1: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amsbsy}
5: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point
6: \usepackage{bm}% bold math
7: \usepackage{epsfig}
8: \newcommand{\w}{{\omega}}
9: \newcommand{\bk}{{\bf k}}
10: \newcommand{\bkk}{{\bf k}'}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{
15: Simultaneous ferromagnetic metal-semiconductor transition
16: in electron-doped EuO}
17:
18: \date{\today}
19: \author{Michael Arnold and Johann Kroha}
20: \affiliation{Physikalisches Institut, Universit\"at Bonn,
21: Nussallee 12, 53115 Bonn, Germany}
22:
23: \begin{abstract}
24: We present a general framework to describe the simultaneous
25: para-to-ferromagnetic and
26: semiconductor-to-metal transition in electron-doped EuO.
27: The theory correctly describes detailed experimental features of the
28: conductivity and of the magnetization, in particular the
29: doping dependence of the Curie temperature. The existence of
30: correlation-induced local moments on the impurity sites is
31: essential for this description.
32: \end{abstract}
33: \bigskip
34: \noindent
35: \pacs{
36: 71.30.+h, % Metal-insulator transitions and other electronic transitions
37: 72.20.-i, % Conductivity phenomena in semiconductors and insulators
38: 75.20.Hr % Local moment in compounds and alloys; Kondo effect, valence fluctuations, heavy fermions
39: }
40: \maketitle
41:
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: %% Introduction %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
45: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
46:
47:
48: At room temperature stoichiometric europiumoxide (EuO) is a paramagnetic
49: semiconductor which undergoes a ferromagnetic (FM) transition at the Curie
50: temperature of $T_C=69~{\rm K}$. Upon electron doping, either by O defects
51: or by Gd impurities, this phase transition turns into a
52: simultaneous ferromagnetic and semiconductor-metal (SM) transition with nearly
53: 100 \% of the itinerant charge carriers polarized and a sharp resistivity
54: drop of 8 to 13 orders of magnitude,
55: depending on sample quality \cite{oliver1,oliver2,penney,steeneken}.
56: Concomitant with this transition is a huge
57: colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) effect \cite{shapira},
58: much larger than in the intensely studied manganates \cite{tokura}.
59: These extreme properties make electron-doped EuO interesting for
60: spintronics applications. Known since the 1970s, these features have
61: therefore recently stimulated more systematic experimental
62: studies with modern techniques and improved sample
63: quality \cite{steeneken,ott,schmehl} as well as theoretical calculations
64: \cite{schiller,sinjukow}.
65:
66: In pure EuO the FM ordering is driven by the Heisenberg
67: exchange coupling between the localized Eu 4$f$ moments with
68: spin $S_f=7/2$ \cite{lee}. Upon electron doping, above $T_C$,
69: the extra electrons are bound in defect
70: levels situated in the semiconducting gap, and the
71: transition to a FM metal occurs when the majority states of the
72: spin-split conduction band shift downward to overlap with the
73: defect levels.
74: Although this scenario is widely accepted, several questions of
75: fundamental as well as applicational relevance have remained poorly
76: understood. (1) Why does the magnetic ordering of the Eu 4$f$ system
77: occur simultaneously \cite{steeneken} with the SM
78: transition of the conduction electron system?
79: (2) What is the order of the transition?
80: While the magnetic ordering of the 4$f$ system should clearly be of
81: 2nd order, the metallic transition requires a {\it finite} shift of
82: the conduction band and, hence, seems to favor a 1st order transition.
83: (3) How can the critical temperature $T_C$ be enhanced by doping for
84: spintronics applications? While in the Eu-rich compound
85: EuO$_{1-x}$ a systematic $T_C$ increase due to the O defects (i.e.
86: missing O atoms) is not observed experimentally \cite{oliver1,oliver2},
87: a minute Gd doping concentration significantly
88: enhances $T_C$ \cite{matsumoto,ott}.
89: An O defect in EuO$_{1-x}$ essentially binds the two excess electrons from
90: the extra Eu 6s orbital and, therefore, should not carry a
91: magnetic moment. As shown theoretically in Ref.~\cite{sinjukow},
92: the presence of O defects with two-fold electron occupancy does not enhance
93: $T_C$, in agreement with experiments \cite{oliver1,oliver2}.
