1: %\documentclass[galley,floats, prb, amsmath,showpacs]{revtex4}

2: \documentclass[floats,prb,twocolumn,amsmath,showpacs]{revtex4}

3: 

4: %

5: \usepackage{epsfig}

6: \usepackage{colordvi}

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: %

9: %macros

10: \def\k{{\bf k}}

11: \def\kk{{\boldsymbol \kappa}}

12: \def\E{{\bf E}}

13: \def\B{{\bf B}}

14: \def\R{{\bf R}}

15: \def\r{{\bf r}}

16: \def\b{{\bf b}}

17: \def\q{{\bf q}}

18: %

19: \def\pw{^{({\rm W})}}

20: \def\ph{^{({\rm H})}}

21: \def\la{\langle\kern-2.0pt\langle}

22: \def\ra{\rangle\kern-2.0pt\rangle}

23: \def\vt{\vert\kern-1.0pt\vert}

24: %\def\D{{\cal D}\ph}

25: \def\D{{D}\ph}

26: %

27: \begin{document}

28: %\draft

29: \def\dvm#1{\marginpar{\small DV: #1}}

30: \def\xwm#1{\marginpar{\small XW: #1}}

31: \def\jry#1{\marginpar{\small JY: #1}}

32: \def\ivo#1{\marginpar{\small IS: #1}}

33: 

34: \title{Ab initio calculation of the anomalous Hall

35: conductivity by Wannier interpolation}

36: 

37: \author{Xinjie Wang,$^1$ Jonathan R. Yates,$^{2,3}$ Ivo Souza,$^{2,3}$ and

38: David Vanderbilt$^1$}

39: \affiliation{$^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University,

40:         Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019\\

41:         $^2$Department of Physics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720\\

42:         $^3$Materials Science Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley,

43:         CA 94720}

44: \date{\today}

45: \begin{abstract}

46: The intrinsic anomalous Hall effect in ferromagnets depends on subtle 

47: spin-orbit-induced effects in the electronic structure, and 

48: recent {\it ab-initio} studies found that it was necessary to 

49: sample the Brillouin zone at millions of $k$-points to converge the

50: calculation.

51: We present an efficient first-principles approach for computing the

52: anomalous Hall conductivity.

53: We start out by performing

54: a conventional electronic-structure calculation including spin-orbit coupling

55: on a

56: uniform and relatively coarse

57: $k$-point mesh.  From the resulting Bloch states,

58: maximally-localized Wannier functions are constructed

59: which reproduce the {\it ab-initio} states up to the Fermi level.

60: The Hamiltonian and position-operator matrix elements, needed to

61: represent the

62: energy bands and Berry curvatures,

63: are then set up between the Wannier orbitals.

64: This completes the first stage of the calculation, whereby

65: the low-energy

66: {\it ab-initio} problem is transformed into an effective tight-binding form.

67: The second stage only involves Fourier transforms and

68: unitary transformations of the small matrices set up  in the first stage.

69: With these inexpensive operations, the quantities of interest are

70: interpolated onto a dense $k$-point mesh and used to evaluate the

71: anomalous Hall conductivity as a Brillouin zone integral.

72: The present scheme, which also avoids the

73: cumbersome summation over all unoccupied states in the Kubo formula,

74: is applied to bcc Fe,

75: giving excellent agreement with conventional, less efficient

76: first-principles calculations.

77: Remarkably, we find that more than 99\% of the effect can be recovered by 

78: keeping a set of terms depending only on the Hamiltonian matrix elements,

79: not on matrix elements of the position operator.

80: \end{abstract}

81: 

82: \pacs{71.15.Dx, 71.70.Ej, 71.18.+y, 75.50.Bb, 75.47.-m.}

83: 

84: \maketitle

85: 

86: \vskip2pc

87: \marginparwidth 3.1in

88: \marginparsep 0.5in

89: %\columnseprule 0pt

90: 

91: %=====================

92: \section{Introduction}

93: %=====================

94: 

95: The Hall resistivity of a ferromagnet depends not only on the

96: magnetic induction, but also on the magnetization; the latter dependence

97: is known as the anomalous Hall effect (AHE).\cite{hurd72} 

98: The AHE is used for investigating surface magnetism, and its potential

99: for investigating nanoscale magnetism, as well as for magnetic sensors and 

100: memory devices applications, is being considered.\cite{gerber02} 

101: Theoretical investigations of the AHE have undergone a revival in

102: recent years, and have also lead to the proposal for a spin counterpart,

103: the spin Hall effect, which has subsequently been realized experimentally.

104: 

105: The first theoretical model of the AHE was put forth by Karplus and

106: Luttinger,\cite{karplus54} who showed that it can arise in a perfect crystal

107: as a result of the spin-orbit interaction of polarized conduction

108: electrons. 

109: Later, two alternative mechanisms, skew scattering\cite{smit58}

110: and side jump scattering,\cite{berger70}

111: were proposed by Smit and Berger respectively.

112: In skew scattering the spin-orbit interaction gives rise to an

113: asymmetric scattering cross section even if the defect potential

114: is symmetric, and in side-jump scattering the spin-orbit coupling causes the

115: scattered electron to acquire an extra transverse translation after

116: the scattering event. These two mechanisms

117: involve scattering from impurities or phonons, while the 

118: Karplus-Luttinger mechanism is a scattering-free bandstructure

119: effect.  For reasons related to the absence of an intuitive physical

120: picture and the lack of reliable quantitative estimates based on

121: bandstructure calculations, the Karplus-Luttinger theory was strongly 

122: disputed in the early literature.

123: 

124: In recent years, new insights into the Karplus-Luttinger mechanism have

125: been obtained by

126: several authors,\cite{chang96,sundaram99,onoda02,jungwirth02,haldane04} who

127: reexamined it in the modern language of Berry's phases.

128: The term ${\boldsymbol\Omega}_n(\k)$ in the equations below

129: was recognized as the Berry curvature of the Bloch states

130: in reciprocal space, a quantity which had previously appeared in the

131: theory of 

132: the integer quantum Hall effect,\cite{thouless82} and also in the

133: Berry-phase theory of polarization.\cite{ksv93}

134: The anomalous Hall conductivity (AHC)

135: is simply given as the Brillouin zone (BZ) integral of the Berry curvature weighted

136: by the occupation factor of each state,

137: %

138: \begin{eqnarray}

139:                 \sigma_{xy}=\frac{-e^2}{(2\pi)^2h}\sum_{n}\int_{\rm BZ}\,

140: d\k \, f_n(\k)\,\Omega_{n,z}(\k) \;.

141: \label{eq:sigma}

142: \end{eqnarray}

143: %

144: While this can be derived in several ways, it is perhaps most

145: intuitively understood from the semiclassical point of view, in which

146: the group velocity of an electron wavepacket in band $n$ 

147: is\cite{adams59,sundaram99}

148: %

149: \begin{equation}

150:  {\dot \r}=\frac{1}{\hbar}\frac{\partial {\cal E}_{n\k}}{\partial \k}-

151:         {\dot \k}\times {{\bf \Omega}_n(\k)}\;.

152: \label{eq:rdot}

153: \end{equation}

154: %

155: The second term, often overlooked in elementary textbook derivations,

156: is known as the ``anomalous velocity.''  The expression for

157: the current density $\bf J$ then acquires a new term

158: $ef_n(\k)\,{\dot \k}\times {\bf \Omega}_n(\k)$ which, with

159: ${\dot \k}=-e{\bf E}/\hbar$, leads to Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigma}).

160: 

161: Recently, first-principles calculations of Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigma}) were

162: carried out for the ferromagnetic perovskite SrRuO$_3$ by

163: Fang {\it et al.},\cite{fang03} and for a transition metal, bcc Fe, by Yao

164:  {\it et al.}\cite{yao04} 

165: In both cases the calculated values compared well with experimental data,

166: lending credibility to the intrinsic mechanism.

167: The most striking feature of these calculations is

168: the strong and rapid variation of the Berry curvature %$\Omega({\bf k})$

169: in $k$-space. In particular, there are sharp peaks and valleys at places

170: where two energy bands are split by the spin-orbit coupling across the Fermi 

171: level. In order to converge the integral, the Berry curvature has to be

172: evaluated over millions of $k$-points in the Brillouin zone. In the previous

173: work this was done via a Kubo formula involving a large number of unoccupied

174: states; the computational cost was very high, even for bcc Fe, with only one

175: atom in the unit cell.

176: 

177: In this paper, we present an efficient method for computing the AHC. 

178: Unlike the conventional approach, it does not require carrying out a full 

179: {\it ab-initio} calculation for every $k$-point where the Berry

180: curvature needs to be evaluated. The actual

181: {\it ab-initio} calculation is performed on a much coarser $k$-point grid. 

182: By a post-processing step, the resulting Bloch states below

183: and immediately above the Fermi level are

184: then mapped onto well-localized Wannier-functions.  

185: In this

186: representation it is then possible to interpolate the Berry curvature onto any

187: desired $k$-point with very little computational effort and essentially

188: no loss of accuracy.

189: 

190: The paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:background} we

191: introduce the basic definitions and describe the Kubo-formula approach

192: used in previous calculations of the intrinsic AHC.

193: In Sec.~\ref{sec:fdbc} our new Wannier-based approach is described.

194: The details of the band-structure calculation and Wannier-function

195: construction are described in

196: Sec.~\ref{sec:cd}, followed by an application of the method to

197: bcc Fe in Sec~\ref{sec:results}.

198: Finally, Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion} contains a brief

199: summary and discussion.

200: 

201: %==================

202: \section{Definitions and background}

203: \label{sec:background}

204: %==================

205: 

206: The key ingredient in the theory of the intrinsic anomalous Hall effect is

207: the Berry curvature ${\bf \Omega}_n({\bf k})$, defined as

208: %

209: \begin{eqnarray}

210:         {\bf \Omega}_n({\bf k})=\boldsymbol\nabla\times {\bf A}_n(\k) \;,

211:         \label{eq:bc}

212: \end{eqnarray}

213: where ${\bf A}_{n}$ is the Berry connection,

214: %

215: \begin{eqnarray}

216:         {\bf A}_n(\k)=i\langle u_{n\k}|\boldsymbol\nabla_\k|u_{n\k} \rangle\;.

217:         \label{eq:berrypot}

218: \end{eqnarray}

219: %

220: The Berry curvature can be written in an

221: equivalent but more explicit form:

222: %

223:   \begin{equation}

224:   {\Omega}_{n,\gamma}({\bf k})=\epsilon_{\alpha \beta \gamma}

225:         \, \Omega_{n,\alpha \beta}(\k) \;,

226:   \end{equation}

227:   \begin{equation}

228:         \Omega_{n,\alpha \beta}(\k) =

229:         -2\,{\rm Im}\,\Big\langle \frac{\partial u_{n\k}}

230:         {\partial k_\alpha}

231:         \Big|\frac{\partial u_{n\k}}{\partial k_\beta} \Big\rangle \;,

232:   \label{eq:bcurv}

233:   \end{equation}

234: %

235: where the Greek letters indicate Cartesian coordinates,

236: $\epsilon_{\alpha \beta \gamma}$ is Levi-Civita tensor and

237: $u_{n\k}$ are the cell-periodic Bloch functions. The second-rank

238: %

239: Berry curvature tensor $\Omega_{n,\alpha \beta}(\k)$ is introduced

240: for later use.  The integral of the Berry

241: curvature over a surface bounded by a closed path $C$ in $k$-space

242: is the Berry phase of that path.\cite{berry84}

243: 

244: With this notation we rewrite the quantity we wish to evaluate,

245: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigma}), as

246: %

247: \begin{eqnarray}

248:                 \sigma_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{-e^2}{(2\pi)^2h}\int_{\rm BZ}\,

249: d\k\, \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k) \;,

250: \label{eq:sigma_b}

251: \end{eqnarray}

252: %

253: where we have introduced the {\it total} Berry curvature

254: %

255: \begin{equation}

256: \label{eq:omega_tot}

257: \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)=\sum_{n}\,f_n(\k)\,\Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}(\k).

258: \end{equation}

259: %

260: Direct evaluation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bcurv})

261: poses a number of practical difficulties related to the presence of

262: $k$-derivatives of Bloch states, as will be discussed in the next section.

263: In previous work\cite{fang03,yao04} these were circumvented by recasting

264: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bcurv}) as a Kubo formula,\cite{thouless82} where

265: the $k$-derivatives are replaced by sums over states:

266: %

267: \begin{eqnarray}

268:         \Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}({\k})=-2{\rm Im}\sum_{m \neq n}

269:    \frac{v_{nm,\alpha}(\k)\,v_{mn,\beta}(\k)}

270:         {(\omega_{m}(\k)-\omega_{n}(\k))^2}\;,

271:          \label{eq:kubo}

272: \end{eqnarray}

273: %

274: where $\omega_{n}(\k)={\cal E}_{n\k}/\hbar$ and the 

275: matrix elements of the Cartesian velocity operators

276: $\hat v_\alpha=(i/\hbar)[\hat H,\hat r_\alpha]$ are given by\cite{blount62}

277: %

278: \begin{equation}

279: v_{nm,\alpha}(\k)=\langle \psi_{n\k}|\hat v_\alpha|\psi_{m\k}\rangle=

280: \frac{1}{\hbar}\,

281: \Big\langle u_{n\k}\Big|\frac{\partial \hat H(\k)}{\partial k_\alpha}\Big|

282: u_{m\k}\Big\rangle\;,

283: \label{eq:vel}

284: \end{equation}

285: %

286: where $\hat H(\k)=e^{-i\k\cdot\hat\r}\hat{H}e^{i\k\cdot\hat\r}$.

287: The merit of Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubo}) lies in its practical implementation on a

288: finite $k$-grid using only the wave functions at a single $k$-point.

289: As is usually the case for such linear-response

290: formulas, sums over pairs of occupied states can be avoided in the

291: $T=0$ version of the formula (\ref{eq:omega_tot}) for the total

292: Berry curvature,

293: %

294: \begin{eqnarray}

295:         \Omega_{\alpha\beta}({\k})=-2{\rm Im}\sum_{v}\sum_{c}

296:    \frac{v_{vc,\alpha}(\k)\,v_{cv,\beta}(\k)}

297:         {(\omega_{c}(\k)-\omega_{v}(\k))^2} \;,

298:          \label{eq:kubotot}

299: \end{eqnarray}

300: where $v$ and $c$ subscripts denote valence (occupied) and conduction 

301: (unoccupied) bands, respectively.  However, the evaluation of this formula

302: requires the cumbersome summation over unoccupied states.  Even if

303: practical calculations truncate the summation to some extent, the

304: computation could be time-consuming. Moreover, the time required to

305: calculate the matrix elements of the velocity operator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubo})

306: or (\ref{eq:kubotot}) is not negligible.

