arXiv:cond-mat/0407439v1 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 16 Jul 2004

A Theoretical Study on Spin-Dependent Transport of
“Ferromagnet/Carbon Nanotube Encapsulating Magnetic
Atoms/Ferromagnet” Junctions with 4-Valued Conductances
Satoshi Kokado1,2

∗

and Kikuo Harigaya2,3

†

1 Faculty

of Engineering, Shizuoka University, Hamamatsu 432-8561, Japan
Research Institute, AIST, Tsukuba 305-8568, Japan
3 Synthetic Nano-Function Materials Project, AIST, Tsukuba 305-8568, Japan
(October 11, 2017)
2 Nanotechnology

Abstract
As a novel function of ferromagnet (FM)/spacer/FM junctions, we theoretically investigate multiple-valued (or multi-level) cell property, which is in principle realized by sensing conductances of four states recorded with magnetization configurations of two FMs; (up,up), (up,down), (down,up), (down,down).
In order to sense all the states, 4-valued conductances corresponding to the
respective states are necessary. We previously proposed that 4-valued conductances are obtained in FM1/spin-polarized spacer (SPS)/FM2 junctions,
where FM1 and FM2 have different spin polarizations, and the spacer depends on spin [J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, 8797 (2003)]. In this paper, an
ideal SPS is considered as a single-wall armchair carbon nanotube encapsulating magnetic atoms, where the nanotube shows on-resonance or off-resonance
at the Fermi level according to its length. The magnitude of the obtained 4valued conductances has an opposite order between the on-resonant nanotube
and the off-resonant one, and this property can be understood by considering
electronic states of the nanotube. Also, the magnetoresistance ratio between
(up,up) and (down,down) can be larger than the conventional one between
parallel and anti-parallel configurations.

∗ Electronic

mail: tskokad@ipc.shizuoka.ac.jp

† Electronic

mail: k.harigaya@aist.go.jp

1

I. INTRODUCTION

Spin polarized junctions (SPJ) such as ferromagnet(FM)/spacer/FM junctions [1–4] have
been recently applied to elements in magnetic random access memories (MRAM) because of
their magnetoresistance (MR) effect, which appears when an applied magnetic field changes
an angle between magnetizations of two FMs. In the practical use, a spin-valve type, which
corresponds to a memory cell of 2 values (1bit) represented by “0” and “1” [5], is usually
adopted. For the writing process, the magnetization of only one side of the FM is changed
under the applied field so that magnetization configurations between two FMs are parallel
(P) or anti-parallel (AP). For the reading process, we use the difference in resistance between
the P and AP configurations, the so-called MR effect.
For the SPJ, much effort has been made to develop elements in high density memories,
which also have high sensitivity for the reading process. Important factors are considered
to be (a) large MR ratio, whose expression in the unit of percent is defined by 100 × (ΓP −
ΓAP )/ΓAP with ΓP (AP ) being conductance of the P (AP) case, and (b) ultra small junctions.
The realistic SPJ for (a) can be, for example, Co-Fe/Al-O/Co-Fe junctions with the MR
ratio of 60% at room temperature [2], epitaxially grown Ga1−x Mnx As/AlAs/Ga1−x Mnx As
junctions with the MR ratio more than 70% at 8 K [3], and Co/Fe-doped Al2 O3 /Ni80 Fe20
junctions, whose MR ratio was enhanced as compared to the case of an undoped Al2 O3 [4].
On the other hand, candidates of the SPJ for (b) may be FM/nanowire/FM junctions and
FM/carbon nanotube/FM junctions [6–11], where it should be noted that the nanotube
length is about 200 nm [7,8] or 250nm [6] in actual experiments and their size is very large
at the present moment. In the further, however, we appear to see many problems with how
to miniaturize the junctions, because challenges for the limits of the junctions size will be
more and more severe in spite of the progress of experimental techniques.
Studies from another viewpoints far from the miniaturization should be necessary simultaneously. In fact, for other memories [12] such as the Flash memory [13], multiple valued
(or multi-level) cell property [13], which allows the plural bits to be stored in each memory
cell and accordingly reduces the memory cell size by 1/(the number of bits), has been extensively studied. On the other hand, there are few studies for the SPJ. If such a property
is included in the SPJ, they will function as an memory cell, which is more efficient than
the conventional one.
We here describe the multiple-valued cell property in the general SPJ, based on our
previous study [14]. In a possible scheme, recorded states are supposed to be four magnetization configurations of two FMs consisting of (up,up), (up,down), (down,up), (down,down),
which are obtained by applying the magnetic fields to the respective FMs. The junctions
correspond just to 2bits memory cells. Then, in order to sense all the states, 4-valued
conductances corresponding to the respective states are obviously necessary. By paying attention to the magnitude of total magnetization in the whole system, a model to obtain such
conductances is considered to be FM1/spin-polarized spacer (SPS)/FM2 junctions, where
the FM1 and FM2 have different spin polarizations [15], according to the following procedure. First, a difference of conductances between (up,up) and (down,down) will appear, if
the spacer is the SPS, where magnetization in the spacer is pinned. Second, a difference
between (up,down) and (down,up) will be obtained by introducing the FM1 and FM2, in
addition to the above mentioned SPS.
2

