This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Nontrivial temperature dependence of ferromagnetic resonance frequency for spin reorientation transitions

Masamichi Nishino [email protected] Research Center for Advanced Measurement and Characterization, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0047, Japan Elements Strategy Initiative Center for Magnetic Materials, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan    Seiji Miyashita Department of Physics, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan Elements Strategy Initiative Center for Magnetic Materials, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
Abstract

We find unusual temperature dependence of the ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) frequency fRf_{\rm R} for the spin-reorientation (SR) transition, in which the easy axis changes depending on temperature, observed in the Nd permanent magnet, Nd2Fe14B: fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 below the SR transition temperature (TRT_{\rm R}), drastic increase of fRf_{\rm R} around TRT_{\rm R}, and decrease from a peak at higher temperatures. It is nontrivial that the SR transition causes the unusual behavior of the FMR frequency in a wide temperature region. We show the mechanism of the temperature dependence by theoretical and computational analyses. We derive a general relation between fRf_{\rm R} and magnetizations to help the understanding of the mechanism, and clarify that the fluctuation of the transverse magnetization is a key ingredient for the resonance in all temperature regions.

Ferromagnetic resonance (FMR) measurement is one of the most important methods to study the dynamics of ferromagnetic materials. FMR frequency signals tell us the information about spin dynamics such as spin precession motion, damping factor, etc. However, how the FMR frequency behaves for spin-reorientation (SR) transitions is hardly understood. The neodymium (Nd) permanent magnet Sagawa ; Herbst2 ; Coey , Nd2Fe14B, which has strong coercivity, is an indispensable material in modern technologies, applied to information-storage devices, hybrid and electric vehicles, generators, etc. This magnet exhibits a temperature-induced spin-reorientation (SR) transition. However, due to its strong magnetic anisotropy energy Kato , it is difficult to observe FMR signals in such a hard magnet, and the spin dynamics on the SR transition in the magnet has not been clarified. The temperature dependence of the FMR frequency is an open question.

Time domain measurement (TDM) of spin dynamics has rapidly been developed for the coherent control of spin precession motion toward spintronics technologies. The change of the precession frequency accompanying a SR transition has been detected recently in a rare-earth orthoferrite (RFeO3) by using time-resolved magneto-optical effect microscope Kimel ; Yamaguchi1 ; Yamaguchi2 . Very recently a TDM of spin dynamics has been performed to evaluate the interlayer exchange coupling between hard and soft Nd magnet layers, and the resonance frequency for a single thick layer of the hard Nd magnet was estimated to be f=ω/(2π)=161f=\omega/(2\pi)=161 GHz under an external field at 2 T at room temperature Mandal . The SR transition in the Nd magnet is a new target for TDM. Precession motion associated with SR transitions becomes an important and attractive topic.

Motivated by the experimental situation, we study the dynamics of the SR transition for the Nd magnet in the present Rapid Communication. We find that the FMR frequency exhibits nontrivial temperature dependence with a drastic change around TRT_{\rm R}. We investigate the origin of the behavior and find a universal mechanism for systems with the SR transition.

In the present work we study an atomistic spin model for the Nd magnet Toga ; Nishino ; Hinokihara . Compared to micromagnetics modeling, i.e., coarse-grained continuum model approach often used for studies of permanent magnets Kronmullar , the atomistic spin modeling has advantages for investigating microscopic magnetic properties and thermal fluctuation effects Hinzke2 ; Ostler ; Evans ; Nishino2 . Indeed temperature dependences of magnetization, domain wall (DW) width, DW free energy, anisotropy effects of Nd and Fe, etc. have been clarified by using the atomistic spin model for the Nd magnet (see (1)) Toga ; Nishino ; Hinokihara ; Miyashita ; Toga2 , in which the microscopic parameters were taken mainly from first-principles calculations. Here we focus on the temperature dependence of the FMR frequency at zero external field. Under a finite external field heh_{\rm e}, the resonance frequency shifts by γhe/(2π)\gamma h_{\rm e}/(2\pi).

