text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Conformal field theories (CFT) are of great importance in modern theoretical physics. Some of the most spectacular progress in the last 15 years has been in our understanding of two-dimensional conformal field theories which play an important role in string theory, statistical mechanics and condensed matter physics. Immediately after the first paper by Belavin, Polyakov and Zamolodchikov  in which it was shown how conformal invariance in two dimensions can completely determine the critical exponents and bulk correlation functions, Cardy  showed how conformal symmetry can determine critical exponents and correlation functions in the presence of a boundary. Boundary conformal field theories can be defined in any number of dimensions $`d`$ and one can get some general results for any $`d`$, but the strongest results, of course, are found for $`d=2`$. The main result of  was that the $`n`$-point correlation function in the presence of a boundary satisfies the same equation as the $`2n`$-point correlation function in the bulk, provided one chooses conformal boundary conditions. Subsequently it was understood how to classify different boundary conditions and how to relate bulk and boundary operators . Boundary CFT is of interest not only to the condensed matter community where systems with boundaries are obviously important but also for the string community, because it gives a mathematical framework to formulate the theory of open strings  (and more recently D-branes ). More complete references are given in .

More recently Gurarie  drew attention to logarithmic conformal field theories (LCFT). In LCFT there are logarithmic terms in some correlation functions but the theories are nonetheless compatible with conformal invariance. An LCFT appears when two (or more, but this is not the general case) operators become degenerate and form a logarithmic pair, usually denoted $`C`$ and $`D`$. The OPE of the stress-energy tensor T with the logarithmic operators $`C`$ and $`D`$ is non-trivial and involves mixing

$`T(z)C(w){\displaystyle \frac{h}{(zw)^2}}C(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)}}_zC\mathrm{}`$ (1)
$`T(z)D(w){\displaystyle \frac{h}{(zw)^2}}D(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)^2}}C(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(zw)}}_zD+\mathrm{}`$
where $`h`$ is the conformal dimension of the operators with respect to the holomorphic stress-energy tensor $`T(z)`$. The OPE with $`\overline{T}`$ has the same form but with $`\overline{h}`$ instead of $`h`$; as usual the scaling dimension is $`h+\overline{h}`$ and the spin of the field is $`h\overline{h}`$.

It is a consequence of (1) that under a conformal transformation $`zw=z+ϵ(z)`$ the logarithmic pair is transformed as

$`\delta C=_zϵ(z)hC+ϵ(z)_zC+\mathrm{}`$
$`\delta D=_zϵ(z)(hD+C)+ϵ(z)_zD+\mathrm{}`$ (2)
which can be written globally as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}C(z)\\ D(z)\end{array}\right)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{w}{z}}\right)^{\left(\begin{array}{cc}h& 0\\ 1& h\end{array}\right)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{w}}{\overline{z}}}\right)^{\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{h}& 0\\ 1& \overline{h}\end{array}\right)}\left(\begin{array}{c}C(w)\\ D(w)\end{array}\right)`$ (11)
From this conformal transformation one can derive the two point functions for the logarithmic pair

$`C(x)D(y)`$ $`=C(y)D(x)={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _D}{(xy)^{2h}}}`$
$`D(x)D(y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(xy)^{2h}}}\left(2\alpha _D\mathrm{ln}(xy)+\alpha _D^{}\right)`$
$`C(x)C(y)`$ $`=0`$ (12)
where the constant $`\alpha _D`$ is determined by the normalization of the $`D`$ operator and the constant $`\alpha _D^{}`$ can be changed by the redefinition $`DD+C`$. Note that (12) is absolutely universal and valid in any number of dimensions, because only the most general properties of conformal symmetry were used to derive it. One can easily generalize these formulas to the case when there are $`n`$ degenerate fields and the Jordan cell is given by an $`n\times n`$ matrix, in which case the maximal power of the logarithm will be $`\mathrm{ln}^{n1}z`$; some explicit expressions can be found, for example, in .

Much is known about the general properties of these theories; for example, the presence of a zero norm state , the fusion rules and modular properties , the Couloumb gas description of LCFT , the existence of logarithmic pairs with respect to other algebras such as affine Lie algebras , and the emergence of LCFT in $`c=0`$ theories in general . LCFTs have applications in many areas; for example, percolation , the WZNW model on the supergroup $`GL(1,1)`$ , gauge and gravitational dressings of non-logarithmic CFT , the world-sheet description of soliton collective coordinates in string theory and D-brane recoil , disordered conductors and the Quantum Hall Effect, planar magnetohydrodynamics , and some supersymmetric WZNW models . Their deformation by marginal and slightly relevant logarithmic operators was studied in . There are several interesting “holographic” relations between $`d`$-dimensional LCFT on a boundary and $`d+1`$ dimensional bulk theories  as well as with Seiberg-Witten theory .

Most of the literature is concerned with the bulk properites of LCFT. However, boundary problems appear in a number of important applications; in the D-brane recoil problem  the recoil operators must be boundary logarithmic operators and it is natural to consider percolation and disordered systems in the presence of boundaries . In this letter we discuss several basic properties of boundary LCFT (see also ), and how the methods of ordinary boundary CFT can be generalised to the LCFT case.

## 2 Two-point correlation functions in the presence of boundary

Let us consider CFT on the upper half-plane $`\mathrm{I}mz0`$ (Fig.1). As was shown in , two-point functions in the presence of the boundary are related to four-point functions on the whole plane provided the boundary conditions are conformally invariant so that $`T=\overline{T}`$ when $`\mathrm{I}mz=0`$. These boundary conditions allow us to analytically continue $`T`$ from the upper half plane to the whole plane by setting $`T(z)`$ for $`\mathrm{I}mz<0`$ to $`\overline{T}(\overline{z})`$. One can then show that by combining two contours $`C`$ and $`\overline{C}`$ (see Fig.1) into one on the whole plane that the $`n`$-point function in the presence of the boundary $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(z_n,\overline{z}_n)`$ which is a function of $`2n`$ variables $`(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{}z_n,\overline{z}_1,\mathrm{}\overline{z}_n)`$ satisfies the same differential equation as the $`2n`$-point functions of the same CFT on the whole plane $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2,\overline{z}_2)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(z_{2n},\overline{z}_{2n})`$, regarded as a function of holomorphic variables $`(z_1,\mathrm{}.z_{2n})`$ only.

Specializing to two-point functions we see immediately that they are not yet completely determined by this construction because there are two solutions to the differential equation for the four point function; the correct combination will be determined by the boundary conditions. This immediately leads to a very interesting fact. For fields which give logarithmic operators as the result of fusion, for example

$`\mu \times \mu =C+D,`$ (13)
logarithmic correlations can be observed only for four-point and higher order correlation functions in bulk LCFT. However when a boundary is present we can get logarithmic terms in the two-point function because $`\mu \mu `$ is related to the bulk four-point function $`\mu \mu \mu \mu `$; the very existence of the boundary leads to this new behaviour.

To study this in more detail consider the $`c=2`$ theory first. In the bulk the chiral part of the four-point function for the $`(1,2)`$ operator $`\mu (z,\overline{z})`$ with dimension $`1/8`$ can be defined from Ward identities with respect to $`T`$ and is given by

$`\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)\mu (z_3,\overline{z}_3)\mu (z_4,\overline{z}_4)_{chiral}=`$ (14)
$`(z_1z_3)^{\frac{1}{4}}(z_2z_4)^{\frac{1}{4}}(\xi (1\xi ))^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(AF(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;\xi )+BF(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;1\xi )\right)`$
where we have chosen the anharmonic ratio

$$\xi =\frac{z_{12}z_{34}}{z_{13}z_{24}}.$$
(15)
The constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ depend on $`\overline{z}_1,..\overline{z}_4`$ and using the $`\overline{T}`$ Ward identities we see that there must be the same functional dependence on $`\overline{z}`$, i.e. $`A`$ and $`B`$ must be superpositions of $`F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;\overline{\xi })`$ and $`F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;1\overline{\xi })`$. Because the full left-right symmetric correlation function must be free of logarithmic cuts there is no ambiguity in constructing the full answer (see Saleur )

$`\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)\mu (z_3,\overline{z}_3)\mu (z_4,\overline{z}_4)=|z_1z_4|^{1/2}|z_3z_2|^{1/2}|\xi (1\xi )|^{1/2}`$ (16)
$`\times \left(F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;\xi )F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;1\overline{\xi })+F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;1\xi )F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;\overline{\xi })\right).`$
Now consider the two-point function for the same $`(1,2)`$ operator in the presence of a boundary along the real axis. As discussed above it is given by the solution to the differential equation for the holomorphic part of the four point function without a boundary (14). We identify $`z_3`$ with $`\overline{z}_2`$ and $`z_4`$ with $`\overline{z}_1`$ so that

$$\xi =\frac{|z_1z_2|^2}{|z_1\overline{z}_2|^2}$$
(17)
and is always between 0 and 1. Then the two point function is given by

$`\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)_{boundary}=`$ (18)
$`(z_1\overline{z}_2)^{\frac{1}{4}}(\overline{z}_1z_2)^{\frac{1}{4}}(\xi (1\xi ))^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(AF(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;\xi )+BF(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2};1;1\xi )\right)`$
and since the hypergeometric function has a cut along $`[1,\mathrm{}]`$ this expression is always well-defined and real in the physical region. If we let the points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ move away from the boundary but keep their separation fixed then $`\xi 0_+`$ and we see that the first term in the solution gives a contribution which is like the bulk two-point function

$$\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)=Az_{12}^{\frac{1}{4}}\overline{z}_{12}^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(19)
On the other hand the second term contains a logarithmic piece

$$\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)=Bz_{12}^{\frac{1}{4}}\overline{z}_{12}^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}|z_{12}|^2.$$
(20)
One might argue that in order to recover the standard bulk two-point function, which does not contain a logarithm, when the points are far from the boundary we should set $`B=0`$. In a unitary theory this would be a possible solution but here it is not at all clear because the theory is non-unitary and the bulk two-point function grows with separation. Thus there is no physical motivation for supposing that when $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ are far from the boundary the correlation function is unaffected by the operators at the image points – in general it clearly is. At the other extreme we let the points $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ approach the boundary so that $`\mathrm{I}mz_1=\mathrm{I}mz_2=y0`$ while keeping their separation $`x`$ fixed; we now have $`\xi =(1+\frac{4y^2}{x^2})^1`$ approaching 1. Now the second term in the two point function (18) displays regular power law behaviour while the first term, which is regular in the bulk, gives the logarithmic behaviour

$$\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)=A(4y^2)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{log}\frac{4y^2}{x^2}.$$
(21)
The constants $`A`$ and $`B`$ in (18) must be determined by the boundary conditions; however, we see that whatever these are, logarithmic terms must appear either in the bulk or near the boundary.

This phenomenon is not confined to the $`c=2`$ model. It appears also in the $`c=0`$ model describing the percolation problem considered by Gurarie and Ludwig . For example, the two point function of the bulk energy operator $`ϵ(z,\overline{z})`$ which has conformal dimension $`5/8`$ is given in the upper half plane by

$$ϵ(z_1,\overline{z}_1)ϵ(z_2,\overline{z}_2)=\frac{1}{|z_1z_2|^{\frac{5}{2}}(1\xi )^{\frac{5}{4}}}\left(B(1\xi )^2F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2};3;1\xi )+A\xi ^2F(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2};3;\xi )\right).$$
(22)
When the operators are far from the boundary and $`\xi `$ is small, the first term gives logarithmic behaviour

$$ϵ(z_1,\overline{z}_1)ϵ(z_2,\overline{z}_2)=|z_{12}|^{\frac{5}{2}}\left(1+\frac{15}{32}\xi ^2\mathrm{log}\xi +\mathrm{}\right).$$
(23)
This logarithmic behaviour is what is expected for the bulk two point function which in this case declines with distance so we are justified in ignoring the effect of the boundary and concluding that $`B=1`$. On the other hand when the operators are close to the boundary and $`\xi `$ approaches 1 we see that the second term, whose coefficient $`A`$ is not fixed by considering the bulk correlation function, gives logarithmic behaviour.

Another interesting example at $`c=0`$ is the $`k=0`$ $`SU(2)`$ WZNW model which is the bosonic sector of the $`N=1`$ SUSY $`SU(2)`$ WZNW model at $`k=2`$. This theory is logarithmic 333The general case of $`SU(N)`$ at level $`k=0`$ was discussed in KM  and the $`SU(2)`$ case was discussed in more detail in CKLT .  but contains no negative dimension operators. The chiral four-point function is given by

$`V_{ϵ_1}(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V_{ϵ_2}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)V_{ϵ_3}(z_3,\overline{z}_3)V_{ϵ_4}(z_4,\overline{z}_4)_{chiral}=`$ (24)
$`(z_1z_3)^{3/4}(z_2z_4)^{3/4}(\xi (1\xi ))^{1/4}\left(A{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}J_iF_A^i(\xi )+B{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}J_iF_B^i(\xi )\right)`$
where $`V_ϵ`$ is a primary chiral field in the fundamental representation, $`ϵ=\pm 1`$, $`J_1=\delta _{ϵ_1ϵ_2}\delta _{ϵ_3ϵ_4},J_2=\delta _{ϵ_1ϵ_4}\delta _{ϵ_2ϵ_3}`$ and $`_{I=1}^4ϵ_I=0`$. The functions $`F_{A,B}^I(\xi )`$ are given by

$`F_A^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`F(1/2,3/2;1;\xi )`$
$`F_B^1(z)`$ $`=`$ $`F(1/2,3/2;2;1\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\xi F(1/2,3/2;1;\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}H_0(\xi )`$
$`F_A^2(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`F(1/2,3/2;2;\xi )`$
$`F_B^2(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`2F(1/2,3/2;1;1\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi \xi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\xi F(1/2,3/2;2;\xi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}H_1(\xi )`$
$`H_i(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\xi ^n{\displaystyle \frac{(1/2)_n(3/2)_n}{n!(n+i)!}}\times \{\mathrm{\Psi }(1/2+n)+`$ (25)
$`+\mathrm{\Psi }(3/2+n)\mathrm{\Psi }(n+1)\mathrm{\Psi }(n+i+1)\}`$
The functions $`F_A^i`$ and $`F_B^I`$ have logarithmic behavior near $`\xi =1`$ and $`\xi =0`$ respectively It is easy to see that one must have the following OPE

$`V_{ϵ_1}(z_1)V_{ϵ_2}(z_2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{12}^{3/4}}}\left\{I_{ϵ_1ϵ_2^{}}z_{12}t_{ϵ_1ϵ_2^{}}^i\left[D^i(z_2)+\mathrm{ln}z_{12}C^i(z_2)\right]+\mathrm{}\right\}`$ (26)
where $`I`$ is the unit matrix and $`ϵ^{}`$ is the weight conjugate to $`ϵ`$. We see that logarithmic operators are transformed as a conjugate representation and have dimension $`2/(k+2)=1`$. We can now write the two-point functions

$`V_+(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V_+(z_2,\overline{z}_2)_{boundary}=V_{}(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V_{}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)_{boundary}=`$
$`(z_1\overline{z}_2)^{3/4}(\overline{z}_1z_2)^{3/4}(\xi (1\xi ))^{1/4}\left(AF(1/2,3/2;1;\xi )+BF(1/2,3/2;2;1\xi )\right)`$ (27)
and

$`V_+(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V_{}(z_2,\overline{z}_2)_{boundary}=V_{}(z_1,\overline{z}_1)V_+(z_2,\overline{z}_2)_{boundary}=`$
$`(z_1\overline{z}_2)^{3/4}(\overline{z}_1z_2)^{3/4}(\xi (1\xi ))^{1/4}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{2}}F(1/2,3/2;2;\xi )+2BF(1/2,3/2;1;1\xi )\right)`$ (28)
Again, the same general features emerge. Whatever the boundary conditions at the very least there will be logarithmic behaviour either in the bulk or near the boundary, if not both.

## 3 Bulk and boundary operators in LCFT

When we compute a correlation function in the boundary theory for every bulk operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1)`$ on the upper half plane there is a mirror operator on the full plane at $`z_2=\overline{z}_1=xiy`$. As $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1)`$ approaches the boundary so does its mirror and we can use the bulk OPE

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2)=\underset{i}{}C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^i\frac{1}{(z_1z_2)^{2h_\mathrm{\Phi }h_i}}\frac{1}{(\overline{z}_1\overline{z}_2)^{2\overline{h}_\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{h}_i}}\psi _i\left(\frac{z_1+z_2}{2}\right).$$
(29)
on the product $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{z}_1)`$ (Fig.2). Recalling that the correlation function of a field and its mirror consists of the holomorphic part only this leads to a relation between boundary and bulk operators of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^d(2y)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_d2h_\mathrm{\Phi }}(d(x)+c(x)\mathrm{log}y)+\underset{i}{}C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^i(2y)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_i2h_\mathrm{\Phi }}\psi _i(x)$$
(30)
where we have singled out the logarithmic boundary operators and the sum runs over the rest. The ordinary boundary operators $`\psi _i`$ are normalized so that they have correlation functions

$$\psi _i(0)\psi _j(x)=\delta _{ij}x^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_i}$$
(31)
but we allow the logarithmic operators to have unspecified normalizations for reasons that will appear shortly

$`d(0)d(x)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\alpha _d\mathrm{log}x+\alpha _d^{})x^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_d}`$
$`c(0)d(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _dx^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_d}`$
$`c(0)c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (32)
so we then find that for operators widely separated but close to the boundary (ie $`yx`$)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(iy)\mathrm{\Phi }(x+iy)`$ $`=`$ $`(2y)^{4h_\mathrm{\Phi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4y^2}{x^2}}\right)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_d}\left(C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^d\right)^2\left(2\alpha _d\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{y}}+\alpha _d^{}\right)`$ (33)
$`+(2y)^{4h_\mathrm{\Phi }}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^i\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4y^2}{x^2}}\right)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$
For the operator $`\mu (z,\overline{z})`$ we can compare this with what the explicit two point function (18) gives in the same regime

$$\mu (z_1,\overline{z}_1)\mu (z_2,\overline{z}_2)=(2y)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left\{\left(A\mathrm{log}\frac{4y^2}{x^2}+B\right)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n\left(\frac{4y^2}{x^2}\right)^n+A\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n\left(\frac{4y^2}{x^2}\right)^n\right\}$$
(34)
where the $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are related to the series expansions of the hypergeometric functions. This is consistent with (33) with the logarithmic operators duly appearing if $`A0`$ together with a stack of boundary operators of scaling dimensions which are all positive integers. A similar exercise for the $`c=0`$ model discussed earlier gives

$$ϵ(z_1,\overline{z}_1)ϵ(z_2,\overline{z}_2)=(2y)^{\frac{5}{2}}\left\{\left(A\mathrm{log}\frac{4y^2}{x^2}+B\right)\underset{n=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_n\left(\frac{4y^2}{x^2}\right)^n+A\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}f_n\left(\frac{4y^2}{x^2}\right)^n\right\}$$
(35)
where now $`e_n`$ and $`f_n`$ are related to the series expansion of the hypergeometric functions.

An obvious question now arises; what happens to the boundary operators when $`A=0`$? In this case consistency between (34) and (33) dictates that $`\alpha _d`$ vanishes but that the coefficient $`C_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}^d`$ does not. Now the boundary logarithmic operators have correlation functions

$`d(0)d(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _d^{}x^{2\mathrm{\Delta }_d}`$
$`c(0)d(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`c(0)c(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (36)
and the field $`c(x)`$ has become ‘sterile’ – it totally decouples from the rest of the system.

These results are very interesting, because they show that, depending on boundary conditions, boundary operators may be either logarithmic or not. This may be related to the fact that D-brane recoil  (where there are Dirichlet boundary conditions) is described by logarithmic operators, but there are no logarithmic operators for ordinary open strings (which have Neumann boundary conditions). In this paper we will not attempt to answer this question in full, but it seems that the fact that boundary logarithmic operators may become non-logarithmic under different boundary conditions is important.

Now consider the limit $`z_1z_2`$, i.e. $`y>>x`$, in the two-point correlation function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(z_2)`$; using the bulk OPE

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(iy)\mathrm{\Phi }(x+iy)=\frac{1}{x^{4h_\mathrm{\Phi }2h_C}}\left(D+C\mathrm{ln}x\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(37)
we can relate the expectation values of the logarithmic pair to the logarithmic terms in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(iy)\mathrm{\Phi }(x+iy)`$. Comparing with the correlation functions (10) and (14) given earlier immediately tells us that

$$D=B\frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{y^{h_C}},C=B\frac{1}{y^{h_C}}$$
(38)
at least when the scaling dimensions are positive. Another way of looking at this is directly by considering the one-point function in the presence of a boundary

$`D(z)_{boundary}`$ $`=`$ $`D(z)D(\overline{z}){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}y}{y^{h_C}}}`$
$`C(z)_{boundary}`$ $`=`$ $`C(z)C(\overline{z})=0!!`$ (39)
The calculation of $`C(z)`$ has gone wrong (it violates scale covariance) because of the non-standard transformation properties of the logarithmic pair. We should consider the LCFT as a limit of an ordinary CFT, as in , where two ordinary operators become degenerate and lead to the logarithmic operators; an operator in the ordinary CFT has an image which is itself, but it is a combination of $`C`$ and $`D`$ so really we should consider the combination $`D+C\mathrm{log}a`$ as one operator.

## 4 Boundary Conditions and Boundary States in LCFT

The next step is to investigate the connection between boundary conditions, boundary states, and the $`S`$ matrix which describes the behaviour of the Virasoro characters under modular transformations. For ordinary rational CFTs this was first elucidated by Cardy  but in the case of the LCFTs his arguments are modified by the Jordan cell structure of the Virasoro generators $`L_0`$ and $`\overline{L}_0`$. At this stage in the development of the subject we do not have a complete systematic understanding of bulk LCFTs so a corresponding understanding of boundary conditions and states is impossible. However we can explore the nature of the differences from ordinary CFTs.

A logarithmic theory occurs when two operators, $`O_0(z,\overline{z})`$ of negative norm and $`O_1(z,\overline{z})`$ of positive norm, with weights $`(h_0,\overline{h}_0)`$ and $`(h_1=h_0+\alpha _Dϵ^2,\overline{h}_1=\overline{h}_0+\alpha _Dϵ^2)`$ become degenerate as $`ϵ0`$. For simplicity we will assume that $`O_{0,1}`$ are both primary operators, that they and their descendants are the only degenerate operators, and that $`h=\overline{h}`$. The known logarithmic theories are more complicated than this but these assumptions already lead to significant differences from the non-logarithmic theories. We can define

$`D(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}\left(O_0(z,\overline{z})+(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _D^{}}{2}}ϵ^2)O_1(z,\overline{z})\right)`$
$`C(z,\overline{z})`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ\alpha _DO_1(z,\overline{z}).`$ (40)
In the limit $`ϵ0`$ these operators have the standard correlation functions for a logarithmic pair. However, although $`O_0`$ and $`O_1`$ are direct products of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic sectors, $`D`$ is not and this affects the Ishibashi states. It is convenient to exploit the ambiguity in the definition of $`D`$ to set $`\alpha _D^{}=0`$ and to rescale $`ϵ`$ and the fields so that $`\alpha _D=1`$. Then we can define the states

$`|D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ}}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}|0,N\overline{|0,N}+|1,N\overline{|1,N}`$
$`|C`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}|1,N\overline{|1,N}`$
$`|i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}|i,N\overline{|i,N},i2`$ (41)
where the last line is just the standard Ishibashi result  for the non-logarithmic primary operators $`\{O_i,i2\}`$. We can compute the action of $`L_0`$ on these states. There is one subtlety which is that since we are going to vary $`ϵ`$ we are not entitled to assume that $`|0,N`$ and $`|1,N`$ are normalized to a constant; rather we expect that they have a normalization which is a polynomial in $`h`$, or equivalently in $`ϵ^2`$ , which we denote $`P_N^{(0,1)}(ϵ^2)`$. Note that the $`P_N^{(0,1)}(ϵ^2)`$ have the property that if they are non zero at $`ϵ=0`$ for a particular descendant $`N`$ then $`P_N^{(0)}(0)=P_N^{(1)}(0)`$. We find that

$`D|q^{L_0\frac{c}{24}}|D`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}ϵ^2{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}P_N^{(0)}(ϵ^2)q^{h_0+N\frac{c}{24}}+P_N^{(1)}(ϵ^2)q^{h_0+ϵ^2+N\frac{c}{24}}`$
$`=`$ $`\chi _0(q)\mathrm{log}q+\chi _1(q)`$
$`D|q^{L_0\frac{c}{24}}|C`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}P_N^{(1)}(ϵ^2)q^{h_0+ϵ^2+N\frac{c}{24}}`$
$`=`$ $`\chi _0(q)`$
$`C|q^{L_0\frac{c}{24}}|C`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (42)
where

$`\chi _0(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}P_N^{(1)}(0)q^{h_0+N\frac{c}{24}}`$
$`\chi _1(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{N}{}}ϵ^2\left(P_N^{(0)}(ϵ^2)+P_N^{(1)}(ϵ^2)\right)q^{h_0+N\frac{c}{24}}.`$ (43)
Note that on account of the properties of the $`P_N^{(0,1)}(ϵ^2)`$ the limit in (43) exists. Furthermore the character $`\chi _1(q)`$ has by definition no contribution at level $`N=0`$ so it appears to belong to a representation with conformal weight one higher than does $`\chi _0(q)`$. We still have the same number of independent character functions; the only exception to this would be if it happened that $`\chi _1(q)=0`$ but this does not occur in the only case where the characters are known explicitly (see below).

Now, following Cardy consider the region formed by identifying the edges $`\mathrm{R}ez=0`$ and $`\mathrm{R}ez=2\pi \mathrm{I}m\tau `$ (where $`\tau `$ is taken to be imaginary) of the rectangular region $`0<\mathrm{R}ez<2\pi \mathrm{I}m\tau `$, $`0<\mathrm{I}mz<\pi `$. This can be viewed either as an annulus in which states propagate in the $`\mathrm{R}ez`$ direction or as a cylinder in which states propagate in the $`\mathrm{I}mz`$ direction (Fig.3). This construction is familiar in string theory where the same process can be described either as the propagation of open strings (annulus) or of closed strings (cylinder). Imposing boundary conditions labelled $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ on the annulus configuration then corresponds to evolution on the cylinder configuration with initial state $`|\beta `$ and final state $`|\alpha `$. Under the conformal transformation $`\xi =\mathrm{exp}(iz/\mathrm{I}m\tau )`$ the infinite cylinder of which our cylinder is a segment becomes the whole plane and therefore the transfer matrix in the $`\mathrm{I}mz`$ direction is given by the Virasoro generators on the plane. Writing

$`|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`a|D+a^{}|C+{\displaystyle \underset{i2}{}}\alpha _i|i`$
$`|\beta `$ $`=`$ $`b|D+b^{}|C+{\displaystyle \underset{i2}{}}\beta _i|i`$ (44)
and setting $`\stackrel{~}{q}=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/\tau )`$ we find that the matrix elements of the transfer matrix take the form

$`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |\stackrel{~}{q}^{\frac{1}{2}\left(L_0^c+\overline{L}_0^c\right)\frac{c}{24}}|\beta `$ (45)
$`=`$ $`ab\left(\chi _0(\stackrel{~}{q})\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{q}+\chi _1(\stackrel{~}{q})\right)`$
$`+\left(ab^{}+ba^{}\right)\chi _0(\stackrel{~}{q})+{\displaystyle \underset{i2}{}}\alpha _i\beta _i\chi _i(\stackrel{~}{q}).`$
Now we calculate the partition function by considering the transfer matrix in the $`\mathrm{R}ez`$ direction i.e. round the annulus. We identify the states at $`\mathrm{R}ez=0`$ and $`\mathrm{R}ez=\pi `$ and then sum over all of them to obtain

$`Z_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`Tr_{\alpha \beta }q^{L_0^o\frac{c}{24}}`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_{\alpha \beta }^i\chi _i(q)`$
where $`q=\mathrm{exp}(i2\pi \tau )`$ and $`n_{\alpha \beta }^i`$ is the number of times the representation $`i`$ occurs in the spectrum of the boundary theory with two boundaries and boundary conditions $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Note that $`\mathrm{log}q`$ does not appear in (46).

Now $`q`$ is related to $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ by $`\tau 1/\tau `$ and so we need to know the behaviour of the characters under a modular transformation. From the fact that the partition function calculated on the cylinder (45) and on the annulus (46) must be equal we see that the characters should transform as

$$\chi _i(q)=\underset{j}{}\left(S_i^j+\frac{\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{q}}{2\pi }Q_i^j\right)\chi _j(\stackrel{~}{q}).$$
(47)
Consistency then requires

$$S^2+Q^2=1,QS=SQ=0$$
(48)
which in turn implies that if $`Q0`$ then both $`detS=0`$ and $`detQ=0`$. Equating (46) and (45) we obtain the relationships

$`ab`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}n_{\alpha \beta }^iQ_i^0=n_{\alpha \beta }^iS_i^1`$
$`a^{}b+ab^{}`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\alpha \beta }^iS_i^0`$
$`\alpha _j\beta _j`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\alpha \beta }^iS_i^j,j2`$ (49)
The only case where the characters are known explicitly is the $`c=2`$ model ; these characters do indeed transform according to (47). The construction we have outlined works if we identify our characters in the following way

$`\chi _0(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,2}(q)}{\eta (q)}}`$
$`\chi _1(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\eta (q)}}\left(\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,2}(q)\mathrm{\Theta }_{1,2}(q)\right)`$ (50)
and $`\chi _i`$, $`i=2,3`$ are the characters for the normal fields with conformal weights $`h=1/8`$ and $`h=3/8`$ respectively. In terms of the space of states constructed in  $`\frac{1}{2}\chi _1(q)`$ is the character for $`\nu _1`$ and $`\chi _0(q)+\frac{1}{2}\chi _1(q)`$ is the character for $`\nu _0`$. Then $`S`$ and $`Q`$ are given by

$$S=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ 1& 1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\\ 1& 1& \frac{1}{2}& \frac{1}{2}\end{array}\right),Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(51)
There are solutions to the equations (49) in this case but they do not take the simple form found by Cardy for the unitary minimal models. In particular there is no boundary state $`|\stackrel{~}{k}`$ for which just one highest weight representation contributes to the annulus amplitude ie for which $`n_{\stackrel{~}{k}\stackrel{~}{k}}^i=\delta _k^i`$ for some $`k`$. The presence of the factor of $`2\pi `$ in (41) and the fact that $`S`$ and $`Q`$ satisfy (40) implies that $`ab=0`$; furthermore the first two columns of $`S`$ are identical so $`a^{}b+ab^{}=0`$ too. (We note that in this construction the presence of the $`2\pi `$ factor appears unavoidable.) The $`n_{\alpha \beta }^i`$ must satisfy $`n_{\alpha \beta }^0=n_{\alpha \beta }^1`$ and $`n_{\alpha \beta }^2=n_{\alpha \beta }^3`$. If we try to impose the same boundary condition on each boundary ie $`|\alpha =|\beta `$ then $`a=0`$ and $`a^{}`$ (which is the coefficient of a zero-norm state) is undetermined; in addition

$`\alpha _2^2`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\alpha \alpha }^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{\alpha \alpha }^1`$
$`\alpha _3^2`$ $`=`$ $`n_{\alpha \alpha }^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{\alpha \alpha }^1.`$ (52)
There are no non-trivial solutions when $`n_{\alpha \alpha }^2=0`$ but if $`n_{\alpha \alpha }^2=1`$ then $`n_{\alpha \alpha }^1=0,1,2`$ are allowed and we get the states

$`|\stackrel{~}{1}`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}|C+|2+|3`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{2}`$ $`=`$ $`a^{\prime \prime }|C+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}}|2+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}}|3`$
$`|\stackrel{~}{3}`$ $`=`$ $`a^{\prime \prime \prime }|C+\sqrt{2}|2.`$ (53)
These are linearly independent because of the presence of the zero-norm state but not orthogonal.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we have discussed how the properties of boundary LCFTs depend very delicately on the boundary conditions and are quite different from those of the same LCFT without boundaries. Operators which in the pure bulk theory do not have logarithmic two-point functions (but do have logarithmic four-point functions) acquire logarithmic two-point functions in the presence of a boundary; the logarithms show up either in the bulk, or close to the boundary, or both depending upon the boundary conditions. Whether or not there are boundary logarithmic operators also depends on the boundary conditions. We have discussed how the Cardy conditions relating boundary states and bulk quantities are modified in LCFTs.

We acknowledge the support of PPARC grant PPA/G/O/1998/00567 and stimulating discussions with John Cardy, Jean-Sebastien Caux, and Nick Mavromatos, and the comments of Victor Gurarie and the referee.


format: text

text:
# Conductance modulation by spin precession in non-collinear ferromagnet-normal metal-ferromagnet systems.

## I INTRODUCTION

In hybrid systems of ferromagnetic and normal metals, interesting phenomena can appear due the interplay between charge and spin. The discovery of the giant magnetoresistance (GMR) effect in metallic magnetic multilayers, has motivated a large number of studies on the transport properties of such systems. The GMR is caused by spin dependent scattering in the system. Most studies concentrated on collinear configurations (parallel and antiparallel configurations). There are several papers which cover non-collinear magnetizations, both theoretical  and experimental.

Magnetoelectronic multiterminal devices reveal new physics, but may also lead to novel applications, e.g. non-volatile electronics. Johnson and Silsbee investigated spin dependent effects in a 3-terminal device. They found transistor effects that depend on the relative orientation of the magnetization of the ferromagnets.  More recently, a ferromagnetic single-electron transistor in a three terminal configuration has been realized and studied theoretically. In this case the source-drain current also depends on the relative orientation of the magnetizations.

Brataas et al. give a unified semiclassical picture for electron and spin transport in such systems. Their formalism is inspired by the circuit theory of the Andreev reflection, and is applicable to systems with non-collinear magnetization directions and an arbitrary number and variety of contacts between the ferromagnetic and the normal metals. However, the simple circuit theory of Ref.  only holds when the resistances of the contacts between the ferromagnetic and the normal metals are much higher than the resistance of the normal metal itself, thus fails when the size $`L`$ of the system in the transport direction becomes too large. Moreover, when the size of the system is larger than the spin diffusion length ($`Ll_{sf}`$), the presence of spin-diffusion in the normal metal requires a more complicated description with spatially dependent spin distribution functions.

In the present paper, we present a study of the transport properties of simple F-N-F systems (see Fig. 1), taking into account different magnetizations of the ferromagnetic reservoirs and spin-diffusion in the normal metal. At low temperatures, spin-flip can be due to spin-orbit interactions and scattering by defects or impurities. Exchange scattering by paramagnetic impurities also flips the spin (see e.g. Appendix A in Ref.). The length of the normal metal $`L`$ is assumed to be much larger than the mean-free path $`l_f`$, so electronic transport may be described by the diffusion equation. On the other hand, we allow the spin diffusion length $`l_{sf}`$, which is the length scale on which an electron looses its spin in diffusive transport, to be much smaller, of the same order, or much larger than the size of the system $`L`$. Under an applied bias, ferromagnetic reservoirs inject a spin-current, causing a non-equilibrium magnetization or “spin accumulation” in the normal metal. We are interested in the different mechanisms that reduce and also rotate this spin accumulation. For non-collinear configurations the physics of spin injection is more subtle than in the simple collinear case, since it requires generalized boundary conditions for transport through a single ferromagnetic-normal metal (F-N) contact. In general, such a contact is charaterized not only by the conventional spin dependent conductances $`G^{},G^{}`$, which describe the transport of spins collinear to the magnetization of the ferromagnetic reservoir, but also by the $`\left(\text{complex}\right)`$ mixing conductance $`G^{}`$ (see Ref.), that contains information about the transport of spins oriented perpendicular to the magnetization of the ferromagnetic reservoir.

We are also interested in the effect of a magnetic field applied to the diffusive normal metal in arbitrary directions. In this case we assume that the magnetic field only couples to the spin degrees of freedom. Our approach is similar to the treatment of a precessing magnetic field applied to a diffusive metal in Ref..

In section II we introduce and solve the basic equations for the diffusive spin transport, showing the general expression for the non-equilibrium distribution function in the normal metal. In section III we discuss the boundary conditions of the problem. In section IV we obtain analytical expressions for the total conductance of the system in collinear configurations and in the absence of applied magnetic field. We also obtain analytical expressions for the total conductance in the case of non-collinear magnetization directions, zero magnetic field and no spin-flip scattering. In section V we calculate numerically the conductance in the general case. In section VI we summarize and discuss our results.

## II DIFFUSIVE SPIN TRANSPORT

When a bias is applied to our F-N-F device, a spin current is injected from the ferromagnetic reservoirs into the normal metal, causing a non-equilibrium magnetization or spin accumulation. For an arbitrary magnetic configuration of the system, the spin accumulated in the normal metal can be oriented in differents directions. If we take the spin quantization axis parallel to the magnetization of one of the ferromagnetic reservoirs, we need to take into account spins oriented perpendicular to this quantization axis, which can be described as a superposition of up ($``$) and down ($``$) spin states. We study a geometry invariant to translations in the lateral direction, so all quantities depend only on one spatial coordinate $`(x)`$. The spin-polarized electron distribution is characterized by a $`2\times 2`$ matrix in spin space of the form:

$$\widehat{f}^N(x)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}f_{}^N(x)\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}f_{}^N(x)\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\\ f_{}^N(x)\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\\ f_{}^N(x)\end{array}\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
When the size of the system $`L`$ is larger than the spin diffusion length $`l_{sf}`$, $`\widehat{f}^N(x)`$ depends on the position. Here we are interested in transport under the condition $`l_fl_{sf}`$, where $`l_f=v_F\left(1/\tau +1/\tau _{sf}\right)^1`$ is the mean free path, $`v_F`$ is the Fermi velocity, $`\tau `$ the spin-conserving scattering time and $`\tau _{sf}`$ the spin-flip scattering time. Both $`\tau `$ and $`\tau _{sf}`$ are considered isotropic in momentum space. The spin diffusion length $`l_{sf}`$ is defined as $`l_{sf}=\sqrt{D\tau _{sf}}`$, where $`D=v_Fl_f/d`$, is the spin-independent diffusion coefficient of the normal metal ($`d=1,2,3`$ is the dimension of the normal metal). So under the condition $`l_fl_{sf}`$, we obtain for diffusive spin transport in the steady state the following $`2\times 2`$ matrix equations for $`\widehat{f}^N(x)`$

$`D{\displaystyle \frac{^2\widehat{f}^N(x)}{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _{sf}}}\left(\widehat{f}^N(x)\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{f}^N(x)\right)}{2}}\right)`$ (2)
$`\widehat{ȷ}^N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{f}^N(x)}{x}}.`$ (3)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}`$ is the unit matrix and where the electron charge $`e`$ is assumed to be equal to one. Eq. (2) describes the relaxation of the spin accumulation due to spin-flip scattering, and (3) relates the current density matrix $`\widehat{ȷ}^N(x)`$ and $`\widehat{f}^N(x)`$. In the case of collinear transport, our matrix equations simply reduce to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2f_s^N(x)}{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_s^N(x)f_s^N(x)}{l_{sf}^2}}`$ (4)
$`j_s^N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`D{\displaystyle \frac{f_s^N(x)}{x}}`$ (5)
where $`s=(,)`$. Eqs. (4) and (5) have been extensively used for collinear transport in F-N multilayers in which the current flows perpendicular to the planes of the interfaces (CPP geometry).

We are also interested in the effect of an external magnetic field applied to the normal metal in an arbitrary direction. We know that the magnetic Zeeman energy associated with the coupling between the magnetic field and the spin of the electrons is given by $`g\mu _B\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}/2`$, where $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton, $`g`$ is the gyromagnetic ratio, $`\widehat{\sigma }=(\widehat{\sigma }_x,\text{ }\widehat{\sigma }_y,\text{ }\widehat{\sigma }_z)`$ is the vector of Pauli matrices and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ is the external magnetic field. Semiclassically, we can write for the spin dynamics (see e.g. Ref.)

$$\frac{\text{ }\widehat{f}^N(x)}{t}=\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\frac{g\mu _B}{2}\left(\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}\right),\text{ }\widehat{f}^N(x)]_{}.$$
(6)
Then, in the steady state:

$$D\frac{^2\widehat{f}^N(x)}{x^2}=\frac{1}{\tau _{sf}}\left(\widehat{f}^N(x)\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\frac{\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{f}^N(x)\right)}{2}\right)\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}[\frac{g\mu _B}{2}\left(\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}\right),\text{ }\widehat{f}^N(x)]_{}.$$
(7)
Using the properties of the Pauli matrices we can express the non-equilibrium distribution matrix $`\widehat{f}^N(x)`$ as:

$$\widehat{f}^N(x)=f_0(x)\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{f}(x)$$
(8)
where $`f_0(x)`$ is a scalar and $`\stackrel{}{f}(x)=(f_x(x),f_y(x),f_z(x))`$ is a three component vector. $`f_0(x)`$ is the particle or spin-independent distribution function. On the other hand, $`f_z(x)`$ describes the “spin polarization” on the system, and $`f_x(x)`$ and $`f_y(x)`$ contain information about the spins oriented perpendicular to the quantization axis. We call the three component vector $`\stackrel{}{f}(x)`$ the spin-dependent distribution function. Using (8), we separate (7) into two contributions, one for the spin-independent part and another for the spin-dependent part:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2f_0(x)}{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{}{f}(x)}{x^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{sf}^2}}\stackrel{}{f}(x)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _B}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{D}}\times \text{ }\stackrel{}{f}(x)\right).`$ (11)
The spin-independent part (Eq.(10)), is the conventional result for diffusive particle transport. Similar to Eq. (5), the particle current density $`j_0^N(x)`$ reads

$$\text{ }j_0^N(x)=D\frac{\left[\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{f}^N(x)\right)\right]}{x}=2D\frac{f_0(x)}{x}.$$
(12)
Eqs. (10) and (12) express the particle current conservation

$`{\displaystyle \frac{j_0^N(x)}{x}}=0.`$

The general solution of Eq. (10) is

$$f_0(x)=𝒫+𝒪x.$$
(13)
Eq. (11) describes how the spin accumulation relaxes by spin-flip scattering and by the spin precession around the magnetic field. This equation can be written in a general matrix form as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{}{f}(x)}{x^2}}=𝐀\stackrel{}{f}(x).`$

The eigengenvalues associated with the matrix $`𝐀`$ are:

$`\lambda _o`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{sf}^2}}`$
$`\lambda _+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{sf}^2}}+i\left|\stackrel{}{h}\right|`$
$`\lambda _{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l_{sf}^2}}i\left|\stackrel{}{h}\right|.`$
where we have introduced the vector $`\stackrel{}{h}=g\mu _B\stackrel{}{B}/\mathrm{}D`$, which describes the “effectiveness” of the magnetic field in a diffusive metal. The eigenvector associated with $`\lambda _o`$ is

$`\stackrel{}{v}_o={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left|\stackrel{}{h}\right|}}\left(\begin{array}{c}h_x\\ h_y\\ h_z\end{array}\right).`$

On the other hand, $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\lambda _{}`$ have associated two complex conjugated eigenvectors $`\stackrel{}{v}_+=\stackrel{}{v}_1+i\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{}{v}_{}=\stackrel{}{v}_1i\stackrel{}{v}_2`$, where

$`\stackrel{}{v}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left(h_x^2+h_y^2\right)}\left|\stackrel{}{h}\right|}}\left(\begin{array}{c}h_xh_z\\ h_yh_z\\ \left(h_z^2+h_x^2\right)\end{array}\right)`$

and

$`\stackrel{}{v}_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h_x^2+h_y^2}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}h_y\\ h_x\\ 0\end{array}\right).`$

The general solution of Eq. (11), can then be written in terms of the eigenvalues $`\lambda _o,`$ $`\lambda _+,`$ $`\lambda _{}`$ and vectors $`\stackrel{}{v}_o,`$ $`\stackrel{}{v}_1,`$ $`\stackrel{}{v}_2`$ as:

$$\stackrel{}{f}(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}𝒜\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{v}_o}\mathrm{cosh}(x/l_{sf})+\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{v}_o}\mathrm{sinh}(x/l_{sf})\\ +𝒞\text{ }\left[\stackrel{}{v}_1\mathrm{cosh}(X)\mathrm{cos}(Y)\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{sinh}(X)\mathrm{sin}(Y)\right]\\ 𝒟\text{ }\left[\stackrel{}{v}_1\mathrm{sinh}(X)\mathrm{sin}(Y)+\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{cosh}(X)\mathrm{cos}(Y)\right]\\ +\text{ }\left[\stackrel{}{v}_1\mathrm{sinh}(X)\mathrm{cos}(Y)\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{cosh}(X)\mathrm{sin}(Y)\right]\\ \text{ }\left[\stackrel{}{v}_1\mathrm{cosh}(X)\mathrm{sin}(Y)+\stackrel{}{v}_2\mathrm{sinh}(X)\mathrm{cos}(Y)\right].\end{array}\right\}$$
(14)
where

$`X`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{l_{sf}}}`$
$`Y`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1+\alpha ^2}}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x}{l_{sf}}}.`$
and where the dimensionless constant $`\alpha =g\omega _L\tau _{sf}`$ $`=\left|\stackrel{}{h}\right|l_{sf}^2`$ is the ratio between spin-flip and precession relaxation mechanisms. $`\omega _L=\mu _B\left|\stackrel{}{B}\right|/\mathrm{}`$ is the (Larmor) frequency for the spin precession around the magnetic field. The solution associated with $`\lambda _o`$ describes the relaxation of the spin accumulation due to spin-flip scattering, and the two complex conjugated solutions associated with $`\lambda _+`$ and $`\lambda _{}`$ describe the relaxation and precession of the spins due to the coupling with the magnetic field. The eight real constants ($`𝒪,𝒫,𝒜,,𝒞,𝒟,,`$) must be determined by the boundary conditions.

## III BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

We consider two ferromagnetic reservoirs attached to a diffusive normal metal through some arbitrary contacts, as shown in Fig. 1. The ferromagnetic reservoirs are supposed to be large and in local equilibrium at chemical potentials $`\mu _,`$ ($``$, $``$ denotes left and right reservoir respectively), and with energy-dependent diagonal distribution matrices in spin space $`\widehat{f}_,^F(ϵ)`$. The components of $`\widehat{f}_,^F(ϵ)`$ are given by the Fermi-Dirac distribution function $`f^{FD}(ϵ,\mu _,)`$, and the direction of the magnetization in each ferromagnetic reservoir is denoted by the unit vector $`\stackrel{}{𝐦}_,`$. The current through the system and the non-equilibrium distribution function in the normal metal are completely determined by the relative orientation of the magnetization directions in the ferromagnetic reservoirs, the contact conductances, the normal metal conductance, the spin diffusion length and the magnetic field.

The current through an F-N contact is given in Ref. in terms of the microscopic scattering matrices of the Landauer-Büttiker formalism. According to Eq. (3) of Ref., the particle current through a single contact directed into the normal metal can be written as

$`\widehat{ı}^C(x)`$ $`=`$ $`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\left(\widehat{f}^F\widehat{f}^N(x)\right)\widehat{u}^{}+G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\left(\widehat{f}^F\widehat{f}^N(x)\right)\widehat{u}^{}`$ (16)
$`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(x)\widehat{u}^{}\left(G^{}\right)^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(x)\widehat{u}^{}`$
where $`\widehat{f}^N(x)`$ and $`\widehat{f}_,^F`$ are isotropic distribution functions, $`G^{}`$ and $`G^{}`$ are the conventional spin-dependent conductances, which describe the transport of spins oriented in the direction of the magnetization of the adjacent ferromagnetic reservoir, and $`G^{}=ReG^{}+iImG^{}`$ is the mixing conductance, which contains information about the transport of spins oriented in perpendicular direction to the magnetization of the ferromagnetic reservoir. The matrices $`\widehat{u}^{}=\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}+\text{ }\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{𝐦}\right)/2,`$ and $`\widehat{u}^{}=\left(\widehat{\mathrm{𝟏}}\text{ }\widehat{\sigma }\stackrel{}{𝐦}\right)/2`$ define the basis in which the spin-quantization axis is parallel to the magnetization of the ferromagnet (for details see Ref.). Eq. (16) relates the spin current through the contact $`\widehat{ı}^C(x)`$ and the non-equilibrium distribution matrix $`\widehat{f}^N(x)`$ in the normal metal. Due to current conservation, Eq. (16) is equal, at each contact, to the particle current per energy interval in the normal metal (see Fig. 2). The particle current per energy interval is related with the current density $`\widehat{ȷ}^N(x)`$ as, $`\widehat{ı}^N(x)=S`$ $`\nu _{_{DOS}}`$ $`\widehat{ȷ}^N(x)`$, where $`S`$ is the surface perpendicular to the transport direction and $`\nu _{_{DOS}}`$ is the density of states of the normal metal. Using Eq. (3) $`\widehat{ı}^N(x)`$ is

$$\widehat{ı}^N(x)=S\nu _{_{DOS}}D\frac{\widehat{f}^N(x)}{x}.$$
(17)
So we have

$$\widehat{ı}^C(x=0^+)\text{ }=\text{ }\widehat{ı}^N(x=0^+)$$
(19)
for the left contact ($`x=0^+`$) and

$$\widehat{ı}^N(x=L^{})\text{ }=\text{ }\widehat{ı}^C(x=L^{})$$
(20)
for the right contact ($`x=L^{}`$). By substituting (16) and (17) into (19) and (20), we obtain the boundary conditions for the left contact ($`x=0^+`$):

$`S\text{ }\nu _{_{DOS}}\text{ }D{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{f}^N(x)}{x}}_{x=0^+}+`$ (24)
$`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(0^+)\widehat{u}^{}+G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(0^+)\widehat{u}^{}+`$
$`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(0^+)\widehat{u}^{}+\left(G^{}\right)^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(0^+)\widehat{u}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}_{}^F\widehat{u}^{}+G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}_{}^F\widehat{u}^{}`$ (25)
and for the right contact ($`x=L^{}`$):

$`S\text{ }\nu _{_{DOS}}\text{ }D{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{f}^N(x)}{x}}_{x=L^{}}+`$ (28)
$`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(L^{})\widehat{u}^{}+G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(L^{})\widehat{u}^{}+`$
$`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(L^{})\widehat{u}^{}+\left(G^{}\right)^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}^N(L^{})\widehat{u}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}_{}^F\widehat{u}^{}+G^{}\widehat{u}^{}\widehat{f}_{}^F\widehat{u}^{}.`$ (29)
The set of parameters $`\{G^{},G^{},ReG^{},ImG^{},\widehat{u}^{},\widehat{u}^{}\}`$ is in general different for each contact, but we have omitted the indices $``$ and $``$ in (24) and (28) for brevity. Eqs. (24) and (28) are two $`2\times 2`$ matrix equations, that provide us a system of linear equations that determinate the eight unknown constants ($`𝒪,𝒫,𝒜,,𝒞,𝒟,,`$).

From (12) we can see that the total particle current $`i_0^N`$ can be written in terms of one of these constants as:

$`i_0^N=2S\nu _{_{DOS}}D{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(x)}{x}}=2DS\nu _{_{DOS}}𝒪=2V_{ol}G_N𝒪,`$

where $`G_N=\frac{D}{L}\nu _{_{DOS}}`$ is the normal metal conductance and $`V_{ol}`$ is the volume of the normal metal. By solving the system of equations (24) and (28), we can calculate this total particle current. $`i_0^N`$ is proportional to the difference between the distribution functions of the ferromagnets $`i_0^N\left(f_{}^Ff_{}^F\right)`$, times a quantity which does not depends on energy. From this quantity is possible to obtain the total conductance $`G^T`$:

$$\text{ }i_0^N=G^T\left(f_{}^Ff_{}^F\right)$$
(30)
where $`G^T`$ is in principle a function of the relative orientation of the magnetization directions in the ferromagnetic reservoirs, the contacts and normal metal conductances, the spin diffussion length and also of the magnetic field:

$`G^TG^T(\stackrel{}{𝐦}_,,\{G^{},G^{},ReG^{},ImG^{}\}_,,G_N,l_{sf},\stackrel{}{B}).`$

By studying $`G^T`$ for different values of these parameters, we obtain information about the physics of the spin accumulation in diffusive systems.

## IV ANALYTICAL EXPRESSIONS.

The properties of the contacts are parametrized by the spin-dependent conductances $`\{G^{},G^{},ReG^{},ImG^{}\}_,`$. For collinear configurations of the ferromagnetic reservoirs (parallel and antiparallel), it is easy to obtain simple expressions for the conductance, which can be interpreted by simple equivalent circuits. When $`l_{sf}L`$, there is no mixing between spin-up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) channels, and we obtain the conductance for the parallel configuration

$$G_P=\frac{G_{}^{}G_{}^{}G_N}{\left(G_{}^{}+G_{}^{}\right)G_N+G_{}^{}G_{}^{}}+\frac{G_{}^{}G_{}^{}G_N}{\left(G_{}^{}+G_{}^{}\right)G_N+G_{}^{}G_{}^{}}$$
(32)
and for the antiparallel configuration:

$$G_{AP}=\frac{G_{}^{}G_{}^{}G_N}{\left(G_{}^{}+G_{}^{}\right)G_N+G_{}^{}G_{}^{}}+\frac{G_{}^{}G_{}^{}G_N}{\left(G_{}^{}+G_{}^{}\right)G_N+G_{}^{}G_{}^{}}.$$
(33)
On the other hand, when $`l_{sf}L`$, spin-up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) channels are completely mixed due to spin-flip scattering and the spin accumulation vanishes. In this limit we have:

$$G^0=\left(\frac{1}{2G_N}+\frac{1}{G_{}^{}+G_{}^{}}+\frac{1}{G_{}^{}+G_{}^{}}\right)^1.$$
(34)
These expressions correspond to the simple equivalent circuits displayed in Fig. 3. Eq. (32) corresponds to a circuit in which the two spin channels are independent in the parallel configuration (Fig. 3a). Eq. (33) corresponds to the anti-parallel configuration (Fig. 3b). Eq. (34) is equivalent to a circuit with a complete mixing between spin up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) channels (Fig. 3c), in which there is no difference between parallel and anti-parallel configurations.

For symmetric contacts $`\left(G_{}^{}=G_{}^{}=G^{}\text{ and }G_{}^{}=G_{}^{}=G^{}\right)`$, we find analytical expressions for the conductance of the system for any value of $`L/l_{sf}`$, in the parallel configuration:

$$G_P^S=2G_N\frac{2G^{}G^{}\frac{l_{sf}}{L}\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{L}{2l_{sf}})+GG_N}{G_N\left(4G_N+G\right)+2(G_NG+G^{}G^{})\frac{l_{sf}}{L}\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{L}{2l_{sf}})}$$
(36)
and in the antiparallel configuration:

$$G_{AP}^S=2G_N\frac{2G^{}G^{}\frac{l_{sf}}{L}+GG_N\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{L}{2l_{sf}})}{G_N\left(4G_N+G\right)\mathrm{tanh}(\frac{L}{2l_{sf}})+2(G_NG+G^{}G^{})\frac{l_{sf}}{L}}$$
(37)
where $`G=G^{}+G^{}`$.

In the limit $`l_{sf}L`$, these equations reduce to, for parallel configuration:

$$G_P^S=\frac{G^{}G_N}{G^{}+2G_N}+\frac{G^{}G_N}{G^{}+2G_N},$$
(39)
for anti-parallel configuration:

$$G_{AP}^S=2\frac{G^{}G^{}G_N}{GG_N+G^{}G^{}},$$
(40)
and in the limit $`\left(l_{sf}L\right)`$ for parallel and anti-parallel configurations:

$$G^0=\frac{GG_N}{2G_N+G/2}.$$
(42)
For non-collinear configurations there is no simple circuit analogy, but we can still find an analytical expression for the total conductance of the system as a function of the angle between the magnetizations of the different ferromagnets $`\theta `$, when $`l_{sf}L`$, at zero magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}=0`$) and for symmetric contacts:

$`G^T(\theta )=2G_N`$ (43)
$`\times \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\left|G^{}\right|^2\left(4G_N^2\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)+2GG_N\right)+2ReG^{}G_N^2G\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)}{\left|G^{}\right|^2\left((4G_N^2+GG_N)\left(1+\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)+2\left(GG_N+G^{}G^{}\right)\right)+2ReG^{}G_N\left(\left(GG_N+G^{}G^{}\right)\left(1\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)\right)}}\right).`$ (44)
In the limit of $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$, Eq. (43) simplifies to Eqs. (39) and (40) respectively. When the resistance of the normal metal is negligible compared to the contacts resistance ($`G_N\mathrm{}`$), this reduces to

$$G^T\left(\theta \right)=\frac{G}{2}\left(1p^2\frac{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta /2}{\mathrm{tan}^2\theta /2+\left|\eta \right|^2/Re\left(\eta \right)}\right)$$
(45)
where $`p=P/G=\left(G^{}G^{}\right)/G`$ is the polarization and $`\eta =2G^{}/G`$ is the (complex) relative mixing conductance. Eq. (45) can also be obtained by means of the circuit theory.

## V NUMERICAL RESULTS.

The total conductance depends on the spin-dependent conductances of the contacts. We mostly set the polarization $`p=P/G=\left(G^{}G^{}\right)/G=0.5`$ (for real metallic ferromagnets like Fe or Co, $`p`$ is 0.4 and 0.35 respectively), which corresponds to a ratio $`G^{}/G^{}=3`$. On the other hand, the real part of the mixing conductance obeys $`ReG^{}\left(G^{}+G^{}\right)/2`$.  The conductances of the contacts and the diffusive normal metal are considered to be of the same order $`G_N(G^{},G^{},G^{}).`$

### A Collinear and non-collinear configurations

The total conductance depends on the magnetic configuration. We plot in Fig. 4a and Fig. 4b, $`G^T/G_N`$ as function of the relative angle between magnetizations $`\theta `$, for symmetric contacts, zero magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}=0`$) and in the absence of spin-relaxation in the normal metal $`\left(l_{sf}L\right)`$, as given by Eq. (43) for different values of $`ImG^{}`$ and $`ReG^{}`$ respectively. For $`\theta =0^{^{}},`$ $`\theta =360^{^{}}`$ and $`\theta =180^{^{}}`$ the total conductance does not depend on the mixing conductance and the values of $`G^T/G_N`$ at $`\theta =0^{^{}},360^{^{}}`$ and $`\theta =`$ $`180^{^{}}`$ are given by Eq. (39) and Eq. (40) respectively. On the other hand, for non-collinear configurations, the total conductance increases with increasing mixing conductance (the dip become more sharp). This enhancement is due to the contributions of non-collinear spins to the transport, in which electrons with spins oriented in different directions than the magnetization of the adjacent ferromagnet are transmitted or reflected at the contact. These processes are described by the real and the imaginary part of the mixing conductance.

### B Spin-flip scattering. Spin relaxation

When spin-flip scattering is caused by spin-orbit interaction in the normal metal, the spin diffusion length $`l_{sf}`$ can be estimated to be equal to $`l_f/(\alpha Z)^2`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the relativistic fine structure constant, $`Z`$ is the atomic number and $`l_f`$ is the mean free path (see e.g. Ref.). In Co/Cu multilayers, the spin diffusion length $`l_{sf}`$ is of the order of a few hundred angstrom (see Appendix A in Ref.). For Al, $`l_{sf}`$ can be estimated to be of the order of a few micrometers for polycrystalline Al (see Ref.), or even between $`1070\mu m`$ for Al-single crystals.  In the case of very pure Na, $`\tau _{sf}1\mu s`$. In this case, $`l_{sf}`$ limited by spin-orbit interactions can be estimated to be of the order of $`0.4`$ $`cm`$. In Fig. 5a we plot, at zero magnetic field and for symmetric contacts, the conductance of the system $`G^T`$, normalized to the conductance $`G^0`$ given by Eq. (42), as a function of $`L/l_{sf}`$. The length of the normal metal section $`L`$ is set to be constant, in order to keep a constant value of $`G_N`$. When $`l_{sf}L`$ the conductance of the system depends on the magnetic configuration. By decreasing $`l_{sf}`$, all configurations converge to the same value of conductance $`G^T/G^0=1`$. All configurations reach the same value of the conductance long before $`G^T/G^0=1`$, since for $`l_{sf}<L`$ both contacts become independent and as the relative magnetic configuration is irrelevant. In Fig. 5b we plot $`G^T/G^0`$ in the case of antiparallel configuration for differents values of the relative polarization $`P/G_N=`$ $`\left(G^{}G^{}\right)/G_N`$ and for $`G/G_N=\left(G^{}+G^{}\right)/G_N`$ constant. When $`l_{sf}L`$ the configuration with large relative polarization $`P/G_N`$ gives a small conductance and vice versa. The spin accumulation increases with increasing polarization of the ferromagnet and causes a reduction of the total conductance of the system. For $`l_{sf}L`$ we also see that in each case the conductance approaches $`G^0`$ asymptotically in different ways, depending on the magnitude of the spin accumulation.

### C Effect of the magnetic field. Precession and relaxation

In a diffusive system the presence of an external magnetic field relaxes the spin accumulation, in addition to the usual precession of the spin. Semiclassically, the spin accumulation at a certain position $`x`$ is the average contribution of the spin of all electrons. In a diffusive metal each electron diffuses along a random trajectory, while its spin precesses with frequency $`\omega _L`$ around the magnetic field. Since each trajectory has a different length, the spins of the electrons at a certain point $`x`$ are oriented in different directions, which in average relaxes the local spin polarization. The length scale of both relaxation and precession processes is the precession length $`l_B=`$ $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{}D/g\mu _BB}`$, where $`D`$ is the diffusion coefficient, $`B`$ is the magnetic field, $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton and $`g`$ is the spin gyromagnetic ratio.

The external magnetic field may also influence the transport processes described by the mixing conductance $`G^{}`$ at the contacts. Let us consider for simplicity that $`G_N(G^\text{ },G^\text{ },G^{})`$, and $`l_{sf}\mathrm{}.`$ In this limit the distribution function of the normal metal does not depend on position. From current conservation we have:

$`i_{}^{\text{ }C}+i_{}^{\text{ }C}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (46)
$`\stackrel{}{i}_{}^{\text{ }C}+\stackrel{}{i}_{}^{\text{ }C}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _B}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{f}\right)V_{ol}`$ (47)
where Eq. (46) corresponds to the particle current, Eq. (47) corresponds to the spin current and $`V_{ol}`$ is the volume of the normal metal. The current is defined to be positive when injected into the normal metal by the ferromagnetic reservoirs. We can re-write (47) as

$`\stackrel{}{i}_{}^{\text{ }C}+\stackrel{}{i}_{}^{\text{ }C}=\left(g\stackrel{}{\omega }_L\times \stackrel{}{f}\right)V_{ol}`$

where $`\stackrel{}{\omega }_L`$ is the Larmor frequency vector. From this expression follows that the time scale relevant for $`\omega _L`$ is the escape time $`\tau _{esc}=e^2`$ $`\nu _{{}_{DOS}{}^{}.}V_{ol}/G^{contact}`$, where $`G^{contact}`$ is the average contact conductance. $`\tau _{esc}`$ is the time in which an electron escapes from the normal metal into the ferromagnetic reservoirs. It is also the time scale relevant for the precession of the electrons around the magnetic field. On the other hand, if $`G_N(G^\text{ },G^\text{ },G^{})`$, $`\tau _{esc}`$ is of the order of the Thouless time $`\tau _D`$, which is the average time in which an electron passes through the diffusive normal metal. When $`G_N`$ $`(G^\text{ },G^\text{ },G^{})`$ diffusion, precession and transmission or reflection at the contacts, happen on the same time scale. From these estimates we see that the ballistic or diffusive nature of the normal metal is not going to change the effect of the magnetic field on the physics at the contacts. The results obtained for $`G_N(G^\text{ },G^\text{ },G^{})`$, should therefore be valid when $`G_N`$ $`(G^\text{ },G^\text{ },G^{})`$. We now make a perturbation expansion in small magnetic fields (see Appendix A). To first order, the current depends on the expansion parameter $`B`$ as:

$$\frac{i_0}{B}=\stackrel{}{s}\text{ }\widehat{𝐂}^1\widehat{𝐌}\text{ }\widehat{𝐂}^1\text{ }\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(48)
where $`\stackrel{}{s}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{b}`$ are vectors associated with the spin current injected into the normal metal (see Appendix A) and where the matrix $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ describes the contacts and $`\widehat{𝐌}`$ the magnetic field contribution. As detailed in Appendix A, $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ has a symmetric part $`\widehat{𝐒}_{\widehat{𝐂}}`$, which only includes three of the four contact conductances, i.e., only the conductances $`G^{},G^{},ReG^{}`$ of each contact ($``$ and $``$) respectively. On the other hand, $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ has also an antisymmetric part which only depends on the imaginary part of the mixing conductance of each contact $`ImG_{\text{}}^{}.`$ The matrix $`\widehat{𝐌},`$ which describes the precession of spins due to the magnetic field, is also antisymmetric. Using the symmetry properties of the matrices $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ and $`\widehat{𝐌}`$ we can determine from Eq. (48) the symmetry properties of the total conductance of the system $`G^T=i_0/(f_{}^F`$ $`f_{}^F)`$ with respect to the magnetic field $`B`$.

When $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ is a symmetric matrix, $`G^T/B=0`$ for small values of magnetic field. The conductance of the system is then symmetric with respect to a change of sign of the magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{B}`$), i.e., with respect to time-reversal. On the other hand, if $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ is antisymmetric, $`G^T/B0`$ and we can expect asymmetric behavior of the conductance with respect to change of sign of magnetic field.

#### 1 Modulation of the conductance by the magnetic field. Symmetry with respect to time reversal

In the following, we discuss the dependence of the conductance on the magnetic field. We obtain $`G^T/G^0`$ as a function of $`L/l_BL\sqrt{B}`$ for different magnetic configurations, $`l_{sf}\mathrm{}`$ and $`L`$ constant. In Fig. 6a we plot $`G^T/G^0`$ in the case of symmetric contacts, where the magnetic field is perpendicular to both magnetization directions $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_,=0`$. In this case all injected spins precess around the magnetic field. When $`l_BL`$, the spins injected from one ferromagnet are not strongly affected by the magnetic field, so they travel through the normal metal and reach the other ferromagnet without relaxation. As a result, the total conductance depends on the relative magnetic configuration. By decreasing $`l_B`$, the spin accumulation precesses and relaxes on the scale of $`l_B`$. Due to the precession of spins, the conductance displays in general a non-monotonic behavior with $`L/l_B`$. This modulation of the conductance can be understood in terms of the “matching” of the spins at the contacts after precession. According to the values of the contact conductances for the different magnetic configurations the spins are reflected or transmitted at the contacts depending on its orientation. Concerning the relaxation, the configuration with more spin accumulation (in this case, the antiparallel configuration) is the most sensitive to the magnetic field (increases faster than the other ones), since there are more spins to be rotated by the magnetic field in this configuration than in others. In Fig. 6a, the conductance of $`\theta =180^{^{}}`$(antiparallel) and $`\theta =90^{^{}}`$configurations cross the conductance for $`\theta =0^{^{}}`$(parallel) around $`L/l_B=1`$. That means that at this point the spins accumulated in these two configurations have been reduced to the value of spin accumulation of $`\theta =0^{^{}}`$configuration. After the point $`L/l_B=1`$, the parallel configuration ($`\theta =0^{^{}}`$) gives a smaller conductance and the antiparallel configuration ($`\theta =180^{^{}}`$) gives the highest conductance. As a result, for $`L/l_B>1`$, the parallel configuration is more sensitive to the magnetic field than the antiparallel configuration (now the one which increases faster). The relaxation of spins via the precession around the magnetic field depends on the amount of spin accumulation in the system. This non-mononotic behavior of the conductance is specially relevant between parallel and antiparallel configurations, because the difference between the conductance of both configurations $`G_P^TG_{AP}^T`$ can be modulated from positive to negative values by the external magnetic field.

When $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_,=0`$, according to Eq.(A9) in Appendix A, $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ has only one component $`B_3\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ $``$ $`B_3\left(\stackrel{}{m}_{}\times \stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)`$ (see Ref.). Moreover, the spins are injected with directions along $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}`$, so the precession due to the magnetic field only switches the spin directions between $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}`$. As a result, the distribution function given by (A5), has only two components $`\stackrel{}{f}=f_1\stackrel{}{u}+f_2\stackrel{}{v}.`$ In this particular case, $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ reduces to $`\widehat{𝐒}_{\widehat{𝐂}}`$, which is a symmetric matrix. The same holds for the matrix $`\widehat{𝐌}`$, which reduces to its $`3\times 3`$ upper box, which only includes $`B_3`$ (see Appendix A). As $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ reduces to $`\widehat{𝐒}_{\widehat{𝐂}},`$ we expect $`G^T/B=0`$. Fig. 6b shows the dependence of $`G^T/G^0`$ on $`B/B_D`$ for different magnetic configurations, where $`B_D=2\mathrm{}/g\mu _B\tau __D`$ is the scale of magnetic fields relevant for precession in a diffusive medium. As expected, all configurations are symmetric with respect to a change of sign in magnetic field ($`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{B}`$).

#### 2 Modulation of the conductance by the magnetic field. Asymmetric properties with respect to time reversal

Now we want to investigate the role of $`ImG^{}`$. To this end, the magnetic field is assumed to be oriented perpendicular to both magnetizations when the system is in collinear configurations, and parallel to the direction of one of the magnetizations when the system is in the $`\theta =90^{}`$ configuration. According to Eq.(A9) in Appendix A, for $`\theta =90^{}`$, the magnetic field is along $`B_1\stackrel{}{u}+B_2\stackrel{}{v},`$ and as a result from the injection and precession, there are spins in the three directions $`\stackrel{}{f}=f_1\stackrel{}{u}+f_2\stackrel{}{v}+f_3\stackrel{}{\omega },`$ i.e., the precession of spins around the magnetic field induces spins along the perpendicular direction $`\left(\stackrel{}{m}_{}\times \stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)`$ to the injection orientations $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}`$. $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ is then an antisymmetric matrix, due to the contributions of the terms which includes $`ImG^{}.`$ So for $`ImG^{}0,`$ $`G^T/B0,`$ which means asymmetric behavior of the conductance with respect to time reversal. On the other hand, if we put $`ImG^{}=0`$, $`\widehat{𝐂}`$ is symmetric and $`G^T/B=0.`$

In Fig. 7a we obtain $`G^T/G^0`$ vs $`L/l_B`$, for the same set of parameters as in Fig. 6a. For parallel and antiparallel configurations, the results are not modified compared to Fig. 6a. However, for $`\theta =90^{}`$ the relative conductance $`G^T/G^0`$ does not approach unity asymptotically. In this configuration there are some injected spins, which are parallel to the magnetic field and which do not precess at all. So this part of the spin accumulation remains in the system and does not relax irrespective of the values of the magnetic field. More interesting is the appearence of a dip in the conductance for small values of the magnetic field. If we repeat the calculation of $`G^T/G^0`$ vs $`L/l_B`$ for the same set of parameters except for $`ImG^{}/G_N=0,`$ we see that the dip disappears (Fig. 7b), so according to our discussion, it is related with asymmetric properties of the conductance. In Fig. 7c, we plot $`G^T/G^0`$ vs $`B/B_D`$. As we expect, $`\theta =90^{}`$ configuration presents asymmetric behavior respect time reversal, whereas both parallel and antiparallel configurations remain symmetric (Fig.7c). In particular the $`\theta =90^{}`$ conductance is antisymmetric with respect to time reversal, for small values of magnetic field.

From this discussion, we understand that the real part of the mixing conductance describes processes at the contacts in which spins perpendicular to the magnetization direction, are transmitted or reflected obeying time-reversal symmetry. On the other hand, the imaginary part of the mixing conductance describes processes in which the spins precess around the magnetization vector of the ferromagnet. As a result of the precession, the orientation of the spin changes. The latter processes are antisymmetric with respect to time-reversal.

#### 3 Supression of the magnetic field effects by spin-flip scattering

Spin-flip scattering causes relaxation of the spin accumulation in the normal metal and as a result, supression of the spin-dependent properties on the system. Now we want to investigate how the spin-flip affect the magnetic field effects show above. The existence of spin-flip scattering reduces $`l_{sf}`$. If $`l_{sf}L,`$ there is no strong spin-flip scattering in the system and it is possible to observe spin-dependent effects. On the other hand, if $`l_{sf}L`$, the injected spins relax very fast due to spin-flip processes and no spin-dependent effects can be observed. In particular in Fig. 8 we show how the dip of $`\theta =90^{}`$ configuration from Figs. 7a and 7c, is suppressed by spin-flip scattering on the system. Also by decreasing $`l_{sf},`$ $`G^T/G^0`$ increases for constant magnetic field, to the value $`1`$. That simply means, that the spin accumulation relaxes due to spin-flip scattering, as is expected.

## VI DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, the normal metal in our F-N-F device is considered three dimensional, but can also be two dimensional (2D), e.g., a two dimensional electron gas (2DEG) attached to ferromagnetic reservoirs, or even one dimensional (1D), if the normal metal is a quantum wire or a carbon nanotube. In this case electron-electron interaction should be taken into account. The non-magnetic material can also be a semiconductor, as shown in recent spin-injection experiments. In the case of a 2DEG attached to metallic ferromagnets, the large difference between the conductivities of the 2DEG and the ferromagnetic reservoirs suppresses the spin-injection via metallic contacts. For a significant spin-injection into the 2DEG, tunnel contacts, a semiconductor ferromagnet or a half-metallic ferromagnet are required.

In this paper we have shown how the spin-dependent transport through a F-N-F double heterojunction can be described in terms of the spin dependent conductances of the contacts $`(G^\text{ },G^\text{ },G^{}),`$ the magnetization direction $`\stackrel{}{m}`$ of the ferromagnetic reservoirs, and the normal metal conductance $`G_N.`$ The dependence of the conductance on the relative angle between the magnetizations of the different ferromagnets is affected by the mixing conductance $`G^{}`$. For non-collinear transport between the ferromagnetic reservoirs, $`G^{}=ReG^{}+iImG^{}`$ describes transport of spins perpendicular to the magnetization direction of the ferromagnets. These processes enhaces the conductance for non-collinear configurations, which may be used in multiterminal devices for modulation of the transport properties.  This modulation could be useful for future applications as spin-dependent transistors. We find that spin injection can be symmetric and antisymmetric with respect to time-reversal. The symmetric processes are described by $`ReG^{}`$ and the antisymmetric ones are described by $`ImG^{}`$. It is interesting to observe that the antisymmetric processes described by $`ImG^{}`$ correspond to spin precession around the magnetization vector of the ferromagnet which couples to an external magnetic field.

In a diffusive system, an applied magnetic field produces both precession and relaxation of the spin accumulation. The conductance displays a non-monotonic behavior on the scale of the precession length $`l_B`$, which is the distance for the precession of the spin around the magnetic field in the normal metal. Due to this modulation, the difference between the conductances of the parallel and antiparallel configurations $`G_P^TG_{AP}^T`$ can be positive and negative as a function of the magnetic field. A possible candidate to observe this effect is Al, which has a large $`l_{sf}`$ and which can be coupled to ferromagnetic reservoirs (e.g., Fe, CoFe, NiFe, Co,..) via metallic junctions or also Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> tunnel junctions. Let us estimate the values of magnetic fields for Al-single crystal associated with the points $`L/l_B=0.5`$ and $`L/l_B=2`$ of Fig. 6a, where $`G_P^TG_{AP}^T`$ is positive and negative respectively. If the length of the system is $`L=10\mu m,`$ which is comparable with the spin diffusion length $`(Ll_{sf}=1070\mu m),`$ we obtain for $`L/l_B=0.5:B^{(+)}`$ $`0.01T`$ and for $`L/l_B=2:B^{()}0.1T`$. If $`L=1\mu m`$ $`(Ll_{sf}),`$ we obtain for $`L/l_B=0.5:B^{(+)}0.1T`$ and for $`L/l_B=2:B^{()}1T`$. In both cases we see that the values of magnetic field in the case of Al-single crystal are quite reasonable and also that the change from positive to negative $`G_P^TG_{AP}^T`$ can be achieved by an increase of the magnetic field by one order of magnitude. The same estimate for polycrystalline Al gives us for $`Ll_{sf}=0.7\mu m,`$ the values of $`B^{(+)}1T`$ and $`B^{()}16T`$ respectively. These fields are much higher than the typical switching field for a ferromagnet, so polycrystalline Al does not appear to be a good candidate. For very pure Na, if $`Ll_{sf}=0.4cm,`$ the corresponding values of magnetic fields are $`B^{(+)}\mu T`$ and $`B^{()}10\mu T`$ respectively. This modulation of $`G_P^TG_{AP}^T`$ by a magnetic field can also be explored in semiconductors (SC) 2DEG, as e.g. GaAs and InAs. When $`l_Bl_{sf}`$ the following expression holds for the magnetic field corresponding to $`L/l_B=1:B=\frac{2\mathrm{}}{\mu _B}\left(\tau _{sf}\text{ }g\right)^1=2.2710^{11}\left(\tau _{sf}\text{ }g\right)^1,`$ which depends on the spin-flip time $`\tau _{sf}`$ and on the gyromagnetic ratio $`g`$ of the semiconductor material. For SC, $`g`$ depends strongly on the material $`(\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{g}.,\text{ }g^{GaAs}=0.4,g^{InAs}=15.0),`$ so depending on the values of $`\tau _{sf}`$, one can obtain the corresponding values of magnetic field. Kikkawa and Awschalom report $`\tau _{sf}10^7s`$ in n-type GaAs system, but this values corresponds to spin lifetimes of optically pumped carriers, and not to the usual carriers relevant for transport. The corresponding value for the magnetic field for this case is $`B^{GaAs}5`$ $`10^4T`$. On the other hand, we are not aware of reliable values of $`\tau _{sf}`$ for transport in these systems. In conclusion, from our estimates of the relevant values of magnetic fields, Al-single crystals with ferromagnetic contacts are good candidates to test our predictions and possibly lead to the discovery of other new physical phenomena of spin-transport.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work is part of the research program for the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie” (FOM).We acknowledge support from the NEDO joint research program (NTDP-98). It is a pleasure to acknowledge useful discussions with W. Belzig, D. Pfannkuche and Y. Tokura.

## A PERTURBATION EXPANSION IN SMALL MAGNETIC FIELDS

Eqs. (46) and (47) can be written as follows:

$$\left(\frac{G_{}}{2}+\frac{G_{}}{2}\right)f_0+\frac{P_{}}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)+\frac{P_{}}{2}\left(\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)=\frac{G_{}}{2}f_{}^F+\frac{G_{}}{2}f_{}^F$$
(A1)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{G_{}}{2}}ReG_{}^{}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)\stackrel{}{m}_{}+ReG_{}^{}\text{ }\stackrel{}{f}+ImG_{}^{}\text{ }\left(\stackrel{}{f}\times \stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)+`$ (A3)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{G_{}}{2}}ReG_{}^{}\right)\left(\stackrel{}{f}\stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)\stackrel{}{m}_{}+ReG_{}^{}\text{ }\stackrel{}{f}+ImG_{}^{}\text{ }\left(\stackrel{}{f}\times \stackrel{}{m}_{}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{2}}\left(f_{}^Ff_0\right)\stackrel{}{m}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{P_{}}{2}}\left(f_{}^Ff_0\right)\stackrel{}{m}_{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{g\mu _B}{\mathrm{}}}\stackrel{}{B}\times \stackrel{}{f}\right)V_{ol}.`$ (A4)
Now we expand $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ into a convenient basis of the vectors $`\stackrel{}{m}_{},`$ $`\stackrel{}{m}_{},`$ and $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}\times \stackrel{}{m}_{}`$ as

$$\stackrel{}{f}=f_1\stackrel{}{u}+f_2\stackrel{}{v}+f_3\stackrel{}{\omega }$$
(A5)
where

$`\stackrel{}{u}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{m}_{}+\stackrel{}{m}_{}}{\sqrt{2\left(1+m\right)}}}`$ (A6)
$`\stackrel{}{v}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{m}_{}\stackrel{}{m}_{}}{\sqrt{2\left(1+m\right)}}}`$ (A7)
$`\stackrel{}{\omega }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{m}_{}\times \stackrel{}{m}_{}}{\sqrt{1m^2}}}`$ (A8)
and where $`m=\stackrel{}{m}_{}\stackrel{}{m}_{}=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$. We can also express the magnetic field in this basis as

$$\stackrel{}{B}=B_1\stackrel{}{u}+B_2\stackrel{}{v}+B_3\stackrel{}{\omega }.$$
(A9)
In terms of this expansion, we can combine (A1) and (A3) into a compact matrix form as

$$\left(\widehat{𝐂}+\widehat{𝐌}\right)\stackrel{}{a}=\stackrel{}{b}$$
(A11)
where

$$\widehat{𝐂}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}\end{array}& \begin{array}{c}0\end{array}\\ & \begin{array}{c}\widehat{𝐒}_{\widehat{𝐂}}\\ (3\times 3)\end{array}& & \begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{1m}{2}}\left(ImG_{}^{}ImG_{}^{}\right)\end{array}\\ & & & \sqrt{\frac{1+m}{2}}\left(ImG_{}^{}+ImG_{}^{}\right)\\ \text{ }0\text{ }& \sqrt{\frac{1m}{2}}\left(ImG_{}^{}ImG_{}^{}\right)& \sqrt{\frac{1+m}{2}}\left(ImG_{}^{}+ImG_{}^{}\right)& ReG_{}^{}+ReG_{}^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(A12)
$$\widehat{𝐒}_{\widehat{𝐂}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{G_{}+G_{}}{2}& \begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{1+m}{2}}\frac{P_{}+P_{}}{2}\end{array}& \sqrt{\frac{1m}{2}}\frac{P_{}P_{}}{2}\\ \begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{1+m}{2}}\frac{P_{}+P_{}}{2}\end{array}& \frac{(G_{}+G_{})\left(1+m\right)}{4}+\frac{\left(ReG_{}^{}+ReG_{}^{}\right)(1m)}{2}\text{ }& \begin{array}{c}\text{ }\left(\frac{G_{}G_{}}{2}ReG_{}^{}+ReG_{}^{}\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{1m^2}}{2}\right)\end{array}\\ \begin{array}{c}\sqrt{\frac{1m}{2}}\frac{P_{}P_{}}{2}\end{array}& \left(\frac{G_{}G_{}}{2}ReG_{}^{}+ReG_{}^{}\right)\left(\frac{\sqrt{1m^2}}{2}\right)& \frac{(G_{}+G_{})\left(1m\right)}{4}+\frac{\left(ReG_{}^{}+ReG_{}^{}\right)(1+m)}{2}\end{array}\right)$$
(A13)
and where

$$\widehat{𝐌}=V_{ol}\frac{g\mu _B}{\mathrm{}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& B_3& B_2\\ 0& B_3& 0& B_1\\ 0& B_2& B_1& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(A14)
$$\stackrel{}{a}=\left(\begin{array}{c}f_0\\ f_1\\ f_2\\ f_3\end{array}\right)$$
(A15)
$$\stackrel{}{b}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{c}G_{}\text{ }f_{}^F\text{ }+\text{ }G_{}\text{ }f_{}^F\\ \sqrt{\frac{1+m}{2}}(P_{}\text{ }f_{}^F\text{ }+\text{ }P_{}\text{ }f_{}^F)\\ \sqrt{\frac{1m}{2}}(P_{}\text{ }f_{}^F\text{ }\text{ }P_{}\text{ }f_{}^F)\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
(A16)
By a perturbation expansion in small magnetic fields, we may study how the magnetic field is coupled with the physics at the contacts. To zeroth order in magnetic field we simply have

$$\stackrel{}{a}^{(0)}=\widehat{𝐂}^1\text{ }\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(A17)
To first order

$$\stackrel{}{a}^{(1)}=\left(\widehat{𝐂}^1\widehat{𝐌}\text{ }\widehat{𝐂}^1\right)\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(A18)
The total particle current in the system is given by

$$i_0=i_{}^Ci_{}^C=\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{a}+G_{}\text{ }f_{}^F\text{ }+\text{ }G_{}\text{ }f_{}^F$$
(A19)
where

$$\stackrel{}{s}=\left(\begin{array}{c}G_{}\text{ }+\text{ }G_{}\text{ }\\ \sqrt{\frac{1+m}{2}}\left(P_{}\text{ }+\text{ }P_{}\right)\\ \sqrt{\frac{1m}{2}}\left(P_{}\text{ }+\text{ }P_{}\right)\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(A20)
The dependence of the current on the expansion parameter $`B`$ is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{ }i_0}{B}}=\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{a}`$

which to first order reduces to

$$\frac{\text{ }i_0}{B}=\stackrel{}{s}\stackrel{}{a}^{(1)}=\stackrel{}{s}\text{ }\widehat{𝐂}^1\widehat{𝐌}\text{ }\widehat{𝐂}^1\text{ }\stackrel{}{b}.$$
(A21)
Figure Captions

Fig. 1: Ferromagnetic reservoirs attached to diffusive normal metal through arbitrary contacts. Arbitrary but fixed magnetization directions of the ferromagnetic reservoirs and orientations of a magnetic field applied to the normal metal are taken into account. The contacts are described by the spin-dependent conductances $`G^{},G^{},G^{}`$ and the normal metal is characterized by the normal metal conductance $`G_N`$. The ferromagnetic reservoirs are supposed to be large enough and in local equilibrium.

Fig. 2: Current conservation imposes boundary conditions on the system. The current through the contacts $`\widehat{ı}^C(x)`$ is equal to the current into the normal metal $`\widehat{ı}^N(x)`$ at each contact. $`\widehat{ı}^C(x)`$ depends on the contact conductances and on the direction of the magnetization of the adjacent ferromagnet reservoir and $`\widehat{ı}^N(x)`$ is the current for the normal metal.

Fig. 3: Equivalent circuits for parallel and antiparallel configurations in the limits $`l_{sf}L`$ and $`l_{sf}L`$. (a) and (b) correspond to the parallel and anti-parallel configuration respectively, when $`l_{sf}L`$. In this limit, the two spin channels are independent and there is no mixing between them. (c) parallel and anti-parallel configurations when $`l_{sf}L`$. In this case, there is complete mixing between spin-up ($``$) and spin-down ($``$) channels and the spin accumulation vanishes.

Fig. 4: Mixing conductance: Dependence of $`G^T/G_N`$ on the relative angle $`\theta `$ between the magnetizations of the ferromagnetic reservoirs, for symmetric contacts, zero magnetic field and in the absence of spin-flip scattering. (a) The following set of parameters is chosen: $`G^{}/G_N=1.0,G^{}/G_N=0.3,ReG^{}/G_N=0.7`$ and $`ImG^{}/G_N`$ takes values 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 10.0 corresponding to the different plotted lines. (b) In this case, $`G^{}/G_N=1.0,G^{}/G_N=0.3,ImG^{}/G_N=0.0`$ and $`ReG^{}/G_N`$ changes with values 0.7, 1.0, 2.0 and 10.0. According to the condition $`ReG^{}\left(G^{}+G^{}\right)/2,`$ $`ReG^{}/G_N`$ cannot be, smaller than 0.65.

Fig. 5: Effect of spin-flip scattering on the system: For symmetric contacts and zero magnetic field. (a) $`G^T`$ normalized to $`G^0`$ as a function of $`L/l_{sf}`$, for the following set of parameters: $`G^{}/G_N=1.0,`$ $`G^{}/G_N=0.3,`$ $`ReG^{}/G_N=0.7,`$ $`ImG^{}/G_N=0.0`$. (b) $`G^T/G^0`$ versus $`L/l_{sf}`$ in the case of antiparallel configuration, for different values of the relative polarization $`P/G_N=0.1,`$ $`0.7,`$ $`1.1`$ and for $`G/G_N=1.3`$ constant.

Fig. 6: Magnetic field dependence in the absence of spin-flip scattering: We consider symmetric contacts and the following set of parameters: $`G^{}/G_N=1.0,`$ $`G^{}/G_N=0.3,`$ $`ReG^{}/G_N=0.7,`$ $`ImG^{}/G_N=0.5`$. Moreover the magnetic field is always perpendicular to both magnetizations directions $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_,=0`$. (a) $`G^T/G^0`$ as a function of $`L/l_B`$. (b) $`G^T/G^0`$ versus $`B/B_D`$.

Fig. 7: Magnetic field dependence in the absence of spin-flip scattering: We consider $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_{}=0`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_{}^{0{}_{}{}^{},180^{}}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`||`$ $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}^{90^{}}`$ (or $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_{}=0`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}\stackrel{}{m}_{}^{0{}_{}{}^{},180^{}}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`||`$ $`\stackrel{}{m}_{}^{90^{}}`$). (a) $`G^T/G^0`$ vs $`L/l_B,`$ for symmetric contacts and the following set of parameters: $`G^{}/G_N=1.0,`$ $`G^{}/G_N=0.3,`$ $`ReG^{}/G_N=0.7,`$ $`ImG^{}/G_N=0.5`$.(b) Same as (a) but for $`ImG^{}/G_N=0.0.`$ (c) $`G^T/G^0`$ versus $`B/B_D`$, for $`G^{}/G_N=1.0,`$ $`G^{}/G_N=0.3,`$ $`ReG^{}/G_N=0.7,`$ $`ImG^{}/G_N=0.5.`$

Fig. 8: Magnetic field dependence and spin-flip scattering: Conductance for $`\theta =90^{^{}}`$configuration of Fig. 7a, for different ratios $`l_{sf}/L=`$ 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 10, 100.