In this paper, as an ideal SPS to observe 4-valued conductances, we adopt a single-wall
armchair carbon nanotube encapsulating magnetic atoms [16,17], and investigate the spin
dependent transport of “FM1/single-wall armchair carbon nanotube encapsulating magnetic
atoms/FM2” junctions using the Green’s function technique. When all spins of magnetic
atoms are pinned parallel to the magnetization axes of FM1 and FM2, 4-valued conductances are explicitly obtained at a certain value of an exchange interaction between conduction electron spin and spin of magnetic atoms. The magnitude of the obtained 4-valued
conductances has an opposite order between the nanotube with on-resonant behavior and
that with off-resonant behavior. Also, the MR ratio between ⇑, ⇑ and ⇓, ⇓ can be larger
than the conventional one between P and AP configurations.
II. IDEAL SPIN POLARIZED SPACERS TO OBTAIN 4-VALUED
CONDUCTANCES

We first consider ideal SPSs to certainly observe 4-valued conductances. In the previous
study [14], we found that 4-valued conductances tend to be obtained in the case of largely
spin-polarized spacer with
T↑,↑ − T↓,↓
∼ 1,
T↑,↑

(1)

where T↑,↑ and T↓,↓ are transmission coefficients of spin-up and spin-down, respectively, in
an expression of the conductance [18,19],
Γ=

4π 2 e2 X X
Tσ,σ′ D1,σ (EF )D2,σ′ (EF ),
h σ=↑,↓ σ′ =↑,↓

(2)

with σ (=↑ or ↓) being spin of the conduction electron, D1(2),σ (E) being the local densityof-states (DOS) at an interfacial layer in FM1(2) at the Fermi level EF , and Tσ,σ′ being a
spin dependent transmission coefficient including spin-flip process of σ 6= σ ′ . Based on the
fact, we give four objectives for the spacer having magnetic atoms, which are
(i) to strongly pin the magnetization of magnetic atoms in the spacer parallel to magnetization axes of FMs,
(ii) to diminish magnetic couplings between magnetic atoms and FMs,
(iii) to make effective couplings between the conduction electron spin and spins of magnetic
atoms, which act as much as possible,
(iv) to have a long spin-flip scattering length to conserve the spin of conduction electron
through the spacer.
As for (i), we propose that a coercive field of magnetic particles consisting of magnetic atoms
is much higher than ones of FMs. For (ii), we suppose that distances between magnetic
atoms and FMs should be controlled so that magnetic dipole-dipole interactions between
them become very small and give little influence on the spin dependent conduction. In (iii),
3

we should make a situation so that electrons in all conduction routes can interact with spins
of magnetic atoms. For (iv), it is desired that the spin-orbit interaction of a material of the
spacer is very small.
As a realistic SPS, which could satisfy such objectives, we bear in mind of a carbon
nanotube encapsulating magnetic atoms [16,17] by the following reasons: First, the size of
a particle consisting of magnetic atoms may be close to that of a single domain particle
by tuning conditions of fabrication, where the single domain particle has a high coercive
field. The coercive field was recently observed as about 0.5 kOe at 300 K even for Fe
particles encapsulated with non-single domain size of about 70 nm [16]. Furthermore, for
only the magnetic particle, it was experimentally shown that the Fe2 O3 nanoparticle with
the diameter of 6.3 nm has the coercive field of 1 kOe at 300 K [20]. If such the particle can
be encapsulated in the nanotube, the nanotube will act as the ideal SPS. Second, magnetic
atoms can be encapsulated in the inner region of the nanotube [16], where distances between
the atoms and nanotube edges could be tuned by controlling nanotube growth processes.
Third, since the encapsulated magnetic atoms are completely surrounded by carbon atoms,
electrons in all conduction routes can interact with spins of magnetic atoms. Here, magnitude
of couplings may be also tunable by controlling nanotube growth processes, because they
strongly depend on distances between carbon atoms and magnetic atoms. Fourth, the
nanotube itself has very long spin-flip scattering lengths which extend to 130 nm at least [6].
III. “FM1/CARBON NANOTUBE ENCAPSULATING MAGNETIC
ATOMS/FM2” JUNCTIONS
A. Model and method

We focus on “FM1/single-walled armchair carbon nanotube encapsulating magnetic
atoms/FM2” junctions, where magnetic atoms are located in the center of the nanotube.
Figure 1 shows a simplified model, in which the FM has a simple cubic structure, the xdirection of FMs is set to be semi-infinite, and their yz-directions have the periodic boundary
condition by being regarded as an infinite system. The armchair nanotube has a finite length,
and then it is regarded just as an armchair ribbon [21] with short periodicity. The each edge
carbon atom of the nanotube is assumed to interact with its nearest atom of the cubic lattice of the FM. On the other hand, the encapsulated magnetic atoms have localized spins.
We here assume that their spins are divided into several spin clusters which interact with
their nearest carbon atoms respectively, and all the spin clusters have the identical total
spin. The total spin is approximately represented by a classical spin S on the assumption
that the spin cluster consists of many spins, and further every S is set to have the same
direction. Now, each S is arrayed along two dimer lines of the nanotube, and it has one
to one interaction with carbon atoms in their lines. According to the theory on magnetic
impurity problem [22], we take into account antiferromagnetic exchange interactions between conduction electron spins and S’s, where all the exchange interactions are here set to
be same. Also, interactions between S’s and spins of FMs are neglected by assuming that
they have little influence on the spin dependent conduction, under a balance between their
coercive fields and magnetic fields due to respective spins. The balance is actually sensitive
to distances between magnetic atoms and FMs.
4

Using a single orbital tight-binding model with nearest neighbor transfer integrals, the
Hamiltonian is given by,
Htotal = H + V,
H = H10 + H20 + HN T ,
HN T = HN0 T + Hmag ,

(3)
(4)
(5)

with
Hu0 =

ei,σ c†i,σ ci,σ +

XX
i∈u σ

X X



ti,j c†i,σ cj,σ + h.c. ,

hi,ji∈u σ

(6)
for u=1, 2, NT ,
Hmag =



X

i∈mag

∆e

X

c†i,σ ci,σ − J

σ

X

σ,σ′



σσ,σ′ · Sc†i,σ ci,σ′  ,
(7)

V =

XX

vi,j c†i,σ cj,σ



+ h.c. ,

hi,ji σ

(8)

0
where H1(2)
is Hamiltonian for the FM1 (FM2), HN0 T is that for the carbon nanotube, and
Hmag denotes interactions between the encapsulated magnetic atoms and the respective
P
nearest carbon atoms, where i∈mag means that the summation is taken for carbon atoms
interacting with magnetic atoms. The term V represents couplings between FMs and the
nanotube, where the each edge carbon atom of the nanotube couples to its nearest atom
of the cubic lattice of the FM. Here, ci,σ (c†i,σ ) is the annihilation (creation) operator of an
electron with spin-σ (=↑ or ↓) at the i-th site, ti,j and vi,j are transfer integrals between
the i-th site and the j-th site, and ei,σ denotes the on-site energy for spin-σ at the i-th site.
Furthermore, ∆e is the difference of energy between the pure carbon atom and the carbon
atom interacting with the magnetic atoms, J is the antiferromagnetic exchange integral with
negative sign [22], and σσ,σ′ is the (σ, σ ′ ) component of the Pauli matrix for the conduction
electron spin. Also, S [= (Sx , Sy , Sz )] represents the classical spin with S ≡ |S|.
Within the Green’s function technique [18,19], we calculate the conductance at zero
temperature, which is written by,

4π 2 e2
Tr[D̂1 T̂ † D̂2 T̂ ],
h
T̂ = V + V G† V,
G = (EF + i0 − Htotal )−1 ,
Γ=

(9)
(10)
(11)

with
1
D̂u = − ImG0u ,
π
0
Gu = (EF + i0 − Hu0 )−1 ,
5

(12)
(13)

for u=1, 2. Here, D̂1(2) is the density-of-states (DOS) operator at EF of the FM1(2), and
T̂ is the T -matrix. We below name Γ for the respective magnetization configurations as
Γm1,m2 , where m1 (m2) is the magnetization state of FM1 (FM2), which is ⇑ or ⇓.
Using these conductances, we obtain the MR ratio in the unit of percent, which is defined
by
Rm1,m2 = 100 ×

Γ⇓,⇓ − Γm1,m2
,
Γ⇓,⇓

(14)

where m1 (m2) is the magnetization state of FM1 (FM2) with ⇑ or ⇓.
In this calculation, we choose parameters as follows: We set ti,j = t (< 0) [23] and
vi,j = 0.1t, assuming that v is smaller than t because of different types between two orbitals,
imperfect lattice matches at the interface, and so on. When EF =0, ei,↑ /|t| (ei,↓ /|t|) is 5.1
(5.7) for the FM1 and 5.175 (5.625) for the FM2 [24], by considering that the s-orbital,
which is spin-polarized by coupling to the localized d-orbitals, contributes to the transport
of the FMs. The spin polarization [15] at the interfacial layer of the FM1 (FM2) at EF , P1
(P2 ), is then evaluated to be about 0.45 (0.25) [25]. For the carbon atom, ei,↑ /|t| (ei,↓ /|t|)
is set to be 0 (0) by focusing on its π orbital. By taking into account that the π orbital
is coupled to d-orbitals of the magnetic atoms, whose energies are lower than ei,↑ /|t| and
ei,↓ /|t| of the π orbital, ∆e/|t| is considered to be positive and it is put as 0.2. Also, the
number of unit cells in the circumference direction of the nanotube is 10. The number of
dimer lines [21] N is 20, 21, and 22, which correspond to nanotubes with the on-resonance,
the off-resonance, and the off-resonance at EF , respectively [10,21]. It is well known that
the armchair nanotube shows the on-resonant behavior for N = 3M − 1, the off-resonant
one for N = 3M, and the off-resonant one for N = 3M + 1, respectively, with M being an
integer [10,21]. For N=20 and 21, the spin, S, is arrayed at each carbon atom in 10-th and
11-th dimer lines of the nanotube, while it is arrayed at each carbon atom in its 11-th and
12-th dimer lines for N=22. In each N, the number of S’s is 40, which is obtained from the
relation of (the number of unit cells in the circumference direction of the nanotube) × (the
number of dimer lines with S’s) × (the number of sublattices in the unit cell)= 10 × 2 × 2.
Furthermore, S’s are considered to exist parallel to yz-plane, and an angle between S’s and
z-axis is written as θ.
B. Calculated results and considerations

In the upper panel of Fig. 2(a), we show −JS/|t| dependence of the conductance, Γm1,m2 ,
for θ=0 in the case of N=20. At JS/|t|=0, Γm1,m2 has a difference only between P and AP
configurations. For JS/|t| =
6 0, differences among all conductances appear, and become
largest in the vicinity of JS/|t|=−0.2. Also, Γm1,m2 has a relation of Γ⇓,⇓ > Γ⇑,⇓ > Γ⇓,⇑ >
Γ⇑,⇑ for a wide range of −0.8 < JS/|t| < 0.
The middle and lower panels of Fig. 2(a) show Γm1,m2 for θ=0 in the case of N=21 and
22, respectively. In the case of N=21, differences among all conductances become large in the
vicinity of JS/|t|=−0.4, while they do in the vicinity of JS/|t|=−0.75 in the case of N=22.
It should be noted that Γm1,m2 of N=21 and 22 has a relation of Γ⇑,⇑ > Γ⇓,⇑ > Γ⇑,⇓ > Γ⇓,⇓
for a wide range of −0.8 < JS/|t| < 0, and its order is opposite to that of N=20.
6

The behavior of conductances can be understood by considering electronic states in the
center of the nanotube, where magnetic atoms are encapsulated. We therefore investigate
the local DOS, defined by,
X
1
Local DOS = − Im
hi|(EF + i0 − HN T )−1 |ii,
π i∈mag

(15)

where |ii represents the orbitals of carbon atoms interacting with magnetic atoms, and
P
i∈mag means that the summation is taken for those carbon atoms.
In the upper, middle, lower panels of Fig. 3(a), we show the local DOS for ∆e/|t|=0 and
JS/|t|=0, ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=0, and ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=−0.2, respectively, in the
case of N=20. For ∆e/|t|=0 and JS/|t|=0, i.e., the case of no encapsulated atoms, small
peaks of spin-up and spin-down are found at EF (=0), as shown in the upper panel of Fig.
3(a). The feature just represents the on-resonance at EF . The peaks originate from wave
functions at the Gamma point [21], which are delocalized over the whole nanotube. For
∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=0, i.e., the case of encapsulated nonmagnetic atoms, the peaks of
spin-up and spin-down are shifted to higher energy with the same magnitude [see middle
panel of Fig. 3(a)]. Then, 2-valued conductances are obtained because of no difference
of local DOSs between spin-up and spin-down. On the other hand, for ∆e/|t|=0.2 and
JS/|t|=−0.2, i.e., the case of encapsulated magnetic atoms, the peak of spin-down is close
to EF as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 3(a). Since the electron favors to transmit when
the DOS is large around EF , transmission of spin-down electron increases compared to that
of spin-up electron. By taking into account the spin dependent DOSs of FMs with P1 =0.45
and P2 =0.25, Γ⇓,⇓ (Γ⇑,⇑) becomes largest (smallest) in all conductances, while Γ⇑,⇓ and Γ⇓,⇑
are present between Γ⇓,⇓ and Γ⇑,⇑ , and Γ⇑,⇓ > Γ⇓,⇑ is realized also.
The upper, middle, lower panels of Fig. 3(b) show the local DOS for ∆e/|t|=0 and
JS/|t|=0, ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=0, ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=−0.4, respectively, in the case
of N=21. In the upper panel of Fig. 3(b), no peaks are found at EF for ∆e/|t|=0 and
JS/|t|=0. It represents the off-resonance at EF . By setting ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=0, peaks
of spin-up and spin-down near EF are shifted to higher energy with the same magnitude
as shown in middle panel of Fig. 3(b), and then 2-valued conductances are obtained. For
∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=−0.4, the peak of spin-up appears in the vicinity of EF [see the
lower panel of Fig. 3(b)]. Therefore, based on the DOSs of the FMs, Γ⇑,⇑ (Γ⇓,⇓ ) is largest
(smallest) in all conductances, while Γ⇑,⇓ and Γ⇓,⇑ are present between Γ⇑,⇑ and Γ⇓,⇓ , and
also Γ⇓,⇑ > Γ⇑,⇓ is realized. The case of N=22 can be understood based on the local DOSs
shown in Fig. 3(c), too.
We systematically understand the above peak shifts as follows: When the carbon atom
interacts with the magnetic atoms, its energy levels of spin-up are shifted to high energy,
while its energy levels of spin-down are not largely altered, owing to ∆e/|t| > 0 and JS/|t| <
0. For the on-resonant nanotube, in which energy levels of spin-up and spin-down exist at
EF for ∆e/|t|=JS/|t|=0, the energy levels of spin-down are closer to EF than those of spinup when ∆e/|t| > 0 and JS/|t| < 0. On the other hand, for the off-resonant nanotube, in
which no energy levels of spin-up and spin-down exist at EF for ∆e/|t|=JS/|t|=0, the energy
levels of spin-up near the top of the valence band approach to EF by setting ∆e/|t| > 0 and
JS/|t| < 0.
The MR ratio Rm1,m2 is shown in Fig. 2(b). In all panels, at JS/|t|=0, Rm1,m2 is finite
7

only between P and AP configurations and |Rm1,m2 | is about 15%. For a wide range of
−0.8 < JS/|t| < 0, |Rm1,m2 | between P and AP configurations can be more than 15%. It
should be emphasized that |Rm1,m2 | between ⇑, ⇑ and ⇓, ⇓ is larger than the conventional
one between P and AP configurations. This feature is consistent with results for the case of
the largely spin-polarized spacer with (T↑,↑ − T↓,↓ )/T↑,↑ ∼ 1 in the previous work [14]. Also,
it is characteristic that for a wide range of −0.8 < JS/|t| < 0, Rm1,m2 ’s of N=20 and N=21
and 22 exhibit the positive MR and the negative one, respectively, reflecting the opposite
order of Γm1,m2 between them.
In the following, we consider the θ dependence of Γm1,m2 and Rm1,m2 , shown in Figs.
4(a) and (b), respectively. In each figure, the upper, middle, and lower panels are cases of
JS/|t|=−0.2 of N=20, JS/|t|=−0.4 of N=21, and JS/|t|=−0.8 of N=22, respectively. A
condition of θ/π=−0.5 (0) represents that S’s are oriented in the −y (z) direction. In all
panels, at θ/π = −0.5, only the difference of Γm1,m2 between the P and AP configurations is
present, and then |Rm1,m2 | between them takes small values of less than 5 %, because of the
spin-flip transmission. As θ approaches to 0, differences of Γm1,m2 among all configurations
become large, because a difference of diagonal elements of T̂ with regards to spin between
spin-up and spin-down increases. Further, |Rm1,m2 | between ⇑,⇑ and ⇓,⇓ increases, too.
IV. CONCLUSION

For “FM1/armchair carbon nanotube encapsulating magnetic atoms/FM2” junctions,
we theoretically investigated the multiple-valued cell property, which is in principle realized
by sensing four states recorded with the magnetization configurations of two FMs. The
obtained 4-valued conductances are strongly influenced by electronic states of the nanotube,
and directions of spins of magnetic atoms. The order of magnitude of 4-valued conductances
is opposite between the on-resonant nanotube and the off-resonant one. Furthermore, the
MR ratio between (up,up) and (down,down) can be larger than the conventional one between
P and AP configurations.
From the viewpoint of device applications, we expect that the present junctions will be
a candidate for elements of the 2bits/cell MRAM. At the same time, the junctions with
magnetization reversals between ⇑, ⇑ and ⇓, ⇓ may be more efficient magnetic sensor than
the conventional spin-valve type [5], in the case of the largely spin-polarized spacer.
V. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work has been supported by Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and
Technology, Japan. One of the authors (K.H.) acknowledges the partial financial support
from NEDO via Synthetic Nano-Function Materials Project, AIST, Japan, too.

8

REFERENCES
[1] T. Miyazaki and N. Tezuka, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 139, L231 (1995); J. S. Moodera,
L. R. Kinder, T. M. Wong, and R. Meservey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3273 (1995).
[2] M. Tsunoda, K. Nishikawa, S. Ogata, and M. Takahashi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80, 3135
(2002).
[3] M. Tanaka and Y. Higo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 026602 (2001).
[4] R. Jansen and J. S. Moodera, Appl. Phys. Lett. 75, 400 (1999).
[5] For example, see S. S. Parkin, K. P. Roche, M. G. Samant, P. M. Rice, R. B. Beyers, R.
E. Scheuerlein, E. J. O’Sullivan, S. L. Brown, J. Bucchigano, D. W. Abraham, Yu. Lu,
M. Rooks, P. L. Trouilloud, R. A. Wanner, W. J. Gallagher, J. Appl. Phys. 85, 5828
(1999).
[6] K. Tsukagoshi, B. W. Alphenaar, and H. Ago, Nature 401, 572 (1999).
[7] B. Zhao, I. Mönch, T. Mühl, H. Vinzelberg, and C. M. Schneider, Appl. Phys. Lett. 80,
3144 (2002).
[8] B. Zhao, I. Mönch, T. Mühl, H. Vinzelberg, and C. M. Schneider, J. Appl. Phys. 91,
7026 (2002).
[9] J. -R. Kim, H. M. So, J. -J. Kim, and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. B 66, 233401 (2002).
[10] H. Mehrez, J. Taylor, H. Guo, J. Wang, and C. Roland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2682
(2000).
[11] S. Kokado and K. Harigaya, Phys. Rev. B 69, 132402 (2004); S. Kokado and K. Harigaya, Synth. Metals 135, 745 (2003).
[12] For example, see N. Takahashi, H. Ishikuro, and T. Hiramoto, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76,
209 (2000).
[13] R. V. Giridhar, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 35, 6347 (1996).
[14] S. Kokado and K. Harigaya, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, 8797 (2003).
[15] The spin polarization is defined by P1(2) = (D1(2),↑ − D1(2),↓ )/(D1(2),↑ + D1(2),↓ ), where
D1(2),↑ is the density-of-states (DOS) at the Fermi level of the FM1(2) for spin-up
and D1(2),↓ is that of the FM1(2) for spin-down. Also, for the spin polarization at the
interfacial layer, the DOS at the interfacial layer is used as D1(2),↑ . For example, see
J. M. De Teresa, A. Barthelemy, A. Fert, J. P. Contour, F. Montaigne, and P. Seneor,
Science 286, 507 (1999).
[16] For carbon nanotubes encapsulating magnetic atoms at the edge, X. X. Zhang, G. H.
Wen, S. Huang, L. Dai, R. Gao, Z. L. Wang, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 231, L9 (2001).
[17] For carbon nanotubes encapsulating magnetic atoms in the inner region, X. Zhao, S.
Inoue, M. Jinno, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ando, Chem. Phys. Lett. 373, 266 (2003).
[18] T. N. Todorov, G. A. D. Briggs, and A. P. Sutton, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 5, 2389
(1993).
[19] S. Kokado, M. Ichimura, T. Onogi, A. Sakuma, R. Arai, J. Hayakawa, K. Ito, and Y.
Suzuki, Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 3986 (2001).
[20] Y. Ichiyanagi and Y. Kimishima, J. Therm. Anal. Cal., 69, 919 (2002). As a relevant
report, see Y. Ichiyanagi, T. Uozumi, and Y. Kimishima, Trans. Mater. Res. Soc. Jpn.
26 [4], 1097 (2001).
[21] K. Wakabayashi, M. Fujita, H. Ajiki, and M. Sigrist, Phys. Rev. B 59, 8271 (1999).
[22] J. R. Schrieffer and P. A. Wolff, Phys. Rev. 149, 491 (1966).
[23] In the previous work [10], t was set to be −2.75 eV.
9

[24] To approximately describe the s-electron within the tight-binding model, we consider
that EF is located near the bottom of an energy dispersion relation. The dispersion
relation near the bottom is similar to that of the free electron, which is characteristic
of the s-electron. For example, see H. Itoh, A. Shibata, T. Kumazaki, J. Inoue, and S.
Maekawa, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 1632 (1999).
[25] Materials with P1 ∼0.45 correspond nearly to Co, Fe, and Ni80 Fe20 , while P2 ∼0.25 is
Ni. J. S. Moodera and G. Mathon, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 200, 248 (1999).

10

FIGURES
Magnetic atoms
z
x
y
Carbon
nanotube
FM1
FM2
FIG. 1. A schematic illustration of spin-polarized junctions with the carbon nanotube, where
magnetic atoms are encapsulated in the center of the nanotube. Electric currents flow in the
x-direction.

11

–2

[×10 ]
4

:
:
:

2
0

:

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Γm1,m2/(e2/h)

–2

[×10 ]
1.5
1
0.5
0
–2

[×10 ]
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

(a)

–JS/|t|
100
50

Rm1,m2 [%]

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0
–100
–200

0
–50
–100
–150

(b)

–JS/|t|

FIG. 2. (a) The conductance Γm1,m2 vs −JS/|t| for θ=0 and ∆e/|t|=0.2. The meanings of dots
in all panels are : Γ⇓,⇓ , ▽: Γ⇑,⇓ , ✷: Γ⇓,⇑ , △: Γ⇑,⇑ . (b) The MR ratio Rm1,m2 vs −JS/|t| for
θ=0 and ∆e/|t|=0.2. In each figure, the upper, middle, and lower panels are cases of N =20, 21,
and 22, respectively. The meanings of dots in all panels are : R⇓,⇓ , ▽: R⇑,⇓ , ✷: R⇓,⇑ , △: R⇑,⇑ .

12

0.5

Spin–up

Local DOS [states/|t|]

0
Spin–down
0.5
–1
0.5

–0.5

0

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

Spin–up

0
Spin–down
0.5
–1
0.5

–0.5

0
Spin–up

0
Spin–down

(a)

0.5
–1

–0.5

0

E/|t|
0.5

Spin–up

Local DOS [states/|t|]

0
Spin–down
0.5
–1
0.5

–0.5

0
Spin–up

0
0.5
–1
0.5

Spin–down
–0.5

0
Spin–up

0

(b)

0.5
–1

Spin–down
–0.5

0

E/|t|
0.5

Spin–up

Local DOS [states/|t|]

0
Spin–down
0.5
–1
0.5

–0.5

0
Spin–up

0
Spin–down
0.5
–1
0.5

–0.5

0

Spin–up

0
Spin–down

(c)

0.5
–1

–0.5

0

0.5

1

E/|t|

FIG. 3. The local DOS in the center of the nanotube, where magnetic atoms are encapsulated.
(a) The case of N =20. Upper panel: ∆e/|t|=0 and JS/|t|=0. Middle panel: ∆e/|t|=0.2 and
JS/|t|=0. Lower panel: ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=−0.2. (b) The case of N =21. Upper panel:
∆e/|t|=0 and JS/|t|=0. Middle panel: ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=0. Lower panel: ∆e/|t|=0.2
and JS/|t|=−0.4. (c) The case of N =22. Upper panel: ∆e/|t|=0 and JS/|t|=0. Middle panel:
∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=0. Lower panel: ∆e/|t|=0.2 and JS/|t|=−0.8. Here, EF =0 is set.

13

–2

[×10 ]
4
2
:
:

:

:

0

Γm1,m2/(e2/h)

–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1
–2
[×10 ]
1.5

0

1
0.5
0

–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1
–2
[×10 ]
0.8

0

0.6
0.4
0.2
0

–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1

0

–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1

0

–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1

0

–150
–0.5 –0.4 –0.3 –0.2 –0.1

0

θ/π

(a)
100
50
0

Rm1,m2 [%]

0
–100
–200

0
–50
–100

θ/π

(b)

FIG. 4. (a) The conductance Γm1,m2 vs θ. The meanings of dots in all panels obey those of
Fig. 2(a). (b) The MR ratio Rm1,m2 vs θ. In each figure, the upper, middle, and lower panels are
cases of JS/|t|=−0.2 of N =20, JS/|t|=−0.4 of N =21, and JS/|t|=−0.8 of N =22, respectively.
The meanings of dots in all panels obey those of Fig. 2(b).

14