The atomistic Hamiltonian for the Nd magnet is given by the form Toga ; Nishino ; Hinokihara :

=i<j2Jij𝒔i𝒔jiFeDi(siz)2+iNdl,mΘl,iAl,imrliO^l,im.{\cal H}=-\sum_{i<j}2J_{ij}\mbox{\boldmath$s$}_{i}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$s$}_{j}-\sum_{i}^{\rm Fe}D_{i}(s_{i}^{z})^{2}+\sum_{i}^{\rm Nd}\sum_{l,m}\Theta_{l,i}A_{l,i}^{m}\langle r^{l}\rangle_{i}\hat{O}_{l,i}^{m}. (1)

Here JijJ_{ij} denotes the Heisenberg exchange coupling between the iith and jjth sites, and DiD_{i} is the magnetic anisotropy constant for Fe atoms. For Fe and B atoms, 𝒔i\mbox{\boldmath$s$}_{i} is the magnetic moment at the iith site. For Nd atoms, 𝒔i\mbox{\boldmath$s$}_{i} is the moment of the valence (5d and 6s) electrons and is coupled antiparallel to the moment of the 4-f electrons 𝓙i\mbox{\boldmath$\cal J$}_{i}, and thus the total magnetic moment is given by 𝑺i=𝒔i+𝓙i\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{i}=\mbox{\boldmath$s$}_{i}+\mbox{\boldmath$\cal J$}_{i}, in which 𝓙i=gT𝑱iμB\mbox{\boldmath$\cal J$}_{i}=g_{\rm T}\mbox{\boldmath$J$}_{i}\mu_{\rm B} with the magnitude of the total angular momentum, J=9/2J=9/2, and Landé g-factor, gT=8/11g_{\rm T}=8/11. For Fe and B atoms, 𝑺i=𝒔i\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{i}=\mbox{\boldmath$s$}_{i} is defined. The Zeeman term for the model is given as i𝒉e𝑺i-\sum_{i}\mbox{\boldmath$h$}_{\rm e}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{i}.

The last term of Eq. (1) is the magnetic anisotropy energy for Nd atoms, where Θl,i\Theta_{l,i}, Al,imA_{l,i}^{m}, rli\langle r^{l}\rangle_{i}, and O^l,im\hat{O}_{l,i}^{m} are the Stevens factor, the coefficient of the spherical harmonics of the crystalline electric field, the average of rlr^{l} over the radial wave function, and Stevens operator, respectively, at site ii for Nd atoms. The summation for ll runs l=2,4,6l=2,4,6 and diagonal operators (m=0m=0) give dominant contribution, and then the last term is given in the series of JizJ_{i}^{z} as

iNdD1Nd(Jiz)2+D2Nd(Jiz)4+D3Nd(Jiz)6+const.\sum_{i}^{\rm Nd}D_{1}^{\rm Nd}(J_{i}^{z})^{2}+D_{2}^{\rm Nd}(J_{i}^{z})^{4}+D_{3}^{\rm Nd}(J_{i}^{z})^{6}+const. (2)

Figure 1 (a) depicts the temperature dependences of m21N2α=x,y,z(iNSiα)2m^{2}\equiv\frac{1}{N^{2}}\langle\sum_{\alpha=x,y,z}(\sum_{i}^{N}S_{i}^{\alpha})^{2}\rangle, mz21N2(iNSiz)2m_{z}^{2}\equiv\frac{1}{N^{2}}\langle(\sum_{i}^{N}S_{i}^{z})^{2}\rangle, and mxy21N2(iNSix)2+(iNSiy)2m_{xy}^{2}\equiv\frac{1}{N^{2}}\langle(\sum_{i}^{N}S_{i}^{x})^{2}+(\sum_{i}^{N}S_{i}^{y})^{2}\rangle, where X\langle X\rangle is the thermal average of XX for the system with 6×6×66\times 6\times 6 unit cells with periodic boundary conditions MC . The SR transition occurs at TR150T_{\rm R}\sim 150Toga ; Nishino , close to the experimental estimation Hirosawa2 ; Andreev ; Kou . The critical temperature is Tc850T_{\rm c}\sim 850 K, a little bit larger than the experimental estimation Hirosawa2 ; Andreev ; Kou , which does not affect the discussion here. The spins align tilted from the c axis (zz axis) for T<TRT<T_{\rm R}, while they align parallel to the c axis for T>TRT>T_{\rm R}. Because the minimum of the anisotropy energy (2) is realized at θ0.2π\theta\simeq 0.2\pi (Fig. 1 (b), see also Fig. S1 in Supplemental Material (SM) Suppl ), the most preferable direction of the magnetization in the ground state is not the c-axis (zz-direction), which is the easy axis at room temperature.

