65), and using (57),(58),(63),(64), we find

$$\sigma _{zz}^{(0)}=\frac{e^2n_{}\tau _{}}{m}\left(1+\frac{m^2g_{}^2}{k_F^2}\frac{mg_{}^2}{M}\frac{\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{12M^2}\right)+\frac{e^2n_{}\tau _{}}{m}\left(1+\frac{m^2g_{}^2}{k_F^2}\frac{mg_{}^2}{M}\frac{\nu _{}}{\nu _{}}\frac{g_{}^2k_F^2}{12M^2}\right).$$
$`(74)`$
This expression contains corrections related to renormalization of the density of states (second and third terms in each bracket) and of the scattering time (fourth terms).

We should also take into account a renormalization of the chemical potential $`\mu `$. For this purpose we calculate the total number of spin up and down electrons and impose the condition of constant particle number. After simple calculations we find the correction to the chemical potential

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mu =\frac{g_{}^2k_F^3+g_{}^2k_F^3}{6M(k_F+k_F)}\frac{m(g_{}^2k_F+g_{}^2k_F)}{2(k_F+k_F)}.$$
$`(75)`$
Calculating the corresponding corrections to Fermi momenta, $`k_{F,}`$, we find the corrections to spin up and down classical conductivities connected with renormalization of the chemical potential

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{zz}^{(0)}}{\sigma _{zz}^{(0)}}=\frac{m(g_{}^2k_F^3+g_{}^2k_F^3)}{2Mk_F^2(k_F+k_F)}\frac{3m^2(g_{}^2k_F+g_{}^2k_F)}{2k_F^2(k_F+k_F)},$$
$`(76)`$
$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _{zz}^{(0)}}{\sigma _{zz}^{(0)}}=\frac{m(g_{}^2k_F^3+g_{}^2k_F^3)}{2Mk_F^2(k_F+k_F)}\frac{3m^2(g_{}^2k_F+g_{}^2k_F)}{2k_F^2(k_F+k_F)}.$$
$`(77)`$
It should be noted that the classical corrections, (76) and (77), can be of any sign since the inequality $`M1/\tau `$ does not necessarily imply any relations between the magnitude of $`M`$ and the Fermi energies of majority and minority electrons.

The total correction to conductivity includes all corrections to the classical part, Eqs. (74), (76) and (77), as well as the quantum correction in the form of Eqs. (21) or (36 a,b) with $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$, given by (72) for $`gk_F\tau <1`$.

## VII Effect of internal magnetic induction in a ferromagnet

In our model we have taken into account the effect of magnetic induction $`𝐁`$, which enters the kinetic energy of electrons through a vector potential $`𝐀`$ and leads to the suppression of localization corrections, Eqs. (22) and (36b). The total magnetic induction $`𝐁`$ inside a ferromagnet includes the external magnetic field $`𝐇^{ext}`$ and the internal magnetic induction $`𝐁^{int}`$, $`𝐁=𝐇^{ext}+𝐁^{int}`$, where $`B_i^{int}=4\pi \left(\delta _{ij}n_{ij}\right)M_{0j}`$, $`𝐌_0`$ is the magnetization vector and $`n_{ij}`$ is the demagnetizing factor tensor. The magnitude of the internal magnetic induction may be rather high in strong ferromagnets. Nevertheless, weak localization corrections were observed, e.g., in Ni films.

We can present some numerical estimations of the magnitude of $`B^{int}`$. For example, in the case of Fe we take $`4\pi M_02`$ T. Thus, for the bulk Fe, when the demagnetizing field is negligibly small, we have $`B^{int}2`$ T. The critical magnetic induction $`B^{crit}`$, which can totally suppress the localizations correction, is determined differently in 3D and 2D cases. In the 3D case we can estimated it by $`l_Bl`$ ($`l`$ is the electron mean free path). For the parameters of very pure bulk Fe ($`m4m_0`$ and $`\tau 5\times 10^{13}`$ s), we find $`l4\times 10^5`$ cm, and consequently $`B_{crit}50`$ Oe. This estimation shows that the localization corrections in pure bulk Fe are totally suppressed by the internal magnetic induction. On the other hand, in not so pure metals, or in magnetic alloys, and amorphous materials, one can expect a much shorter mean free path, like $`l10^6`$ cm, which is still large enough for the localization corrections to be small ($`k_Fl1`$). In case of $`l=10^6`$ cm, one finds $`B_{crit}7`$ T, which is significantly larger than the internal induction of 2 T and, therefore, makes the localization corrections observable.

In the case of thin magnetic films, the demagnetizing factor is of crucial importance. For example, when the magnetization vector $`𝐌_0`$ is perpendicular to the interface, the demagnetizing factor is unity, $`n_{zz}=1`$ ($`z`$ axis is perpedicular to the plane; other components of demagnetizing tensor are very small), and we have $`𝐁^{int}=0`$. In this case, the results of Sec. 4 can be applied with the magnetic induction $`B`$ equal to the external magnetic field $`H^{ext}`$. The critical magnetic field, oriented perpendicular to the plane, which suppresses the localization correction, can be estimated as in the 3D case.

On the other hand, in the case of in-plane magnetization, the demagnetizing factor is much smaller than unity, and the non-vanishing internal magnetic induction $`𝐁^{int}=4\pi 𝐌_0`$ is directed along the film. However, the effect of parallel magnetic induction on the localization corrections in a strongly two-dimensional system is absent (Sec. 4). For a quasi-2D system like a quantum well, the effect of parallel induction is non-vanishing but weak. We can write the corresponding expressions for localization corrections in the presence of in-plane magnetic induction by simply generalizing the results of Refs. \[\].

If the film thickness $`L`$ is large with respect to the electron mean free path $`l`$, but still small enough to consider the film as a 2D system, $`lL\left[(D\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so})^1+(D\tau _\phi )^1\right]^{1/2}`$, we can obtain, using Ref. \[\], the dependence of localization correction on magnetic induction in the limit of small $`B`$, i.e., for $`l_BL`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (0)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{L^2D_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}^1+\tau _\phi ^1\right)^1}{12l_B^4}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{L^2D_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}^1+\tau _\phi ^1\right)^1}{12l_B^4}\right)\right].$$
$`(78)`$
It shows a weaker dependence on the magnetic induction, as compare to the 3D case. For larger values of $`B`$, when $`l_B<L`$, the dependence on magnetic induction is as for the 3D case, Eq. (22). The critical value $`B_{crit}`$ can also be estimated as for the 3D case. Thus, for thick clean magnetic films, such that $`Ll`$, and $`l>l_0[c/(4e\pi M_0)]^{1/2}`$, the in-plane internal magnetic induction suppresses the localization corrections completely. But in dirty or amorphous thick films with $`l<l_0`$, they can be observed. Using the parameters of Fe, we find $`l_01.8\times 10^6`$ cm.