307: 

308: 

309: 

310: %====================

311: \section{Evaluation of the Berry curvature by Wannier interpolation}

312: \label{sec:fdbc}

313: %====================

314: 

315: In view of the above-mentioned drawbacks of the Kubo formula for

316: practical calculations, it would be highly desirable to have a

317: numerical scheme based on the

318: the ``geometric formula'' (\ref{eq:bcurv}), in terms of the

319: occupied states only. The difficulties in implementing that

320: formula arise form the $k$-derivatives therein.

321: Since in practice one always replaces the Brillouin zone integration by a

322: discrete summation, an obvious approach would be to use a finite-difference

323: representation of the derivatives on the $k$-point grid. However, this requires

324: some care: a straightforward discretization will yield results which

325: depend on the choice of phases of the Bloch states (i.e., the choice of

326: gauge), even though Eq.~(\ref{eq:bcurv}) is in principle gauge-invariant.

327: The problem becomes more acute in the presence of band crossings and

328: avoided crossings, because

329: then it is not clear which two states at neighboring grid points should

330: be taken as ``partners'' in a finite-differences expression. 

331: (Moreover, since the system is a metal, at $T=0$ the occupation can be

332: different at neighboring $k$-points.) Successful numerical strategies 

333: for dealing with problems of this nature have been developed in the 

334: context of the Berry-phase theory of polarization of insulators, and 

335: a workable  finite-difference scheme which combines those ideas 

336: with Wannier interpolation is sketched in Appendix~B.

337: 

338: We present here a different, more powerful strategy that also relies 

339: on a Wannier representation of the low-energy electronic structure.  

340: We will show that it is possible to express the needed derivatives 

341: analytically in terms of the Wannier functions, so that no finite-difference 

342: evaluation of a derivative is needed in principle. The use of Wannier

343: functions

344: allows us to achieve this while still avoiding the summation over all

345: empty states which appears in the Kubo formula as a result of applying

346: conventional $k\cdot p$ perturbation theory.

347: 

348: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

349: \subsection{Wannier representation}

350: \label{sec:wr}

351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

352: 

353: \begin{figure}

354: \begin{center}

355: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=3.4in}

356: \end{center}

357: \caption{Band structure of bcc Fe with spin-orbit coupling

358: included. Solid lines: original band structure

359: from a conventional first-principles calculation.

360: Dotted lines: Wannier-interpolated band

361: structure. The zero of energy is the Fermi

362: level.}

363: \label{fig:band}

364: \end{figure}

365: 

366: We begin by using the approach of Souza, Marzari, and Vanderbilt

367: \cite{souza01} to construct a set of Wannier functions (WFs)

368: for the metallic system

369: of interest.  For insulators, one

370: normally considers a set of WFs that span precisely the space of

371: occupied Bloch states.  Here, since we have a metallic system and

372: we want to have well-localized WFs, we choose a number of WFs

373: larger than the number $N_\k$ of occupied states at any $\k$, and 

374: only insist that the

375: space spanned by the WFs should include, as a subset, the space

376: of the occupied states, plus the first few 

377: empty states. Thus, these partially-occupied

378: WFs will serve here as a kind

379: of ``exact tight-binding basis'' that can be used

380: as a compact representation of

381: the low-energy electronic structure of the metal.

382: 

383: This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}, where the bandstructure

384: of bcc Fe is shown.  The details of the calculations will be presented

385: later in Sec.~\ref{sec:cd}.

386: The solid lines show the full {\it ab-initio} bandstructure, while

387: the dashed lines show the bands obtained within the Wannier

388: representation using $M=18$ WFs per cell (9 of each spin;

389: see Sec.~\ref{sec:maxloc}).

390: In the method of Ref.~\onlinecite{souza01},

391: one specifies an energy $E_{\rm win}$ lying somewhat

392: above the Fermi energy $E_{\rm f}$, and insists on finding a set

393: of WFs spanning all the states in an energy window up to $E_{\rm win}$.

394: In the calculation of Fig.~\ref{fig:band} we chose $E_{\rm win}\simeq

395: 18$\,eV, and it is evident that there is an essentially perfect match

396: between the fully {\it ab-initio} and the Wannier-represented bands up to,

397: but not above, $E_{\rm win}$.

398: 

399: More generally, we shall assume that we have $M$ WFs per unit cell

400: (where $M\ge N_\k$ everywhere in the BZ)

401: such that the Bloch-like functions given by the phased sum of the

402: Wannier orbitals,

403: %

404: \begin{equation}

405: \label{eq:blochW}

406: |u_{n\k}\pw\rangle = \sum_\R e^{-i\k\cdot(\hat\r-\R)}\,|\R n\rangle

407: \end{equation}

408: %

409: ($n=1,...,M$), span the actual Bloch eigenstates $|u_{n\k}\rangle$

410: of interest

411: ($n=1,...,N_k$) at each $\k$.  It follows that, if we construct the

412: $M\times M$ Hamiltonian matrix

413: %

414: \begin{equation}

415: \label{eq:hamW}

416: H_{nm}\pw(\k)=\langle u_{n\k}\pw | \hat H(\k) | u_{m\k}\pw \rangle

417: \end{equation}

418: %

419: and diagonalize it by finding an $M\times M$ unitary rotation matrix

420: $U(\k)$ such that

421: %

422: \begin{equation}

423: U^\dagger(\k) H\pw(\k) U(\k) = H\ph(\k)

424: \label{eq:Htrans}

425: \end{equation}

426: %

427: where $H\ph_{nm}(\k)={\cal E}\ph_{n\k}\delta_{nm}$, then ${\cal E}\ph_{n\k}$

428: will be identical to the true ${\cal E}_{n\k}$ for all occupied

429: bands.  Also, the corresponding Bloch states

430: %

431: \begin{equation}

432: |u_{n\k}\ph\rangle = \sum_m |u_{m\k}\pw\rangle U_{mn}(\k)

433: \label{eq:twist}

434: \end{equation}

435: %

436: will also be identical to the true eigenstates $|u_{n\k}\rangle$ for ${\cal E}\le

437: E_{\rm f}$.  (In the scheme of Ref.~\onlinecite{souza01}, these

438: properties will actually hold for energies up to $E_{\rm win}$.)

439: However, the band energies and Bloch states will {\it not} generally

440: match the true ones at higher energies, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}.

441: We thus use the superscript `H' to distinguish the projected band

442: energies ${\cal E}\ph_{n\k}$ and eigenvectors $|u_{n\k}\ph\rangle$ from

443: the true ones ${\cal E}_{n\k}$ and $|u_{n\k}\rangle$, keeping in mind

444: that this distinction is only significant in the higher-energy unoccupied

445: region (${\cal E}>E_{\rm win}$) of the projected bandstructure.

446: 

447: The unitary rotation of states expressed by the matrix $U(\k)$ is

448: often referred to as a ``gauge transformation,'' and we shall adopt

449: this terminology here.  We shall refer to the

450: Wannier-derived Bloch-like states $|u_{n\k}\pw \rangle$ as belonging

451: to the Wannier (W) gauge, while the eigenstates $|u_{n\k}\ph \rangle$ of the

452: projected bandstructure are said to belong to the Hamiltonian (H)

453: gauge.

454: 

455: Quantities such as the Berry connection ${\bf A}_n(\k)$ of

456: Eq.~(\ref{eq:berrypot}) and the Berry curvature

457: $\Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}(\k)$ of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bc}) clearly depend

458: upon the gauge in which they are expressed.

459: The quantity that we wish to calculate,

460: Eq.~(\ref{eq:omega_tot}), is most naturally

461: expressed in the Hamiltonian gauge, where it takes the form

462: %

463: \begin{equation}

464:   \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)=\sum_{n=1}^{M} f_n(\k) \,

465:   \Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}\ph(\k)

466: \;.

467: \label{eq:omsum}

468: \end{equation}

469: %

470: Here $\Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}\ph(\k)$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:bcurv})

471: with $|u_{n\k}\rangle\rightarrow|u_{n\k}\ph\rangle$.  It is permissible

472: to make this substitution because the projected bandstructure matches the

473: true one for all occupied states.

474: In practice one may take for the occupation factor $f_n(\k)

475: =\theta(E_{\rm f}-{\cal E}_{n\k})$ or introduce a small thermal

476: smearing as desired.

477: 

478: Our strategy now is to see how

479: the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:omsum}) can be obtained by starting

480: with quantities that are defined and computed first in the Wannier

481: gauge and then transformed into the Hamiltonian gauge.

482: The resulting scheme can be viewed as a generalized Slater-Koster 

483: interpolation, which takes advantage of the smoothness in $k$-space of the

484: Wannier-gauge objects, a direct consequence of the short range of the Wannier

485: orbitals in real space.

486: 

487: \subsection{Gauge transformations}

488: 

489: Because the gauge transformation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:twist}) involves a

490: unitary rotation among several bands, it is useful to introduce

491: generalizations of the quantities in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bc}-\ref{eq:berrypot})

492: having two band indices instead of one. Thus, we define

493: %

494: \begin{equation}

495: A_{nm,\alpha}(\k)=i\langle u_{n}|\partial_\alpha u_{m}\rangle

496: \label{eq:Awg}

497: \end{equation}

498: %

499: and

500: %

501: \begin{equation}

502: \Omega_{nm,\alpha\beta}(\k)=

503:   i\langle \partial_\alpha u_{n}|\partial_\beta  u_{m}\rangle

504:  -i\langle \partial_\beta  u_{n}|\partial_\alpha u_{m}\rangle

505: \;,

506: \label{eq:Owg}

507: \end{equation}

508: %

509: where every object in each of these equations should consistently

510: carry either a (W) or (H) label.

511: (We have now suppressed the $\k$ subscripts

512: and introduced the notation $\partial_\alpha=\partial/\partial k_\alpha$ for

513: conciseness.)  In this notation, Eq.~(\ref{eq:omsum}) becomes

514: %

515: \begin{equation}

516:   \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)=\sum_{n=1}^M f_n(\k)\,

517:   \Omega_{nn,\alpha\beta}\ph(\k)

518: \;.

519: \label{eq:omtot}

520: \end{equation}

521: %

522: This matrix is antisymmetric in the Cartesian indices.

523: Note that when $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}$ appears without a

524: (W) or (H) superscript, as on the left-hand side of this equation,

525: it denotes the total Berry curvature on the left-hand side

526: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:omsum}).

527: 

528: The matrix representation of an ordinary operator such as the

529: Hamiltonian or the velocity can be transformed from the Wannier to the 

530: Hamiltonian

531: gauge, or vice versa, just by operating on the left and right by

532: $U^\dagger(\k)$ and $U(\k)$, as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Htrans});

533: such a matrix is called ``gauge-covariant.''

534: Unfortunately, the matrix objects in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Awg}-\ref{eq:Owg})

535: are not gauge-covariant, because they involve $k$-derivatives acting on

536: the Bloch states. For example, a straightforward calculation shows that

537: %

538: \begin{equation}

539: A_{\alpha}\ph=

540:     U^\dagger A_{\alpha}\pw U

541:   + i U^\dagger \,\partial_\alpha U

542: \label{eq:Atrans}

543: \end{equation}

544: %

545: where each object is an $M\times M$ matrix and matrix products are

546: implied throughout.  For every matrix object ${\cal O}$, we define

547: %

548: \begin{equation}

549: \overline{\cal O}^{(\rm H)}=

550: U^\dagger {\cal O}^{(\rm W)}U

551: \label{eq:utrans}

552: \end{equation}

553: %

554: so that, by definition,

555: $\overline{\cal O}^{(\rm H)}={\cal O}^{(\rm H)}$

556: only for gauge-covariant objects.

557: 

558: The derivative $\partial_\alpha U$ may be obtained from ordinary

559: perturbation theory.  We adopt a notation in which

560: $\vt\phi_m\ra$ is the $m$-th $M$-component column vector of

561: matrix $U$, so that 

562: $\la\phi_n\vt H\pw \vt\phi_m\ra={\cal E}_n\,\delta_{nm}$;

563: the stylized bra-ket notation is used to emphasize that objects like

564: $H\pw$ and $\vt\phi_n\ra$ are $M\times M$ matrices and $M$-component

565: vectors, i.e., operators and state vectors in the ``tight-binding

566: space'' defined by the WFs, not in the original Hilbert space.

567: Perturbation theory with respect to the parameter $\k$ takes the form

568: %

569: \begin{equation}

570: \vt\partial_\alpha\phi_n\ra=\sum_{l\not= n}

571:   \frac{\la\phi_l\vt H_\alpha\pw\vt\phi_n\ra}{{\cal E}_n\ph-{\cal E}_l\ph}

572:   \,\vt\phi_l\ra

573: \label{eq:pert}

574: \end{equation}

575: %

576: where $H_\alpha\pw\equiv\partial_\alpha H\pw$.  In matrix notation

577: this can be written

578: %

579: \begin{equation}

580: \partial_\alpha U_{mn}=\sum_l\,U_{ml}\,\D_{ln,\alpha} =  (U\D_\alpha)_{mn}

581: \label{eq:dau}

582: \end{equation}

583: %

584: where

585: %

586: \begin{equation}

587: \D_{nm,\alpha}\equiv (U^{\dagger}

588: \partial_{\alpha}U)_{nm}=

589: \begin{cases}

590:   \displaystyle

591:   \frac{\overline H_{nm,\alpha}^{(\rm H)}}{{\cal E}^{(\rm H)}_{m}

592:   -{\cal E}_{n}^{(\rm H)}}& \text{if $n\not= m$}\\ \\

593:   0& \text{if $n=m$}

594: \end{cases}

595: \label{eq:ddef}

596: \end{equation}

597: %

598: and $\overline H_{nm,\alpha}^{(\rm H)}=( U^{\dagger}

599: H_{\alpha}^{(\rm W)}U)_{nm}$ according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:utrans}).

600: Note that while $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}$ and $A_\alpha$ are Hermitian

601: in the band indices, $\D_\alpha$ is instead antihermitian.

602: The gauge choice implicit in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:pert}) and (\ref{eq:ddef}) is

603: $ \la \phi_n\vt\partial_\alpha\phi_n\ra=

604: (U^{\dagger}\partial_{\alpha}U)_{nn}=0$ (this is the so-called ``parallel

605: transport'' gauge).

606: 

607: Using Eq.~(\ref{eq:dau}), Eq.~(\ref{eq:Atrans}) becomes

608: %

609: \begin{equation}

610: A_\alpha\ph=\overline{A}_\alpha\ph+i\D_\alpha

611: \label{eq:Ata}

612: \end{equation}

613: %

614: and the derivative of Eq.~(\ref{eq:twist}) becomes

615: %

616: \begin{equation}

617: |\partial_{\alpha}u_n^{(\rm H)}\rangle=

618: \sum_{m}|\partial_{\alpha} u_m^{(\rm W)}\rangle U_{mn}

619: +\sum_{m}|u_m^{(\rm H)}\rangle

620: \D_{mn,\alpha} \;.