Now we study the temperature dependence of the FMR frequency at zero external field. The FMR spectrum I(f)I(f) is calculated by the auto-correlation function of spins (power spectrum):

Iα(f)1Tt0t0+T𝑑τIα(τ)ei2πfτ,I^{\alpha}(f)\equiv\dfrac{1}{T}\int^{t_{0}+T}_{t_{0}}d\tau I^{\alpha}(\tau){\rm e}^{i2\pi f\tau}, (3)

where

Iα(τ)=1Tt0t0+T𝑑tS¯α(t)S¯α(t+τ).I^{\alpha}(\tau)=\dfrac{1}{T}\int^{t_{0}+T}_{t_{0}}dt\langle\bar{S}^{\alpha}\left(t\right)\bar{S}^{\alpha}\left(t+\tau\right)\rangle. (4)

Here S¯α=1NiSiα\bar{S}^{\alpha}=\dfrac{1}{N}\sum_{i}S_{i}^{\alpha} for α=x\alpha=x, yy, and zz. For the spin dynamics, we adopt the stochastic Landau-Lifshitz-Gilbert (SLLG) equation Nishino ; Garcia :

ddt𝑺i\displaystyle\frac{d}{dt}\bm{S}_{i} =γ1+αi2𝑺i×(𝑯ieff+𝝃i)\displaystyle=-\frac{\gamma}{1+\alpha_{i}^{2}}\bm{S}_{i}\times(\bm{H}_{i}^{\rm eff}+\bm{\xi}_{i})
αiγ(1+αi2)Si𝑺i×(𝑺i×(𝑯ieff+𝝃i)),\displaystyle-\frac{\alpha_{i}\gamma}{(1+\alpha_{i}^{2})S_{i}}\bm{S}_{i}\times(\bm{S}_{i}\times(\bm{H}_{i}^{\rm eff}+\bm{\xi}_{i})), (5)

where αi\alpha_{i} is the damping factor at the iith site and γ\gamma is the gyromagnetic constant. Here 𝑯ieff=𝑺i\bm{H}_{i}^{\rm eff}=-\frac{\partial\cal H}{\partial\bm{S}_{i}} is the effective field applied at the iith site from the exchange interactions and the anisotropy terms, and 𝝃i\bm{\xi}_{i} is a random noise introduced into each site and has the relation: ξkμ(t)=0\langle\xi_{k}^{\mu}(t)\rangle=0, ξkμ(t)ξlν(s)=2D~kδklδμνδ(ts)\langle\xi_{k}^{\mu}(t)\xi_{l}^{\nu}(s)\rangle=2\tilde{D}_{k}\delta_{kl}\delta_{\mu\nu}\delta(t-s). Here ξiμ\xi_{i}^{\mu} is the μ\mu(=xx,yy or zz) component of the white Gaussian noise. We assume αi=0.1\alpha_{i}=0.1 Kronmullar . The strength of the noise is given by the fluctuation-dissipation relation: D~i=αSikBTγ\tilde{D}_{i}=\frac{\alpha}{S_{i}}\frac{k_{\rm B}T}{\gamma}, which guarantees the thermal equilibrium state in the steady state.

Refer to caption
Figure 1: (color online) (a) Temperature dependences of m2m^{2}, mz2m_{z}^{2}, and mxy2m_{xy}^{2} for the Nd magnet model (1). (b) θ\theta dependence of the per-site anisotropy energy of Eq. (2) for the Nd magnet model.
Refer to caption
Figure 2: (color online) Temperature dependences of fRf_{\rm R} (blue diamonds) and fSWf_{\rm SW} (red circles) for the Nd magnet model.

The temperature dependence of the FMR frequency fRf_{\rm R} is plotted by blue diamonds in Fig. 2. The red circles are explained below. We find that fRf_{\rm R} exhibits a drastic change around TRT_{\rm R} and non monotonic temperature dependence. In particular, it is found that fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 for the magnetization tilted from the c axis and fRf_{\rm R} drops sharply at the SR point. The spectrum of I¯(f)Ix(f)+Iy(f)2\bar{I}(f)\equiv\frac{I^{x}(f)+I^{y}(f)}{2} has a single peak (Fig. S2 in SM Suppl ), and fRf_{\rm R} was estimated by the median of the spectrum of I¯(f)\bar{I}(f) calc_for_I . The estimated fRf_{\rm R} at 400 K (T/Tc0.5T/T_{\rm c}\sim 0.5) in the present simulation is 141 GHz under zero field and then fR=197f_{\rm R}=197 GHz under 2T field, which is the same order of the experimental value (161GHz) at room temperature Mandal .

The sudden decrease of the resonance frequency is related to the SR transition. To capture the fundamental mechanism of the non-monotonic temperature dependence of fRf_{\rm R}, the Nd magnet model (1) is too complicated, and thus we introduce a minimal model which exhibits the SR transition:

=Ji,j𝑺i𝑺jD1i(Siz)2D2i(Siz)4,{\cal H}=-J\sum_{\langle i,j\rangle}\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{i}\cdot\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{j}-D_{1}\sum_{i}(S_{i}^{z})^{2}-D_{2}\sum_{i}(S_{i}^{z})^{4}, (6)

where J=1J=1 is the exchange constant for nearest-neighbor pairs, used as the unit of energy, D1D_{1} and D2D_{2} are primary and secondary uniaxial anisotropy constants, respectively, and 𝑺i\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{i} is a classical unit spin.

In the ground state (GS) all magnetic moments are aligned in the same direction and the per-site exchange energy is Eex=z2JE_{\rm ex}=-\frac{z}{2}J, where zz is the coordination number. Thus the per-site GS energy is given by the minimum of EG=z2JD1(Sz)2D2(Sz)4E_{\rm G}=-\frac{z}{2}J-D_{1}(S^{z})^{2}-D_{2}(S^{z})^{4}. For D2=0D_{2}=0 the easy axis is given by θ0=0\theta_{0}=0. However, for D2<0D_{2}<0, the magnetic moments are aligned in the direction of θ0=cos1(D12D2)\theta_{0}=\cos^{-1}\Big{(}\sqrt{-\frac{D_{1}}{2D_{2}}}\Big{)}. Here we adopt D1=1D_{1}=1 and D2=0.7D_{2}=-0.7 to have θ00.2π\theta_{0}\simeq 0.2\pi, which shows a similar potential minimum as in the Nd magnet model (1) (see Fig. S3 in SM Suppl ).

As a reference for the conventional case, we first check the temperature dependence of fRf_{\rm R} for the simple ferromagnet with D1=1D_{1}=1 and D2=0D_{2}=0. The temperature dependences of m2m^{2}, mz2m_{z}^{2}, and mxy2m_{xy}^{2} (kB=1k_{\rm B}=1 is set) are depicted in Fig. 3 (a), where TC1.77JT_{\rm C}\simeq 1.77J, which is a little bit higher than that for the Heisenberg model (1.44J1.44JPeczak . The resonance frequency fR(T)f_{\rm R}(T) is plotted by blue circles in Fig. 3 (b) (see also Fig. S4 in SM Suppl ), which shows a monotonic temperature dependence similar to that of mz2m_{z}^{2}.

Next, we study the case with the SR transition with D2=0.7D_{2}=-0.7. We find a SR transition at TR0.4T_{\rm R}\simeq 0.4 and ferromagnetic transition at TC1.6T_{\rm C}\simeq 1.6 in Fig. 3 (c). In Fig. 3 (d) fR(T)f_{\rm R}(T) is shown (see also Fig. S5 in SM Suppl ). We find fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 below TRT_{\rm R}, fRf_{\rm R} increases above TRT_{\rm R} with rising temperature, and it exhibits a peak at an intermediate temperature and reduction at higher temperatures. This behavior is qualitatively similar to that found in the Nd magnet model. Thus, fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 at low temperatures is attributed to the SR transition.

Now we analyze the mechanism of fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 in the low temperature phase. Below TRT_{\rm R} the magnetization is tilted from the c-axis, where the effective field applied to each site is given as

𝒉i,eff=H𝑺i=JjNN𝑺j+heffAniso𝒆z,\mbox{\boldmath$h$}_{i,{\rm eff}}=-\frac{\partial{H}}{\partial\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{i}}=J\sum_{j}^{\rm NN}\mbox{\boldmath$S$}_{j}+h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}\mbox{\boldmath$e$}_{z}, (7)

where heffAniso=2D1Siz+4D2(Siz)3h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}=2D_{1}S_{i}^{z}+4D_{2}(S_{i}^{z})^{3} is the contribution from the anisotropy term. The field from the exchange interactions does not contribute to the precession motion because it is parallel to the spin alignment, and thus the frequency for the precession motion is given by

f=γheffAniso/(2π).f=\gamma h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}/(2\pi). (8)

For D2=0D_{2}=0, f=γheffAniso/(2π)=2D1mz/(2π)=0.318f=\gamma h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}/(2\pi)=2D_{1}m_{z}/(2\pi)=0.318 (see Fig. 3 (b)), which depends on the temperature proportionally to mzm_{z}. It is the conventional temperature dependence. On the other hand, for D20D_{2}\neq 0, the situation is different. Considering the relations dEGdθ|θ=θ0=dEGdSzdSzdθ|θ=θ0=heffAnisosinθ0\frac{dE_{\rm G}}{d\theta}|_{\theta=\theta_{0}}=\frac{dE_{\rm G}}{dS_{z}}\frac{dS_{z}}{d\theta}|_{\theta=\theta_{0}}=-h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}\sin\theta_{0}, we notice a relation: heffAniso=0h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}=0 for θ=θ0\theta=\theta_{0} because dEGdθ|θ=θ0=0\frac{dE_{\rm G}}{d\theta}|_{\theta=\theta_{0}}=0 and sinθ00\sin\theta_{0}\neq 0. Thus, we have an important consequence:

f=γheffAniso/(2π)=0forθ=θ00.f=\gamma h_{\rm eff}^{\rm Aniso}/(2\pi)=0\quad{\rm for}\quad\theta=\theta_{0}\neq 0. (9)

To deduce Eq. (9), non-zero θ0\theta_{0} is essential. Here we adopted D1i(Siz)2-D_{1}\sum_{i}(S_{i}^{z})^{2} and D2i(Siz)4-D_{2}\sum_{i}(S_{i}^{z})^{4} anisotropy terms for the minimal model. Instead of this choice, for example, we can adopt D2i(Siz)4-D_{2}\sum_{i}(S_{i}^{z})^{4} and D3i(Siz)6-D_{3}\sum_{i}(S_{i}^{z})^{6}, in which D2>0D_{2}>0 and D3<0D_{3}<0, without the D1D_{1} term. This choice also can give non-zero θ0\theta_{0}.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: (color online) For D1=1D_{1}=1 and D2=0D_{2}=0 in the minimal model (6), temperature dependences of m2m^{2}, mz2m_{z}^{2}, and mxy2m_{xy}^{2} are given in (a) and those of fRf_{\rm R} (blue circles) and fSWf_{\rm SW} (red circles) are plotted in (b). For D1=1D_{1}=1 and D2=0.7D_{2}=-0.7, the former and latter dependences are depicted in (c) and (d), respectively. kB=1k_{\rm B}=1 was set. The time step for Eq. (5) dt=0.005dt=0.005 was used for the evaluation of fRf_{\rm R}.

Finally we investigate the temperature dependence of fRf_{\rm R} for T>TRT>T_{\rm R}. For T>TRT>T_{\rm R}, mxy2m_{xy}^{2} does not appear and the D2D_{2} term is not essential. Thus we consider the situation for D2=0D_{2}=0 with applying Stoner-Wohlfarth’s single domain picture. The free energy for the uniform single domain with a magnetic anisotropy KK under zero field is given as F=K(T)cos2θF=-K(T)\cos^{2}\theta, where KK is a function of temperature. Here cosθ=MzM\cos\theta=\frac{M_{z}}{M}. MM and MzM_{z} are the total magnetization and its zz component, respectively. It should be noted that this θ\theta is not the same as θi\theta_{i} defined for each spin as Siz=ScosθiS_{i}^{z}=S\cos\theta_{i}. The internal field for each magnetic moment is

heff=dFdMz=2K(T)MzM2.h_{\rm eff}=-\frac{dF}{dM_{z}}=2K(T)\frac{M_{z}}{M^{2}}. (10)

Thus the resonance frequency is given as fSW=γheff/(2π)=γKMzM2/πf_{\rm SW}=\gamma h_{\rm eff}/(2\pi)=\gamma K\frac{M_{z}}{M^{2}}/\pi.

To evaluate K(T)K(T) in the microscopic models (1) and (6), we derive the following relation between K(T)K(T) and the transverse-field susceptibility χxx\chi_{xx}. The free energy of the system under a transverse-field is F=Kcos2θHxMsinθF=-K\cos^{2}\theta-H_{x}M\sin\theta. Here Mx=Msinθmin=M22KHxM_{x}=M\sin\theta_{\rm min}=\frac{M^{2}}{2K}H_{x}, where θmin\theta_{\rm min} is the angle to realize the stable state. MxM_{x} is also expressed as Mx=χxxHxM_{x}=\chi_{xx}H_{x}, where χxx\chi_{xx} is the susceptibility in the hard direction. From these, we have K(T)=M22χxxK(T)=\frac{M^{2}}{2\chi_{xx}}. The susceptibility χxx\chi_{xx} is evaluated by χxx=N2mxy22kBT\chi_{xx}=\frac{N^{2}m_{xy}^{2}}{2k_{\rm B}T}. Then we find a relation: K(T)=kBTM2N2mxy2K(T)=\frac{k_{\rm B}TM^{2}}{N^{2}m_{xy}^{2}}, from which we obtain the temperature dependence of the resonance frequency as

fSW=1πγKMzM2=1πγkBTmzNmxy2.f_{\rm SW}=\frac{1}{\pi}\gamma K\frac{M_{z}}{M^{2}}=\frac{1}{\pi}\gamma\frac{k_{\rm B}Tm_{z}}{Nm_{xy}^{2}}. (11)

We notice that this formula can be extended for lower temperatures below TRT_{\rm R}. Because of mzO(1)m_{z}\sim O(1) and mxy2O(1)m_{xy}^{2}\sim O(1) for T<TRT<T_{\rm R}, fSW=γkBT×O(1/N)0f_{\rm SW}=\gamma k_{\rm B}T\times O(1/N)\simeq 0. It is also worth noting that for T>TRT>T_{\rm R}, mxy2O(1/N)m_{xy}^{2}\sim O(1/N) and fSWO(1)f_{\rm SW}\sim O(1). In Fig. 2, Fig. 3 (b), and Fig. 3 (d), fSWf_{\rm SW} are plotted by red circles. We find excellent agreements between fSWf_{\rm SW} and fRf_{\rm R} in all cases including the temperature region T<TRT<T_{\rm R}.

Figures 4 (a), (b), and (c) depict the temperature dependences of TmzTm^{z} and 1/mxy21/m_{xy}^{2} for model (6) with D2=0D_{2}=0, D20D_{2}\neq 0, and model (1), respectively. We find that the temperature dependence of TmzTm^{z} is qualitatively similar in all cases, while that of 1/mxy21/m_{xy}^{2} is qualitatively different, and the behavior of mxy2m_{xy}^{2}, i.e., the fluctuation of the transverse magnetization, is a very important ingredient for the FMR frequency.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: (color online) Temperature dependences of TmzTm_{z} (blue circles) and 1/mxy21/m_{xy}^{2} (red diamonds) for the minimal model (6) with (a) D2=0D_{2}=0 and (b) D2=0.7D_{2}=-0.7, and for (c) the Nd magnet model (1).

To conclude, we showed unusual temperature dependence of the FMR frequency in a wide temperature region for the spin-reorientation transition in the Nd magnet, caused by the competition between magnetic anisotropy energies: fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 below TRT_{\rm R}, fRf_{\rm R} drastically changes around TRT_{\rm R}, and it exhibits a peak and then decrement at higher temperatures. This is totally different from the dependence of conventional magnets with a single uniaxial anisotropy energy, in which a monotonic decrease of the FMR frequency is observed. We clarified the mechanism for fR0f_{\rm R}\sim 0 below TRT_{\rm R}. It is worth noting that the state of the tilted spin alignment is stable, and the precession around the GS easy axis (parallel to the GS magnetic moments) does not occur. We also derived the formula (11) for the FMR frequency above TRT_{\rm R} in connection to the temperature TT, magnetization along the easy axis mzm_{z}, and the fluctuation of the magnetization along the hard axis (hard plane) mxy2m_{xy}^{2}. We found that this formula is a good description for overall temperature region, and mxy2m_{xy}^{2} in the formula is important for the qualitative nature of the FMR frequency. This formula is generally applied to other materials with SR transitions.

This finding of the unusual temperature dependence of the FMR frequency will stimulate time-domain measurement studies on precession motions in SR transitions and spin-state switching such as ultrafast optical control of precession motion for RFeO3 Kimel ; Yamaguchi2 and of spin state for epsilon-Fe2O3 ohkoshi-JACS and microwave-assisted magnetic recording for Co/Pd layer, etc Recording ; Nozaki .

We would like to thank Dr. Hirosawa, Dr. Mandal, and Dr. Takahashi for instruction of experimental features of the Nd magnet and helpful discussions. The present work was supported by the Elements Strategy Initiative Center for Magnetic Materials under the outsourcing project of MEXT.

References

  • (1) M. Sagawa and S. Hirosawa, J. Mater. Res., 3, 45 (1988).
  • (2) J. F. Herbst, Rev. Mod. Phys. 63, 819 (1991).
  • (3) J. M. D. Coey (ed), “Rare-earth Iron Permanent Magnets” Oxford unversity press, (2006).
  • (4) H. Kato, M. Ishizone, T. Miyazaki, K. Koyama, H. Nojiri, and M. Motokawa, IEEE Trans. Magn., 37, 2567 (2001).
  • (5) A. V. Kimel, A. Kirilyuk, A. Tsvetkov, R. V. Pisarev, and Th. Rasing, Nature 429, 24 (2004).
  • (6) K. Yamaguchi, T. Kurihara, Y. Minami, M. Nakajima, and T. Suemoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 137204 (2013).
  • (7) K. Yamaguchi, M. Nakajima, and T. Suemoto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 237201 (2010).
  • (8) R. Mandal, D. Ogawa, Y. Tamazawa, K. Ishioka, T. Shima, T. Kato, S. Iwata, Y.K. Takahashi, S. Hirosawa, K. Hono, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 468, 273 (2018).
  • (9) Y. Toga, M. Matsumoto, S. Miyashita, H. Akai, S. Doi, T. Miyake, and A. Sakuma, Phys. Rev. B 94, 174433 (2016).
  • (10) M. Nishino, Y. Toga, S. Miyashita, H. Akai, A. Sakuma, and S. Hirosawa, Phys. Rev. B. 95, 094429 (2017).
  • (11) T. Hinokihara, M. Nishino, Y. Toga, and S. Miyashita, Phys. Rev. B. 97 104427 (2018).
  • (12) H. Kronmüllar and M. Fähnle, “Micromagnetism and the Microstructure of Ferromagnetic Solids” Cambridge University Press, (2003).
  • (13) D. Hinzke, N. Kazantseva, U. Nowak, O. N. Mryasov, P. Asselin, and R. W. Chantrell, Phys. Rev. B 77, 094407 (2008).
  • (14) T. A. Ostler et al., Phys. Rev. B 84, 024407 (2011).
  • (15) R. F. L. Evans, W. J. Fan, P. Chureemart, T. A. Ostler, M. O. A. Ellis and R. W. Chantrell, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 26 103202 (2014).
  • (16) M. Nishino and S. Miyashita, Phys. Rev. B 91, 134411 (2015).
  • (17) S. Miyashita, M. Nishino, Y. Toga, T. Hinokihara, T. Miyake, S. Hirosawa, and A. Sakuma, Scripta Materialia 154, 259 (2018).
  • (18) Y. Toga, M. Nishino, S. Miyashita, T. Miyake, and A. Sakuma, Phys. Rev. B 98, 054418 (2018).
  • (19) We used a Monte Carlo (MC) method for the estimation of m2m^{2}, mz2m_{z}^{2}, mxy2m_{xy}^{2} and mz(1N|iNSiz|m_{z}(\equiv\frac{1}{N}\langle|\sum_{i}^{N}S_{i}^{z}|\rangle) in Eq. (11), which were obtained from five independent simulations of 200,000 MC steps for equilibration and another 1,000,000 MC steps for measurement. The SLLG and MC methods lead to the same equilibrium state and the latter can obtain static quantities faster than the former Nishino .
  • (20) S. Hirosawa, Y. Matsuura, H. Yamamoto, S. Fujimura, M. Sagawa, and H. Yamauchi, J. J. Appl. Phys. 24, L803 (1985).
  • (21) A. V. Andreev, A. V. Deryagin, N. V. Kudrevatykh, N. V. Mushnikov, V. A. Reimer, and S. V. Terent’ev, Sov. Phys. JETP 63, 608 (1986).
  • (22) X. C. Kou, R. Gr’́ossinger, G. Hilscher, and H. R. Kirchmayr, F. R. de Boer, Phys. Rev. B 54, 6421 (1996).
  • (23) See Supplemental Material at [URL] for the details of the magnetic anisotropy energies and the temperature dependence of I¯(f)\bar{I}(f) for the Nd magnet model and the minimal model.
  • (24) J. L. García-Palacios and F. J. Lázaro,, Phys. Rev. B 58, 14937 (1998).
  • (25) I¯(f)\bar{I}(f) was evaluated from 16 independent simulations. In each simulation, the time step for Eq. (5) dt=0.1dt=0.1 fs was set and 1,000,000 steps for equilibration and another 5,000,000 steps for measurement were used.
  • (26) P. Peczak, A.M. Ferrenberg, and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. B 43, 6087 (1991).
  • (27) S. Ohkoshi, K. Imoto, A. Namai, M. Yoshikiyo, S. Miyashita, H. Qiu, S. Kimoto, K. Kato, and M. Nakajima, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 141, 1775 (2019).
  • (28) J.-G. Zhu, X. Zhu, and Y. Tang, IEEE Trans. Magn., 44, 125 (2008).
  • (29) Y. Nozaki, N. Narita, T. Tanaka, and K. Matsuyama, Appl. Phys. Lett 95, 082505 (2009).