If the film thickness $`L`$ is smaller than the mean free path $`l`$ (ballistic regime), we use the result of Ref. \[\], which can be presented in a simple form for some intervals of $`B`$.
To avoid combersome formulae, we introduce the following notations

$$\frac{1}{\tau _{c,}}=\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so,}}+\frac{1}{\tau _{\phi ,}},L_{c,}=\left(D_,\tau _{c,}\right)^{1/2}.$$
$`(79)`$
When $`L_c,l_B^2/Ll`$, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (0)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{l_{}L^3}{16l_B^4}\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{l_{}L^3}{16l_B^4}\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{}}\right)\right],$$
$`(80)`$
When $`L_c,ll_B^2/L`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (0)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{L^2}{3l_B^2}\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{}}\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(1+\frac{L^2}{3l_B^2}\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{}}\right)\right],$$
$`(81)`$
and when $`l,l_B^2/LL_c`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (B)\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma (0)=\frac{e^2}{4\pi ^2}\frac{\pi }{48}\left(\frac{L_cL^3}{l_B^4}\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{}}+\frac{L_cL^3}{l_B^4}\frac{\tau _c}{\tau _{}}\right).$$
$`(82)`$
We also find that the critical in-plane magnetic induction in the case of $`Ll`$ can be estimated from $`l_BL`$, which gives rise to a much larger critical value of magnetic induction, $`B_{thinfilm}^{crit}/B_{3D}^{crit}(l/L)^21`$. In other words, even for clean magnetic films, the in-plane magnetic induction does not suppress completely the localization corrections, if the film width is sufficiently small.

In view of the above considerations, the best configuration for observing weak localization effects in a ferromagnet is to use a thin film with perpendicular easy axis, and apply a perpendicular magnetic field.

## VIII Summary and conclusions

We have analyzed the localization corrections to electrical conductivity in magnetically polarized materials with spin-orbit interactions. The strong magnetic polarization excludes processes with the singlet Cooperon, which are responsible for the antilocalization in nonmagnetic materials with SO scattering. As a result, the quantum correction to conductivity is always negative in ferromagnets and leads to negative magnetoresistance.

The strength of SO interaction, together with the phase relaxation time due to inelastic processes, determine the magnitude of these corrections. In the case when the SO interaction is associated with scattering from impurities and/or other defects, the effective SO scattering time $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$ entering the Cooperon, depends on the dimensionality of the system and on the magnetization orientation with respect to the plane of the system (in the case of two-dimensional or quasi-two-dimensional systems). In the case of strongly two-dimensional ferromagnets with in-plane magnetization, the inverse time $`1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$ is zero. This increases the magnitude of the localization correction. The vanishing value of of $`1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }_{so}`$ is essentially related to the spin-flip scattering of the Cooperon; the usual contribution from the spin-conserving scattering is cancelled by the spin-flip contribution, which enters the Cooperon with an opposite sign. In the quasi-two-dimensional case both contributions are present, but they do not cancel each other.

We have also found the effective spin relaxation time in the case of Bychkov-Rashba SO interaction. It contains contributions from both spin-flip and spin-conserving scattering processes.

We think that good candidates for observations of the localization corrections are also semiconducting ferromagnets like GaMnAs, which are recently extensively studied in view of their possible applications in spintronics. Another example is a new ferromagnetic semiconductor CaB<sub>6</sub>, where a very small magnetization can be combined with a small electron density.

## Acknowledgements

One of authors (V.D.) is thankful to J. Berakdar, A. Crépieux and E. Ya. Sherman for stimulating discussions and valuable comments. V.D. and J.B. thank the Polish Committee for Scientific Research for a support under Grant No. 5 P03B 091 20, and also for a support by NATO Linkage Grant No. 977615.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A microscopic derivation of black hole entropy has been one of the greatest theoretical challenges for any candidate quantum theory of gravity. String theory in case of some extremal and near-extremal black holes  and canonical quantum gravity in case of general non-rotating black holes  have produced very interesting results in this direction.

As an alternative to both these approaches, a set of very attractive ideas was suggested by Strominger and Carlip  over the last few years. Motivated by some earlier works  on the relation between symmetries and Hamiltonians, these authors argued that states of a quantum black hole should belong to a multiplet of a representation of a suitable Lie algebra. Counting the number of states in the multiplet would then provide the black hole entropy. The Virasoro algebra has been proposed as a natural candidate for symmetries in this context.

An attractive feature of these alternative approaches is that they are not tied to the details of any specific model of quantum gravity. Even more strikingly, the central objects in this construction, namely the Virasoro algebra, central charge etc. appear already at the classical level through the Poisson bracket algebra. The Planck length in the expression of the entropy arises only from replacing Poisson brackets by appropriate quantum commutators. Being essentially classical, the scheme is quite robust and in principle applicable to black holes in any space-time dimension.

The first work  applies this idea to 2+1 dimensions in the context of the BTZ black hole . The symmetries, however, are taken from a previous analysis  which is tailored to asymptotic infinity rather than black hole horizon. Therefore, it is not apparent why these symmetries are relevant for the black hole in the space-time interior. For example, in asymptotically flat, 4-dimensional space-times, the symmetry group at (null) infinity is always the Bondi-Metzner-Sachs group, irrespective of the interior structure of the space-time. Thus, the results of  are equally applicable to a star that has similar asymptotic behavior as that of the black hole. Subsequently, Carlip improved on this idea significantly by making the symmetry analysis in the near-horizon region. Conceptually this approach is much more satisfactory in that the black hole geometry is now at the forefront. However, at the technical level, this work  appears to have some important limitations. The purpose of the present paper is to elucidate and discuss these technical problems in some detail, and then to present a consistent calculation which correctly implements the general ideas of  by a careful treatment of all the relevant technical issues.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we discuss the technical framework set up in  and point to the difficulties that arise in the implementation of the ideas mentioned above. In section 3 we investigate two different sets of symmetries. In 3.1 we consider symmetries that are defined intrinsically on the horizon and see if a central charge can be obtained. (To find these symmetries, as suggested in , we use the isolated horizon framework .) We find that the answer is in the negative. In 3.2, we then consider potential symmetry vector fields defined in a neighborhood of the horizon as in . In 3.3, we find the corresponding Hamiltonians, and calculate the corresponding Poisson brackets. From these we read off the central charge. We conclude in 3.4 with a calculation of the entropy. The discussion of the last three sub-sections can be regarded as a careful reworking of the ideas introduced by Strominger and Carlip. We find that the entropy is indeed proportional to the area but the proportionality factor differs from the one of Bekenstein and Hawking by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$. Perhaps more importantly, although the Poisson brackets between the Hamiltonians are well-defined, the symmetry vector fields underlying this calculation fail to admit a well-defined limit to the horizon. These issues are discussed in section 4. Some technical details relevant to section 3.1 are given in the appendix.

For concreteness, we work in 2+1 dimensions. However, the framework should admit a straightforward generalization to arbitrary space-time dimensions.

## 2 Re-examination of the symmetry based calculations in 3 dimensions

In the standard conventions (with $`8G=1`$), the line-element of BTZ black hole in the Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates is given by

$`ds^2=N^2dv^2+2dvdr+r^2(d\varphi +N^\varphi dv)^2,`$
$`N^2=M+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{\mathrm{}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{4r^2}},N^\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{J}{2r^2}}.`$ (2.1)
Here, $`J`$ and $`M`$ are two real parameters and $`\mathrm{}`$ is related to the negative cosmological constant as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}^2=1`$. The black hole has a Killing-horizon at $`r=r_+`$ defined by $`N^2(r_+)=0`$, or

$`r_+^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M\mathrm{}^2\left[1+\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{M^2\mathrm{}^2}}}\right]^{1/2},|J|M\mathrm{}.`$ (2.2)
For the purpose of calculations it is convenient to introduce Newman-Penrose like basis in 2+1 dimensions which has two null vectors $`l^a`$ and $`n^a`$ and a space-like vector $`m^a`$ (all real). They satisfy the relations

$`ll=nn=lm=nm=0,ln=mm=1.`$ (2.3)
The 2+1 dimensional metric can be expressed in such a basis as $`g_{ab}=2l_{(a}n_{b)}+m_am_b`$. The corresponding inverse metric is $`g^{ab}=2l^{(a}n^{b)}+m^am^b`$. In the rest of the paper we will assume that we have chosen the triad $`l,n`$, and $`m`$ in such a way that the vectors $`l`$ and $`m`$ are tangent to the horizon at the horizon. For the metric (2.1) a convenient choice of the basis vector fields is

$`l=_v+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N^2_rN^\varphi _\varphi ,n=_r,m={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}_\varphi .`$ (2.4)
and the corresponding one-forms that span the dual-basis are

$`l={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N^2dv+dr,n=dv,m=rN^\varphi dv+rd\varphi .`$ (2.5)
The covariant derivatives of the one-forms, like $`_al_b`$, can be expressed solely in terms of the one-forms and the so-called Newman-Penrose coefficients (See e.g. ; an exposition of the formalism in 2+1 dimensions can be found in the appendix of )

$$_al_b=ϵn_al_b+\stackrel{~}{\kappa }n_am_b\gamma l_al_b+\tau l_am_b+\alpha m_al_b\rho m_am_b$$

$$_an_b=ϵn_an_b\pi n_am_b+\gamma l_an_b\nu l_am_b\alpha m_an_b+\mu m_am_b$$
(2.6)
$$_am_b=\stackrel{~}{\kappa }n_an_b\pi n_al_b+\tau l_an_b\nu l_al_b\rho m_an_b+\mu m_al_b$$

where, for the metric (2.1) and the tetrad (2.4) the coefficients are given by

$$ϵ=\frac{r}{\mathrm{}^2}r(N^\varphi )^2,\rho =\frac{1}{2r}N^2,\mu =\frac{1}{r}$$

$$\alpha =\tau =\pi =N^\varphi $$
(2.7)
$$\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\nu =\gamma =0.$$

At the horizon $`ϵ(r_+)=\kappa `$, where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity of the black hole.

With these preliminaries out of the way, let us now apply the general ideas of  to this 3-dimensional black hole. The BTZ space-time admits a global Killing vector

$`\chi =_v\mathrm{\Omega }_\varphi ,\mathrm{\Omega }=N^\varphi (r_+).`$ (2.8)
As in  we now define another vector field $`\rho ^a`$ which is given by

$`_a\chi ^2=2\kappa \rho _a,\rho ^a={\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_+}}\left(_v+N^2_rN^\varphi _\varphi \right).`$ (2.9)
It follows that $`\chi \rho =0`$ and $`_\chi \rho ^a=0`$ everywhere. For convenience we express both vector fields $`\chi ,\rho `$ in the Newman-Penrose basis up to order $`(rr_+)^2`$ terms

$`\chi ^a=l^a+(rr_+)(\kappa n^a+2\mathrm{\Omega }m^a)+𝒪(rr_+)^2,`$ (2.10)
$`\rho ^a={\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_+}}l^a(rr_+)\kappa n^a+𝒪(rr_+)^2.`$ (2.11)
Clearly, at the horizon $`\chi \widehat{=}\rho \widehat{=}l`$. Two other useful identities are $`_a\rho _b=_b\rho _a`$ and $`\chi ^a_a\chi _b=\kappa \rho _b`$ which follow from the definition (2.9) of $`\rho `$ and the fact that $`\chi `$ is a Killing vector.

As in , the classical phase-space can be taken to be the space of solutions of Einstein’s equations. Each space-time configuration which is a point in the phase-space contains an inner as well as an outer boundary. Moreover, all space-time configurations in the neighborhood of the inner boundary are BTZ-like. For this to achieve  uses a set of boundary conditions which insure that all space-times admit a Killing vector $`\chi `$ in a neighborhood of the inner boundary and posses the same ‘near-horizon geometry’. More precisely, it requires

$`\chi ^a\chi ^b\delta g_{ab}\widehat{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\chi ^at^b\delta g_{ab}\widehat{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},`$ (2.12)
where $`t^a`$ is any space-like vector tangent to the inner boundary ($`t\chi =0`$). The hat over the equality sign here means that the above equation holds on the horizon. Clearly the vector field $`\xi `$ which preserves these boundary conditions (2.12) under diffeomorphisms has to be tangent to the horizon. Keeping the same notation as in  let us take the vector field to be

$`\xi ^a=T\chi ^a+R\rho ^a`$ (2.13)
where $`R`$ and $`T`$ are arbitrary functions. By demanding that (2.13) preserves (2.12) under diffeomorphisms one puts restrictions on $`R`$ and $`T`$. These are derived in  (cf. eq (4.8))

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{\chi ^2}{\rho ^2}}DT,D\chi ^a_a.`$ (2.14)
The vector field, satisfying (2.14), can then be said to generate symmetries in the precise sense of (2.12).

Let us now check the closure of the Lie-algebra of these vector fields. It is at this point that the analysis of  appears to be flawed. The errors arise at three levels:
a) As noted in  the requirement that the Lie bracket of symmetry vector fields should close imposes a new condition

$`_\rho T\widehat{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.`$ (2.15)
In  this condition was imposed at the horizon. However, at the horizon $`\rho ^a\widehat{=}\chi ^a\widehat{=}l`$ and hence, (2.15) reads $`DT\widehat{=}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$. Then the main steps in the calculations of  fail to go through. In particular, the central charge is expressed in terms of $`DT`$ at the horizon and therefore vanishes identically. This in turn implies that the entropy also vanishes identically. While the restriction on $`DT`$ has been noted explicitly in , its (obvious) consequences on the value of the central change and entropy are overlooked.
b) Furthermore, it is not sufficient to impose (2.15) only at the horizon; closure will fail unless it holds in a neighborhood.
c) Later, for explicit calculations, a specific function $`T`$ is chosen in  (cf. eq. (5.6)) . Unfortunately, this function does not satisfy the condition (2.15) which is required in the earlier part of the analysis in .

In other words, although the boundary conditions (2.12) and (2.15) are reasonable, the technical implementation of them, as presented in , is incorrect. In the next section we will propose an implementation of the boundary conditions that does not suffer from these problems.

## 3 New Sets of Symmetries

The purpose of this section is to present a systematic analysis which is free of the technical flaws discussed above. However, before embarking on this discussion, in section 3.1 we first investigate a separate issue. In Carlip’s analysis, the symmetry vector fields are defined in a neighborhood of the horizon. From general, classical considerations, one might expect that it should be possible to focus just on the horizon structure and consider symmetry vector fields defined intrinsically on the horizon. We consider this possibility in Section 3.1 and show that in this case the central charge vanishes. Thus the Carlip-type analysis can not be carried out with symmetries defined intrinsically on the horizon. This result suggests that, although the analysis appears to be classical, the origin of the central charge —and hence entropy— can not be captured in a classical analysis. In the remainder of the section, we consider symmetry vector fields more closely related to those of  and improve on that analysis.

### 3.1 Geometrical symmetries

A new framework that is naturally suited for the analysis of symmetries on the horizon is now available – the so-called ‘isolated horizons’. This is a notion that captures the minimum structure intrinsic to the horizon to describe an equilibrium state of a black hole. It allows, however, for matter and radiation in an arbitrary neighborhood of the black hole, as long as none crosses the horizon. As suggested in , this framework is well-suited for the Carlip approach to entropy. A comprehensive description of the isolated horizons framework is given in . Isolated horizons in 2+1 dimensions are discussed in detail in .

It is natural to define symmetries as maps which preserve the basic horizon structure, by which we mean the induced metric and a class of null generators. More details are given in the Appendix. Here let us just state that a vector field which preserves that structure must be tangent to the horizon, i.e. of the form

$`\xi ^a\widehat{=}Al^a+Bm^a`$ (3.16)
where the functions $`A`$ and $`B`$ are restricted to be

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`C(v_{})+\text{const}.v`$ (3.17)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`\text{const}.`$ (3.18)
The coordinates $`v`$ and $`v_{}`$ are defined by the relations $`n=\mathrm{d}v`$, $`m=\frac{1}{r_+}\frac{}{\varphi }`$, and $`v_\pm =v\varphi /\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is easy to see that the algebra of these vector fields (3.16) closes. Now the boundary conditions at the isolated horizon induce a natural symplectic structure in the phase space, where the phase space consists of all possible space-time configurations which admit a fixed isolated horizon. The symplectic structure can be used to evaluate the Poisson brackets between any two phase space functionals.

It is not difficult to check that the vector field (3.16), is Hamiltonian. For details see the Appendix. The Poisson brackets of the corresponding Hamiltonians close on-shell

$`\{H_{\xi _1},H_{\xi _2}\}\widehat{=}H_{[\xi _1,\xi _2]}.`$ (3.19)
Hence, the central charge is zero. This result is not quite unexpected since our analysis is entirely classical and typically the central charge arises from the failure of the classical symmetries to be represented in the quantized theory. This shows that, in general, for symmetries represented by smooth vector fields on the horizon, the ideas of  do not go through. If one wishes to use smooth fields —as is most natural at least in the classical theory— the central charge can arise only from quantization and the analysis would be sensitive to the details of the quantum theory, such as the regularization scheme used, etc. If the original intent of the ideas of  is to be preserved, one must consider symmetries represented by vector fields which do not admit smooth limits to the horizon; in a consistent treatment, the use of “stretched horizons”  is not optional but a necessity. Perhaps this is the price one has to pay to transform an essentially quantum analysis in the language of classical Hamiltonian theory.

Finally, note that any reasonable local definition of a horizon should lead to the above conclusions since we have made very weak assumptions in this sub-section.

### 3.2 Extended notion of symmetries

Let us now return to the discussion of Section 2 and consider symmetry vector fields defined in a neighborhood of the horizon. Thus, we will now use the stronger set of conditions (2.12) which requires that the closure condition (2.15) be satisfied everywhere 111Strictly speaking, we only consider a neighborhood of the horizon where the vector field $`\chi `$ is Killing. In the BTZ example, however, it is globally Killing. This guarantees that the Lie-algebra of the vector fields (2.13) closes

$`[\xi _{T_1},\xi _{T_2}]=_{\xi _{T_1}}\xi _{T_2}=\xi _{T_1DT_2T_2DT_1},\xi _T=R\rho +T\chi `$ (3.20)
where $`R`$ is determined in terms of $`T`$ as in (2.14). One is to make use of the facts that $`_\chi \rho =_\rho T=_\rho R=0`$. The condition (2.15), however, restricts the choice of the vector fields everywhere. To solve for the vector fields we consider a ‘stretched’-horizon at $`r=r_++\epsilon `$ as the inner boundary. The solutions that are of the form

$`T_nf_n(r)\mathrm{exp}(in\mathrm{\Omega }v_+)`$ (3.21)
are especially interesting because they furnish a Diff($`S^1`$), provided $`f_nf_mf_{n+m}`$. However, the condition (2.15) is to be imposed carefully because of the $`(rr_+)`$ terms in the vector field $`\rho `$ (2.9)

$`\rho ^a_aT\left(_{v_+}+N^2_r\right)T=0.`$ (3.22)
Clearly, the radial derivative of $`T`$ blows up at the horizon. With the ansatz (3.21) there is a unique solution for $`T_n`$ in the neighborhood of the horizon

$`T_n^\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Omega }}}\mathrm{exp}\left(in{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\kappa }}\mathrm{log}(rr_+)+in\mathrm{\Omega }v_+\right).`$ (3.23)
The normalization of $`T`$ is so chosen that the vector fields $`\xi `$ form a Diff($`S^1`$) algebra

$`[\xi _{T_n}^\epsilon ,\xi _{T_m}^\epsilon ]=i(nm)\xi _{T_{m+n}}^\epsilon `$ (3.24)
in the neighborhood of the horizon.

Notice that because of (3.23) the vector fields $`\xi `$ do not have a well defined limit at the horizon. They are defined only at the stretched horizon and oscillate wildly in the limit $`rr_+`$. Also the radial derivative of $`\xi `$ blows up, as expected from the condition (2.15). So one has to take great care in evaluating the Poisson bracket and Hamiltonians – now one cannot ignore terms which are of order $`𝒪(rr_+)`$ especially in presence of radial derivatives in the Poisson brackets. Actually more terms will contribute to the Poisson bracket and a thorough examination of the entire calculation is needed.

### 3.3 Hamiltonian and Poisson bracket algebra

The existence of the Hamiltonian under the boundary conditions (2.12) is shown in . The surface Hamiltonian is (the bulk Hamiltonian is zero by constraints)

$`H_{\xi _n}^\epsilon ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{S_\mathrm{\Delta }}}ϵ_{abc}^b\xi _n^{\epsilon c}.`$ (3.25)
The phase space, described in section 2 is associated with a conserved symplectic current . The corresponding symplectic structure may be used to evaluate the Poisson brackets between any two functionals in the phase-space. On shell, the symplectic structure can be written as the sum of boundary terms only. However, one may choose appropriate fall-off conditions of the fields at asymptotic infinity such that the contribution from the outer boundary vanishes. In the present example the fields approach ‘strongly’ to asymptotic AdS-values. In that case given two Hamiltonian vector fields $`\xi _1`$ and $`\xi _2`$, the Poisson bracket between the two corresponding Hamiltonian functionals is given solely by the terms at the inner-boundary

$`\{H_{\xi _1},H_{\xi _2}\}={\displaystyle _{S_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left(\xi _2\mathrm{\Theta }[g,_{\xi _1}g]\xi _1\mathrm{\Theta }[g,_{\xi _2}g]\xi _2(\xi _1L)\right)`$ (3.26)
where $`2\pi \mathrm{\Theta }_a[g,\delta g]=ϵ_{ab}[g^{bc}_c(g_{de}\delta g^{de})_c\delta g^{bc}]`$ is the one-form symplectic potential and $`L`$ is the three-form Lagrangian density. Making use of Einstein’s equations $`R_{ab}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}`$ we can express the Poisson bracket explicitly in terms of the vector fields

$`\{H_{\xi _1},H_{\xi _2}\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{S_\mathrm{\Delta }}}ϵ_{abc}[\xi _2^b_d(^d\xi _1^c^c\xi _1^d)+8\mathrm{\Lambda }\xi _2^b\xi _1^c(12)].`$ (3.27)
Our purpose is to find the terms proportional to $`n^3`$ in the Poisson bracket (3.27) which give rise to a non-trivial central extension to the Poisson bracket algebra. The Hamiltonian (3.25) contains terms only linear in $`n`$. The central charge can then be read off from the $`n^3`$ terms with appropriate normalizations. After a long calculation we arrive at the following expression

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left[\{H_{\xi _n}^\epsilon ,H_{\xi _m}^\epsilon \}\right]=4in^3\delta _{m+n}{\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi \kappa }}+\text{terms linear in }n.`$ (3.28)
Notice that although the vector fields (3.23) do not have a smooth limit as $`rr_+`$ the Hamiltonian and the Poisson bracket have well defined limits.

### 3.4 Entropy arguments

According to the standard normalization (up to linear order terms in $`n`$)

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left[\{H_{\xi _n}^\epsilon ,H_{\xi _m}^\epsilon \}i(nm)H_{\xi _{n+m}}^\epsilon \right]=i{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}n^3\delta _{n+m}`$ (3.29)
the central charge can be read off from the $`n^3`$-term in the Poisson bracket (3.27)

$`c=24{\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }}{\pi \kappa }}.`$ (3.30)
The zero mode of the Hamiltonian too can be read off from (3.25) and is given by

$`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}\left[H_{\xi _0}^\epsilon \right]={\displaystyle \frac{a_\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa }{2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }}}.`$ (3.31)
Hence, by Cardy formula , the entropy is

$`S=2\pi \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{cH_{\xi _0}}{6}}}=2\sqrt{2}a_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (3.32)
which agrees with the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (in units $`8G=\mathrm{}=1`$) up to a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$.

It is worth noting here that Carlip’s central extension (see formula 5.10 of ) and zero-th mode Hamiltonian have the same numerical factor as ours. Nevertheless, he argues that one should use a different, so called effective central extension, and obtains the right numerical factor for entropy. In our case this strategy fails since we have an extra factor of $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\kappa `$ or its inverse in front of our expressions. It should be stressed, however, that this factor is rigidly fixed by the requirements that the symmetry algebra closes, that it gives a Diff$`(S^1)`$, and that the symmetry vector fields are periodic in the coordinate $`\varphi `$ with the period $`2\pi `$. Moreover, following the arguments of , since within a classical framework it is impossible to determine the value of the Hamiltonian in the ground state of the corresponding quantum theory, the right value of the central charge that is to be used in the Cardy formula is not determined classically.

## 4 Discussion

The entropy calculation of  faces certain conceptual limitations because the asymptotic symmetries may be completely different from the horizon symmetries. Both central charge (3.30) and Hamiltonian (3.25) are quite different from the ones found in  for asymptotic infinity. Thus, one needs an analysis restricted to the neighborhood of the horizon. In , Carlip recognized this limitation and carried out a Hamiltonian analysis using symmetries defined near the horizon. However, as we saw in section 2, the resulting analysis has certain technical flaws. In particular, the vector fields which correctly incorporate the ideas laid out in the beginning of that paper are quite different from the ones used in the detailed analysis later on.

In section 3 we made a proposal to overcome those technical problems and obtained a consistent formulation which implements the previous ideas. However, now the symmetry vector fields (2.13) do not have a well-defined limit at the horizon. Nonetheless both the Hamiltonians and their Poisson brackets are well-defined. Furthermore, there is a central charge which, following the reasoning of , implies that the entropy is proportional to area. While the argument has attractive features, its significance is not entirely clear because the vector fields generating the relevant symmetries fail to admit well-defined limits to the horizon. Presumably, this awkward feature is an indication that, in a fully coherent and systematic treatment, the central charge would really be quantum mechanical in origin and could be sensitive to certain details of quantization, such as the regularization scheme used. Indeed, in the detailed analysis, we had to first evaluate the Poisson bracket and then take the limit $`limϵ0`$ (see expressions (3.31) and also (3.29)), a step typical in quantum mechanical regularization schemes. Thus, it could well be that the awkwardness stems from the fact that, following , we have attempted to give an essentially classical argument for a phenomenon that is inherently quantum mechanical.

This viewpoint is supported by our analysis of section 3.1 of symmetries corresponding to smooth vector fields. If one requires that vector fields generating symmetries be smooth at the horizon —a most natural condition in a fully classical setting— we found that the central charge would be zero! Thus, the fact that the vector fields do not admit a smooth limit to the horizon is essential to the Carlip-type analysis. The fact that one has to ‘push’ the analysis an $`ϵ`$ away from the horizon indicates that the procedure may be a ‘short-cut’ for a more complete quantum mechanical regularization222Sometimes it is argued that only a classical central charge can give rise to the standard expression $`a_\mathrm{\Delta }/4G\mathrm{}`$ of entropy and a central charge induced by a quantum anomaly can only give corrections to this expression. This, however, need not be the case. The central charge of a truly quantum origin must be a dimensionless number and the only such possibility is $`ca_\mathrm{\Delta }/G\mathrm{}`$. This would appear in the quantum Virasoro algebra as    $`[\widehat{L}_n,\widehat{L}_m]=(nm)\widehat{L}_{n+m}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}(n^3n)\delta _{m+n}`$  (4.33) where $`\widehat{L}_n`$’s are now quantum operators. The eigenvalue of $`\widehat{L}_0`$ should also be dimensionless ($`a_\mathrm{\Delta }/G\mathrm{}`$). Thus, the correct semiclassical expression of entropy can be reproduced even when the central charge comes from the quantum theory..

This, however, raises some questions about the method in general: a) How satisfactory is the classical analysis and how seriously should one consider such vector fields? In particular, role of such vector fields in terms of space-time geometry is far from obvious since they are not even defined on the horizon. b) Why should this particular algebra be the focus of attention? c) Does the whole analysis suggest a rather transparent quantum mechanical regularization scheme and hence, systematically constrain the quantum theory?

The fact that our final expression of entropy differs from the standard Hawking-Bekenstein formula by a factor of $`\sqrt{2}`$ also provides a test for quantum gravity theories. The value $`H_{\xi _0}`$ appearing in Cardy’s formula is of a quantum mechanical nature. A classical calculation may not give the right numerical value for it. It then follows that a quantum theory of gravity will give the correct value for the entropy provided it (a) has classical general relativity as its low energy limit, and, (b) the expectation value $`H_{\xi _0}`$ is $`a_\mathrm{\Delta }\kappa /4\pi \mathrm{\Omega }`$ (assuming $`H_{\xi _0}`$ is well defined in quantum theory).

In spite of the limitations of this calculation, the final result is of considerable interest because it is not a priori obvious that all the relevant subtleties of the full quantum mechanical analysis can be compressed in a classical calculation simply by stretching the physical horizon an $`ϵ`$ distance away, performing all the Poisson brackets and then taking the limit $`ϵ0`$ in the final expressions. Note, however, that a careful treatment of technical issues that were overlooked in  was necessary to bring out these features. Indeed, our analysis provides the precise sense in which the original intention in  of reducing the problem to a classical calculation is borne out in a technically consistent fashion.

## 5 Appendix

In this appendix we define what is called a weakly isolated horizon. It is a more general object then an isolated horizon, however it is sufficient for our purpose of finding the symmetries of the horizon.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a null hypersurface and $`l`$ a future pointing null normal vector field on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We will denote by $`[l]`$ the equivalence class of null normals which differ from $`l`$ only by a multiplicative constant. Let us also introduce a one-form $`\omega _a`$ defined intrinsically on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by:

$$_\underset{}{a}l_b=\omega _al_b.$$
(5.34)
The arrow in the above equation denotes the pull-back to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

We call a pair $`(\mathrm{\Delta },[l])`$ a weakly isolated horizon if and only if:
1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is topologically $`S^1\times 𝐑`$.
2. The expansion $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{(l)}`$ of $`l`$ vanishes.
3. The equations of motion hold on $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The stress-energy tensor $`T_{ab}`$ is such that $`T_b^al^b`$ is future directed and causal.
4. $`_l\omega =0`$, where $`\omega `$ is the one-form given by the equivalence class $`[l]`$.

We will say that a vector field $`\xi `$ generates a symmetry of the horizon if the flow generated by $`\xi `$ on the phase-space preserves the basic structure of the horizon, namely $`[l]`$ and $`q`$. Here, $`q_{ab}g_{\underset{}{ab}}`$. Thus we impose,

$`_\xi l[l],`$ (5.35)
$`_\xi q_{ab}=0.`$ (5.36)
It is not difficult to check that any vector field $`\xi `$ satisfying the above conditions can be written as

$$\xi ^a=Al^a+Bm^a,$$
(5.37)
where $`A=C(v_{})+\text{const}.v,B=\text{const}`$, and $`v_\pm ,v`$ are defined by the relations $`n=\mathrm{d}v`$, $`m=\frac{1}{r_+}\frac{}{\varphi }`$, and $`v_\pm =v\frac{\varphi }{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. As in the main text we assume that the vector field $`m^a`$ is tangent to the horizon. Note that $`C(v_{})`$ must be a periodic function, therefore one can perform a Fourier analysis and find a set of modes $`\xi _n`$.

Now, using Hamiltonian considerations, one can find the symplectic structure and Hamiltonians in the phase-space of isolated horizons. For details see . The symplectic structure on-shell is equal to

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\delta _\xi ,\delta )=\frac{1}{\pi }_{S_\mathrm{\Delta }}\left[(\xi A_I)\delta e^I+(\xi e^I)\delta A_I\right]+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\delta _\xi ,\delta ),$$
(5.38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is a gauge term which is not important for the present analysis. $`A`$ and $`e`$ are the connection one-form and the orthonormal triad, respectively. Using this expression one can find the Hamiltonian corresponding to $`\xi `$ as well as the Poisson bracket of two Hamiltonians. The corresponding expressions are

$`H_\xi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{S_\mathrm{\Delta }}}(\xi A_I)e^I+C_\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (5.39)
$`\{H_{\xi _1},H_{\xi _2}\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{S_\mathrm{\Delta }}}\left[(\xi _1A_I)_{\xi _2}e^I+(\xi _1e^I)_{\xi _2}A_I\right],`$ (5.40)
where $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is zero except when $`\xi `$ contains a constant multiple of $`l`$. Then we have $`C_\mathrm{\Delta }[cl]=c(M+2r_+\kappa +J\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

Subsequently, one can check that for any such symmetry vector fields

$$\{H_{\xi _1},H_{\xi _2}\}\widehat{=}H_{[\xi _1,\xi _2]},$$
(5.41)
and therefore there is no central extension of the corresponding algebra of conserved charges.

### Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank Abhay Ashtekar for discussions and various important suggestions. Also, we would like to thank Steve Carlip for valuable correspondence. The work of AG was supported by the National Science Foundation grant PHY95-14240 and the Eberly Research Funds of Penn State.


text:
# Ising Dipoles on the Triangular Lattice

## Abstract

A cluster Monte Carlo method for systems of classical spins with purely dipolar couplings is presented. It is tested and applied for finite arrays of perpendicular Ising dipoles on the triangular lattice. This model is a modification with long-range interactions of the geometrically frustrated Ising antiferromagnet. From measurements of integrated autocorrelation times for energy, magnetization and staggered magnetizations, a high efficiency of the cluster Monte Carlo (MC) algorithm compared to a single-spin-flip algorithm is found. For the investigated model, a finite temperature transition is found which is characterized by a peak in the specific heat and in the staggered susceptibilities.

The progress in the fabrication of very small patterns of ferromagnetic materials  opens the fascinating possibility to study experimentally statistical properties of some mesoscopic or exotic magnetic systems. Dipolar couplings between such particles may induce magnetic ordering . These couplings are often only viewed as additional effective anisotropy barriers for the superparamagnetic relaxation of individual particles. However, such assemblies of ferromagnetic nano-particles are coupled magnetic systems. They should display magnetic phase-transitions for systems with mesoscopic size of individual magnetic moments. Recently, Wirth et al. studied the properties of nanoscale ferromagnetic columns which were grown on substrates in a scanning tunnel-microscope. Magnetic-force microscopic pictures of densely packed columns on a triangular lattice showed typical antiferromagnetic correlations where rows of nearest-neighbour moments point alternatingly up and down.

This paper presents a numerical study on the expected thermodynamics for such assemblies of perpendicular dipoles in two dimensions. Its second aim is the introduction of a cluster Monte Carlo (MC) method for dipolarly coupled systems. For the geometrically frustrated triangular lattice, this method allows efficient statistical sampling down to relatively low temperatures. The coupled system we want to study consists of $`i=1\mathrm{}N`$ Ising–spins, $`\sigma _i\{1,1\}`$

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j}{}^{}v(R_{ij})\sigma _i\sigma _j,$$
(1)
where $`v(R)=gR^3`$ are interactions between three–dimensional dipoles describing the coupling between the perpendicular moments of the particles. All the couplings are antiferromagnetic. Length is measured in nearest-neighbour distances. If we restrict the interactions in (1) to nearest-neighbour terms we get an Ising antiferromagnet. The triangular Ising antiferromagnet (TIAFM) is one of the few exactly solved systems with geometrical frustration . It was shown that no long-range order is established at finite temperature, but the system becomes critical at $`T=0`$. However, additional interactions may lift the ground-state degeneracy and may induce phase-transitions in such underconstrained systems. Hence, model (1) is interesting in its own right.

Cluster-MC methods for spin models  are only efficient in critical regions if the clusters do not percolate already above the critical temperature. The energy of model (1) may be decomposed into two parts

$$H=\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}V_\mathrm{\Delta }+\frac{1}{2}\underset{(i,j)\mathrm{N}\mathrm{N}}{}^{}v(R_{ij}),$$
(2)
where the sum of $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denotes sums of nearest-neighbour interactions in one of the two types of triangular plaquettes (and, with open boundary conditions, some nearest-neighbour interactions along the boundaries also labeled by $`V_\mathrm{\Delta }`$). This first part is exactly the TIAFM. The second sum contains the remaining bonds with longer range.

Clusters for the TIAFM can be defined by sampling the sums of energies corresponding to elementary triangular plaquettes . These clusters are the correct critical clusters of the TIAFM percolating at $`T=0`$. Applying this cluster definition to the first part of (2) the dipolar system is mapped on a system of clusters which interact through the long-range interactions generated from terms in the second sum of (2). For flipping clusters the usual Metropolis algorithm is used. The algorithm of alternatingly mapping (1) onto interacting clusters via (2) and sampling this mapped system is equivalent to sampling the original system.

We have to show ergodicity and detailed balance to justify the method. The procedure of cluster decomposition may result in deleting all bonds which maps the original system onto itself. Thus, the occurrence of single-spin flips ensuring ergodicity can be checked a posteriori. Detailed balance may be demonstrated by the prescription for general cluster algorithms given by Kandel and Domany which shows that bonds may be deleted, frozen, or left unchanged to generate systems of interacting clusters equivalent to the original system.

The method is applied for finite arrays of hexagonal shape with $`N=61\mathrm{}2977`$ spins. The following measure for antiferromagnetic correlations is used: Spins are labeled $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ for sites given by $`\mu 𝐫_1+\nu 𝐫_2`$ with nearest-neighbour vectors $`𝐫_{1,2}=(\pm \sqrt{3}/2,1/2)`$. Three types of staggered magnetizations may be calculated by $`m^\text{I}=1/N_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }(1)^\mu `$, $`m^{\text{II}}=1/N_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }(1)^\nu `$, and $`m^{\text{III}}=1/N_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\mu \nu }(1)^{\mu +\nu }`$. For the hexagonal arrays, the three types are equivalent. Thus we use the average $`m_a=1/3(m^\text{I}+m^{\text{II}}+m^{\text{III}})`$.

Here, our algorithm is first used in the Swendsen-Wang (SW) form by deleting/freezing bonds for all plaquettes of a randomly chosen type. It turns out that after mapping onto the system of interacting clusters best performance was achieved by attempts to flip just one (randomly chosen or the largest) cluster. Integrated auto-correlation times for energy, magnetization, and for the staggered magnetizations $`m^{\text{I}\mathrm{}\text{III}}`$ were calculated as measure of efficiency by a self-consistent windowing method . Independent isothermal runs were started from slowly cooled and relaxed configurations. For sizes $`N=61\mathrm{}469`$ between several $`10^4`$ and $`10^5`$ cluster-MC sweeps (MCS, i.e., $`N`$ attempted cluster moves), for the two larger sizes only $`10^{3\mathrm{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ MCS could be performed. As expected, the autocorrelations for the magnetization decay rapidly at all temperatures. The autocorrelations for energy are similar to those of the staggered magnetizations. Thus, we only show the average integrated autocorrelation time $`\tau _a`$ for the staggered magnetizations in Fig. 1(a) and compare it to runs with the single-spin-flip Metropolis algorithm for the two smallest system sizes. Fig. 1(b) shows the average size $`<c>`$ of flipped clusters. The strong increase of $`<c>`$ towards low temperature means that all spins are increasingly correlated. This transition becomes sharper with larger $`N`$. The size distribution of flipped clusters always consists of a rapidly decreasing part starting with single-spin flips. For low temperatures and small system sizes clusters with size close to $`N`$ are found also.

Still, the corresponding $`\tau _a`$ does not grow dramatically. For $`N>469`$ we could measure $`\tau _a`$ only down to $`T/g0.19`$, where it becomes essentially independent of $`N`$ while $`<c>2`$. The single-spin-flip algorithm yields far larger $`\tau _a`$ which in a critical region should grow with system size as $`\tau _aN^{z/2}`$ with $`z2`$. This comparison demonstrates the efficiency of this cluster-MC. However, the numerical cost of the SW-algorithm scales as $`N\tau _a`$. Therefore, a Wolff-type algorithm  was implemented for further production runs shown below. Only a single cluster is grown starting from a randomly chosen plaquette. The performance of this algorithm is similar to the SW-algorithm but the numerical effort is smaller. Its numerical cost scales as $`<c>\tau _a`$.

Cluster-MC runs with several $`10^5`$ MCS were performed for $`N721`$. For $`N1519`$ serious problems in the critical region $`T/g0.18`$ arise. Cycling temperature displays hysteresis of the energy. Measurements could be done for runs with only few $`10^3`$ MCS in the critical region with $`N1519`$. Here, configurations both from cooling and heating were first relaxed for longer times before start of measurements to ensure that they are close to equilibrium. Sampling was performed for energy per spin $`E`$, specific heat $`C=N(<E^2><E>^2)/T^2`$, the staggered magnetizations, the corresponding susceptibilities $`\chi ^\text{X}=N(<(m^\text{X})^2><m^\text{X}>^2)/T`$ and the fourth-order Binder cumulant $`U^\text{X}=1<(m^\text{X})^4>/(3<(m^\text{X})^2>^2)`$ (X $`=`$ I, II, III). Using the histogram method by Ferrenberg and Swendsen  these various quantities were evaluated as functions of temperature in the critical region. Results are shown in Figs. 2 and 3. The diverging peak in the specific heat (Fig. 2(b)) indicates the presence of a transition at or closely below $`T/g0.18`$. Similarly, the peak for the average staggered susceptibility $`\chi _a`$ shows that the transition (Fig. 3(a)) is related to antiferromagnetic ordering. Near $`T/g0.18`$, $`m_a`$ steeply increases reaching values $``$ 0.3 to 0.4 (not shown here). However, the average Binder-cumulant $`U_a`$ for the various system sizes does not provide a clear indication for a continuous transition by a unique crossing of $`U_a(T)`$-curves for the different system sizes at one critical temperature (Fig. 3(b)). The transition might be first order instead as indicated by the observed hysteresis when cycling temperature. Then the apparent correlation of system sizes $`N<1000`$ corresponds only to the size of typical nuclei of the low-temperature phase. On the other hand, the behaviour of the $`U_a(T)`$–curves which seem to merge below $`T/g=0.18`$, is consistent with usual observations at a Berezinskii-Kosterlitz-Thouless-transition and a line of critical points at low temperature. Possibly, the peak in the specific heat is only a precursor of this transition, or two transitions are present.

In conclusion a cluster-MC method is presented which may be used for dipolarly coupled spin-systems. It works by generating interacting clusters from sampling of short-range interactions. It is shown to be efficient for the specific case of Ising dipoles on the triangular lattice. This success relies on the ability to define clusters for this geometrically frustrated system which percolate only at $`T=0`$. However, the method can be generalized to various other systems with long-range interactions, including systems with continuous spins. The investigation of the exact nature of the finite-temperature transition found with this MC-method remains a task for the future.

Acknowledgment. I thank S. Wirth and A. Möbius for discussion. This work was supported by DFG. After finishing work on this paper I became aware that den Hertog et al. have developed a similar cluster MC-method for dipolar spin ice on the pyrochlore lattice .