94: In the present work we focus on the Gd-doped system Eu$_{1-y}$Gd$_y$ and
95: calculate the temperature and
96: doping dependent magnetization and resistivity from a microscopic model.
97: We find that the key feature for obtaining a $T_C$ enhancement is that
98: the impurities not only donate electrons but also carry a local magnetic
99: moment in the paramagnetic phase.
100:
101:
102:
103: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
104: %% The model %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
106:
107: {\it The model.} ---
108: A Gd atom substituted for Eu does not alter the $S_f=7/2$ local
109: moment in the Eu Heisenberg lattice but donates one dopant electron,
110: which in the insulating high-temperature phase is
111: bound in the Gd 5d level located in the gap.
112: Therefore, the Gd impurities are Anderson impurities with a local
113: level $E_d$ below the chemical
114: potential $\mu$ and a {\it strong} on-site Coulomb
115: repulsion $U>\mu - E_d$ which restricts their electron occupation
116: essentially to one. The hybridization $V$ with the conduction band is
117: taken to be site-diagonal because of the localized Gd 5d orbitals.
118: The Hamiltonian for the Eu$_{1-y}$Gd$_y$O system then reads,
119: \begin{eqnarray}
120: \label{hamiltonian}
121: H&=&\sum_{{\bf k}\sigma}\varepsilon_{{\bf k}}
122: c_{{\bf k}\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{{\bf k}\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}+H_{cd}+H_{cf}\\
123: \label{Hcd}
124: H_{cd}&=&E_{d} \sum_{i=1 \dots N_I,\sigma}
125: d_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}d_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
126: + V \sum_{i=1 \dots N_I,\sigma}
127: (c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger} d_{i\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
128: + H.c.)\nonumber\\
129: &+& U \sum_{i=1 \dots N_I} d_{i\uparrow}^{\dagger} d_{i\uparrow}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
130: d_{i\downarrow}^{\dagger} d_{i\downarrow}^{\phantom{\dagger}} \\
131: \label{Hcf}
132: H_{cf}&=&- \sum_{i,j} J_{ij} \vec S_{i}\cdot\vec S_{j}
133: - J_{cf}\sum_{i}\vec \sigma_{i}\cdot\vec S_{i} \ ,
134: \end{eqnarray}
135: where the first term in Eq.~(\ref{hamiltonian}) denotes conduction
136: electrons with spin $\sigma$.
137: The Eu 4$f$ moments $\vec S_i$ on the
138: lattice sites $i=1,\dots, N$ are described in terms of a Heisenberg
139: model $H_{cf}$ with FM nearest and next-nearest neighbor couplings
140: $J_{ij}$ and an exchange coupling $J_{cf}$ to the conduction electron
141: spin operators at site $i$, $\vec\sigma_{i}=(1/2)\sum_{\sigma\sigma'}
142: c_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}\vec\tau_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{i\sigma'}^{\phantom{\dagger}}$, with $c_{i\sigma}=\sum_{\bf k} \exp(i{\bf k x_i})\,c_{{\bf k}\sigma}$ and
143: $\vec \tau_{\sigma\sigma'}$ the vector of Pauli matrices.
144: The Gd impurities at the random positions
145: $i=1, ..., N_I$ are described by $H_{cd}$. For the numerical
146: evaluations we take $U\to\infty$ for simplicity.
147:
148:
149: For the present purpose of understanding the general form of the
150: magnetization $m(T)$ and the systematic
151: doping dependence of $T_C$ it is sufficient
152: to treat the 4$f$ Heisenberg lattice, $H_{cf}$, on mean field level,
153: although recent studies have shown that Coulomb correlations in the
154: conduction band can soften the spin wave spectrum in similar systems
155: \cite{golosov,perakis}. The effect of the latter on $m(T)$ can be absorbed in
156: the effective mean field coupling of the 4$f$ system,
157: $J_{4f} \equiv \sum_{j}J_{ij}$. We therefore choose $J_{4f}$ such that
158: for pure EuO it yields the experimental value of $T_C=69~{\rm K}$
159: \cite{oliver1,oliver2,shapira,steeneken}.
160: For simplicity, we don't consider a direct coupling $J_{df}$ between the
161: 4$f$ and the impurity spins, since this would essentially
162: renormalize $J_{cf}$ only.
163: The indirect RKKY coupling will also be neglected,
164: since for the small conduction band fillings relevant here
165: it is FM, like $J_{ij}$, but much smaller than $J_{ij}$.
166:
167: In the evaluations we use a semi-elliptical bare conduction band density
168: of states (DOS) with a half width $D_0=8\, {\rm eV}$,
169: (consistent with experiment \cite{steeneken}),
170: centered around $\Delta _0\approx 1.05\, D_0$
171: above the (bare) defect level $E_d$.
172: The other parameters are taken as
173: $J_{4f} \equiv \sum_{j}J_{ij} = 7\cdot 10^{-5} D_{0}$,
174: $J_{cf}=0.05 D_{0}$, $E_{d}=-0.4 D_{0}$,
175: and $\Gamma=\pi V^{2}=0.05 D_{0}^{2}$,
176: where $J_{cf}\gg J_{4f}$ because $J_{4f}$ involves a non-local
177: matrix element.
178:
179:
180: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
181: %% Selfconsistent theory %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
182: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
183:
184:
185: {\it Selfconsistent theory.} ---
186: The averaging over the random defect positions is done
187: within the single-site $T$-matrix approximation, sufficient
188: for dilute impurities. This yields for the retarded conduction electron
189: Green`s function $G_{c\sigma}({\bf k},\omega)$ in terms of its
190: selfenergy $\Sigma _{c\sigma}(\omega)$,
191: \begin{eqnarray}
192: &&G_{c\sigma}({\bf k},\omega)=\left[\omega+\mu-\varepsilon_{\bf k}-\Sigma_{c\sigma}(\omega)\right]^{-1} \label{gc}\\
193: &&\Sigma_{c\sigma}(\omega)=n_{I} |V|^{2}G_{d\sigma}(\omega) -J_{cf}\langle S \rangle \sigma \label{se}
194: \end{eqnarray}
195: where $G_{d\sigma}(\omega)$ is the defect electron propagator and
196: $\langle S \rangle$ the average 4$f$--moment per site.
197: In mean field theory it is obtained, together with the
198: conduction electron magnetization $m$, as
199: \begin{eqnarray}
200: &&\langle S \rangle = \frac{\sum_{S} S e^{-\beta(2J_{4f}\langle S \rangle + J_{cf}m)S}}{\sum_{S}e^{-\beta(2J_{4f}\langle S \rangle + J_{cf}m)S}}\\
201: &&m=\frac{1}{2}\int d \omega f(\omega) [A_{c\uparrow}(\omega) -
202: A_{c\downarrow}(\omega)]\label{magn}
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: where $f(\omega)$ is the Fermi distribution function and
205: $A_{c\sigma}(\omega)=- \sum_{{\bf k}}
206: {\rm{Im}} G_{c\sigma}(k,\omega)/\pi$ the conduction electron DOS
207: of the interacting system.
208: \begin{figure}[t]
209: \scalebox{0.35}{\includegraphics[clip]{fig1.eps}}\\
210: \caption{\label{fig1} (Color online)
211: Conduction (upper panel) and impurity (lower panel) electron
212: DOS per lattice site for $T \ll T_C$.
213: The impurity concentration is $n_{I}=1.2\%$ . The metallic
214: phase is fully spin polarized. Inset: $c$--electron DOS in the
215: paramagnetic phase for $n_I=1.2\%$, $T=100.8\,{\rm K}$ and for
216: $n_I=0.6\%$, $T=88.0\,{\rm K}$. The chemical potential lies in the gap.
217: }
218: \vspace*{-0.4cm}
219: \end{figure}
220: In order to treat the
221: strongly correlated spin and charge dynamics of the Anderson impurities
222: without double occupancy beyond the static approximation, we
223: use a slave particle
224: representation and employ the non-crossing approximation
225: (NCA) \cite{grewe}. For EuO the DOS at the Fermi level is so low or
226: even vanishing that the Kondo temperature is well below $T_C$ and
227: Kondo physics plays no role. In this high-energy regime the NCA has been shown
228: to give quantitatively reliable results \cite{costi}. This remains
229: true even for a finite magnetization, where the NCA would develop
230: spurious potential scattering singularities near $T_K$ only \cite{kirchner}.
231: One obtains the following set of equations for $G_{d\sigma}(\omega)$
232: in terms of the auxiliary fermion and boson propagators $G_{f\sigma}$, $G_{b}$,
233: their spectral functions $A_{f\sigma}$, $A_{b}$
234: and their selfenergies $\Sigma_{f\sigma}, \Sigma_{b}$,
235: \begin{eqnarray}
236: \Sigma_{f\sigma}(\omega)&=&\Gamma \int {d\varepsilon}\left[1-f(\varepsilon)\right] A_{c\sigma}(\varepsilon)G_{b}(\omega-\varepsilon )\label{sigmaf}\\
237: \Sigma_{b}(\omega)&=&\Gamma \sum_{\sigma}\int {d\varepsilon} f(\varepsilon) A_{c\sigma}(\varepsilon)G_{f\sigma}(\omega+\varepsilon )\label{sigmab}\\
238: \nonumber
239: G_{d\sigma}(\omega)&=&\int \frac{d\varepsilon} {e^{\beta \varepsilon}} \left[ G_{f\sigma}(\omega+\varepsilon )A_{b}(\varepsilon)-A_{f\sigma}(\varepsilon)G^{*}_{b}(\varepsilon-\omega)\right] \\
240: \label{Gd}
241: \end{eqnarray}
242: Note that in Eqs.~(\ref{sigmaf}, \ref{sigmab})
243: $A_{c\sigma}(\varepsilon)$ is the interacting DOS,
244: renormalized by the dilute concentration of Anderson impurities
245: and the 4$f$--spins according to Eq.~(\ref{gc}).
246: For details of the NCA and its evaluation see \cite{costi}.
247: The equations (\ref{gc}-\ref{Gd})
248: form a closed set of selfconsistent integral equations.
249: They are solved iteratively, fixing the total electron
250: number per lattice site in the system,
251: \begin{eqnarray}
252: n= \sum_{\sigma}\int \!d\omega f(\omega)\,
253: \left[A_{c\sigma}(\omega)+n_I\,A_{d\sigma}(\omega)\right]=n_I
254: \label{pnumber}
255: \end{eqnarray}
256: by the chemical potential $\mu$ in each step.
257:
258:
259: \begin{figure}[t]
260: \scalebox{0.45}{\includegraphics[clip]{fig2.eps}}\\
261: \caption{\label{fig2} (Color online)
262: Simultaneous FM and semiconductor-metal transition as seen in the
263: $T$--dependence of the magnetization $m$ and of the resistivity
264: $\rho=1/\sigma$. The Curie temperature depends significantly on the
265: impurity concentration $n_{I}$. The inset shows a typical
266: experimental $\rho(T)$ curve, taken from Ref.~\cite{steeneken}.}
267: \vspace*{-0.4cm}
268: \end{figure}
269:
270:
271:
272: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
273: %% Resistivity %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
274: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
275:
276: {\it Electrical conductivity.} ---
277: The current operator $\hat{\bf j}$ can be derived from the continuity
278: equation, $\partial\hat\rho_i/\partial t + \nabla\ \cdot \hat{\bf j} =0$,
279: and the Heisenberg equation of motion for the total local charge operator
280: $\hat\rho_i$ at site $i$. Because the impurity Hamiltonians $H_{cf}$, $H_{df}$
281: conserve $\hat\rho_i$, only $c$--electrons contribute to the current, and
282: one obtains \cite{schweitzer},
283: $
284: \hat{\bf j}=({e}/{\hbar}) \sum_{{\bf k}\sigma}{\partial \varepsilon_{\bf k}}/
285: {\partial {\bf k}} \
286: c_{{\bf k}\sigma}^{\dagger} c_{{\bf k}\sigma}^{\phantom{\dagger}}
287: $.
288: The linear response conductivity then reads for a local
289: selfenergy \cite{schweitzer},
290: \begin{equation}
291: \sigma=\frac{\pi e^{2}}{3 \hbar V} \sum_{{\bf k}\sigma} \int d\omega \left(
292: -\frac{\partial f}{\partial \omega} \right) A_{c\sigma}^{2}({\bf k},\omega)
293: \left( \frac{\partial \varepsilon_{\bf k}}{\partial {\bf k}} \right)^{2} \ .
294: \label{cond1}
295: \end{equation}
296: %For the evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{cond1}) we use, for simplicity,
297: %an isotropic dispersion $\varepsilon_{\bf k}=\varepsilon_{k}$, which
298: %is constructed such as to reproduce the elliptic bare DOS.
299:
300:
301:
302: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
303: %% Results %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
304: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
305:
306: {\it Results and discussion.} ---
307: The results of the selfconsistent theory, Eqs.~(\ref{gc}--\ref{pnumber}),
308: and for the conductivity, Eq.~(\ref{cond1}), are presented in
309: Figs.~\ref{fig1}--\ref{fig3}. They allow to draw a complete picture of the
310: FM semiconductor-metal transition in Gd-doped EuO. The spectral
311: densities per lattice site
312: above and below the transition are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
313: In the paramagnetic, insulating phase the hybridization between
314: $d$-- and $c$--electrons necessarily implies the appearance of a
315: conduction electron sideband (Fig.~\ref{fig1}, inset), situated
316: below $\mu$ and at the same energies inside the semiconducting gap
317: as the impurity $d$--band. The $d$-band (not shown) has a similar
318: width and shape as the $c$-sideband. The combined weight of the
319: $c$--sideband and the $d$-band adjusts itself selfconsistently
320: such that it just accommodates the total electron number,
321: $n=n_I$. Note that the weight of the $d$--band per impurity and spin
322: is $\lesssim 1/2$, because the doubly occupied weight is shifted to
323: $U\to \infty$ \cite{costi}.
324:
325: \begin{figure}[t]
326: \scalebox{0.31}{\includegraphics[clip]{fig3.eps}}\\
327: \caption{\label{fig3} Conductivity $\sigma$
328: for various temperatures (left panel) and Curie temperature $T_C$
329: (right panel) as function of impurity concentration $n_I$.
330: The data points at $n_{I}=0$ in the left panel are extrapolations.}
331: \vspace*{-0.4cm}
332: \end{figure}
333:
334:
335: The $c$--4$f$ exchange coupling $J_{cf}$ induces an effective
336: FM coupling between the electrons of the $c$--$d$ system. Hence,
337: either the 4$f$-- or the $c$--$d$--electron system can drive a
338: FM transition, depending on which of the (coupled) subsystems has the
339: higher $T_C$. We have chosen $J_{cf}$ (see above) large enough that
340: the transition is driven by the $c$--$d$--electrons, because this
341: will yield detailed agreement with the experiments
342: \cite{steeneken,ott,matsumoto}.
343: %(A more comprehensive analysis of the
344: %phase diagram of the Hamiltonian (\ref{hamiltonian}) will be
345: %presented elsewhere.)
346: In this case, $T_C$ is naturally
347: expected to increase with the impurity density $n_I$. The results
348: for the $T$-dependent conduction electron magnetization $m(T)$,
349: Eq.~(\ref{magn}), and for the doping dependence of $T_C$ are
350: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, lower panel, and in
351: Fig.~\ref{fig3}, right panel, respectively. It is seen that not only
352: $T_C$ increases with the impurity concentration, in agreement
353: with recent measurements on Eu$_{1-y}$Gd$_{y}$O$_{1-x}$ \cite{matsumoto,ott},
354: but also that $m(T)$ has a dome-like tail near $T_C$, before it increases
355: to large values deep inside the FM phase.
356: From our theory this feature is traced back
357: to the mean-field-like 2nd order FM transition of the electron system,
358: while the large dome in the magnetization further below $T_C$ is
359: induced by the FM ordering of the 4$f$ system, whose magnetization
360: is controlled by $J_{4f}$ and sets in at lower $T$. This distinct feature is
361: again in agreement with the experimental findings \cite{matsumoto,ott}
362: and lends significant support for the present model for Eu$_{1-y}$Gd$_{y}$O.
363: We note that the Eu-rich EuO$_{1-x}$ samples of
364: Ref.~\cite{matsumoto} also show a magnetization tail and a $T_C$ enhancement,
365: suggesting (small) magnetic moments on the O defects. However, the
366: nature of the O defects requires further experimental and theoretical studies.
367: The conduction electron polarization $P(T)=m(T)/n_c(T)$
368: does not show this double-dome structure and below $T_C$
369: increases steeply to $P=1$ (not shown in Fig.~\ref{fig2}).
370: The FM phase is connected with a spin splitting of the
371: $c$-- as well as the $d$--densities of states, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig1}.
372: The narrow $d$-band induces a Fano dip structure in the $c$
373: majority band and a small sideband in the $c$ minority band.
374: Note that for the present scenario the existence of preformed local
375: moments on the impurities,
376: induced by strong Coulomb repulsion $U$, is essential.
377: Without these moments the transition of the electron system
378: would be purely Stoner-like, and, because of the extremely low
379: conduction electron DOS at the Fermi level, its $T_C$ would be far
380: below the Curie temperature of the 4$f$ system, so that no doping
381: dependence would be expected \cite{sinjukow}.
382:
383: \begin{figure}[t]
384: \scalebox{0.31}{\includegraphics[clip]{fig4.eps}}\\
385: \caption{\label{fig4} (Color online)
386: Conductivity (---) and magnetization
387: (- - -) as a function of $\mu$ for
388: $T=89.6\,{\rm K}$ and $T=99.2\,{\rm K}$.
389: At the ungated points, $\mu \approx -0.414\, D_{0}$ for $T=89.6\,{\rm K}$
390: and $\mu \approx -0.410\, D_{0}$ for $T=99.2\,{\rm K}$, the
391: total electron number per lattice site is equal to the impurity concentration,
392: $n=n_I$.}
393: \vspace*{-0.2cm}
394: \end{figure}
395:
396: We now discuss the conductivity and the
397: simultaneity of the FM and the SM transitions.
398: In the paramagnetic phase, the system is weakly semiconducting, because
399: $\mu$ lies in the gap (Fig.~\ref{fig1}, inset).
400: When the FM transition occurs, the impurity d-band must acquire a spin
401: splitting in such a way that at least part of the minority $d$--spectral
402: weight lies above the chemical potential
403: $\mu$, in order to provide a finite magnetization.
404: Since near the transition the spin splitting is small, the majority
405: $d$--band must, therefore, also be shifted to have
406: overlap with $\mu$ (Fig.~\ref{fig1}),
407: and so must the hybridization-induced $c$-electron sideband
408: (which eventually merges with the main conduction band for $T$ sufficiently
409: below $T_C$). This immediately implies a transition to a metallic state,
410: simultaneous with the FM transition, as seen in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
411: Because of the small, but finite thermal occupation of the states
412: around $\mu$, we find that this shifting of spectral weight
413: occurs continuously, which implies the FM semiconductor-metal
414: transition to be of 2nd order (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}).
415: The doping $n_I$ dependence of the conductivity is shown in Fig,~\ref{fig3},
416: left panel. It is seen that the metallic transition can be driven
417: by increasing $n_I$, if $T>T_C(n_I=0)$.
418:
419: As an alternative to Gd-doping the charge carrier concentration
420: $n$ can be controlled independently of the impurity concentration $n_I$
421: by varying the chemical potential $\mu$, e.g. by
422: applying a gate voltage to an EuO thin film. The conductivity $\sigma$ and
423: magnetization $m$ as a function of $\mu$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig4} for two
424: temperatures. To both sides of the ungated system ($n=n_I$)
425: $\sigma$ increases exponentially upon changing $\mu$, characteristic
426: for semiconducting behavior. By increasing $\mu$, the FM-metallic
427: transition is finally reached. I.e. the magnetization can be switched,
428: in principle, by a gate voltage. The non-monotonic behavior of $\sigma$
429: towards more negative $\mu$ reflects the energy dependence of the
430: $c$ sideband. A more detailed study will be presented elsewhere.
431:
432:
433: To conclude, our theory indicates that
434: in Gd-doped EuO the existence of preformed local moments on
435: the impurity levels inside the semicondicting gap is essential
436: for understanding the distinct shape of the magnetization $m(T)$
437: near the ferromagnetic semiconductor-metal transition.
438: The FM ordering is driven by these impurity moments which are
439: superexchange coupled via the 4$f$ moments of the underlying
440: Eu lattice. This scenario immediately implies an increase of the
441: Curie temperature with the impurity concentration, in agreement
442: with experiments. The double-dome shape of $m(T)$ arises because of
443: the successive ordering of the dilute impurity and of the dense
444: Eu 4$f$ systems, as $T$ is lowered.
445: The dynamical
446: accumulation of conduction spectral weight at the chemical potential,
447: induced by the hybridization $V$ and the constraint of an emerging
448: magnetization at the FM transition,
449: implies the FM and the SM transition to be simultaneous and of 2nd order.
450: The magnetization can be switched by
451: applying a gate voltage. This might be relevant for spintronics
452: applications.
453:
454:
455:
456: We wish to thank T. Haupricht, H. Ott, and H. Tjeng for useful discussions.
457: J.K. is grateful to the Aspen Center for Physics
458: where this work was completed. This work is supported by DFG through SFB 608.
459:
460:
461:
462:
463:
464:
465:
466:
467:
468: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
469:
470: \bibitem{oliver1} M. Oliver {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf{24}},
471: 1064 (1970).
472: \bibitem{oliver2} M. Oliver {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~B~{\bf{5}}, 1078 (1972).
473: \bibitem{penney} T. Penney, M. W. Shafer, and J. B. Torrance,
474: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{5}}, 3669 (1972).
475: \bibitem{steeneken} P. B. Steeneken et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.
476: {\bf{88}},047201 (2002).
477: \bibitem{shapira} Y. Shapira, T. Foner, and S. B. Reed,
478: Phys.~Rev.~B~{\bf{8}}, 2299 (1973).
479: \bibitem{tokura}
480: For a review see, e.g., M.~Imada, A.~Fujimori, and Y.~Tokura,
481: Rev.~Mod.~Phys. {\bf 70}, 1039 (1998).
482: \bibitem{ott} H. Ott {\it et al.},
483: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{73}}, 094407 (2006).
484: \bibitem{schmehl} A. Schmehl {\it et al.}, Nature Materials
485: doi:10.1038/nmat2012 (2007).
486: \bibitem{schiller} R. Schiller, W. M\"uller, and W. Nolting, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{64}},134409 (2001).
487: \bibitem{sinjukow}
488: P.~Sinjukow and W.~Nolting, Phys.~Rev.~B~{\bf{68}}, 125107 (2003);
489: Phys. Rev. B {\bf{69}}, 214432 (2004).
490: \bibitem{lee} V.-C. Lee and L. Liu , Phys. Rev. B {\bf{30}}, 2026 (1984).
491: \bibitem{matsumoto} T.Matsumoto et al., {\em{J.Phys.}} {\bf{16}},6017 (2004).
492: \bibitem{golosov}
493: D.~I.~Golosov, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71}, 014428 (2005).
494: \bibitem{perakis}
495: M. D. Kapetanakis, A. Manousaki, and I. E. Perakis,
496: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 73}, 174424 (2006);
497: M. D. Kapetanakis and I. E. Perakis, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 75}, 140401(R) (2007).
498:
499: \bibitem{grewe} N. Grewe and H. Keiter, Phys. Rev. B {\bf{24}},4420 (1981);
500: Y. Kuramoto, Z. Phys. B {\bf{53}}, 37 (1983).
501: \bibitem{costi}
502: T.~A.~Costi, J.~Kroha, and P.~W\"olfle, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 53}, 1850 (1996).
503: \bibitem{kirchner}
504: S. Kirchner and J. Kroha,
505: J. Low Temp. Phys. {\bf 126}, 1233 (2002); arXiv:cond-mat/0202351.
506: \bibitem{schweitzer} H. Schweitzer and G. Czycholl, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{67}},
507: 3724 (1991);
508: T. Pruschke, M. Jarrell and J. Freericks, Adv. Phys. {\bf{44}}, 187 (1995).
509: %G. P\'alsson and G. Kotliar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf{80}}, 4775 (1998).
510:
511: \end{thebibliography}
512:
513:
514:
515:
516: \end{document}
517:
518:
519: