text:
# Optical spin transfer in ferromagnetic semiconductors

## I Introduction

The collective magnetization dynamics of a single-domain ferromagnet can be dramatically modified when spin polarized quasiparticles are injected into the system. For instance, in a metallic ferromagnet current-carrying, non-equilibrium quasiparticles exert a torque on the collective magnetization which, at sufficiently high current densities, can produce a complete reversal of the magnetization orientation. This phenomenon, called spin transfer (ST), was predicted by Slonczewski SMT1  and Berger SMT2  and has been confirmed experimentally in ferromagnetic multilayer systems by a number of groups SMTexp . Although the microscopic mechanism is not completely settled and possibly not absolutely universal, it is clear that ST in itinerant electron ferromagnets is a consequence of irreversible transfer of magnetization between non-equilibrium quasiparticles and the collective magnetization. In ST, a spin-polarized injection current provides a non-conservative driving force which can either deliver or extract energy from the collective magnetic degree of freedom.

(III,Mn)V ferromagnetic semiconductors like GaAs:Mn combine ferromagnetism with familiar semiconductor properties similar to those of the parent semiconductor OhnoScience . Most practical applications of GaAs and other III-V compounds are related to their optical properties. Unlike Si and Ge, III-V materials are optically active and therefore respond strongly to a laser field with a frequency close to the band gap. A well known property of III-V semiconductors is optical orientation OO1  in which a laser generates a population of photocarriers strongly spin polarized along a direction which depends on the polarization state of the laser field. In this paper we predict that circularly polarized laser pulses which excite spin polarized electron-hole pairs across the bandgap of (III,Mn)V ferromagnets can control the magnetization dynamics through the spin transfer phenomenon. We outline a theory of optical spin transfer in ferromagnetic semiconductors and discuss some of the many possible applications of this phenomenon. In particular, by numerically solving Landau-Lifshitz equations that include a spin transfer term, we show that laser pulses with suitably chosen durations, intensities, and propagation directions enable all-optical ferromagnetic resonance, and nanosecond time scale switching between magnetic easy axes.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section II we briefly review aspects of the electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As relevant to our proposal. In section III we present our theory of optical spin transfer, which adds to the Landau Lifshitz equations (LLE) that describe collective magnetization dynamic an additional term that accounts for the irreversible exchange of angular momentum with the photocarriers. In section IV we present results of the numerical solution of the extended LLE in a number of different cases. In section V we discuss the relationship between our proposal and some recent experimental results Munekata ; Munekata-03 . We have relegated a description of some of the technical considerations that underly our theory to appendices A and B.

## II  Electronic structure of (Ga,Mn)As

The Fermi energy of intrinsic GaAs lies in the middle of a gap of approximately 1.5 eV. GaAs can be doped with up to 10 percent of Mn which, under suitable growth conditions, replaces Ga. Substitutional Mn acts as a relatively shallow single acceptor so that each Mn injects one hole in the GaAs host. In most of the samples there is some degree of compensation, due primarily to interstitial Mn ions, so that the hole density is smaller than density of magnetic impurities. Samples in which the density of interstitial Mn ions has been reduced by annealing tend to have higher carrier densities and metallic transport properties, indicating that the holes are delocalized. These relatively itinerant holes interact via a Kondo-like interaction with the localized $`d`$ orbitals of the Mn ions. There is broad agreement that ferromagnetism is due to carrier mediated interactions between the Mn ions. Strong magneto-transport effects magnetotransport  and tunneling magnetoresistance TMR  support this point of view and demonstrate that the valence band holes are strongly coupled to the Mn ions.

The physics of samples with metallic-like conductivity can be reasonably note  described with a simple mean field theory: the valence band of the parent compound (GaAs), described with a $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}`$ Hamiltonian, is occupied by holes which interact with an effective field that is the mean field representation of the exchange interaction with the array of Mn atoms Zener ; Ramin ; JFR . Ferromagnetism occurs at low temperatures, when the paramagnetic energy gained by the degenerate Fermi gas formed by the holes is larger than the reduction of entropy of the magnetic atoms entailed by the spontaneous order. Importantly, the spin orbit interaction is properly included in the $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}`$ Hamiltonian. As a result of spin orbit interaction, both the $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}`$ valence bands $`ϵ_\nu (\stackrel{}{k})`$ and the total energy $`\left(\stackrel{}{}\right)`$ depend on the relative orientation of the collective magnetization $`\stackrel{}{}`$ and the crystallographic axis. This magnetic anisotropy compares well with experimetal results Tang .

The conduction band does not play an important role in equilibrium (Ga,Mn)As and remains empty unless electrons are generated there by optical excitation, as is the case of our proposal. We describe the bottom of the conduction band with a simple parabolic band model. The mean field spin splitting is given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_cJ_{sd}c_{Mn}`$, where $`J_{sd}`$ is the exchange coupling between the conduction band electrons and the Mn $`d`$ electrons and $`c_{Mn}`$ is the density of Mn ions. To the best of our knowledge, the conduction band exchange coupling constant $`J_{sd}`$ has not been measured experimentally in (Ga,Mn)As. In analogy with the case of (II,Mn)VI ReviewFurdyna , we assume that $`J_{sd}`$ is five times smaller than $`J_{pd}`$, the exchange interaction between valence band holes and Mn ions. The latter can be inferred from transport and magneto-optics experiments. We take $`J_{sd}=11eV`$ $`\AA ^3`$. (Our conclusions do not depend strongly on the numerical value of $`J_{sd}`$.)

## III  Optical Spin Transfer

In equilibrium, the magnetization $`\stackrel{}{}`$ of a sample of (Ga,Mn)As with a density $`p`$ of holes, lies along an easy axis in order to minimize $`\left(\stackrel{}{}\right)`$. In this paper we study the dynamics of $`\stackrel{}{}`$ when the material is photoexcited so that a density of extra holes, $`\delta p`$ and extra conduction band electrons $`\delta n=\delta p`$ is injected in the system. We only consider the situation when $`\delta n=\delta p<<p`$. The initial spin orientation of these photocarriers, $`\widehat{n}`$, is determined by the polarization state of the laser, according to the selection rules of the material which depend ultimately on an interplay between angular momentum conservation and spin-orbit interactions. A circularly polarized laser propagating along the $`\widehat{z}`$-direction with an energy equal to the band-gap creates photocarriers that are strongly spin polarized along the propagation direction OO1 .