621: \label{eq:udtrans}

622: \end{equation}

623: %

624: Plugging the latter into Eq.~(\ref{eq:Owg}), we finally obtain, after a

625: few manipulations, the matrix equations

626: %

627: \begin{eqnarray}

628: \Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph &=&

629: \overline\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph - [\D_\alpha,\overline A_\beta\ph]

630: \nonumber\\

631: &&\quad + [\D_\beta,\overline A_\alpha\ph] -i[\D_\alpha,\D_\beta]\;.

632: \label{eq:om-a}

633: \end{eqnarray}

634: %

635: The band-diagonal elements $\Omega_{nn,\alpha\beta}\ph(\k)$ then

636: need to be inserted into Eq.~(\ref{eq:omtot}).

637: 

638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

639: \subsection{Discussion}

640: \label{sec:disc}

641: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

642: 

643: We expect, based on Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubo}), that the largest

644: contributions to the AHC will come from regions of $k$-space where there

645: are small energy splittings between bands

646: (for example, near spin-orbit-split avoided crossings).\cite{fang03}

647: In the present formulation, this will

648: give rise to small energy denominators in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddef}),

649: leading to very large $\D_\alpha$ values in those regions.

650: These large and spiky contributions will then propagate into

651: $A_\alpha\ph$ and $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph$,

652: whereas $A_\alpha\pw$ and $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\pw$,

653: and also $\overline A_\alpha\ph$ and $\overline\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph$,

654: will remain with their typically smaller values.

655: Thus, these spiky contributions will be present in the second and third

656: terms, and especially in the fourth term, of Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a}).

657: The contributions of these various terms are illustrated for the

658: case of bcc Fe in Sec.~\ref{sec:berrycurv}, and we show there that

659: the last term typically makes by far the dominant contribution,

660: followed by the second and third terms, and then by the first

661: term.

662: 

663: The dominant fourth term can be recast in the form of a Kubo

664: formula as

665: %

666: \begin{equation}

667: -2{\rm Im}\sum_{m\ne n}

668: \frac{ \la \phi_{n\k} \vt H_{\alpha}^{(\rm W)} \vt \phi_{m\k} \ra

669: \la \phi_{m\k} \vt H_{\beta}^{(\rm W)} \vt \phi_{n\k} \ra }

670: {\big({\cal E}_{m}\ph-{\cal E}_{n}\ph\big)^2}\;.

671: \label{eq:kubom}

672: \end{equation}

673: %

674: The following differences between this equation and the 

675: true Kubo formula, Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubo}), should however be kept in mind.

676: First, the summation in 

677: Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubom}) is

678: restricted to the $M$-band projected band structure. Second, above 

679: $E_{\rm win}$ the projected bandstructure deviates from the original

680: {\it ab-initio} one. Third, even below $E_{\rm win}$, where they do

681: match exactly, the ``tight-binding velocity matrix 

682: elements'' appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubom}) differ from the 

683: {\it ab-initio} ones, given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:vel}). (The relation between them

684: is particularly simple within the inner window, and follows from 

685: combining the identity

686: $A_{nm,\alpha}=i\langle\psi_n|\hat v_\alpha|

687: \psi_m\rangle/(\omega_m-\omega_n)$, valid for $m\not= n$,

688: with Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ddef}-\ref{eq:Ata}).)

689: All these differences are however exactly compensated by

690: the previous three terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a}).

691: We emphasize that all terms in that equation are

692: defined strictly within the projected space spanned by the Wannier

693: functions.

694: 

695: We note in passing that it is possible to rewrite Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a})

696: in such a way that the large spiky contributions are isolated into

697: a single term.  This alternative formulation, which turns out to be

698: related to a gauge-covariant 

699: curvature tensor, will be described in Appendix A.

700: 

701: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

702: \subsection{Sum over occupied bands}

703: \label{sec:bandsum}

704: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

705: 

706: In the above, we have proposed to compute $\Omega\ph_{nn,\alpha\beta}$

707: from Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a}) and insert it into the band sum, Eq.~(\ref{eq:omtot}),

708: in order to compute the AHC.  However, this approach has a shortcoming

709: in that small splittings (avoided crossings) between a pair of

710: {\it occupied} bands $n$ and $m$ leads to large values of $\D_{nm,\alpha}$,

711: and thus to large but canceling contributions to the AHC coming from

712: $\Omega\ph_{nn,\alpha\beta}$ and  $\Omega\ph_{mm,\alpha\beta}$.  Here,

713: we rewrite the total Berry curvature (\ref{eq:omtot})

714: in  such a way that the cancellation is explicit.

715: 

716: Inserting Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a}) into Eq.~(\ref{eq:omtot}) and interchanging

717: dummy labels $n\leftrightarrow m$ in certain terms, we obtain

718: %

719: \begin{eqnarray}

720: \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)&=&\sum_n f_n\,\overline{\Omega}_{nn,\alpha\beta}\ph

721: \nonumber\\

722: &+& \sum_{nm} (f_m-f_n)\left(\D_{nm,\alpha}\overline{A}_{mn,\beta }\ph\right.

723: \nonumber\\

724: &&\;\;\left.               -\D_{nm,\beta }\overline{A}_{mn,\alpha}\ph

725:                       +i\D_{nm,\alpha}\D_{mn,\beta}\right) .

726: \label{eq:bsum}

727: \end{eqnarray}

728: %

729: The factors of $(f_m-f_n)$ insure that terms arising from pairs

730: of fully occupied states give no contribution.  Thus,

731: the result of this reformulation is that individual terms in

732: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) have

733: large spiky contributions only when avoided crossings or

734: near-degeneracies occur across the Fermi energy.  This approach is

735: therefore preferable from the point of view of numerical stability,

736: and it is the formula that we have implemented in the current work.

737: 

738: As expected from the discussion in Sec.~\ref{sec:disc}

739: and shown later in Sec.~\ref{sec:intanom}, the dominant term

740: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) is the last one,

741: %

742: \begin{equation}

743: \Omega^{DD}_{\alpha\beta}=

744:     i \sum_{nm} (f_m-f_n) \D_{nm,\alpha}\D_{mn,\beta}

745: \label{eq:OmegaDD}

746: \end{equation}

747: %

748: or, in a more explicitly Kubo-like form,

749: %

750: \begin{equation}

751:   \Omega^{DD}_{\alpha\beta} = i \sum_{nm} (f_m-f_n) \; \frac

752:      { \overline{H}\ph_{nm,\alpha} \overline{H}\ph_{mn,\beta} }

753:      {\big({\cal E}_{m}\ph-{\cal E}_{n}\ph\big)^2}

754: \;.

755: \label{eq:kubototm}

756: \end{equation}

757: %

758: In the zero-temperature limit, the latter can easily be cast into a

759: form like Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubom}), but with the a double sum running

760: over occupied bands $n$ and unoccupied bands $m$, very

761: reminiscent of the original Kubo formula in 

762: Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubotot}).

763: We remark that $(m_e/\hbar)\overline{H}\ph_{nm,\alpha}$ coincides with the

764: ``effective tight-binding momentum operator'' defined in 

765: Ref.~\onlinecite{graf95}.

766: 

767: It is worth pointing out that Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubom}) can be

768: cast explicit as a Berry curvature, the tight-binding-space analog of

769: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bcurv}),

770: %

771: \begin{equation}

772: \Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}^{DD}=

773: -2\,{\rm Im}\,\la \partial_\alpha \phi_{n\k}

774: \vt\partial_\beta \phi_{n\k}\ra\;.

775: \label{eq:bcurv_tb}

776: \end{equation}

777: %

778: In this way Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubototm}) can be written in a form that closely

779: resembles the total Berry curvature, Eq.~(\ref{eq:omsum}):

780: %

781: \begin{equation}

782: \Omega^{DD}_{\alpha\beta}=\sum_{n=1}^{M} f_n \,

783:   \Omega_{n,\alpha\beta}^{DD}\;.

784: \label{eq:omsum_tb}

785: \end{equation}

786: 

787: 

788: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

789: \subsection{Evaluation of the Wannier-gauge matrices}

790: \label{sec:wangauge}

791: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

792: 

793: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) is our primary result.  To review,

794: recall that this is a condensed notation expressing the $M\times M$

795: matrix $\Omega_{nm,\alpha\beta}\ph(\k)$ in terms of matrices the

796: $\overline{\Omega}_{nm,\alpha\beta}\ph(\k)$, etc.

797: The basic ingredients needed are the four matrices

798: $H\pw$, $H_\alpha\pw$, $A_\alpha\pw$, and $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\pw$

799: at a given $\k$. Diagonalization of the first of them yields the

800: energy eigenvalues needed to find the occupation factors $f_n$. It also 

801: provides the gauge transformation $U$ which is then used

802: to construct $\overline{H}_\alpha\ph$,

803: $\overline{A}_\alpha\ph$, and $\overline{\Omega}_{\alpha\beta}\ph$

804: from the other three objects 

805: via Eq.~(\ref{eq:utrans}).  Finally, $\overline{H}_\alpha\ph$ is

806: inserted into Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddef}) to obtain $\D_\alpha$, and all

807: terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) are evaluated.

808: 

809: In this section we explain how to obtain

810: the matrices $H^{(\rm W)}(\k)$, $H_\alpha^{(\rm W)}(\k)$,

811: $A_\alpha^{(\rm W)}(\k)$ and $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}^{(\rm W)}(\k)$

812: at an arbitrary point $\k$ for use in the subsequent calculations

813: described above.

814: 

815: %%%%

816: \subsubsection{Fourier transform expressions}

817: \label{sec:fourier}

818: %%%%

819: 

820: The four needed quantities can be expressed as follows:

821: %

822: \begin{equation}

823: H_{nm}\pw(\k)=\sum_\R e^{i\k\cdot\R}\;\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{H}|\R m\rangle\,,

824: \label{eq:uu}

825: \end{equation}

826: %

827: \begin{equation}

828: H_{nm,\alpha}\pw(\k)=\sum_\R e^{i\k\cdot\R}\;

829:    iR_\alpha\,\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{H}|\R m\rangle\,,

830: \label{eq:vv}

831: \end{equation}

832: %

833: \begin{equation}

834: A_{nm,\alpha}\pw(\k)=\sum_\R e^{i\k\cdot\R}\;

835:    \langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\alpha|\R m\rangle\,,

836: \label{eq:ww}

837: \end{equation}

838: %

839: \begin{eqnarray}

840: \Omega_{nm,\alpha\beta}\pw(\k)&=&\sum_\R e^{i\k\cdot\R}\;\Big(

841:    iR_\alpha\,\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\beta |\R m\rangle \nonumber\\

842:   &&\qquad -iR_\beta \,\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\alpha|\R m\rangle \Big)

843: \;.

844: \label{eq:xx}

845: \end{eqnarray}

846: %

847: (The notation $|{\bf 0}n\rangle$ refers to the $n$'th WF

848: in the home unit cell $\R={\bf 0}$.)  Eq.~(\ref{eq:uu}) follows by

849: combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:blochW}) and (\ref{eq:hamW}), while

850: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ww}) follows by combining Eqs.~(\ref{eq:blochW}) and

851: (\ref{eq:Awg}).  Eqs.~(\ref{eq:vv}) and (\ref{eq:xx}) are then

852: obtained from (\ref{eq:uu}) and (\ref{eq:ww}) using

853: $H_{nm,\alpha}=\partial_\alpha H_{nm}$ and

854: $\Omega_{nm,\alpha\beta}=\partial_\alpha A_{nm,\beta }

855: -\partial_\beta A_{nm,\alpha}$, respectively.

856: 

857: It is remarkable that the only real-space matrix elements that are

858: required between WFs are those of the four operators

859: $\hat{H}$ and $\hat{r}_\alpha$ ($\alpha=x$, $y$, and $z$).

860: Because the WFs are strongly localized, these matrix elements

861: are expected to decay rapidly as a function of lattice vector $\R$,

862: so that only a modest number of these real-space matrix elements

863: need to be computed and stored once and for all.  Collectively, they define our

864: ``exact tight-binding model'' and suffice to allow subsequent calculation

865: of all needed quantities.  Furthermore, the short range

866: of these matrix elements in real space insures that the Wannier-gauge

867: quantities on the left-hand sides of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:uu}-\ref{eq:xx}) will

868: be smooth functions of $\k$, thus justifying the earlier discussion

869: in which it was argued that these objects should have no rapid variation or

870: enhancement in $k$-space regions where avoided crossings occur.

871: (Recall that such large, rapidly-varying contributions only appear

872: in the $\D$ matrices and in quantities that depend upon them.)

873: It should however be kept in mind that Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) is not written

874: directly in terms of the smooth quantities (\ref{eq:uu}-\ref{eq:xx}), but

875: rather in terms of those quantities transformed

876: according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:utrans}). The resulting objects

877: are not smooth, since the matrices $U$ change rapidly with $\k$. However,

878: even while not smooth, they remain small.

879: 

880: 

881: %%%%%

882: \subsubsection{Evaluation of real-space matrix elements}

883: \label{sec:evalreal}

884: %%%%%

885: 

886: We conclude this section by discussing the calculation of

887: the fundamental matrix elements $\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{H}|\R m\rangle$

888: and $\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\alpha|\R m\rangle$.  There are several

889: ways in which these could be computed, and the choice could well vary

890: from one implementation to another.  One possibility would be to

891: construct the WFs in real space, say on a real-space grid, and then

892: to compute the Hamiltonian and position-operator matrix elements

893: directly on that grid.  In the context of a code that

894: uses a real-space basis (e.g., localized orbitals or grids), this

895: might be the best choice.  However, in the context of plane-wave

896: methods it is usually more convenient to work in reciprocal space

897: if possible.  This is in the spirit of the

898: Wannier-function construction scheme,\cite{marzari97,souza01}

899: which is formulated as a post-processing step after a conventional

900: {\it ab-initio} calculation carried out on a uniform $k$-point grid.

901: (In the following we will use the symbol $\q$ to denote the points

902: of this {\it ab-initio} mesh, to distinguish them from arbitrary

903: or interpolation-grid points denoted by $\k$.)

904: 

905: The end result of the Wannier-construction step are $M$ Bloch-like

906: functions $|u_{n\q}\pw\rangle$ at each $\q$. The WFs are obtained from

907: them via a discrete Fourier transform:

908: %

909: \begin{equation}

910: \label{eq:wf}

911: |\R n\rangle=\frac{1}{N_q^3}

912: \sum_\q\, e^{-i\q\cdot(\R-\hat\r)}|u_{n\q}\pw\rangle \;.

913: \end{equation}

914: %

915: This expression follows from inverting Eq.~(\ref{eq:blochW}). If the

916: {\it ab initio} mesh contains

917: $N_q\times N_q\times N_q$ points, the resulting WFs are

918: really periodic functions over a supercell of dimensions

919: $L\times L\times L$, where $L=N_q a$ and $a$ is the lattice constant of 

920: the unit cell. The idea then is to choose $L$ large enough that the rapid

921: decay of the localized WFs occurs on a scale much smaller than $L$. 

922: This ensures that the matrix

923: elements

924: $\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{H}|\R m\rangle$ and

925: $\langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\alpha|\R m\rangle$

926: between a pair of WFs separated by more than $L/2$ are negligible,

927: so that further refinement of the {\it ab-initio} mesh will have

928: a negligible impact on the accuracy of Wannier-interpolated

929: quantities. (In particular, the interpolated band structure,

930: Fig.~\ref{fig:band}, is able to reproduce tiny features of

931: the full bandstructure, such as spin-orbit-induced avoided

932: crossings, even if they occur on a length scale much smaller

933: than the {\it ab-initio} mesh spacing.)  While the choice of

934: reciprocal-space cell spanned by the vectors $\q$ is immaterial,

935: because of the periodicity of reciprocal space, this is not so

936: for the vectors $\R$. In practice we choose the $N_q\times

937: N_q\times N_q$ vectors $\R$ to be evenly distributed

938: on the Wigner-Seitz supercell of volume $N_q^3 a^3$ centered

939: around $\R=\bf 0$.\cite{souza01} This is the most isotropic choice

940: possible, ensuring that the strong decay of the matrix elements for 

941: $|\R|\sim L/2$ is achieved irrespective of direction.

942: 

943: The matrix elements of the Hamiltonian are obtained from Eq.~(\ref{eq:wf})

944: as

945: %

946: \begin{eqnarray}

947: \langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{H}|\R m\rangle= \frac{1}{N_q^3}\sum_\q\,

948:               e^{-i\q \cdot \R}H\pw_{nm}(\q)\;,

949: \label{eq:hw}

950: \end{eqnarray}

951: %

952: which is the reciprocal of Eq.~(\ref{eq:uu}), with the sum running

953: over the coarse {\it ab-initio} mesh.  The position

954: matrix is obtained similarly by inverting  Eq.~(\ref{eq:ww}):

955: %

956: \begin{equation}

957: \langle {\bf 0} n|\hat r_{\alpha}|\R m\rangle =\frac{1}{N_q^3}\sum_\q\,

958: e^{-i\q \cdot \R} A_{nm,\alpha}\pw(\q) \;.

959: \end{equation}

960: %

961: The matrix $A_{nm,\alpha}\pw(\q)$ is then evaluated by

962: approximating the $k$-derivatives in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Awg}) by finite-differences 

963: on the {\it ab-initio} mesh using the expression\cite{marzari97}

964: %

965: \begin{equation}

966:         A_{nm,\alpha}\pw(\q)\simeq

967:         i\sum_\b\,

968:         w_b b_{\alpha}\Big ( \langle u_{n\q}\pw|u_{m,\q+\b}\pw

969:         \rangle

970:         - \delta_{nm}\Big )\;,

971: \label{eq:A_dis}

972: \end{equation}

973: %

974: where $\b$ are the vectors connecting $\q$ to its nearest

975: neighbors on the {\it ab-initio} mesh. This approximation is valid because

976: the Bloch states vary smoothly with $\k$ in the Wannier gauge.

977: We note that the overlap matrices appearing on the right-hand side are

978: available ``for free'' as they have already been computed and stored

979: during the WF construction procedure.

980: This is also the case for the matrices 

981: $H\pw(\q)$ needed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:hw}).

982: 

983: It should be noted that the $k$-space finite-difference procedure outlined

984: above entails an error of order ${\cal O}(\Delta q^2)$ in the

985: values of the position operator matrix elements, where $\Delta q$

986: is the {\it ab-initio} mesh spacing.  The importance of such an error

987: is easily assessed by trying denser $q$-point meshes; in our case, we find

988: that it is not a numerically significant source of error for the

989: $8\times8\times8$ mesh that we employ in our calculations.

990: (In large measure this is simply because less than

991: 0.5\% of the total AHC comes from terms that depend on these

992: position-operator matrix elements, as will be discussed in

993: Section~\ref{sec:results}.  Indeed, we find that the

994: ${\cal O}(\Delta q^2)$ convergence of this small contribution hardly

995: shows in the convergence of the total AHC, which

996: empirically appears to be approximately exponential in the {\it

997: ab-initio} mesh density.)

998: %

999: However, if the ${\cal O}(\Delta q^2)$ convergence is a source of

1000: concern, one could adopt the direct

1001: real-space mesh integration method mentioned at the beginning of this

1002: subsection, which should be free of such errors.

1003: 

1004: %==================

1005: \section{Computational details}

1006: \label{sec:cd}

1007: %==================

1008: 

1009: In this section we present some of the detailed steps of the

1010: calculations as they apply to our test system of bcc Fe.  First, we

1011: describe the first-principles bandstructure calculations that are

1012: carried out initially.

1013: Second, we discuss the procedure for

1014: constructing maximally localized Wannier functions for the bands of

1015: interest following the method of Souza, Marzari, and Vanderbilt.

1016: \cite{souza01} Third, we discuss the variable treatment of

1017: the spin-orbit interaction within these first-principles

1018: calculations, which is useful for testing the dependence of the AHC on the

1019: spin-orbit coupling.

1020: 

1021: %-------------------

1022: \subsection{Band structure calculation}

1023: %-------------------

1024: 

1025: Fully relativistic band structure calculations for bcc Fe in

1026: its ferromagnetic ground state at the experimental lattice constant

1027: $a=5.42$\,Bohr are carried out using the {\tt PWSCF}

1028: code.\cite{pwscf} A kinetic-energy cutoff of 60 Hartree is used

1029: for the planewave expansion of the valence wavefunctions (400

1030: Hartree for the charge densities).  Exchange and correlation

1031: effects are treated with the PBE generalized-gradient

1032: approximation.\cite{perdew96}

1033: 

1034: The core-valence interaction is described here by means of

1035: norm-conserving pseudopotentials which include spin-orbit

1036: effects\cite{soc2,dalcorso05} 

1037: in separable Kleinman-Bylander form.

1038: (Our overall Wannier interpolation approach

1039: is quite independent of this specific choice and can

1040: easily be generalized to other kinds of pseudopotentials or to

1041: all-electron methods.)

1042: The pseudopotential was constructed using a reference valence

1043: configuration of $3d^74s^{0.75}4p^{0.25}$. We treat the overlap

1044: of the valence states with the semicore $3p$ states using the

1045: non-linear core correction approach.\cite{nlcc} The pseudopotential

1046: core radii for the $3d$, $4s$ and $4p$ states are $1.3$, $2.0$

1047: and $2.2$\,Bohr, respectively.  We find the small cut-off radius

1048: for the $3d$ channel to be necessary in order to reproduce the

1049: all-electron bandstructure accurately.

1050: 

1051: We obtain the self-consistent ground state using a 16$\times$16$\times$16

1052: Monkhorst-Pack\cite{mp} mesh of $k$-points and a fictitious Fermi

1053: smearing \cite{coldsmear} of 0.02\,Ry for the Brillouin-zone integration.

1054: The magnetization is along the [001] direction, so that

1055: the only non-zero component of the total Berry curvature is the one

1056: along $z$.  The spin magnetic moment is found to be

1057: 2.22\,$\mu_{\rm B}$,

1058: the same as that from an 

1059: all-electron calculation\cite{yao04} and close to the experimental

1060: value of 2.12\,$\mu_{\rm B}$. 

1061: 

1062: In order to calculate the Wannier functions, we freeze the self-consistent

1063: potential and perform a non-self-consistent calculation on a uniform

1064: $n\times n\times n$ grid of $k$-points.  We tested several grid densities

1065: ranging from $n$=4 to $n$=10 and ultimately chose $n$=8 (see end of

1066: next subsection).  Since we want to construct 18 WFs ($s$, $p$, and

1067: $d$-like for spin up and down), we need to include a sufficient number of

1068: extra bands to cover the orbital character of these intended

1069: WFs everywhere in the Brillouin zone.  With this in mind, we

1070: calculate the first 28 bands at each $k$-point, and then exclude

1071: any bands above 58\,eV (the ``outer window'' of

1072: Ref.~\onlinecite{souza01}).  The 18 WFs are then disentangled from

1073: the remaining bands using the procedure described in the next

1074: section.

1075: 

1076: %--------------

1077: \subsection{Maximally-localized spinor Wannier functions for bcc Fe}

1078: \label{sec:maxloc}

1079: %--------------

1080: 

1081: The energy bands of interest (extending up to, and just above,

1082: the Fermi energy) have mainly mixed $s$ and $d$ character and

1083: are entangled with the bands at higher energies.  In order to

1084: construct maximally-localized WFs to describe these bands,

1085: we use a two-step post-processing procedure\cite{souza01}

1086: as implemented in the {\tt WANNIER90} code.\cite{wannier} 

1087: In the first (``disentangling'') step,

1088: an 18-band subspace (the ``projected space'') is identified that

1089: minimizes the invariant part of the spread functional, subject

1090: to the constraint of including the states within an  

1091: inner energy window.\cite{souza01} We chose this window to span an energy

1092: range of 30~eV from the bottom of the valence bands

1093: (up to $E_{\rm win}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}).

1094: In the second step,

1095: a set of maximally-localized WFs spanning this

1096: subspace is chosen by minimizing the gauge-dependent part of the 

1097: spread functional.\cite{marzari97}

1098: 

1099: Although the original prescription for obtaining maximally-localized Wannier

1100: functions was formulated for the spinless case, it is trivial to

1101: adapt it to treat spinor wavefunctions, in which case the resulting WFs also

1102: have spinor character: each element of the overlap matrix,

1103: which is the key input to the WF-generation code, is

1104: simply calculated as the sum of two spin components,

1105: %

1106: \begin{equation}

1107:   S_{\k,\b}^{nm} = \sum_{\sigma} \,

1108:   \langle u_{n\k}^{\sigma} | u_{m,\k+\b}^{\sigma} \rangle \;,

1109: \end{equation}

1110: %

1111: where $| u_{n,\k+\b}^{\sigma} \rangle$ is one of the two components

1112: of the spinor wavefunction. 

1113: 

1114: In order to facilitate later analysis (e.g., of the orbital and

1115: spin character of various bands), we have modified the second

1116: step as follows.  At each $k$-point on the $8\times 8\times 8$

1117: mesh, we form the 18$\times$18 matrix representation of the spin

1118: operator $\hat S_z=(\hbar/2)\hat\sigma_z$ 

1119: in the space of band states and diagonalize it.

1120: The $18$-dimensional space at this $k$-point is then divided in

1121: two $9$-dimensional subspaces, a mostly spin-up subspace spanned

1122: by the eigenstates having $S_z$ eigenvalues close to $+1$, and

1123: a mostly spin-down subspace associated with eigenvalues close

1124: to $-1$ (we will use units of

1125: $\hbar/2$ whenever we discuss $S_z$ in the remainder of the manuscript).  

1126: The spread functional is then minimized within each of

1127: these subspaces separately.  We thus emerge with 18 well-localized

1128: WFs divided into two groups: nine that are almost entirely spin-up

1129: and nine that are almost entirely spin-down (in practice we find

1130: $|\langle \hat S_z \rangle|> 0.999$ in all cases).

1131: While this procedure results in a total spread that is slightly

1132: greater than would be obtained otherwise, we find that the difference

1133: is very small in practice,

1134: and the imposition of these rules makes for a much more transparent

1135: analysis of subsequent results.  For example, it makes it much easier

1136: to track the changes in the WFs before and after the spin-orbit

1137: coupling is turned on, or to identify the spin character

1138: of various pieces of the Fermi surface.

1139: 

1140: \begin{figure}

1141: \begin{center}

1142: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=2.6in}

1143: \end{center}

1144: \caption{(Color online). 

1145: Isosurface contours of maximally-localized spin-up WF in

1146: bcc Fe (red for positive value and blue for negative value), for

1147: the $8 \times 8 \times 8$ $k$-point sampling. (a) $sp^3d^2$-like WF

1148: centered on a Cartesian axis; (b) $d_{xy}$-like WF centered on the

1149: atom.}

1150: \label{fig:wfs}

1151: \end{figure}

1152: 

1153: To start the minimization procedure, we choose trial functions having

1154: pure spin character (up or down) and a spatial form of

1155: a Gaussian times a predetermined angular factor.

1156: In our first attempts, we chose angular factors appropriate for the

1157: three $t_{2g}$ states $d_{xy}$, $d_{xz}$, and 

1158: $d_{yz}$; the two $e_g$ states

1159: $d_{z^2}$ and $d_{x^2-y^2}$; the three $p$ states $p_x$, $p_y$, and

1160: $p_z$; and $s$.  The iterative procedure\cite{souza01}

1161: then projects these onto

1162: the band subspace and improves upon them.  We found that the spread

1163: minimization procedure converted the $t_{2g}$ trial functions into

1164: $t_{2g}$-like WFs, while it mixed the other six states to form six

1165: hybrid WFs of $sp^3d^2$-type.\cite{Pauling31}

1166: Having discovered this, we have modified our procedure accordingly:

1167: henceforth, we choose three $t_{2g}$-like trial functions and

1168: six $sp^3d^2$-like ones.  With this initialization, we find the

1169: convergence to be quite rapid, with only about 100 iterations

1170: needed to get a well-converged spread functional.

1171: 

1172: The WFs that result from this procedure are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wfs}.

1173: The up-spin WFs are plotted,

1174: but the WFs are very similar for both spins.

1175: An example of an $sp^3d^2$-hybrid WF is shown in

1176: Fig.~\ref{fig:wfs}(a); this one extends along the $-x$ axis,

1177: and the five others are similarly projected along the $+x$, $\pm y$,

1178: and $\pm z$ axes.  One of the $t_{2g}$-like WFs is shown in

1179: Fig.~\ref{fig:wfs}(b); this one has $xy$ symmetry, while the others

1180: have $xz$ and $yz$ symmetry.  The centers of the $sp^3d^2$-like WFs

1181: are slightly shifted from the atomic center along $\pm x$, $\pm y$,

1182: or $\pm z$, while the  $t_{2g}$-like WFs remain centered on the atom.

1183: 

1184: We studied the convergence of the WFs and interpolated bands as a function

1185: of the density $n\times n\times n$ of the Monkhorst-Pack $k$-mesh

1186: used for the initial {\it ab-initio} calculation.  We tested

1187: $n=4$, 6, 8, and 10, and found that $n=8$ provided the best tradeoff

1188: between interpolation accuracy and computational cost.  This is

1189: the mesh that was used in generating the results presented in

1190: Sec.~\ref{sec:results}.

1191: 

1192: %--------------

1193: \subsection{Variable spin-orbit coupling in the pseudopotential framework}

1194: \label{sec:spinorbit}

1195: %--------------

1196: 

1197: Since the AHE present in ferromagnetic iron is a spin-orbit-induced effect,

1198: it is obviously important

1199: to understand the role of this coupling as thoroughly as possible.

1200: For this purpose, it is very convenient to be able to treat the

1201: strength of the coupling as an adjustable parameter.  For example,

1202: by turning up the spin-orbit coupling continuously from

1203: zero and tracking how various contributions to the AHC behave, it

1204: is possible to separate out those contributions that are of linear,

1205: quadratic, or higher order in the coupling strength. 

1206: Some results of this kind will be given later in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}.

1207: 

1208: Because the spin-orbit coupling is a relativistic effect, it is

1209: appreciable mainly in the core region of the atom where the

1210: electrons have relativistic velocities.  In a pseudopotential framework

1211: of the kind adopted here, both the scalar relativistic effects and

1212: the spin-orbit coupling are included in the pseudopotential construction.

1213: For example, in the Bachelet-Hamann semilocal pseudopotential scheme,

1214: \cite{bachelet82} the construction procedure generates, for each

1215: orbital angular momentum $l$, a scalar-relativistic potential

1216: $V^{\rm sr}_l(r)$ and a spin-orbit difference potential

1217: $V^{\rm so}_l(r)$ which enter the Hamiltonian in the form

1218: %

1219: \begin{equation}

1220: \hat{V}_{\rm ps}=\sum_l \hat{P}_l\,\left[ V^{\rm sr}_l(r) + \lambda\,

1221:     V^{\rm so}_l(r)\, {\bf L}\cdot {\bf S}\right] \;,

1222: \end{equation}

1223: %

1224: where $\hat{P}_l$ is the projector onto states of orbital angular

1225: momentum $l$ and $\lambda$ controls the strength of spin-orbit coupling

1226: (with $\lambda$=1 being the physical value).  For the free atom,

1227: this correctly leads to eigenstates labeled by total angular

1228: momentum $j=l\pm1/2$.

1229: 

1230: In our calculations, we employ fully non-local pseudopotentials instead

1231: of semilocal ones because of their computationally efficient form.

1232: In this case, controlling the strength of the spin-orbit coupling

1233: requires some algebraic manipulation.

1234: %

1235: We write the norm-conserving non-local pseudopotential operator as

1236: %

1237: \begin{equation}

1238: \hat{V}_{\rm ps}=|\beta_{lj\mu}\rangle\, D_{lj} \,\langle\beta_{lj\mu}|

1239: \label{eq:Vps}

1240: \end{equation}

1241: %

1242: where there is an implied sum running over the indices (orbital angular

1243: momentum $l$, total angular momentum $j=l\pm1/2$, and $\mu=-j,...,j$)

1244: and species and atomic position indices have been suppressed.

1245: The $|\beta_{lj\mu}\rangle$ are radial

1246: functions multiplied by appropriate spin-angular functions and the $D_{lj}$

1247: are the channel weights.

1248: %

1249: We introduce the notation

1250: $\beta^{(+)}_{l}(r)$ and $\beta^{(-)}_{l}(r)$ for the radial

1251: parts of $|\beta_{l,l+1/2,\mu}\rangle$ and $\beta_{l,l-1/2,\mu}\rangle$,

1252: respectively, and similarly define $D^{(\pm)}_{l}=D_{l,l\pm1/2}$.

1253: %

1254: Using this notation, we can define the scalar-relativistic

1255: (i.e., $j$-averaged) quantities

1256: %

1257: \begin{equation}

1258:         D^{\rm sr}_{l}=\frac{l+1}{2l+1}\,D^{(+)}_l

1259:                          +\frac{l}{2l+1}\,D^{(-)}_l  \;,

1260: \end{equation}

1261: %

1262: \begin{equation}

1263:  \beta^{\rm sr}_{l}(r)=

1264:    \frac{l+1}{2l+1}\,

1265:       \sqrt{\frac{D^{(+)}_l}{D^{\rm sr}_{l}}}\;\,\beta^{(+)}_l(r)

1266:   +\frac{l}{2l+1}\,

1267:       \sqrt{\frac{D^{(-)}_l}{D^{\rm sr}_{l}}}\; \,\beta^{(-)}_l(r)

1268: \end{equation}

1269: %

1270: and the corresponding spin-orbit difference quantities

1271: %

1272: \begin{equation}

1273: D^{\rm so}_{lj}=D_{lj}-D^{\rm sr}_{l}\;,

1274: \end{equation}

1275: %

1276:  \begin{equation}

1277:  |\beta^{\rm so}_{lj\mu}\rangle=

1278:     |\beta_{lj\mu}\rangle-|\beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu}\rangle \;.

1279:  \end{equation}

1280:  where $|\beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu}\rangle$ is $\beta^{\rm sr}_{l}(r)$

1281:  multiplied by the spin-angular function with labels $(lj\mu)$.

1282: %

1283: Then the non-local pseudopotential can be written as

1284: %

1285: \begin{equation}

1286: \hat{V}_{\rm ps}=\hat{V}^{\rm sr}+\lambda\,\hat{V}^{\rm so}

1287: \end{equation}

1288: %

1289: where

1290: %

1291: \begin{equation}

1292: \hat{V}^{\rm sr}=|\beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu}\rangle \, D^{\rm sr}_{l} \,

1293:     \langle \beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu} |

1294: \label{eq:Vsr}

1295: \end{equation}

1296: %

1297: and

1298: %

1299: \begin{eqnarray}

1300: \hat{V}_{\rm so}&=&|\beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu}\rangle \, D^{\rm so}_{lj}\, 

1301:     \langle \beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu} | \nonumber\\&&

1302:      +\,|\beta^{\rm so}_{lj\mu}\rangle \, (D^{\rm sr}_{l}+D^{\rm so}_{lj}) \,

1303:     \langle \beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu} | \nonumber\\&&

1304:      +\,|\beta^{\rm sr}_{lj\mu}\rangle \, (D^{\rm sr}_{l}+D^{\rm so}_{lj}) \,

1305:     \langle \beta^{\rm so}_{lj\mu} | \nonumber\\&&

1306:      +\,|\beta^{\rm so}_{lj\mu}\rangle \, (D^{\rm sr}_{l}+D^{\rm so}_{lj}) \,

1307:     \langle \beta^{\rm so}_{lj\mu} | \;.

1308: \end{eqnarray}

1309: %

1310: This clearly reduces to the desired results (\ref{eq:Vps}) for $\lambda=1$ and

1311: (\ref{eq:Vsr}) for $\lambda=0$.

1312: 

1313: 

1314: 

1315: %==================

1316: \section{Results}

1317: \label{sec:results}

1318: %==================

1319: 

1320: In this section, we present the results of the calculations of the

1321: Berry curvature and its integration over the BZ using the formulas

1322: presented in Sec.~\ref{sec:fdbc}, for the case of bcc Fe.

1323: 

1324: %--------------

1325: \subsection{Berry Curvature}

1326: \label{sec:berrycurv}

1327: %--------------

1328: 

1329: \begin{figure}

1330: \begin{center}

1331:  \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=2.8in}

1332: \end{center}

1333: \caption{Band structure and total Berry curvature, as calculated

1334: using Wannier interpolation, plotted along the path $\Gamma$--H--P

1335: in the Brillouin zone.

1336: (a) Computed at the full spin-orbit coupling strength $\lambda=1$.

1337: (b) Computed at the reduced strength $\lambda=0.25$.

1338: The peak marked with a star has a height of 5$\times$10$^4$\,a.u. }

1339: \label{fig:bdbc}

1340: \end{figure}

1341: 

1342: We begin by illustrating the very sharp and strong variations that

1343: can occur in the total Berry curvature, Eq.~(\ref{eq:omega_tot}),

1344: near Fermi-surface features in the bandstructure.\cite{fang03}  In

1345: Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc}(a) we plot the energy bands (top subpanel) and the total

1346: Berry curvature (bottom subpanel) in the vicinity of the the

1347: zone-boundary point ${\rm H}=\frac{2\pi}{a}(1,0,0)$, where three

1348: states, split by the spin-orbit interaction, lie just above the Fermi

1349: level. The large spike in the Berry curvature between the H and P

1350: points arises where two bands, split by the spin orbit interaction, lie

1351: on either side of the Fermi level.\cite{yao04} 

1352: This gives rise to small

1353: energy denominators, and hence large contributions, mainly in

1354: Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubototm}).  On reducing the strength of the

1355: spin-orbit interaction as in Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc}(b), the

1356: energy separation between these bands is reduced, resulting in a

1357: significantly sharper and higher spike in the Berry curvature.

1358: A second type of sharp structure is visible in Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc},

1359: where one can see two smaller spikes, one at about 40\% and another

1360: at about 90\% of the way from $\Gamma$ to H, which

1361: decrease in magnitude as the as the spin-orbit

1362: coupling strength is reduced.  These arise from pairs of bands that

1363: straddle the Fermi energy even in the absence of spin-orbit

1364: interaction.  Thus, the small spin-orbit coupling does not shift the

1365: energies of these bands significantly, but it does induce an

1366: appreciable Berry curvature that is roughly linear in the spin-orbit

1367: coupling.

1368: 

1369: \begin{figure}

1370: \begin{center}

1371: \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=2.8in} 

1372: \end{center}

1373: \caption{Decomposition of the total Berry curvature into contributions coming

1374: from the three kinds of terms appearing in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}).

1375: The path in $k$-space is the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc}.

1376: Dotted line is the first ($\overline{\Omega}$) term, dashed line is the sum

1377: of second and third ($D$--$\overline{A}$) terms, and solid line is the

1378: fourth ($D$--$D$) term of

1379: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}). Note the log scale on the vertical axis.}

1380: \label{fig:3bc}

1381: \end{figure}

1382: 

1383: The decomposition of the total Berry curvature into its various

1384: contributions in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) is illustrated by plotting

1385: the first (``$\overline{\Omega}$'') term,

1386: the second and third (``$D$--$\overline{A}$'') terms,

1387: and the fourth (``$D$--$D$'' or Kubo-like) term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum})

1388: separately along the line $\Gamma$--H--P.  Note the logarithmic scale.

1389: The results confirm the expectations expressed in

1390: Secs.~\ref{sec:disc} and \ref{sec:bandsum}, namely, that the largest

1391: terms would be those reflecting large contributions to $D$ arising

1392: from small energy denominators.  Thus, the $\overline{\Omega}$

1393: term remains small everywhere, the $D$--$\overline{A}$ terms become

1394: one or two orders of magnitude larger at places where small energy

1395: denominators occur, and the $D$--$D$ term, Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubototm}),

1396: is another one or two orders

1397: larger in those same regions.  Scans along other

1398: lines in $k$-space reveal similar behavior.  We may therefore expect

1399: that the $D$--$D$ term will make the dominant overall contribution

1400: to the AHC. As we shall show in the next subsection, this is precisely

1401: the case.

1402: 

1403: In order to get a better feel for the connection between Fermi surface

1404: features and the Berry curvature, we next inspect these quantities

1405: on the $k_y=0$ plane in the Brillouin zone, following Ref.~\onlinecite{yao04}.

1406: In Fig.~\ref{fig:fermispin}

1407: we plot the intersection of the Fermi surface with this plane

1408: and indicate, using color coding, the $S_z$ component of the spin

1409: carried by the corresponding wavefunctions. 

1410: The good agreement between the shape of the Fermi surface given here

1411: and in Fig.~3 of Ref.~\onlinecite{yao04} is further evidence that the

1412: accuracy of our approach matches that of all-electron methods.

1413: It is evident that the presence of the spin-orbit interaction, in

1414: addition to the exchange splitting, is sufficient to remove all

1415: degeneracies on this plane,\cite{singh73} 

1416: changing significantly the connectivity of the Fermi surface.

1417: 

1418: \begin{figure}

1419: \begin{center}

1420: \epsfig{file=fig5.eps,width=2.5in}

1421: \end{center}

1422: \caption{(Color online). 

1423: Lines of intersection between the Fermi surface and the plane $k_y=0$.

1424: Colors indicate the $S_z$ spin-component of the states

1425: on the Fermi surface (in units of $\hbar/2$).}

1426: \label{fig:fermispin}

1427: \end{figure}

1428: 

1429: \begin{figure}

1430: \begin{center}

1431: \epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=2.6in}

1432: \end{center}

1433: \caption{(Color online).

1434: Calculated total Berry curvature $\Omega_z$ in the plane $k_y=0$

1435: (note log scale).  Intersections of the Fermi surface with this

1436: plane are again shown.}

1437: \label{fig:bc}

1438: \end{figure}

1439: 

1440: The calculated Berry curvature is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bc}. It

1441: can be seen that the regions in which the Berry curvature is small

1442: (light green regions) fill most of the plane.  The largest values

1443: occur at the places where two Fermi lines approach one another,

1444: consistent with the the discussion of Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc}.

1445: Of special importance are the avoided crossings between two

1446: bands having the same sign of spin, or between two bands of

1447: opposite spin.  Examples of both kinds are visible in the figure,

1448: and both tend to give rise to very large contributions in the

1449: region of the avoided crossing.

1450: Essentially, the spin-orbit interaction

1451: causes the character of these bands to change extremely rapidly with

1452: $\k$ near the avoided crossing; this is the origin of the

1453: large Berry curvature.  The large contributions near the H points

1454: correspond to the peaks that were already mentioned in the discussion of

1455: Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc}, resulting from mixing of nearly degenerate bands

1456: by the spin-orbit interaction.

1457: 

1458: %--------------

1459: \subsection{Integrated anomalous Hall conductivity}

1460: \label{sec:intanom}

1461: %--------------

1462: 

1463: We now discuss the computation of the AHC as an integral

1464: of the Berry curvature over the Brillouin zone,

1465: Eq.~(\ref{eq:sigma_b}).  We first define a nominal $N_0\times

1466: N_0\times N_0$ mesh that uniformly fills the Brillouin zone.

1467: We next reduce this to a sum over the irreducible wedge

1468: that fills $\frac{1}{16}$th of the Brillouin zone, using the

1469: tetragonal point-group symmetry (broken from cubic by the onset

1470: of ferromagnetism), and calculate $\Omega_z$ on each mesh point

1471: using Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}).  Finally, following Yao {\it et al.},

1472: \cite{yao04} we implement an adaptive

1473: mesh refinement scheme in which we identify those points of

1474: the $k$-space mesh at which the computed Berry curvature exceeds

1475: a threshold value $\Omega_{\rm cut}$, and recompute $\Omega_z$ on

1476: an $N_a\times N_a\times N_a$ submesh spanning the original cell

1477: associated with this mesh point.  The AHC is then computed as a sum

1478: of $\Omega_z$ over this adaptively refined mesh with appropriate

1479: weights.

1480: 

1481: \begin{table}

1482: \caption{Convergence of AHC with respect to the density of the

1483: nominal $k$-point mesh (left column) and the adaptive refinement

1484: scheme used to subdivide the mesh in regions of large contributions

1485: (middle column).}

1486: \begin{ruledtabular}

1487: \begin{tabular}{ccc}

1488: $k$-point mesh & Adaptive refinement & $\sigma$ $(\Omega$ ${\rm cm})^{-1}$ \\

1489: \hline

1490: $200 \times 200 \times 200$ & $3 \times 3 \times 3$ & 774.55 \cr

1491: $250 \times 250 \times 250$ & $3 \times 3 \times 3$ &774.84\cr

1492: $320 \times 320 \times 320$ & $3 \times 3 \times 3$ &775.80\cr

1493: $200 \times 200 \times 200$ & $5 \times 5 \times 5$ &765.96\cr

1494: $250 \times 250 \times 250$ & $5 \times 5 \times 5$ &766.37\cr

1495: $320 \times 320 \times 320$ & $5 \times 5 \times 5$ & 766.76\cr

1496: $200 \times 200 \times 200$ & $7 \times 7 \times 7$ &763.87\cr

1497: $250 \times 250 \times 250$ & $7 \times 7 \times 7$ &764.84\cr

1498: $320 \times 320 \times 320$ & $7 \times 7 \times 7$ & 765.10\cr

1499: $320 \times 320 \times 320$ & $9 \times 9 \times 9$ & 764.59\cr

1500: $320 \times 320 \times 320$ & $11 \times 11 \times 11$ & 764.37\cr

1501: $320 \times 320 \times 320$ & $13 \times 13 \times 13$ &764.27\cr

1502: \end{tabular}

1503: \end{ruledtabular}

1504: \label{table:convergence}

1505: \end{table}

1506: 

1507: The convergence of the AHC with respect to the choice of

1508: mesh is presented in Table~\ref{table:convergence}. 

1509: We have chosen $\Omega_{\rm cut}=1.0\times10^2$~a.u., which causes the

1510: adaptive mesh refinement to be triggered at approximately 0.11\% of

1511: the original mesh points.

1512: %

1513: The value of 751\,$(\Omega$ ${\rm cm})^{-1}$ reported previously in

1514: Ref.~\onlinecite{yao04} corresponds to a mesh similar to the one in

1515: the first line of Table~\ref{table:convergence}; our value of

1516: 775\,$(\Omega$ ${\rm cm})^{-1}$ for this mesh thus agrees to within

1517: a few percent with their value.

1518: Based on the results of Table~\ref{table:convergence}, we estimate

1519: the converged value of $\sigma$ to be

1520: 764\,$(\Omega$ ${\rm cm})^{-1}$.

1521: 

1522: It can be seen from Table~\ref{table:convergence}

1523: that a $200\times200\times200$ mesh with $3\times3\times3$

1524: refinement approaches within $\sim$1\% of the converged value.  It is

1525: also evident that the level of refinement is more important than

1526: the fineness of the nominal mesh; a $200\times200\times200$

1527: mesh with $5\times5\times5$ adaptive refinement yields a result

1528: that is within 0.1\% of the converged value, better than a

1529: $320\times320\times320$ mesh with a lower level of refinement.

1530: 

1531: \begin{table}

1532: \caption{Contributions to the AHC coming from different regions

1533: of the Brillouin zone, as defined in the text.}

1534: \begin{ruledtabular}

1535: \begin{tabular}{cccc}

1536: $\Delta  E$  (eV)&   like-spin (\%) & opposite-spin (\%) & smooth (\%)\\

1537: \hline

1538: 0.1 & 21 & 26 & 53 \cr

1539: 0.2 & 23 & 51 & 26 \cr

1540: 0.5 & 30 & 68 & 2\cr

1541: \end{tabular}

1542: \end{ruledtabular}

1543: \label{table:percentage}

1544: \end{table}

1545: 

1546: It is interesting to decompose the total AHC into contributions coming

1547: from different parts of the Brillouin zone.  For example, as we saw in

1548: Fig.~\ref{fig:bc}, there is a smooth, low-intensity background

1549: that fills most of the volume of the Brillouin zone, and it is hard to

1550: know {\it a priori} whether the total AHC is dominated by these

1551: contributions or by the much larger ones concentrated in small

1552: regions.  With this motivation, we have somewhat arbitrarily

1553: divided the Brillouin zone into three kinds of regions, which we

1554: label as `smooth', `like-spin', and `opposite-spin'.  To do this,

1555: we identify $k$-points at which there is an occupied band in the

1556: interval $[E_f-\Delta E,E_f]$ and an unoccupied band in the interval

1557: $[E_f,E_f+\Delta E]$, where $\Delta E$ is arbitrarily chosen to be a

1558: small energy such as $0.1$, $0.2$, or $0.5$\,eV.  If so,

1559: the $k$-point is said to belong to the `like-spin' or

1560: `opposite-spin' region depending on whether the dominant characters of

1561: the two bands below and above the Fermi energy are of the same

1562: or of opposite spin.  Otherwise, the $k$-point is assigned to the

1563: `smooth' region.

1564: As shown in Table~\ref{table:percentage}, the results depend strongly

1565: on the value of $\Delta E$. Overall, what is clear is that the major

1566: contributions arise from the bands within $\pm 0.5$\,eV of $E_f$,

1567: and that neither like-spin nor opposite-spin contributions are dominant.

1568: 

1569: Next, we return to the discussion of the decomposition of

1570: the total Berry curvature in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) into

1571: $\overline{\Omega}$, $D$--$\overline{A}$, and $D$--$D$ terms.

1572: We find that these three kinds of terms account for $-$0.20\%,

1573: 0.71\%, and  99.48\%, respectively, of the total AHC.

1574: (Similarly, for the alternative decomposition of

1575: Appendix A, the second term of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsumalt}) is

1576: found to be responsible for more than 99\% of the total.)

1577: Thus, if a 1\% accuracy is acceptable, one could

1578: actually neglect the $\overline{\Omega}$ and $D$--$\overline{A}$

1579: terms entirely, and approximate the total AHC by the $D$--$D$

1580: (Kubo-like) terms alone, Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubototm}).  

1581: 

1582: While we had anticipated in Sec.~\ref{sec:disc}

1583: that the $D$--$D$ terms should be expected to dominate, the extent to which 

1584: that occured in the actual calculation is somewhat surprising and merits 

1585: further discussion. It is important to emphasize that this should

1586: not be expected to occur when using an arbitrary Wannier representation, but 

1587: only for WFs which minimize the spread functional. Indeed, only the sum of all 

1588: terms in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) is uniquely defined; taken separately, the 

1589: $\overline{\Omega}$, $D$--$\overline{A}$, and $D$--$D$ terms

1590: depend on the choice of gauge. Moreover, while the $\overline{\Omega}$ and

1591: $D$--$\overline{A}$ terms involve both the Hamiltonian and position matrix

1592: elements between WFs, the dominant $D$--$D$ term only depends on the 

1593: Hamiltonian matrix elements. Since the minimization of the gauge-dependent

1594: part of the spread functional corresponds precisely to minimizing the RMS

1595: average magnitude of the position matrix element between WFs,\cite{marzari97}

1596: it is perhaps not too surprising that we capture most of the AHC by neglecting

1597: the terms which involve position matrix elements.

1598: 

1599: From a computational point of view,

1600: the fact that the $D$--$D$ terms are fully specified by the

1601: Hamiltonian matrix elements alone means that considerable

1602: savings can be obtained by avoiding the evaluation of

1603: the Fourier transforms in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:ww}-\ref{eq:xx})

1604: at every interpolation point

1605: (and avoiding the setup of the matrix elements 

1606: $\langle {\bf 0}n|\hat r_\alpha|{\bf R}m\rangle$, which can be costly in a

1607: real-space implementation). More importantly,

1608: this observation, if it turns out to hold for other materials as well,

1609: could prove to be important for future efforts to

1610: derive approximate schemes capable of capturing the most important

1611: contributions to the AHC.

1612: 

1613: Finally, we investigate how the total AHC depends upon the

1614: strength of the spin-orbit interaction, following the approach

1615: of Sec.~\ref{sec:spinorbit} to modulate the spin-orbit strength.

1616: The result is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:lam}.  We emphasize that our

1617: approach is a more specific test of the dependence upon spin-orbit

1618: strength than the one carried out in Ref.~\onlinecite{yao04};

1619: there, the speed of light $c$ was varied, which entails changing

1620: the strength of the various scalar relativistic terms as well.

1621: Nevertheless, both studies lead to a similar conclusion: the

1622: variation is found to be linear for small values of the spin-orbit

1623: coupling ($\lambda\ll 1$), while quadratic or other higher-order

1624: terms also become appreciable when the full interaction is included

1625: ($\lambda=1$).

1626: 

1627: \begin{figure}

1628: \begin{center}

1629: \epsfig{file=fig7.eps,width=2.6in}

1630: \end{center}

1631: \caption{Anomalous Hall conductivity vs.~spin-orbit coupling strength.}

1632: \label{fig:lam}

1633: \end{figure}

1634: 

1635: %--------------

1636: \subsection{Computational Considerations}

1637: %--------------

1638: 

1639: The computational requirements for this scheme are quite modest. 

1640: The self-consistent ground state calculation and the construction

1641: of the WFs takes 2.5 hours on a single 2.2GHz AMD-Opteron processor.

1642: The expense of computing the AHC as a sum over interpolation mesh

1643: points depends strongly on the density of the mesh.  On the same processor

1644: as above, the average CPU time to evaluate $\Omega_z$ on each

1645: $k$-point was about 14\,msec. We find that the mesh

1646: refinement operation does not significantly increase the total

1647: number of $k$-point evaluations until the refinement level $N_a$

1648: exceeds $\sim$10.  Allowing for the fact that the calculation only

1649: needs to be done in the irreducible $\frac{1}{16}$th of the

1650: Brillouin zone, the cost for the AHC evaluation on a

1651: 200$\times$200$\times$200 mesh is about 2 hours.

1652: 

1653: The CPU time per $k$-point evaluation is dominated (roughly 90\%)

1654: by the Fourier transform operations needed to construct the objects

1655: in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:uu}-\ref{eq:xx}). The diagonalization of the

1656: 18$\times$18 Hamiltonian matrix, and other operations needed to

1657: compute Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}), account for only about 10\% of the

1658: time.  The CPU requirement for the Fourier transform step is

1659: roughly proportional to the number of $\R$ vectors kept in

1660: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:uu}-\ref{eq:xx}); it is possible that this number

1661: could be reduced by exploring more sophisticated methods for

1662: truncating the contributions coming from the more

1663: distant $\R$ vectors.

1664: 

1665: Of course, the loop over $k$-points in the AHC calculation is

1666: trivial to parallelize, so for dense $k$-meshes we speed up this

1667: stage of the calculation by distributing across multiple processors.

1668: 

1669: %==================

1670: \section{Summary and Discussion}

1671: \label{sec:conclusion}

1672: %==================

1673: 

1674: In summary, we have developed an efficient method for computing the

1675: intrinsic contribution to the anomalous Hall conductivity of a

1676: metallic ferromagnet as a Brillouin-zone integral of the Berry

1677: curvature. Our approach is based on Wannier interpolation, a powerful

1678: technique for evaluating properties that require a very dense sampling

1679: of the Brillouin zone or Fermi surface. The key idea is to map the low-energy

1680: first-principles electronic structure onto an ``exact

1681: tight-binding model'' in the basis of appropriately constructed Wannier 

1682: functions, which are typically partially occupied.

1683: In the Wannier representation the desired quantities can then be evaluated

1684: at arbitrary $k$-points at very low computational cost.

1685: All that is needed is to evaluate, once and for all, the Wannier-basis

1686: matrix elements of the Hamiltonian and a few other

1687: property-specific operators (namely, for the Berry curvature, the

1688: three Cartesian position operators).

1689: 

1690: When evaluating the Berry curvature in this 

1691: way, the summation over all unoccupied bands and the expensive

1692: calculation of the velocity matrix elements needed in the traditional Kubo

1693: formula are circumvented.\cite{explan-kubo}

1694: They are replaced by quantities defined strictly within the

1695: projected space spanned by the WFs. Our final expression for the total Berry

1696: curvature, Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}), consists of three types of terms,

1697: i.e., the $\overline{\Omega}$, $D$--$\overline{A}$, and $D$--$D$ terms.

1698: 

1699: We have applied this approach to calculate the AHC of bcc Fe.

1700: While our  Wannier interpolation formalism, with its

1701: decomposition (\ref{eq:bsum}),

1702: is entirely independent of the choice of an all-electron or

1703: pseudopotential method, we have chosen here a relativistic pseudopotential

1704: approach that includes scalar relativistic effects as well as the 

1705: spin orbit interaction.  We find that this

1706: scheme successfully reproduces the fine details of the electronic

1707: structure and of the Berry curvature in good agreement with a

1708: previous calculation \cite{yao04} that used an all-electron LAPW

1709: method.\cite{singh}  The computed AHC is also quite close to that

1710: computed previously.\cite{yao04}

1711: 

1712: Interestingly, we found that more than 99\% of the total

1713: Berry curvature is concentrated in the $D$--$D$ term of our formalism.

1714: This term, given explicitly in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kubototm}), takes the form of 

1715: a Kubo-like Berry curvature formula  for the ``tight-binding states.''

1716: Thus we arrive at the very appealing result that

1717: a Kubo picture defined within the ``exact tight-binding space'' gives an

1718: excellent representation of the Berry curvature in the original 

1719: {\it ab-initio} space. It is worth pointing out that, unlike the other

1720: three terms, this term depends

1721: exclusively on the Hamiltonian matrix elements between the Wannier orbitals,

1722: and not on the position matrix elements. This result merits

1723: further investigation, and may be relevant for

1724: recent discussions in the

1725: tight-binding literature on how to incorporate the coupling to

1726: electromagnetic radiation in a tight-binding 

1727: description.\cite{graf95,garm01,boykin01,foreman02}

1728: 

1729: Several directions for future studies suggest themselves.

1730: For example, it would be desirable to obtain a better understanding

1731: of how the AHC depends on the weak spin-orbit interaction.  As we

1732: have seen, this weak interaction causes splittings and avoided

1733: crossings that give rise to very large Berry curvatures in very

1734: small regions of $k$-space.  There is a kind of paradox here.

1735: Our numerical tests, as in Fig.~\ref{fig:lam}, demonstrate that

1736: the AHC falls smoothly to zero as the spin-orbit strength $\lambda$

1737: is turned off, suggesting that a perturbation theory in $\lambda$

1738: should be applicable.  However, in the limit that $\lambda$

1739: becomes small, the full calculation becomes {\it more difficult},

1740: not less: the splittings occur in narrower and narrower regions

1741: of $k$-space, energy denominators become smaller, and Berry

1742: curvature contributions become larger (see Fig.~\ref{fig:bdbc}),

1743: even if the {\it integrated} contribution is going to zero.

1744: It would be of considerable interest, therefore, to explore ways

1745: to reformulate the perturbation theory in $\lambda$ so that the

1746: expansion coefficients can be computed in a robust and efficient

1747: fashion.  Because the exchange splitting is much larger than the

1748: spin-orbit splitting, it may also be of use to introduce

1749: two separate couplings that control the strengths of the

1750: spin-flip and spin-conserving parts of the spin-orbit

1751: interaction respectively, and to work out the perturbation theory

1752: in these two couplings independently.

1753: 

1754: Another promising direction is to explore whether the AHC can be

1755: computed as a Fermi-surface integral using the formulation of

1756: Haldane\cite{haldane04} in which an integration by parts is used

1757: to convert the volume integral of the Berry curvature to a

1758: Fermi-surface integral involving Berry curvatures or potentials.

1759: Such an approach promises to be more efficient than the volume-integration

1760: approach, provided that a method can be developed for carrying out an

1761: appropriate sampling of the Fermi surface.  This is likely to be a

1762: delicate problem, however, since the weak spin-orbit splitting causes

1763: Fermi sheets to separate and reattach in a complex way at short

1764: $k$-scales, and the

1765: dominant contributions to the AHC are likely to come from precisely

1766: these portions of the reconstructed Fermi surface that are the most

1767: difficult to describe numerically.

1768: 

1769: In any case, even without such further developments, the present approach

1770: is a powerful one.  It reduces the expense needed to do an extremely

1771: fine sampling of Fermi-surface properties to the level where the

1772: AHC of a material like bcc Fe can be computed on a workstation in a

1773: few hours.  This opens the door to realistic calculations of the intrinsic

1774: anomalous Hall conductivity of much more complex materials.

1775: More generally, the techniques developed here for the AHE are readily

1776: applicable to other problems in the physics of metals which also require

1777: a very dense sampling of the Fermi surface or Brillouin zone. 

1778: For example, an extension of these ideas

1779: to the evaluation of the electron-phonon coupling matrix elements by

1780: Wannier interpolation is currently under way.\cite{giustino}

1781: 

1782: 

1783: 

1784: %%=========================================================================

1785: \acknowledgments

1786: %%=========================================================================

1787: 

1788: This work was supported by NSF Grant DMR-0549198 and by

1789: the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Lawrence

1790: Berkeley National Laboratory under the Department of Energy Contract

1791: No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

1792: 

1793: 

1794: %%=========================================================================

1795: \appendix

1796: \section{Alternative expression for the Berry curvature}

1797: \label{app:alt-berry}

1798: %%=========================================================================

1799: 

1800: In this Appendix, we return to Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a}) and rewrite it

1801: in such a way that all of the large, rapidly varying contributions

1802: arising from small energy denominators in the expression for

1803: ${D}_\alpha$, Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddef}), are segregated into a single term.

1804: We do this by solving Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ata}) for ${D}_\alpha$

1805: and substituting into Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-a}) to obtain

1806: %

1807: \begin{equation}

1808: \Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph =

1809: \overline\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph -i \left[\overline A_\alpha\ph,\overline

1810:    A_\beta\ph\right]

1811: +i\left[A_\alpha\ph,A_\beta\ph\right]

1812: \;.

1813: \label{eq:om-b}

1814: \end{equation}

1815: %

1816: Then only the last term will contain the large, rapid variations.

1817: This equation could have been anticipated based on the fact that

1818: the tensor

1819: %

1820: \begin{equation}

1821: \widetilde{\Omega}_{\alpha\beta}= \Omega_{\alpha\beta}-i [A_\alpha,A_\beta]

1822: \label{eq:gidef}

1823: \end{equation}

1824: %

1825: is well known to be a gauge-covariant quantity;\cite{mead92,marzari97}

1826: applying Eq.~(\ref{eq:utrans}) to $\widetilde{\Omega}_{\alpha\beta}$ then

1827: leads directly to Eq.~(\ref{eq:om-b}).  

1828: 

1829: This formulation provides an alternative route to the

1830: calculation of the matrix $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph$:

1831: evaluate $\widetilde{\Omega}\pw_{\alpha\beta}$ in the Wannier representation

1832: using Eqs.~(\ref{eq:yya}-\ref{eq:yyb}) below,

1833: convert it to $\widetilde{\Omega}\ph_{\alpha\beta}$ via Eq.~(\ref{eq:utrans}),

1834: compute $A_\alpha\ph$ using Eq.~(\ref{eq:Ata}), and assemble

1835: %

1836: \begin{equation}

1837: \Omega_{\alpha\beta}\ph=\widetilde{\Omega}_{\alpha\beta}\ph

1838:    +i[A_\alpha\ph,A_\beta\ph]

1839: \;.

1840: \label{eq:alt}

1841: \end{equation}

1842: %

1843: The large and rapid variations then appear only in the last term involving 

1844: commutators of the $A$ matrices.

1845: 

1846: In Sec.~\ref{sec:bandsum}, we showed how to write the total Berry

1847: curvature $\Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)$ as a sum over bands in such a way that 

1848: potentially

1849: troublesome contributions coming from small energy

1850: denominators between pairs of occupied bands are explicitly

1851: excluded, leading to Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}). The corresponding expression based

1852: on Eq.~(\ref{eq:alt}) is

1853: %

1854: \begin{eqnarray}

1855: \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)&=&\sum_n f_n\,\widetilde{\Omega}_{nn,\alpha\beta}\ph

1856: \nonumber\\

1857: &&\quad  +\sum_{nm} (f_n-f_m)\,A_{nm,\alpha}\ph A_{mn,\beta }\ph

1858: \;.

1859: \label{eq:bsumalt}

1860: \end{eqnarray}

1861: %

1862: 

1863: Now, in addition to the four quantities given in

1864: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:uu}-\ref{eq:xx}), we need a corresponding equation for

1865: $\widetilde{\Omega}_{\alpha\beta}$.  After some manipulations, we find that

1866: %

1867: \begin{equation}

1868: \widetilde{\Omega}_{nn,\alpha\beta}\pw(\k)=\sum_\R e^{i\k\cdot\R}\;

1869:    w_{n,\alpha\beta}(\R)

1870: \label{eq:yya}

1871: \end{equation}

1872: %

1873: where

1874: %

1875: \begin{eqnarray}

1876: w_{n,\alpha\beta}(\R) &=&

1877: -i \sum_{\R'm}

1878:    \langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\alpha|\R' m\rangle

1879:    \langle\R' m|\hat{r}_\beta |\R n\rangle 

1880: \nonumber\\ &&

1881: +i \sum_{\R'm}

1882:    \langle{\bf 0}n|\hat{r}_\beta |\R' m\rangle

1883:    \langle\R' m|\hat{r}_\alpha|\R n\rangle 

1884: \;.

1885: \nonumber\\

1886: \label{eq:yyb}

1887: \end{eqnarray}

1888: %

1889: This formulation again requires the same basic ingredients as

1890: before, namely, the Wannier matrix elements of $\hat{H}$ and

1891: $\hat{r}_\alpha$.  In some respects it is a little more elegant

1892: than the formulation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}). However,

1893: the direct evaluation of $w_{n,\alpha\beta}$ in the Wannier

1894: representation, as given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:yyb}), is not

1895: as convenient because of the extra sum over intermediate WFs appearing

1896: there; moreover, $w_{n,\alpha\beta}$ is longer-ranged than

1897: the Hamiltonian and coordinate matrix elements.

1898: Also, one appealing feature of the formulation of Section~\ref{sec:fdbc},

1899: that more than 99\% of the effect can be recovered without using the

1900: position-operator matrix elements, is lost in this reformulation.

1901: We have therefore chosen to base our calculations and analysis on

1902: Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsum}) instead.

1903: 

1904: It is informative to obtain Eq.~(\ref{eq:alt}) in a different way:

1905: define the gauge-invariant band projection operator\cite{marzari97}

1906: %

1907: $\hat{P}_\k=\sum_{n=1}^M |u_{n\k}\rangle\langle u_{n\k}|$

1908: %

1909: and its complement $\hat{Q}_\k=1-\hat{P}_\k$. Inserting

1910: $\hat 1=\hat{Q}_\k+\hat{P}_\k$ into Eq.~(\ref{eq:Owg}) in the

1911: Hamiltonian gauge then yields directly Eq.~(\ref{eq:alt}) since, as can

1912: be easily verified, Eq.~(\ref{eq:gidef}) may be written as

1913: %

1914: \begin{equation}

1915: \widetilde{\Omega}_{nm,\alpha\beta}=

1916:   i\langle \widetilde{\partial}_\alpha u_{n}|\widetilde{\partial}_\beta  u_{m}\rangle

1917:  -i\langle \widetilde{\partial}_\beta  u_{n}|\widetilde{\partial}_\alpha

1918:   u_{m}\rangle\;,

1919: \label{eq:cov}

1920: \end{equation}

1921: %

1922: where $\widetilde{\partial}_\alpha\equiv\hat{Q}\partial_\alpha$. The

1923: gauge-covariance of $\widetilde{\Omega}_{\alpha\beta}$ follows directly from

1924: the fact that $\widetilde\partial_\alpha$

1925: is a gauge-covariant derivative, in the sense that

1926: $|\widetilde{\partial}_\alpha u_n\ph\rangle=

1927: \sum_{m=1}^M |\widetilde{\partial}_\alpha u_m\pw\rangle U_{mn}$

1928: is the same transformation law as Eq.~(\ref{eq:twist}) for the Bloch

1929: states themselves.

1930: It is apparent from this derivation that as the number $M$ of WFs increases

1931: and $\hat{P}_\k$ approaches $\hat 1$, the second term on the right-hand side

1932: of Eq.~(\ref{eq:bsumalt}) increases at the expense of the first term.

1933: Indeed, in the large-$M$ limit the entire Berry curvature is contained

1934: in the second term. For the choice Wannier orbitals described in the

1935: main text for bcc Fe, that term already accounts for 99.8\% of the

1936: total AHC.

1937: 

1938: %==================

1939: \section{Finite-difference approach}

1940: \label{app:fda}

1941: %==================

1942: 

1943: In this Appendix, we outline an alternative scheme for computing

1944: the AHC by Wannier interpolation. The essential difference

1945: relative to to the approaches described in Section~\ref{sec:fdbc} and

1946: in Appendix~\ref{app:alt-berry} is that the needed $k$-space

1947: derivatives are approximated

1948: here by finite differences instead of being expressed analytically in

1949: the Wannier representation.

1950: 

1951: This approach is most naturally applied to

1952: the zero-temperature limit where there are exactly 

1953: $N_\k$ occupied states at a given $\k$.

1954: Instead of starting from the Berry curvature of each individual band

1955: separately, as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bcurv}), we find it convenient here to

1956: work from the outset with the total Berry curvature

1957: %

1958: \begin{eqnarray}

1959:         \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)=\sum_{n=1}^{N_\k}\Omega_{nn,\alpha\beta}(\k)

1960: \label{eq:omtot-a}

1961: \end{eqnarray}

1962: %

1963: of the occupied manifold at $\k$

1964: (the zero-temperature limit of Eq.~(\ref{eq:omtot})).

1965: We now introduce a covariant derivative

1966: $\widetilde\partial_\alpha^{(N_\k)}=\hat{Q}_\k^{(N_\k)}\partial_\alpha$

1967: designed to act on the occupied states only; here

1968: $\hat{Q}_\k^{(N_\k)}=\hat{1}-\hat{P}_\k^{(N_\k)}$ and

1969: $\hat{P}_\k^{(N_\k)}=\sum_{n=1}^{N_\k}\,|u_{n\k}\rangle\langle u_{n\k}|$.

1970: The only difference with respect to the definition of

1971: $\widetilde{\partial}_\alpha$ in 

1972: Appendix~A is that the projection operator here spans

1973: the $N_\k$ occupied states only, instead of the $M$ states of the full

1974: projected space. Accordingly, terms such as ``gauge-covariance'' and

1975: ``gauge-invariance'' are to be understood here in a restricted sense.

1976: For example, the statement that $\widetilde\partial_\alpha^{(N_\k)}$ is a 

1977: gauge-covariant derivative means that

1978: under an $N_\k\times N_\k$ unitary rotation ${\cal U}(\k)$ between the

1979: occupied states at $\k$ it obeys the transformation law

1980: %

1981: \begin{equation}

1982: |\widetilde{\partial}^{(N_\k)}_\alpha u_{n\k}\rangle\rightarrow

1983: \sum_{m=1}^{N_\k} |\widetilde{\partial}^{(N_\k)}_\alpha u_{m\k}\rangle\,

1984: {\cal U}_{mn}(\k).

1985: \end{equation}

1986: %

1987: (We will use calligraphic symbols to distinguish $N_\k\times N_\k$ matrices

1988: such as $\cal U$ from their $M\times M$ counterparts such as $U$.)

1989: We now define a gauge-covariant

1990: curvature $\widetilde\Omega_{\alpha\beta}^{(N_\k)}(\k)$ by replacing

1991: $\widetilde\partial$ by $\widetilde\partial^{(N_\k)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cov}).

1992: Since the trace of a commutator vanishes, it follows from Eq.~(\ref{eq:gidef})

1993: that Eq.~(\ref{eq:omtot-a}) can be written as

1994: %

1995: \begin{eqnarray}

1996: \label{eq:partial_trace}

1997:         \Omega_{\alpha\beta}(\k)={\rm Tr}^{(N_\k)}\,\left[\,\widetilde

1998:         \Omega_{\alpha\beta}^{(N_\k)}(\k) \,\right],

1999: \end{eqnarray}

2000: %

2001: where the symbol ${\rm Tr}^{(N_\k)}$ denotes the trace over the occupied 

2002: states.