The Mn spin dynamics of (III,Mn)V ferromagnetic semiconductors differs qualitatively from that of the paramagnetic (II,Mn)VI semiconductors which have been studied extensively DMSOO ; Crooker  in interesting earlier work. In that case, laser pulses have been used both to trigger and to detect DMSOO ; Crooker  the dynamics of substantially independent magnetic moments. In ferromagnets, moments behave collectively and many elegant and technologically important properties follow from the, often complex, behavior of the magnetization-orientation collective coordinate. In the case of (III,Mn)V ferromagnets ourreview  the underlying magnetic degrees of freedom are Mn ion $`S=5/2`$ local moments and holes in the semiconductor valence band note . The magnetization-orientation dynamics is governed by the following equation:

$$\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{t}=\stackrel{}{}\times \left[\gamma \frac{(\stackrel{}{})}{\stackrel{}{}}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{damping}}+\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{ST}}\right]$$
(1)
where $`(\stackrel{}{})`$ specifies the relationship between energy and magnetization, $`\stackrel{}{}`$. The dissipative processes by which the collective coordinate relaxes towards the minimum of $`(\stackrel{}{})`$ are represented by $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{damping}}`$. Choosing the Landau-Lifshitz form, the damping term is given by

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{damping}}=\frac{\gamma \alpha }{_s}\stackrel{}{}\times \frac{\delta (\stackrel{}{})}{\delta \stackrel{}{}}$$

where $`_s=|\stackrel{}{}|`$ and $`\gamma =\frac{e}{mc}`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio. We define the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{\stackrel{}{}}{_s}`$; note that since $`d(\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{})/dt=0`$, these equations attempt to describe only the dynamics of the magnetization orientation $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

In this work the irreversible transfer of angular momentum and energy from non-equilibrium quasiparticles to the collective magnetization is described by $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{ST}}`$. The expression that we use for $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{ST}}`$ is based on the following physical picture. After photon absorption, the photocarriers are spin polarized along the direction $`\widehat{n}`$ determined by the polarization state and the propagation direction of the laser (figure 1-b). Due to their mutual exchange interaction ourreview , the spin of a photocarrier and the collective magnetization will then precess around each other at rates defined by their mean-field interactions. The precession involves periodic reversible transfer of angular momentum back and forth between the collective magnetization and an individual photocarriers, which can be described either classically or quantum mechanically. The precession is abruptly interrupted by one of the following two processes: spontaneous emission of a photon (photocarrier recombination) or photocarrier spin decoherence. As we discuss below, the latter process will usually involve spontaneous emission of a spin wave. Importantly, the distribution of values for the component of the photocarrier spin perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{}`$, $`\widehat{n}_{}`$, is uniform at the instant of decay, provided that the decay time is much larger than the precession time (see figure 1-c). Therefore, when summing over all the photocarriers, there is a net loss of quasiparticle spin along the $`\widehat{n}_{}`$ direction which must be transferred to the collective magnetization because of the conservation of total spin during precession SMT1 . Therefore, the stochastic nature of the spin decoherence event, whether due to carrier recombination or spin wave emission, leads to an irreversible spin transfer from the photocarriers to the collective magnetization. This argument implies that:

$$\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{\mathrm{ST}}=\frac{\mu _B𝒫(t)}{_s^2}\stackrel{}{n}\times \stackrel{}{}$$
(2)
where $`𝒫(t)`$ is the rate per unit volume at which quasiparticles are injected into the system and $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton. In appendix A we present a mathematical derivation of eq. (2). A term similar to eq. (2) has been proposed previously on the basis of similar arguments in the context of current induced magnetization switching in ferromagnetic metals SMT1 ; SMT2 .

The argument leading to Eq. (2) assumes that the photocarriers precess many times around the effective field created by the collective magnetization before they loose spin coherence. The major source of spin decoherence in the case of the electrons in the conduction band in non magnetic p-doped GaAs at low temperatures is exchange with holes BAP . The measured electronrelax  electron spin relaxation time in p-doped samples is well above 100 ps at low temperatures. To the best of our knowledge, the conduction band electron spin relaxation rate has not been measured in(Ga,Mn)As. Using the standard master equation approach with Fermi Golden rule rates we have derived an expression for the conduction band spin decoherence time. The details are outlined in appendix B. Whereas the static component of the magnetic environment produces the conduction band spin splitting, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$, the fluctuating magnetic environment provided by the spin waves of the Mn-hole system results in the following $`T_2`$:

$$\frac{1}{T_2}=\left(1+e^{\beta _L\mathrm{\Delta }_c}\right)S\frac{J_{sd}^2(k_BT_e)^2}{4\pi ^2\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{2m}{\pi \mathrm{}^2𝒟}\right]^{3/2}(y)$$
(3)
where

$`(y)={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}\sqrt{x}e^x{\displaystyle _0^{z_D}}\sqrt{x+y{\displaystyle \frac{T_e}{T_L}}z}\times `$
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T_e}{T_L}}z}\left[1+n_B\left({\displaystyle \frac{T_e}{T_L}}z\right)\right]dzdx`$ (4)
In this expression we distinguish between the Mn temperature $`T_L`$ and the temperature of the photocarriers, $`T_e`$, which is taken as a parameter to describe their excess energy. Here $`𝒟\frac{2A}{c_{Mn}S}`$ is the spin stiffness SW  in the spin wave spectrum $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒟q^2`$, $`m^{}`$ is the conduction band effective mass, $`z_D=\beta k_B^2\left(6\pi ^2c_{Mn}\right)^{2/3}`$ is the normalized spin wave Debye cutoff Konig  and $`y=\mathrm{\Delta }_c/T_e`$. Since and $`y>>z`$ the argument of the square root in eq. (4) is always positive. The physical mechanisms underlying equation (3) are the spontaneous emission and absorption of spin waves with the corresponding spin flip of the conduction band electron. Since the spin wave gap is neglected in the derivation of equation (3), $`T_2`$ is probably somewhat underestimated. $`T_2`$ is a decreasing function of the hot carrier temperature $`T_e`$. If we take $`S=2.5`$, $`c_{Mn}=`$1.1$`\times 10^{21}`$ cm-3 (x=0.05), $`A=0.2pJ`$ $`m^1`$ (according to reference SW, ), $`m^{}=0.067`$,$`T_L=1meV`$ and $`J_{\mathrm{sd}}=`$ 11 eV $`\AA ^3`$, then we have $`T_220`$ ps for $`T_e=`$ 100 meV, and even longer $`T_2`$ for smaller values of $`T_e`$. This time is long compared to the precession period for photoelectrons which is $`h/J_{sd}Sc_{\mathrm{Mn}}0.15`$ ps, where $`c_{\mathrm{Mn}}`$ is the Mn concentration, and $`J_{sd}`$ is the exchange interaction between Mn moments and conduction band electrons. The photocarrier spin-orientation randomization assumption that underlies Eq. (2) is therefore valid for electrons in the conduction band. Radiative recombination time, by which one photo-electron and one photo-hole annihilate by emission of a photon, lies in the range between 2 and 25 ps Munekata ; Munekata-03 . We expect that both carrier recombination and spin wave emission will contribute significantly to the spin decay of photoelectrons.

Unlike photoelectrons, photoholes experience a strong momentum-dependent effective field $`\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }_{so}\stackrel{}{L}`$, due to their spin-orbit interaction with the atomic orbital angular momentum, $`\stackrel{}{L}`$. In GaAs, for example, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{so}}=340`$ meV, larger than the valence band exchange mean field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pd}}=SJ_{pd}c_{\mathrm{Mn}}`$. Scattering between Bloch states causes $`\stackrel{}{L}`$ to fluctuate strongly so that the valence band spin decoherence time is on the same order as the momentum scattering time EY . In (Ga,Mn)As the momentum scattering time is of the order of 10 femtoseconds conduc , shorter than or comparable to the band quasiparticle spin-precession time $`h/\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{pd}}30\mathrm{fs}`$. These numerical values in combination with our picture of optical spin transfer suggest that the contribution of photo-holes will be strongly suppressed. We neglect this contribution in the rest of the paper. The effect of spin orbit interaction in spin transfer has been studied theoretically by two of us alvaro , for a model without orbital degeneracy. We believe that this issue calls for further work, especially in the light of recent experiments in which current driven magnetization switching is achieved at a much smaller than expected current densityOhno2004 .

## IV Optical Spin Transfer Dynamics in (Ga,Mn)As

In the remainder of this paper we explore the collective magnetization dynamics of (Ga,Mn)As driven by polarized laser pulses, as described by Landau Lifshitz equations that include the spin transfer term (eq. 1). In the model of valance-band-hole mediated ferromagnetism Zener ; Ramin , the magnetic anisotropy is due to the spin orbit interaction of the holes and is sensitive to lattice mismatch strains. The anisotropy energies we consider can be fit to the form

$$(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})=k_1\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2\mathrm{\Omega }_y^2+k_2\mathrm{\Omega }_z^2k_3\mathrm{\Omega }_z^4+k_4\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_x\mathrm{\Omega }_y\mathrm{\Omega }_z\right)^2+k_u\mathrm{\Omega }_x^2$$

The uniaxial term proportional to $`k_2`$ is a consequence of lattice-matching strains and favors magnetization orientations in the $`\widehat{x}\widehat{y}`$ plane, while the much weaker uniaxial term proportional to $`k_u`$ is obtained by fitting to recent experiments Tang  which demonstrate that the kinematics of the MBE growth process lowers the symmetry of the layer-by-layer growth planes in a way which influences the magnetic anisotropy energy. The following set of values $`k_1=0.025`$ meV/nm3, ($`k_2,k_3,k_4,k_u)=1.34,1.05,1.25,0.08)`$ in units of $`k_1`$ follow from the numerical mean field calculation Ramin , for (Ga0.95,Mn0.05)As with a density of holes $`p=\mathrm{3.5\hspace{0.33em}10}^{20}`$ cm-3. These values are in good agreement with the experimental results reported by Tang et al. Tang  and can be taken as typical for GaAsMn. We have verified that the results reported below are robust with respect to modifications in the functional $`(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$.

Writing $`(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})=k_1e_0(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, where $`e_0`$ is dimensionless, we define a typical time scale $`t_0\left|\frac{_s}{\gamma k_1}\right|30`$ $`ps`$ for a Mn fraction x=0.05. Defining the dimensionless quantities $`\widehat{t}=\frac{t}{t_0}`$ and $`\widehat{𝒫}\frac{𝒫(\widehat{t})t_0}{Sc_{\mathrm{Mn}}}`$, the Landau Lifshitz equation can then be written as

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{d\widehat{t}}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \left[\frac{e_0}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\alpha \left[\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \frac{e_0}{\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\right]+\widehat{𝒫}(\widehat{t})\left[\widehat{n}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right]\right]$$
(5)
where the damping coefficient $`\alpha `$, estimated using the ferromagnetic resonance experiments of reference FMR , is $`\alpha 0.07`$. We use this value for the calculations that follow, although our conclusions are not particularly sensitive to this parameter. We assume that the magnetization lies along the $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0=\widehat{x}`$ easy axis before the laser pulse is applied and consider two different situations: i) Weak circularly polarized laser pulses which propagate along $`\widehat{z}`$ and initiate a free induction decay from which a ferromagnetic resonance spectrum can be obtained without the need for a time dependent magnetic field and ii) Intense circularly polarized laser pulses, propagating either parallel or perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$ which drive $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ away from $`\widehat{x}`$ and switch the magnetization direction.

### IV.1  All optical Ferromagnetic Resonance

We first discuss the possibility of performing a time resolved pump and probe experiment which yields information similar to that of a ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) experiment. We refer to this as all optical FMR. In standard FMR experiments, the dynamics of the magnetization is triggered by an AC magnetic field, whereas detection of the magnetization dynamics can be done using different methods, including optical ones. Here, we show that the motion of the collective magnetization can be both triggered and detected with pump and probe laser pulses. The pump laser, propagating in the $`\widehat{z}`$ direction, is circularly polarized, so that the photocarriers are spin polarized perpendicular to the equilibrium magnetization ($`\widehat{x}`$). Because of the spin transfer term, the magnetization can be tilted away from $`\widehat{x}`$ (see inset of figure 2) by the pulse. The energy per pulse considered in figure 2 is $`E=0.1mJcm^2`$ and the laser duration is 3$`ps`$, corresponding to a laser power of $`W=33MWcm^2`$. Very similar results are obtained for pump pulse widths between $`0.2`$ and $`20`$ picoseconds, keeping the laser power constant: it is primarily the laser power that controls the the spin transfer effect on the magnetization, as implied by equation (2).

The subsequent free induction decay process can be probed by measuring the Faraday rotation of a second linearly polarized probe laser pulse. The Faraday rotation is proportional to $`M_z(t)`$, which Crooker  oscillates at the FMR frequency. In Fig. 2-b we show a normalized Fourier transform of $`M_z(t)`$ for two different values of the damping constant, $`\alpha `$. It is apparent from Figure 2-b, both the precession frequency, $`\omega _0`$ and the linewidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$, can obtained from such a procedure.

Although the experimental procedure we propose is similar to the one used in reference Crooker  for diluted paramagnetic II-VI-Mn, the spin transfer mechanism is quite different. In the case of II-VI-Mn quantum wells, the spin of the photoinduced heavy holes points along the growth direction, creating a transient effective field $`J_{pd}p_{\mathrm{holes}}\widehat{z}`$ which tilts the Mn spins away from their equilibrium orientation Crooker ; Linder , determined by an external magnetic field along $`\widehat{x}`$. After recombination the transient field is absent and the Mn spins follow free induction decay dynamics.

### IV.2  Laser induced magnetization switching

In the case of all optical FMR, the magnetization orientation is weakly perturbed. By increasing the laser pulse intensity, the departure from the initial equilibrium orientation can be made large enough to drive $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ to a different easy axis. We consider two geometries the spin of the photocarrier lying (a) perpendicular to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$, and (b) parallel to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$. These situations were also distinguished by Slonczewski SMT1 . For that case the geometry (a) the magnetization develops a precession around the easy axis. In the geometry (b) the effect of the spin transfer is to enhance or reduce the damping of the departures of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ from $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$. For a sufficiently high flux of non-equilibrium quasiparticles, the rate at which non-equilibrium quasiparticles deliver energy into the collective magnetization can overcome the rate at which the latter dissipates energy. When this happens, $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ departs from $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$ and, depending on $`(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, it will evolve to a different easy axis orientation. We have explored the two geometries using laser pulses. A pulse that propagates perpendicular to the magnetization drives $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ from $`\widehat{x}`$. It is possible to tailor the laser pulse energy and duration so as to control which easy direction the magnetization decays to. In particular, the laser pulse can produce switching. In figure 3 we show an example of this. In the case of photocarriers injected with spin parallel to $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}_0`$, we have verified that the laser can control the rate at which the collective magnetization decays towards equilibrium. The damping can be made arbitrarily large, for lasers propagating anti-parallel to the magnetization, or arbitrarily small for lasers propagating parallel to the magnetization.

## V Discussion

Ferromagnetic order of the microscopic degrees of freedom in (Ga,Mn)As, Mn $`d`$ electrons and valence band holes, is described with the order parameter $`\stackrel{}{}`$. In equilibrium, $`\stackrel{}{}`$ lies along some easy axis. An external perturbation can trigger the motion of the order parameter, as described by the Landau Lifshitz equations. In this paper we describe a new type of external perturbation, the optical injection of photocarriers taht are polarized along a direction $`\widehat{n}`$ different from the orientation of the collective magnetization$`\stackrel{}{}`$. Our proposal takes advantage of the selection rules for inter-band optical transitions in (II,V) semiconductors. Provided that the spin coherence time of the photocarriers is much longer than the precession time, we predict a spin transfer (c.f. 2) term in the LL equation. The spin-coherence time requirement is clearly met for conduction band electrons, while the situation for valence band holes is less clear and calls for further work. Numerical solutions of the LL equations with the spin transfer term show that the magnetization dynamics in (Ga,Mn)As can be controlled with laser pulses.

We now discuss the extent to which our theory can account for experiments recently reported by Oiwa et al. Munekata-03 , in which the magnetization of a GaAs:Mn film excited by laser pulses of 120 $`fs`$ duration and power below 5$`\times 10^{12}`$ photons/cm2. For a central photon energy of 1.579 eV, the laser power per pulse is approaximately 6$`MW`$/cm2, comparable with the simulation of figure 2. Apart from the fact that both the experiment and our theory describe the departure of the magnetization from the equilibrium configuration induced by spin polarized photocarriers, there is a number of differences between the results of our model and those observed experimentally. The Kerr rotation signal reported by Oiwa et al. Munekata-03  is an exponentially decaying function with a time decay constant of less than 50 $`ps`$ in contrast with our figure 2, in which $`M_z`$ is an oscillating function whose amplitude decays in a time scale of 2000 $`ps`$. The Kerr signal observed experimentally is overdamped, the decay constant is smaller than the precession period. In order to have an overdamped behaviour in our simulations, we would need to take a Gilbert damping coefficient of $`\alpha 5`$, two orders of magnitude larger than the value reported experimentally FMR  At a more quantitative level, Oiwa et al. Munekata-03  claim that each photo-hole is able to rotate 100 Mn spins in the case GaMnAs excited with laser pulses and as much as 106 Mn spins in the case of cw experiments Munekata . In our theory angular momentum is exchanged between photocarriers and Mn, and one photocarrier could not flip more than one Mn spin. We believe that, in order to account for these experimental results, a different physical mechanism which involves other degrees of freedom, possibly nuclear spins valence band hole angular momentum, might be needed.

In summary, we have proposed the possibility of controlling the magnetization dynamics of (III,Mn)V ferromagnetic semiconductors by means of laser pulses. Our proposal is based on an optical spin transfer effect in which angular momentum is transferred from the laser to the collective spin magnetization by optically oriented photocarriers. We have argued that the efficiency in the spin transfer is close to one in the case of the photo-electrons, but smaller in the case of photoholes because of their rapid spin decoherence. Finally, we have proposed pump and probe experiments which can achieve all optical FMR and magnetization switching on ns time scales.

This work has been supported by the Welch Foundation and by the Office of Naval Research under grant N000140010951, MAT2003-08109-C02-01, Ramón y Cajal Program (MCyT, Spain) and UA/GRE03-14. This work has been partly funded by FEDER funds.

## Appendix A Derivation of the spin transfer term

Here we derive an expression for the influence of the photo-carrier spins on the dynamics of the collective magnetization. The Mn ion local moments see the conduction electrons through their mean-field interaction with its spin-density. At each instant in time $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ precesses around an effective field with a photocarrier contribution $`J\stackrel{}{s}`$:

$$\frac{_s}{\mu _B}\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{dt}|_{pc}=\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times J\stackrel{}{s}\right).$$
(6)
The optical spin-transfer torque is specified by the time-dependent spin density which satisfies

$$\frac{d\stackrel{}{s}}{dt}=J\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \stackrel{}{s}+𝒫\widehat{n}\frac{\stackrel{}{s}}{\tau }$$
(7)
Here $`J`$ is the exchange energy between the quasiparticle and the collective magnetization, $`\tau `$ is the photo-carrier spin relaxation time, $`\widehat{n}`$ is the initial spin polarization of the photo-carrier, and $`𝒫`$ is the photo-carrier generation rate, as defined in section III. We look for solutions of the form:

$$\stackrel{}{s}(t)=e^{t/\tau }\stackrel{}{v}(t)+\stackrel{}{s}_0$$
(8)
where $`\stackrel{}{v}(t)`$ satisfies $`\dot{\stackrel{}{v}}(t)=J\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \stackrel{}{v}`$. It follows that

$$\stackrel{}{s}_0+\xi \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \stackrel{}{s}_0=𝒫\widehat{n}$$
(9)
where $`\xi J\tau `$ is the dimensionless (taking $`\mathrm{}=1`$) ratio between the photo-carrier decay time and precession period.Equation (9) can be written as a matrix equation

$$A\stackrel{}{s}_0=\tau 𝒫\widehat{n}$$

where $`A_{ij}=\delta _{ij}+\xi ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$. $`\stackrel{}{s}_0=A^1\tau 𝒫\widehat{n}`$ where

$$A_{ij}^1=\frac{1}{1+\xi ^2}\left(\delta _{ij}+\xi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_i\mathrm{\Omega }_j\xi ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Omega }_k\right).$$
(10)
Since $`\xi >>1`$ for conduction band photo-carriers we can drop $`O(\frac{1}{\xi ^2})`$ terms to obtain:

$$\stackrel{}{s}_0=\tau 𝒫\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\widehat{n}\right)\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}+\frac{𝒫}{J}.\widehat{n}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}$$
(11)
Because of the high precession rate of the photo-carriers, the precessing contribution proportional to $`\stackrel{}{v}(t)e^{t/\tau }`$ is unimportant even for $`t`$ shorter than $`\tau `$. Therefore, combining equations (6,8,9,11) we find that the contribution of the photocarriers to the collective magnetization dynamics is

$$\frac{_s}{\mu _B}\frac{d\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{dt}|_{pc}=𝒫\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \left(\widehat{n}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\right).$$
(12)
which leads to eq. (2). This contribution corresponds to the exchange field from the portion of the injected spin-density that is perpendicular to the magnetization. Note that in equation 9 we might have distinquished longitudinal and transverse spin-relaxation rates; this distinction would not have mattered in the end, essentially because only the transverse component produces a spin torque. This analysis leads to the same conclusion as the qualitative discussion in the main text, which appears superficially to follow a different line. The difference is simply one of bookkeeping. In this appendix we consider the photocarrier spin density at a given point in space and time, instead of following the history of a given photocarrier from the moment of generation to spin-decay.

## Appendix B Calculation of the conduction band spin decoherence time

In this appendix we outline the calculation of the conduction band spin decoherence time $`T_2`$, which is done in the framework of ’system plus reservoir’ master of equation (ME) approach Cohen . The system is the conduction band electron spin and the reservoir is formed by the spin waves of the Mn-hole system the orbital degrees of freedom of the conduction band electron. The Hamiltonian reads:

$`_{\mathrm{cond}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{0s}+_{0r}+𝒱_{sr},`$
$`_{0s}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_c}{2}}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\stackrel{}{}_0`$
$`_{0r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2m}}+{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\omega (q)b_q^{}b_q^{}`$
$`𝒱_{sr}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J_{sd}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{I}{}}\delta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_I\right)\stackrel{}{\sigma }\delta \stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{R}_I)`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c=J_{sd}c_M`$. The spin fluctuations $`\delta \stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{R}_I)`$ and spin wave operators are related by Konig :

$`^z(\stackrel{}{R})Sb^{}(\stackrel{}{R})b(\stackrel{}{R})`$
$`\delta ^{(+)}(\stackrel{}{R})=^{(+)}(\stackrel{}{R})\sqrt{2S}b(\stackrel{}{R})`$
$`\delta ^{()}(\stackrel{}{R})=^{()}(\stackrel{}{R})\sqrt{2S}b^{}(\stackrel{}{R})`$ (14)
and

$`b(\stackrel{}{R}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{R}}b_\stackrel{}{q}`$
$`b^{}(\stackrel{}{R}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒩}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}}e^{i\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{R}}b_\stackrel{}{q}^{}`$ (15)
The $`_{0s}`$ term is the interaction of the spin with the average magnetization which, in the master equation approach, is the ’system’ Hamiltonian. $`_{0r}`$ accounts for the electron kinetic energy and free spin waves. They are the ’reservoir’ Hamiltonian. The last term, the coupling between the system and the reservoir variables, comes from the exchange coupling of the conduction electron with the spin waves (spin fluctuations).

Using second order perturbation theory around $`_{0s}+_{0r}`$ it is possible to derive Cohen  a closed set of ME for the reduced density matrix of the conduction band spin, including the coupling with the reservoir degrees of freedom to second order in the exchange coupling. In this language, the above Hamiltonian describes elementary processes in which a spin wave is absorbed or emitted, and spin and momentum are exchanged between the spin wave and the photo-carrier. Let us denote by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _ik_isw_i,\sigma _f,k_f,sw_f}=\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{}}|𝒱_{if}|^2\delta (E_iE_f)$$
(16)
the Fermi Golden rule (FGR) transition rate for the process in which the photo carrier spin goes from $`\sigma _i`$ to $`\sigma _f`$, the photocarrier momentum goes from $`k_i`$ to $`k_f`$ by emission or absorption of a spin wave. We now define

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _i,\sigma _f}\underset{k_i,sw_i}{}P(k_i)P(sw_i)\underset{kf,sw_f}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\sigma _ik_isw_i,\sigma _f,k_f,sw_f}$$
(17)
where $`P(k_i)`$ and $`P(sw_i)`$ are the equilibrium distribution functions for the inital photocarrier momentum and spin wave occupation respectively. Eq. (17) involves both an average over initial and sum over final reservoir states of the Fermi Golden rule transition rates. It can be seen Cohen  that the spin decoherence time is

$$\frac{1}{T_2}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_,+\mathrm{\Gamma }_,$$
(18)
since the so called non adiabatic contribution to $`T_2`$ is zero for Hamiltonian 13). After some work, the spin wave emission rate reads:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_,={\displaystyle \frac{V}{Z}}{\displaystyle \frac{J_{sd}^2}{\mathrm{}}}2S\pi {\displaystyle _{𝒱_D}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{q}}{(2\pi )^3}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}}{(2\pi )^3}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{k}^{}}{(2\pi )^3}e^{\beta ϵ_k}\left[1+n_B(\mathrm{\Omega }(q))\right]\delta \left[ϵ_kϵ_k^{}+\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }\right]}`$ (19)
and a similar expression can be derived for the spin wave absorption rate. Here $`V`$ is the volume of the sample, $`𝒱_D`$ is the Debye sphere and $`Z=\frac{V\sqrt{\pi }}{8\pi ^2}\left[\frac{2mk_bT}{\mathrm{}^2}\right]^{(3/2)}`$. Equation (3) is obtained from eq. (19) after some extra changes of variables.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A quantum theory is consistent if all of the quantities that it computes are well-defined. In particular, the partition function on the worldvolume of each kind of object, including all corrections from inflows, must admit some consistent definition. A consistent definition is one which depends only on the position of the object in parameter space, and so is required to be invariant under the translation about any loop in parameter space. The partition function is the exponential of the effective action, and so we require that the effective action shift only by an integer as one journeys around such a loop. Often a version of Stoke’s theorem may be applied to reexpress this shift as an integral of a derivative of the effective action over the loop, and so consistency demands that this quantity be integral. Such a condition is called a Dirac quantization condition.

In Ref.  Witten applied this argument to a closed M2-brane in M-theory. Two terms in the M2-brane’s worldvolume action were considered, the integral of the M-theory 3-form $`C_3`$ and also the worldvolume fermion term. Both of these terms could potentially be ill-defined, the first because $`C_3`$ is not gauge-invariant, and the second because while the path integral of the fermions is real, its sign is not canonically defined and so potentially may change as one encircles such a loop. The total shift of the effective action was calculated to be

$$SS+_M(G_4\pi \lambda )$$
(1.1)
where $`\lambda `$ is half of the first Pontrjagin class of the tangent bundle of spacetime and $`M`$ is the four-cycle swept out by the membrane’s three-volume during its loop through parameter space.

This leads to the Dirac quantization condition

$$_M\frac{G_4}{2\pi }\frac{\lambda }{2}.$$
(1.2)
Here $`M`$ is any 4-cycle in the spacetime $`Y^{11}`$, as all 4-cycles are loops of embeddings of membranes. As $`M`$ may be any class in $`H_4(Y^{11})`$, it was hinted in  that

$$\frac{G_4}{2\pi }+w_4H^4(Y^{11};)$$
(1.3)
where $`w_4`$ is the 4th Stiefel Whitney class of the tangent bundle of spacetime. In the orientable case $`w_4`$ (normalized so that each component is zero or one half) agrees with $`\lambda /2`$ modulo one, while in the nonorientable case only $`w_4`$ continues to be well-defined. $`w_4`$ has no natural lift to integral cohomology, however the choice of lift does not alter the quantization condition in (1.3). Thus the M-theory 4-form $`G_4`$ is classified by integral cohomology, but with a possible half-integer shift corresponding to a $`_2`$ extension .

It has been widely speculated that this shifted quantization condition for $`G_4`$ extends to type IIA string theory. However an apparent counterexample has been known for several years . As reviewed in Section 2, there are four types of orientifold 4-plane, distinguished by discrete torsion $`H`$ and $`G_2`$ fluxes on the $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$’s that link them. Due to the action of the orientifold on the field $`G_4`$, instead of inhabiting $``$-cohomology, 4-forms are classified by $`\stackrel{~}{H}^4`$, the cohomology group with coefficients in the $`_2`$-twisted sheaf.111One may choose to dismiss the counterexample because the twisting may affect the shifted quantization condition. However this appears to be the canonical example of the shift in the literature, and so we feel that it merits a closer examination. This group is $``$, and so a naive application of the twisted quantization, using the fact that $`w_4=1/2`$ for $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$, would lead to the conclusion222From this equation on we will absorb a factor of $`1/2\pi `$ into our fluxes. that $`G_4+\frac{1}{2}`$. However the $`G_4`$ fluxes on the $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$ linking the O4-plane are known and for one type of discrete torsion the flux vanishes, violating the shifted quantization condition.

Such a failure might have been expected, after all, in type IIA there are several notions of four-form field strength, any of which might be quantized. To learn which is quantized, in Sec. 3, we will repeat the M2-brane quantization argument with D2-branes, whose worldvolume action has an extra $`BC_1`$ with respect to that of the M2. Using this new quantity, we find that instead of one choice of discrete torsions violating the quantization condition, two choices now appear to be anomalous.

The non-anomolous discrete torsion orientifolds may be changed into the troublesome orientifolds by aborbing a one-half D6-brane, and so in Sec. 4 we turn our attention to the worldvolume gauge theory of this D6-brane. We see that the quantization of the gauge field on this D6 is shifted by a half-integer as a result of the nonvanishing $`w_2`$ of its normal bundle. This in turn induces a half-integral D4-charge, which leads to a torsion correction to the known construction of $`G_4`$. The resulting construction

$$G_4=dC_4+(sq^2+B)G_2$$
(1.4)
yields a quantization condition that is satisfied by all four varieties of O4-plane. Of course, like $`B`$, the $`sq^2`$ term defies a natural lift to integral cohomology. In the spirit of , we interpret this as an ambiguity of the lift of $`dC_4`$ (whose lift to cohomology was already not naturally-defined, it being better described as a K-theory class ) related to the decay of topologically nontrivial D4-branes via a mortal NS5 or D6-brane.

Such a correction leads to a modification of the Bianchi identity

$$dG_4=(Sq^3+H)G_2=d_3G_2$$
(1.5)
where $`d_3`$ is a differential in the Atiyah-Hirzebruch spectral sequence (AHSS). This modified Bianchi identity enforces that, in the absence of D4-branes, $`G_2`$ lifts to a K-theory class. This is the converse of the claim of Freed and Hopkins in Ref. . Of course $`Sq^3`$ annihilates any two-form, but later we will argue that in T-dual cases the spectra of orientifold planes are consistent with the extension of Eq. (1.5) to other RR fluxes.

## 2 Orientifold 4-Plane Review

This note is an investigation of the consistency of D2-branes in the presence of the known variants of O4-planes. And so we will begin by reviewing a few facts about these planes which were largely derived in Ref.  and have been reviewed in Ref. . Consider IIA string theory on $`^{1,9}`$ with basis $`x^i`$, $`0i9`$. Now gauge this theory by the $`_2`$ symmetry

$$x^{i4}x^i,x^{i5}x^i,BB,C_1C_1,C_3C_3$$
(2.1)
along with $`(1)^{F_L}`$ on the worldsheets of all F-strings. The O4-plane is the fixed plane $`x^{i5}=0`$. In the covering space, $`^{1,9}`$, it is linked by an 4-sphere, which in the quotient space descends to $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$.

Fluxes which are fixed by the projection are then classified by the cohomology of $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$ with $``$ coefficients $`H^{}(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)`$, while those which are negated by the projection are classified by cohomology with coefficients in $``$ twisted by the $`_2`$ orientation bundle, $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)`$. In particular

$$H\stackrel{~}{H}^3(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)=_2,dC_1H^2(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)=_2,dC_3\stackrel{~}{H}^4(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)=.$$
(2.2)
We will consider massless IIA, and so $`G_2=dC_1`$. The integral of $`dC_3`$ measures the D4-brane charge of the plane, and so we see that any number of D4-branes may be linked by a given $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$. The two $`_2`$ classes yield four variations of O4-plane, which we now list along with their tensions $`G_4`$:

| Type | $`H`$ | $`G_2`$ | $`G_4`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| O4- | 0 | 0 | -1/2 |
| O4+ | 1/2 | 0 | 1/2 |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^{}`$ | 0 | 1/2 | 0 |
| $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^+`$ | 1/2 | 1/2 | 1/2 |
| Table 1: O4-Planes | | | |

$`w_4(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)=1/2`$ and so, as was first observed in Ref. , the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^{}`$-plane violates the shifted quantization condition $`G_4+1/2`$.

## 3 The D2-Brane Anomaly

However the D2-brane partition function is not the same as the M2-brane partition function333More precisely, the partition functions are equal, but the definitions of the fluxes are different in IIA and M-theory. The M-theory flux $`C_3`$ decomposes into both $`C_3`$ and $`B`$ in IIA., and so it is far from obvious that same quantization condition applies to the D2 as the M2. For example the D2-brane partition function contains an extra term $`BC_1`$, whose variation is $`d(BC_1)`$. The D2, like the M2, couples electrically to $`C_3`$ and so again there is a variation of $`dC_3`$, however in IIA $`dC_3G_4`$. Therefore, as the D2-brane’s path sweeps out a loop, the partition function changes by

$$e^{iS}e^{iS+2\pi i_M(w_4+dC_3+d(BC_1))}.$$
(3.1)
The shifted quantization condition for type IIA string theory on $`X^{10}`$ is then

$$dC_3+d(BC_1)+w_4\stackrel{~}{H}^4(X^{10}).$$
(3.2)
The 4th Stiefel-Whitney class $`w_4`$ always contributes $`1/2`$ for any type of O4-plane.

$`B`$ and $`C_1`$ are valued in cohomology with $`U(1)`$-valued coefficients, and so we will need to choose a lift to $``$-valued cohomology. There is no canonical choice for such a lift, however fortunately in the present case the choice of lift is inconsequential. The reason for this is that on $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$ the only allowed values of $`B`$ and $`C_1`$ near the O4 are $`0`$ and $`1/2`$, and so a different integral lift corresponds to a shift by an even multiple of the fundamental unit. However this leads to a shift in the 4-cohomology by an even multiple of the fundamental unit, $`1/2`$, which is integral and so does not affect whether a configuration satisfies the quantization condition.

In fact, the exterior derivative here is the Bockstein homomorphism $`\beta `$ from $`U(1)`$ to $``$ cohomology that appears in the exact sequences

$$0=\stackrel{~}{H}^2(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4,)\stackrel{~}{H}^2(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4,U(1))=_2\stackrel{\beta }{}\stackrel{~}{H}^3(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4,)=_2$$
(3.3)
and

$$0=H^1(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4,)H^1(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4,U(1))=_2\stackrel{\beta }{}H^2(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4,)=_2.$$
(3.4)
This means that $`d`$ takes $`0`$ to $`0`$ and $`1/2`$ to $`1/2`$, which implies the last equality in

$$d(BC_1)=dBC_1+BdC_1=2BC_1.$$
(3.5)
Again we see that this term contributes an even muliple of $`1/2`$, which is an integer and so does not affect whether the quantization condition is violated. It is quite fortunate that this term vanishes, as we do not know whether in general it is cancelled by a bulk contribution as in Ref. .

Combining these facts, the O4-plane is consistent with D2-brane anomaly cancellation if

$$dC_3+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(3.6)
Now we can compare this quantization condition with the known spectrum of O4-planes, calculating $`dC_3`$ via the supergravity relation

$$G_4=dC_3+BG_2.$$
(3.7)
Notice that this quantization condition only differs from our old quantization condition when $`BG_20`$, that is, for the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^+`$-plane. Thus instead of curing the failure of the quantization condition $`G_4+1/2`$ for the $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^{}`$, our correction has led to the failure of quantization for a second type of O4!

## 4 A Correction to $`G_4`$

Two O4-planes (O4±) satisfy the quantization condition, while the other two ($`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^\pm `$) appear not to. The difference between these two pairs of planes is that the $`G_2`$ flux is turned off in the well-behaved O4±, but is turned on in the problematic $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^\pm `$. One implication is that an O4±-plane turns into an $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^\pm `$when it absorbs a D6-brane , as drawn in Figure 1. Thus we are motivated to more carefully examine the D6-absorption process to look for corrections to (3.7).

This process is often described in the strict limit $`g_s0`$ because in the covering space the D6-brane becomes a flat $`^7`$ extending along directions $`x^i`$ with $`1i7`$ and existing only in the instant $`x^0=0`$. Taking the $`_2`$ quotient of this configuration, where the D6 is its own mirror image, leads to a $`1/2`$ D6-brane which intersects the O4-plane at a fixed timeslice, at which point the O4 changes from a O4± to a $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^\pm `$. This intersection is singular, but the singularity and in fact the intersection itself are removed at finite $`g_s`$. In this case the D6 can again be taken to appear at time $`x^0=0`$. However instead of completing its life in this same instant, at each moment $`x^0=t>0`$ the D6 is geometrically $`^4\times \mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2`$ with the $`^4`$ extending along directions $`x^i`$, $`1i4`$ and the $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2`$ the $`_2`$ quotient of the sphere of radius $`1/t`$ which is extended in directions $`x^5`$, $`x^6`$ and $`x^7`$ and is centered about the O4-plane. This system is a quotient of a T-dual of the D3-D5 system considered in . Our choice of time direction makes the D6-brane into an S-brane  far away from the O4-plane. If one wishes to avoid S-branes, one may change the geometry far away, as the argument below concerns only the region near the O4-plane. Alternately, one may choose a different time direction.

At every moment the O4-plane is of type O4±. However if one probes the system at any fixed lengthscale $`d`$ one concludes that the O4± absorbs the D6-brane and changes to a $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^\pm `$-plane at time $`x^0=1/d`$. The $`\stackrel{~}{\text{O4}}^{}`$ plane has a higher tension than its O4- counterpart, corresponding to a higher 4-brane charge. Here we are using a convention typical in the orientifold literature, and refering to the 4-brane charge as the integral of $`G_4`$ over a link, rather than the integral of $`dC_3`$. The second quantity is not invariant under supergravity gauge transformations and so cannot compute a classical observable like a tension. In fact, the second quantity may not change upon intersection with a D6-brane as that would lead to $`dddC_30`$ at the point of intersection. Therefore at the point of intersection of the O4-plane with the D6, the cohomology class of $`G_4`$ over a linking $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4`$ jumps by the D4 charge of the D6-brane, while the class of $`dC_3`$ is fixed. This means that $`G_4dC_3`$ jumps by the D4 charge of the D6, and so computing this charge will allow us to test (3.7).

The D6-brane hosts a $`U(1)`$ gauge fieldstrength $`F`$, and its D4-brane charge on any two-cycle is the integral of $`B+F`$ on that two-cycle. The integral of $`B`$, as described above, depends on the type of orientifold plane we consider. The O4- yields $`B=0`$, while the O4+ carries $`B=1/2`$. The integral of $`F`$ is determined by the requirement that U(1)-charged fermions may exist on the D6-brane worldvolume. The fermions inhabit a section of the bundle $`N^{1/2}G`$ where $`N`$ is the normal bundle to $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2`$ and $`G`$ is the $`U(1)`$ gauge bundle. If $`N^{1/2}`$ is itself a bundle, that is, if it satisfies the 3-way transition function identity $`f_{ij}f_{jk}f_{ki}=1`$, then $`G`$ must also be a bundle and so the integral of $`F`$ is an integer. If on the other hand $`N^{1/2}`$ is not a bundle, then because $`N`$ is a bundle some set of transition functions must satisfy $`f_{ij}f_{jk}f_{ki}=1`$. To ensure that the tensor with $`G`$ is a bundle, $`G`$ must also not be a bundle but also have such transition functions. In this case, the integral of $`F`$, the first Chern class of $`G`$, must be a half-integer. $`N^{1/2}`$ is a bundle precisely if $`w_2(N)=0`$, and so

$$_{\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2}F+w_2(N)$$
(4.1)
where the second Stiefel-Whitney class $`w_2H^2(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2)=_2`$ is normalized to be $`0`$ or $`1/2`$. Such a shift in the presence of a nonvanishing $`w_2(N)`$ was previously seen in Ref. .

To calculate $`w_2(N)`$, we use the fact that the total Stiefel-Whitney class of $`\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^n`$ is $`(1+w_1)^{n+1}`$ and the behavior of Stiefel-Whitney classes under direct sum to compute

$$w_1(N)=w_1(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)w_1(\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2)=1/21/2=0$$
(4.2)
from which it follows that

$$0=w_2(T\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^4)=w_2(T\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2N)=w_2(T\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2)+w_1(T\mathrm{𝐑𝐏}^2)w_1(N)+w_2(N)=1/2+0+w_2(N).$$
(4.3)
Thus we conclude that

$$w_2(N)=1/2$$
(4.4)
which yields the shifted quantization condition for the fieldstrength $`F`$.

We have learned that the worldvolume fieldstrength obeys the shifted quantization condition, while $`B`$ obeys the shifted quantization for the O4+-plane but not the O4-. The D4-charge of the D6 is the sum of the contributions from $`B`$ and $`F`$. This sum is not determined from the above data, as we are free to shift $`F`$ by any integer by adding a tube of magnetic flux to our configuration, and the lift of $`B`$ to $``$-cohomology is ill-defined, again allowing a shift by an arbitrary integer. In fact, only the sum $`B+F`$ is gauge-invariant. However possible integral shifts are irrelevant to the question at hand, the quantization condition of $`B+F`$. Adding the two pieces together we find that the D4-charge $`G_4`$ is shifted for the O4--plane but not for the O4+. This is consistent with Table 1, where we saw that inclusion of the $`G_2`$ flux only changes the tension of the O4--plane.

In fact, we could have simply taken the tension difference from the table and avoided the short computation above, however the way the shift came about in the above computation yields a formula for the shift, via (4.1), that appears to contribute to the general case. The difference between $`G_4`$ and $`dC_3`$, the D4-charge of the D6, was given up to an integer shift by

$$G_4=dC_3+(F+B)G_2=dC_3+(w_2(N(PD(dG_2))+B)G_2.$$
(4.5)
The $`w_2`$ correction may be approximated by a Steenrod square, yielding our main result

$$G_4=dC_3+(sq^2+B)G_2.$$
(4.6)
Of course, T-dualities may well lead to the natural generalization

$$G_p=dC_{p1}+(sq^2+B)G_{p2}.$$
(4.7)
In fact, for every dimension of O$`p`$-plane the $`G_{p2}`$ discrete torsion changes the tension by $`1/2`$ when $`B=0`$ and does not change the tension when $`B=1/2`$, in accordance with the fact that $`w_2+B`$ is equal to $`1/2`$ and $`0`$ in the two cases444To see this, follow the same calculation as above. Notice that while $`w_1`$ of the tangent bundles may or may not vanish, they always agree and so $`w_1(N)=0`$ in every case. Similarly $`w_2`$ of the tangent bundles always disagree and so $`w_2(N)=1/2`$ as in the O4 case..

In the classical limit torsion terms vanish and Eq. (4.7) reduces to the usual supergravity construction of the gauge invariant fieldstrength (3.7).

### 4.1 The Corrected Bianchi Identity

The Bianchi identity is derived by requiring that $`d^2`$ annihilate the $`(p1)`$-form connection $`C_{p1}`$. The torsion correction to $`G_p`$ then yields a torsion correction to the Bianchi identity

$$0=ddC_{p1}=d(G_p(sq^2+B)G_{p2})=dG_p(Sq^3+H)G_{p2}.$$
(4.8)
We may rewrite this in terms of the differentials of the AHSS

$$d_1G_p=d_3G_{p2}.$$
(4.9)
In the absence of D$`(8p)`$-brane charge the left hand side vanishes and so $`G_{p2}`$ is annihilated by $`d_3`$. In type IIA this enforces that $`G_{p2}`$ lifts to a \[twisted\] K-theory class.

In type IIB, if there is $`H`$-flux, one must also enforce that $`d_5`$ annihilates $`G_{p2}`$, requiring a higher order correction. However it has been conjectured that the vanishing of the Freed-Witten anomaly is a sufficient condition for RR fields to lift to K-theory. In this case, the Bianchi identity resulting from Eq. (4.5) forces RR fields to lift to K-theory classes also in IIB. However when we approximated $`w_2`$ by a Steenrod square we dropped a higher order correction which would have contributed to $`d_5`$ , and so we ruined our chances of enforcing the lift to K-theory in the modified Bianchi identity. However, the fact that the correction in Eq. (4.7) enforces the K-theory classification in IIA and also in IIB in the absence of $`H`$-flux lends credibility to the conjecture that it applies to cases other than the O4-plane example considered here.

## 5 Conclusion

One variety of orientifold O4-plane is inconsistent with the $`G_4`$ flux quantization condition that naively generalizes the known condition from M-theory. The M-theory quantization condition is derived from an M2-brane worldvolume global anomaly, and we argue that in IIA this calculation differs in two ways. First, in IIA the exterior derivative of $`C_3`$ is not equal to $`G_4`$. Second, the corresponding D2-brane anomaly also receives a correction from the worldvolume action term $`BC_1`$, which has no analog in the M-theory case. Combining these corrections we find that the quantization condition now fails for two varieties of O4-plane.

We note that these two varieties are the ones with nontrivial $`G_2`$ flux, and so study the process of D6-brane absorption, which toggles the offending $`G_2`$-flux. We find that the D6-brane worldvolume $`U(1)`$ gauge fieldstrength obeys a shifted quantization condition due to the nontrivial topology of the orientifold. This leads to a shift in the contribution of the D6-brane to the $`G_4`$ flux and in fact is necessary to obtain agreement with the known orientifold tensions. We conjecture that this shift yields a torsion correction $`sq^2G_2`$ to the known supergravity construction of the gauge invariant fieldstrength $`G_4=dC_3+BG_2`$. The shifted quantization condition (4.7) is satisfied by all varieties of O4-plane. As an additional check on the shift, we observe that it induces precisely the required shift on the Bianchi identities to enforce that RR-fluxes lift to twisted K-theory classes in the absence of D-branes.

Acknowledgements

I’d like to thank Eric Sharpe for his comments on an earlier draft and the INFN Sezione di Pisa for hiring me.