2003: 

2004: The advantage of this expression over Eq.~(\ref{eq:omtot-a})  is that the 

2005: covariant derivative of a Bloch state can be approximated by

2006: a very robust finite-differences formula:\cite{sai02,souza04}

2007: %

2008: \begin{eqnarray}

2009:         \tilde \partial_{\k}^{(N_\k)}\rightarrow \sum_{\b}w_{b}{\b}\hat

2010:         P_{\k,\b}^{(N_\k)}\; ,

2011: \label{eq:dis}

2012: \end{eqnarray}

2013: %

2014: where the sum is over shells of neighboring

2015: $k$-points,\cite{marzari97}

2016: as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:A_dis}),

2017: and we have defined the gauge-invariant operator

2018: %

2019: \begin{eqnarray}

2020:         \hat P_{\k,\b}^{(N_\k)}=\sum_{n=1}^{N_\k}|\widetilde

2021: u_{n,\k+\b}\rangle \langle u_{n\k}|\;

2022: \end{eqnarray}

2023: %

2024: in terms of the gauge-covariant ``dual states''

2025: %

2026: \begin{eqnarray}

2027:                 |\widetilde u_{n,\k,\b}\rangle=

2028:                 \sum_{m=1}^{N_\k}|u_{m,\k+\b}\rangle

2029: \left (\cal Q_{\k+\b,\k}\right )_{mn}\;.

2030: \end{eqnarray}

2031: Here $\cal Q_{\k+\b,\k}$ is the inverse of the 

2032: $N_\k\times N_\k$ overlap matrix,

2033: %

2034: \begin{eqnarray}

2035:         {\cal Q}_{\k+\b,\k}=\left(\cal S_{\k,\k+\b}\right)^{-1}\;,

2036: \end{eqnarray}

2037: %

2038: where

2039: %

2040: \begin{eqnarray}

2041:         \left(\cal S_{\k,\k+\b}\right)_{nm}=\langle u_{n\k}

2042:         | u_{m,\k+\b}\rangle\;.

2043:         \label{eq:overlap}

2044: \end{eqnarray}

2045: %

2046: The discretization (\ref{eq:dis}) is immune to arbitrary gauge phases

2047: and unitary rotations among the occupied states. Because of that

2048: property, the occurrence of band crossings and avoided crossings does

2049: not pose any special problems.

2050: 

2051: Inserting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:dis}-\ref{eq:overlap}) into  

2052: Eq.~(\ref{eq:partial_trace}) and using 

2053: $\cal Q_{\k,\k+\b}=\cal Q^\dagger_{\k+\b,\k}$, we find that an

2054: appropriate finite-difference expression for the total Berry

2055: curvature is

2056: %

2057: \begin{equation}

2058: \Omega_{\alpha \beta}^{(N_\k)}(\k)=

2059: 2\sum_{\b_1,\b_2}w_{b_1}\,w_{b_2}\,b_{1,\alpha}\,b_{2,\beta}

2060: \,\Lambda_{\k,\b_1,\b_2},

2061:         \label{eq:omega}

2062: \end{equation}

2063: %

2064: where

2065: %

2066: \begin{equation}

2067: \Lambda_{\k,\b_1,\b_2}=

2068:        -{\rm Im}\,{\rm Tr}^{(N_\k)}\,

2069:         \left[  {\cal Q}_{\k,\k+\b_1}{\cal S}_{\k+\b_1,\k+\b_2}

2070:         {\cal Q}_{\k+\b_2,\k}\right]\,.

2071:         \label{eq:Lambda}

2072: \end{equation}

2073: %

2074: This expression is manifestly gauge-invariant, since both $\cal S$ and

2075: $\cal Q$ are gauge-covariant matrices, i.e.,

2076: ${\cal S}_{\k,\k+\b}\rightarrow{\cal U}^\dagger(\k){\cal S}_{\k,\k+\b}

2077: {\cal U}(\k+\b)$, and the same transformation law holds for

2078: ${\cal Q}_{\k,\k+\b}$.

2079: 

2080: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:omega}-\ref{eq:Lambda}) can be evaluated at an arbitrary point 

2081: $\k$ once the overlap 

2082: matrices ${\cal S}_{\k,\k+\b}$ are known. For that purpose we construct a 

2083: uniform mesh of spacing $\Delta k$ in the immediate vicinity of $\k$, 

2084: set up the needed shells of

2085: neighboring $k$-points $\k+\b$ on that local mesh, and then evaluate

2086: ${\cal S}_{\k,\k+\b}$ by Wannier interpolation. Since the

2087: WFs span the entire $M$-dimensional projected space, at this stage we revert

2088: to the full $M\times M$ overlap matrices $S_{\k,\k+\b}$.

2089: In the Wannier gauge they are given by a Fourier transform of the form

2090: %

2091: \begin{equation}

2092:         \left({ S}^{\rm (W)}_{\k,\k+\b}\right)_{nm}=

2093: \sum_{\R}e^{i\k \cdot \R}\langle {\bf 0} n |e^{i\b

2094: \cdot (\R-\hat\r)}|\R m\rangle\;.

2095: \end{equation}

2096: %

2097: For sufficiently small $\Delta k$, this can be approximated as

2098: %

2099: \begin{equation}

2100: \left(S^{\rm (W)}_{\k,\k+\b}\right)_{nm}

2101: \simeq\delta_{nm}-i\b\sum_{\R}e^{i\k \cdot \R}\langle {\bf 0} n |\hat\r|\R m\rangle\;.

2102: \end{equation}

2103: %

2104: Note that the dependence of the last expression on $\Delta k$ is trivial,

2105: since it only enter as a multiplicative prefactor. In practice one

2106: chooses $\Delta k$ to be quite small, $\sim10^{-6}$\,a.u.$^{-1}$,

2107: so as to reduce the error of the finite-differences expression.

2108: 

2109: In the Wannier gauge the occupied and empty states are mixed with one another,

2110: because the WFs are partially occupied. In order to decouple the two subspaces

2111: we perform the unitary transformation

2112: %

2113: \begin{eqnarray}

2114:         {S}_{\k,\k+\b}^{\rm (H)}=U^{\dagger}(\k){S}_{\k,\k+\b}^{\rm (W)}

2115: U({\k+\b})\;.

2116: \label{eq:decouple}

2117: \end{eqnarray}

2118: %

2119: This produces the full $M\times M$ overlap matrix in the Hamiltonian

2120: gauge. The $N_\k\times N_\k$ submatrix in the upper left corner is

2121: precisely the matrix ${\cal S}_{\k,\k+\b}\ph$ needed in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lambda}).

2122: 

2123: Like the approach described in the main text, this approach

2124: still only requires the WF matrix elements of the

2125: four operators $\hat{H}$ and $\hat{r}_\alpha$ ($\alpha=x$, $y$, and $z$).

2126: We have implemented it, and have checked that the

2127: results agree closely with those obtained using

2128: using the method of the main text. Although not as

2129: elegant, this approach has the interesting feature

2130: of circumventing the evaluation of the matrix $D_\alpha\ph$,

2131: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddef}). This may

2132: be advantageous in certain special situations. For example, if a

2133: parameter such as pressure is tuned in such a way that a $k$-space

2134: Dirac monopole\cite{fang03} drifts to the Fermi surface,

2135: the vanishing of the energy denominator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:ddef}) may result

2136: in a numerical instability when trying to find the monopole

2137: contribution to the AHC.

2138: 

2139: We conclude by noting that Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lambda}) is but one of many

2140: possible finite-differences expressions, and may not even be the most 

2141: convenient one to use

2142: in practice. By recalling that the Berry curvature is the Berry phase

2143: per unit area, one realizes that in the small-$\Delta k$ limit of

2144: interest, the quantity $\Lambda_{\k,\b_1,\b_2}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:omega})

2145: can be viewed as the discrete Berry phase $\phi$ accumulated along the 

2146: small loop

2147: $\k\rightarrow \k+\b_1\rightarrow\k+\b_2\rightarrow\k$. As is well-known, the

2148: Berry phase around a discrete loop is defined as\cite{ksv93}

2149: %

2150: \begin{equation}

2151: \phi=-\,{\rm Im}\,\ln\det

2152: \left[

2153:   {\cal S}_{\k,\k+\b_1}{\cal S}_{\k+\b_1,\k+\b_2}{\cal S}_{\k+\b_2,\k}

2154: \right]\;.

2155: \label{eq:dis_berry}

2156: \end{equation}

2157: %

2158: It can be shown 

2159: that $\phi=\Lambda_{\k,\b_1,\b_2}+

2160: {\cal O}(\Delta k^2)$, so that for small loops the two formulas agree. 

2161: Eq.~(\ref{eq:dis_berry}) has the practical advantage over

2162: Eq.~(\ref{eq:Lambda}) that it does not require 

2163: inverting the overlap matrix.

2164: 

2165: 

2166: 

2167: %**************************************************************

2168: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

2169: 

2170: 

2171: \bibitem{hurd72} C.M. Hurd, {\em The Hall effect in metals and alloys}

2172: (Plenum, New York, 1972).

2173: 

2174: %\bibitem{pugh30} E.M. Pugh, Phys. Rev. 36 (1930) 1503.

2175: %(Hall Effect and the Magnetic Properties of Some Ferromagnetic Materials)

2176: 

2177: \bibitem{gerber02} A. Gerber {\it et al.}, J. Magn. Magn. Mat. {\bf 242}, 90 (2002).

2178: 

2179: \bibitem{karplus54} R. Karplus and J.M. Luttinger, Phys. Rev. {\bf 95}, 1154 (1954).

2180: %(Hall effect in ferromagnetics)

2181: 

2182: \bibitem{smit58} J. Smit, Physica {\bf 24}, 39 (1958).

2183: 

2184: \bibitem{berger70} L. Berger, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 2} , 4559 (1970).

2185: 

2186: \bibitem{adams59} E.N. Adams and E.I. Blount, J. Phys. Chem. Solids

2187:   {\bf 10}, 286 (1959).

2188: 

2189: \bibitem{chang96} M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 53}, 7010 (1996).

2190: 

2191: \bibitem{sundaram99} G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 59}, 14915 (1999).

2192: 

2193: \bibitem{onoda02} M. Onoda and N. Nagaosa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. {\bf 71}, 19

2194:   (2002).

2195: 

2196: \bibitem{jungwirth02} T. Jungwirth, Q. Niu, and A.H. MacDonald,

2197:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 207208 (2002).

2198: 

2199: \bibitem{haldane04} F.D.M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 206602 (2004).

2200: 

2201: \bibitem{thouless82}D.J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M.P. Nightingale, and

2202: M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 405 (1982).

2203: 

2204: \bibitem{ksv93} R.D. King-Smith and D. Vanderbilt,

2205: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 47}, 1651 (1993).

2206: 

2207: \bibitem{fang03} Z. Fang {\it et al.}, Science {\bf 302}, 92 (2003).

2208: 

2209: \bibitem{yao04} Y. Yao {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 037204 (2004).

2210: 

2211: \bibitem{berry84}M.V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A {\bf 392}, 45 (1984).

2212: 

2213: \bibitem{blount62} E.I. Blount, Solid State Phys. {\bf 13}, 305 (1962).

2214: 

2215: \bibitem{souza01} I. Souza, N. Marzari, and D. Vanderbilt,

2216: Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 65}, 035109 (2001).

2217: 

2218: \bibitem{graf95} M. Graf and P. Vogl, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 51}, 4940 (1995).

2219: 

2220: \bibitem{marzari97} N. Marzari and D. Vanderbilt, Phys.

2221: Rev. B {\bf 56}, 12847 (1997).

2222: 

2223: \bibitem{pwscf}S. Baroni, A. Dal Corso, S. de Gironcoli, P.

2224: Giannozzi, C. Cavazzoni, G. Ballabio, S. Scandolo, G. Chiarotti,

2225: P. Focher, A. Pasquarello, K. Laasonen, A. Trave, R. Car,

2226: N.~Marzari, A. Kokalj, {\tt http://www.pwscf.org/}.

2227: 

2228: \bibitem{perdew96}J.P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys.

2229: Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3865 (1996).

2230: 

2231: \bibitem{soc2}G. Theurich and N.A. Hill, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 64}, 073106 (2001).

2232: 

2233: \bibitem{dalcorso05} A. Dal Corso and A.M. Conte, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 71},

2234: 115106 (2005).

2235: 

2236: \bibitem{nlcc}

2237: S.G. Louie, S. Froyen, and M.L. Cohen

2238:  Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 26}, 1738 (1982).

2239: 

2240: \bibitem{mp}

2241: H.J. Monkhorst and J.D. Pack,

2242: Phys. Rev. B, {\bf 13}, 5188 (1976).

2243: 

2244: \bibitem{coldsmear} N. Marzari, D. Vanderbilt, A. De Vita, and M.C. Payne,

2245: Phys. Ref. Lett. {\bf 82}, 3296 (1999).

2246: 

2247: \bibitem{wannier} A.A. Mostofi, J.R. Yates, N. Marzari, I. Souza,

2248: and D.~Vanderbilt,

2249: {\tt http://www.wannier.org/}. 

2250: 

2251: \bibitem{Pauling31}

2252: L. Pauling, J. Am. Chem. Soc. {\bf 53}, 1367 (1931).

2253: 

2254: \bibitem{bachelet82} G.B. Bachelet and M. Schl\"uter, 

2255: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 25}, 2103 (1982).

2256: 

2257: \bibitem{singh73} M. Singh, C.S. Wang and J. Callaway, Phys. Rev.

2258: B {\bf 11}, 287 (1975).

2259: 

2260: \bibitem{explan-kubo}

2261: %An advantage of the Kubo formula, however, is that it can

2262: %easily be extended to obtain the frequency-dependence of the AHC.

2263: 

2264: An advantage of the Kubo formula is that it can

2265: easily be extended to obtain the frequency-dependence of the AHC.

2266: 

2267: \bibitem{singh} D.J. Singh, {\it Planewaves, Pseudopotentials

2268: and the LAPW Method }(Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1994).

2269: 

2270: \bibitem{garm01} T.G. Pedersen, K. Pedersen, and

2271: T.B. Kriestensen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 201101(R) (2001).

2272: 

2273: \bibitem{boykin01} T.B. Boykin, R. C. Bowen, and G. Klimeck,

2274: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 63}, 245314 (2001).

2275: 

2276: \bibitem{foreman02} B.A. Foreman, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 165212 (2002).

2277: 

2278: \bibitem{mead92} C.A. Mead, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 64}, 51 (1992).

2279: 

2280: \bibitem{sai02} N. Sai, K.M. Rabe, and D. Vanderbilt,

2281: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 66}, 104108 (2002).

2282: 

2283: \bibitem{souza04} I. Souza, J. \'I\~niguez, and D. Vanderbilt,

2284: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 69}, 085106 (2004).

2285: 

2286: \bibitem{giustino} F. Giustino, J.R. Yates, I. Souza, M.L. Cohen, and

2287: S.G. Louie (unpublished).

2288: 

2289: \end{thebibliography}

2290: 

2291: %%

2292: \end{document}

2293: