manipulating of quantum systems which consist of a few quantum dots or quantum bits forms a basis of a functioning of any quantum computing device .
recent experimental advances allow to assemble and manipulate nanomagnets consisting of just a few atoms and perform measurements on nanostructures with an atomic resolution . however , a theoretical understanding of microscopic quantum systems out of equilibrium ( e.g. under constant pumping or continuous measurement by a quantum probe ) is far from being complete , apart from simplest cases like a single two - level system or a quantum harmonic oscillator under external pumping or in contact with a reservoir .
coupling of a quantum system with an environment ( or with a measuring apparatus ) is described under standard assumptions @xcite , @xcite in the framework of a lindblad master equation ( lme ) for a reduced density matrix , where a unitary evolving part is complemented with a lindblad dissipative action . under the lme dynamics , a system with gradients evolves towards a nonequilibrium steady state ( ness ) with currents .
the heisenberg model of interacting spins is an oldest many - body quantum model  of a strongly correlated systems , important both from a theoretical and an experimental point of view .
energy and magnetization transport in the @xmath0 heisenberg spin chain is extensively studied by different methods , see @xcite for reviews , including bethe ansatz @xcite , bosonization @xcite , @xcite , lagrange multipliers @xcite , exact diagonalization @xcite , lanczos method @xcite , quantum monte carlo @xcite , dmrg @xcite .
investigation of nonequilibrium spin chains from the point of view of markovian master equations contributes to the `` equilibrium '' studies . in
quasi one - dimensional spin chain materials like srcuo@xmath5 many transport characteristics are measurable experimentally @xcite .
investigation of ness in driven spin chains is hindered by enormous technical difficulties due to an exponentially growing hilbert space , although time - dependent dmrg method allows to reach somewhat larger sizes @xcite . in many studies
the ness  are produced by coupling a spin chain at the edges to boundary baths of polarization aligning boundary spins along the anisotropy axis @xmath6 , so that the first and the last spin tend to be antiparallel @xcite .
for this particular choice of boundary baths , a substantial progress in understanding the properties of a driven @xmath0 model have been recently achieved @xcite , including an exact solution of the problem in case of strong boundary driving @xcite , see also @xcite and references therein . note that within this boundary setup , one has the transport of a @xmath7-component of magnetization @xmath8 , caused by boundary gradients along the @xmath7-axis , thus probing diagonal elements of a diffusion matrix and a conductivity tensor .    in present paper
we carry out a systematic study of nonequilibrium steady states in driven @xmath0 spin chain resulting from boundary gradients in the @xmath2 direction , transverse to the anisotropy axis . in the context of spin and energy transport and for appropriate limits
, this would correspond to probing the nondiagonal elements of the diffusion and conductivity tensors . to this end
, we bring an @xmath0 spin chain in contact with reservoirs aligning the boundary spins along the @xmath9-axis at one end and along the @xmath10-axis in the other end , thus trying to impose a twisting angle in @xmath2-plane of @xmath11 between the first and the last spin . within the lme formalism , twisting angles @xmath12 or @xmath13 result in a complete suppression of the magnetization current ,
see a remark after eq.([currentnonballistic ] ) , making a setup with @xmath14 the simplest nontrivial one .
we derive general symmetries of the model which indicate that magnetization current should alternate its sign with system size , for any value of boundary coupling . on this basis
we rule out the possibility of a ballistic spin current , which is typically observed in integrable @xmath0 model under other kinds of perturbations @xcite,@xcite .
we argue , further , that the phenomenon of the spin current alternation is rather general and in particularly is not related to the integrability .    to confirm further our findings we investigate the nonequilibrium steady state of the @xmath0 model numerically and analytically , for varying amplitudes of boundary couplings and boundary gradients .
we find complete agreement with our predictions which in particular are confirmed analytically , in the regime of strong coupling . in this regime , full analytic solution of the lindblad equation for large lindblad amplitudes demonstrates a very nonmonotonic dependence of the magnetization current on the system size and anisotropy .
the plan of the paper is the following . in sec.[sec::the model ] we introduce the model .
symmetries of the lindblad master equation are obtained in sec.[sec::symmetries of the lindblad equation and restrictions on energy and magnetization currents ] . using the symmetries general ness properties for arbitrary system size and coupling
are revealed , including an admissibility of spin and energy currents .
parity - depending lme symmetries lead to a phenomenon of magnetization current sign alternation with the system size . in sec .
[ sec::strongly driven xxz chain : numerical and analytical study ] our predictions are tested further by calculating the ness  analytically and numerically for small system sizes .
the cases of @xmath15 model and of @xmath0 model are treated separately in sec.[subsec::free fermion point .
arbitrary n ] and sec.[subsec::arbitrary delta .
finite size results ] .
limits of weak coupling and of weak driving force are briefly discussed at the end of sec.[subsec::generic gamma and arbitrary driving ] .
appendix contain necessary technical details . in conclusion
we summarize our findings .
we study an open chain of @xmath16 quantum spins in contact with boundary reservoirs .
the time evolution of the reduced density matrix @xmath17 is described by a quantum master equation in the lindblad form @xcite,@xcite , @xcite ( here and below we set @xmath18 ) @xmath19   + \gamma(% % tcimacro{\tcilaplace}% % beginexpansion \mathcal{l}% % endexpansion _ { l}[\rho]+% % tcimacro{\tcilaplace}% % beginexpansion \mathcal{l}% % endexpansion
_ { r}[\rho ] ) , \label{lme}%\ ] ] where @xmath20 is the hamiltonian of an extended quantum system , and @xmath21 $ ] and @xmath22 $ ] are lindblad dissipators acting on spatial edges of the system .
this setting , shown schematically in fig.[fig_lindbladreservoirs ] , is a common starting point in studies of nonequilibrium transport , a particular choice of @xmath23 and @xmath24 depending on the application .
often , a choice of the lindblad action is operational , i.e. is determined by a requirement to favour a relaxation of a system or its part towards a target state with given properties , e.g. to a state with given polarization or temperature @xcite . in this way
, one describes an effective coupling of the system , or a part of it , with a respective bath - environment .
note that within the quantum protocol of repeated interactions , @xcite , @xcite the equation ( [ lme ] ) appears to describe an exact time evolution provided that the coupling to reservoir is rescaled appropriately with the time interval between consecutive interactions of the system with the reservoirs .
we specify the hamiltonian to describe an open @xmath0 spin chain with an anisotropy @xmath3 @xmath25 while @xmath23 and @xmath24 are lindblad dissipators favouring a relaxation of boundary spins @xmath26 and @xmath27 towards states described by one - site density matrices @xmath28 and @xmath29 , i.e. @xmath30=0 $ ] and @xmath31=0 $ ] .
general form of the matrices @xmath28 and @xmath29 is @xmath32 , where @xmath33 are pauli matrices , and @xmath34 are real constants satisfying @xmath35 or @xmath36 . for a general choice of the lindblad dissipator @xmath37=\sum_{i , j=1}^{3}a_{ij}^{l , r}\left (   \sigma^{i}.\text { } \sigma ^{j}-\frac{1}{2}\{\text { } .\text { } , \sigma^{j}\sigma^{i}\}\right )   $ ] , each of the @xmath38 matrices @xmath28 and @xmath29 , if not constant , belongs to at most one - dimensional manifold @xcite .
we choose boundary reservoirs which tend to align the spin at the left edge along the @xmath39 direction and the spin at the right edge along the @xmath40 direction .
consequently , the reservoirs try to establish a twisting angle of @xmath11 between the first and the last spin in the chain .
such a setting is achieved by taking the lindblad action in the form @xmath41   &   = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{2}\left\ {   \rho , w_{m}^{\dag}% w_{m}\right\ }   + \sum_{m=1}^{2}w_{m}\rho w_{m}^{\dag},\label{lindbladaction}\\% % tcimacro{\tcilaplace}% % beginexpansion \mathcal{l}% % endexpansion _
{ r}[\rho ]   &   = -\frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^{2}\left\ {   \rho , v_{m}^{\dag}% v_{m}\right\ }   + \sum_{m=1}^{2}v_{m}\rho v_{m}^{\dag}.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] here @xmath42 and @xmath43 are polarization targeting lindblad operators , which act on the first and on the last spin respectively , @xmath44 in absence of the unitary term in ( [ lme ] ) the boundary spins relax with a characteristic time @xmath45 @xcite to specific states described via _
one - site _
density matrices @xmath28 and @xmath29 , satisfying @xmath30=0 $ ] and @xmath31=0 $ ] , where @xmath46 from the definition of a one - site density matrix @xmath47 , we see that the lindblad superoperators @xmath23 and @xmath24 indeed try to impose a twisting angle of @xmath11 in @xmath2 plane between the first and the last spin @xcite . the twisting gradient drives the system in a steady - state with currents .  in the following we restrict to a symmetric
choice@xmath48 the parameter @xmath49 determines the amplitude of the gradient between the left and right boundary , and therefore plays a fundamentally different role from the coupling strength @xmath50 .
the limits @xmath51 and @xmath52 will be referred to as the strong driving and weak driving case respectively .
the two limits describe very different physical situations as exemplified in other ness  studies .
the reason for choosing the lindblad dissipators which impose a twisting gradient in @xmath2-plane perpendicular to the heisenberg chain anisotropy is two - fold .
firstly , our choice is `` orthogonal '' and therefore complementary to usually considered boundary setup @xcite-@xcite,@xcite-@xcite , where alignment of spins at the boundary is parallel to the anisotropy axis @xmath6 .
our system is not mappable to a quadratic fermionic system , and is therefore not amenable to a analysis via a canonical quantization in the fock space of operators @xcite,@xcite , which can be used for usual boundary setup .
secondly , one realizes that imposing both @xmath9- and @xmath10- boundary gradients is necessary to create a nonvanishing stationary @xmath6-magnetization current .
a boundary setup with parallel or antiparallel boundary spins , aligned in the same direction in @xmath2- plane leads to zero steady magnetization current , see remark after ( [ j_heat ] ) .
consequently , by imposing a twisting angle in @xmath2-plane of @xmath11 we choose a minimal nontrivial setup .
transport properties in the @xmath0 spin chain @xmath53 are governed by spin and energy current operators which are defined by lattice continuity equations @xmath54 ,  @xmath55 where @xmath56@xmath57    we show next that the magnetization current @xmath58 alternates its sign with the system size , while the energy transport is switched off completely , if @xmath59 , despite the boundary gradients .
being locally conserved quantities , in the stationary state the currents @xmath60 @xmath61 are equal across all the bonds .    for
the following is essential to note , that for our choice of the lindblad dissipator ( [ lindbladaction ] ) , ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) , the system ( [ lme ] ) has a _
unique _ nonequilibrium steady state .
its existence and uniqueness for any coupling @xmath50 is guaranteed by the completeness of the algebra , generated by the set of operators @xmath62 under multiplication and addition @xcite , and is verified straighforwardly as in @xcite .
let us denote by @xmath63 a time - dependent solution of the lindblad equation ( [ lme ] ) , ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) for a system of @xmath16 sites , and by @xmath64 @xmath63 its steady state solution , where @xmath3 is the anisotropy of the @xmath0 hamiltonian ( [ hamiltonian ] ) .
there exist transformations which map one lme solution to another .
some of the transformations depend on the parity of @xmath16 . for _ even _
@xmath16 , introducing @xmath65 , we find that @xmath66  is a solution of the same lindblad equation with the anisotropy @xmath67 .
we denote by @xmath68 a complex conjugated matrix in the basis where @xmath69 is diagonal . however , if a nonequilibrium steady state is unique , then a relation follows which relates the ness for positive and negative @xmath3 , @xmath70 for _ odd _ @xmath16
we obtain another relation for ness , introducing a unitary transformation @xmath71
@xmath72    another lme symmetry does not depend on parity of @xmath16 and maps a ness  onto itself provided that an additional condition  ( [ symmetryu - uprime ] ) is satisfied : @xmath73 where @xmath74 is a left - right reflection , and the diagonal matrix @xmath75 is a rotation in @xmath2 plane , @xmath76 @xmath77 , @xmath78 , and @xmath79 . note also that at the point @xmath80 symmetries ( [ symmetryeven ] ) and ( [ symmetryodd ] ) map a ness  onto itself , and are independent on ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) .    the relations ( [ symmetryeven ] )  ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) impose restrictions on the ness density matrices and respectively on all observables including the magnetic and energy currents @xmath81 and @xmath82 where @xmath83 and @xmath84 are given by ( [ jz ] ) and ( [ q ] ) .
we drop the subscripts since in the steady state the currents @xmath85 are equal across all bonds . by virtue of the symmetry ( [ symmetryeven ] )
, we obtain for @xmath16 even @xmath86 in the last passage we used ( i ) @xmath87 @xmath88 in the basis where @xmath69 is diagonal ( ii ) @xmath89 ( iii ) the fact that an observable @xmath58 is a real number .
analogously , for odd @xmath16 , we obtain using ( [ symmetryodd ] ) , that @xmath90 .
so , we find that the magnetization current changes its parity from even to odd as a function of the anisotropy @xmath3 : @xmath91 we argue below , see sec.[subsec::free fermion point .
arbitrary n ] , that at the free fermion point @xmath80 the spin current vanishes always , @xmath92 . for odd
@xmath16 it follows from ( [ j_odd ] ) , while for even @xmath16 it follows from a perturbative expansion .
in addition , we make another suprising observation : due to ( [ j_even ] ) , ( [ j_odd ] ) the spin current alternates its sign with the system size since by increasing a system size by one unit @xmath93 the current dependence on @xmath3 changes from even to odd or vice versa . for our case
it amounts to @xmath94 because in the region @xmath4 the sign of @xmath95 can change depending on other parameters , see sec.[subsec::arbitrary delta .
finite size results ] .
the alternating current effect is a consequence of an existence of different lme symmetries for even and odd number of sites ( [ symmetryeven ] ) , ( [ symmetryodd ] ) and as such is quite general . indeed
the derivation of ( [ j_even]),([j_odd ] ) does not depend neither on coupling @xmath50 now on gradients @xmath49 and @xmath96 as given by ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) .
also , the phenomenon of alternating current does not rely on an integrability of the @xmath0 model .
indeed , an addition of a staggered anisotropy to the hamiltonian ( [ hamiltonian ] ) breaks integrability but the eqs .
( [ symmetryeven ] ) , ( [ symmetryodd ] ) remain valid . moreover , even though our conclusion relied on the validity of eqs .
( [ j_even ] ) , ( [ j_odd ] ) , the alternating current was also observed in a recent study of a driven @xmath0 chain with an @xmath2 boundary setup different from ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) , where one of two symmetries ( eq([j_even ] ) ) was absent @xcite .
we suggest that the magnetization current sign alternation resulting from applying transverse gradients can be a rather general phenomenon , which might be observable under appropriate experimental conditions in artificially assembled nanomagnets consisting of just a few  atoms @xcite .
another consequence of the current sign alteration is that the spin current _ can not be ballistic_. indeed , for large @xmath16 we should not be able to differentiate between even and odd @xmath16 , so that the stationary magnetization current @xmath58 must vanish in the thermodynamic limit:@xmath97    this conclusion is a rather unexpected one , since in the @xmath0 integrable system , in the critical region @xmath4 one usually expects a ballistic current @xcite .
the magnetization current is also ballistic @xmath4 for reservoirs creating boundary gradients along the anisotropy axis @xcite .    up to now
we did not make use of the symmetry ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) .
in fact , it does not impose any further restrictions for spin current , while the energy current changes its sign under the symmetry ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) and must therefore vanish @xmath98 consequently , the energy and spin currents decouple : the spin current can flow , while the energy current is totally suppressed ( [ j_heat ] ) . vanishing of the energy current is a consequence of a symmetric choice @xmath99 ( [ symmetryu - uprime ] ) , and will be lifted if @xmath100
.    * remark*. note that if both boundary reservoirs were aligning boundary spins along the same direction in @xmath2-plane , the magnetization current will be completely suppressed for all @xmath3 , despite the existence of boundary gradients .
e.g. for a choice of the set of lindblad operators @xmath101 @xmath102 @xmath103 in ( [ lindbladaction ] ) , which favours the alignment of the boundary spins along the @xmath9 axis , the current suppression follows from a symmetry @xmath104 of the ness , since @xmath105 .
thus , our choice ( [ lindbladaction ] ) is the minimal nontrivial one , to observe a nonzero magnetization current .    in the following we check our findings and analyze the model further by computing exact ness numerically for finite @xmath50 and analytically for @xmath106 using a perturbative expansion .
we performed studies of the lme  for small system sizes @xmath16 in order to support our findings ( [ j_even]-[j_heat ] ) , which should be valid for all @xmath107 and @xmath50 .
for simplicity we restrict here to the strongly driven case @xmath108 .
being a problem of exponential growing complexity , the steady state for a finite @xmath50 is a very complicated function of the parameters @xmath109 , for any @xmath110 , and can not reported otherwise than in a graphical form .
we solve the linear system of equations which determine the full steady state , numerically , making use of the global symmetry ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) which decrease the number of uknowns by roughly the factor of @xmath1 .    for @xmath111 the magnetization currents as function of the anisotropy , for various values of @xmath50
are reported in fig.[fig_j3],[fig_j4 ] . as expected from ( [ j_even]),([j_odd ] )
, the current is an odd ( even ) function of @xmath3 for @xmath112 .
interestingly , as the coupling @xmath50 increases , the current @xmath113 approaches quickly a limiting curve drawn by a dashed line . for the dashed line , which corresponds to the the limit of infinitely strong couplings @xmath106
, a simple closed analytic form can be obtained .
here it is worthwhile to note that lindblad master equation dynamics ( [ lme ] ) with large effective coupling to a reservoir @xmath114 is realizable within the experimental protocol involving repeated periodic interactions of a boundary spin with a infinite bath system of identical ancilla @xcite .
vs @xmath3 for @xmath115 for different @xmath116 ( from bottom up ) . for finite @xmath50
, the data are obtained numerically . dashed line marks @xmath95 in the limit @xmath117 from ( [ j3]),scaledwidth=40.0% ]     vs @xmath3 for @xmath118 for different @xmath119 ( from bottom up ) .
the @xmath95 curves continue symmetrically in the negative @xmath3 region . for finite @xmath50
the data are obtained numerically . dashed line marks @xmath95 in the limit @xmath106 from ( [ j4 ] ) . , scaledwidth=40.0% ]    to investigate the strong coupling limit @xmath114 we search for a stationary solution of the lindblad equation in the form of a perturbative expansion @xmath120    as stressed in the end of sec.[sec::the model ] , the stationary solution @xmath121 is unique .
the zeroth order term of the expansion ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) @xmath122 @xmath123 satisfies @xmath124=0 $ ] ( here and below we denote by @xmath125 the sum of the lindblad actions in ( [ lme ] ) ) .
this enforces a factorized form @xmath126 where @xmath28 and @xmath29 are one - site density matrices ( [ rol ] ) , ( [ ror ] ) and @xmath127 is a matrix to be determined self - consistently later .
we shall drop @xmath3- and @xmath16-dependence in @xmath17 for brevity of notations .
we separate the identity matrix @xmath128 for future convenience , so that @xmath129 and @xmath127 is traceless .    inserting the ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) into ( [ lme ] ) , and comparing the orders of @xmath130
, we obtain recurrence relations@xmath131=\frac{1}{2}% % tcimacro{\tcilaplace}% % beginexpansion \mathcal{l}% % endexpansion _ { lr}\rho_{k+1}\text { , \ } k=0,1,2 ... \ ] ] a formal solution of the above is @xmath132 where @xmath133 $ ] .
note however that the operator @xmath134 has a nonempty kernel subspace , and is not invertible on the elements from it .
the kernel subspace @xmath135 consists of all matrices of type @xmath136 where @xmath137 is an arbitrary @xmath138 @xmath139 matrix
. therefore a necessary and sufficient condition for @xmath140 to exist is to require a null overlap @xmath141\cap\ker(% % tcimacro{\tcilaplace}% % beginexpansion \mathcal{l}% % endexpansion _ { lr})=\varnothing\label{secularconditionsgeneral}%\ ] ] we shall name ( [ secularconditionsgeneral ] ) the secular conditions .
for our choice of the lindblad operator the secular condition are equivalent ( see the appendix ) to the requirement of a null partial trace @xmath142)=0\text { , \ } k=0,1,2 .... \label{secularconditions}%\ ] ] the remaining missing ingredient of the perturbation theory is obtained by noting that @xmath140 is defined up to an arbitrary element from @xmath135 , so we have @xmath143)+\rho_{l}\otimes m_{k+1}\otimes\rho_{r}\text { , \ \ \ } k=0,1,2 ... \label{recurrence}%\ ] ]    eqs ( [ initialchoicero0 ] ) , ( [ recurrence ] ) and ( [ secularconditions ] ) define a perturbation theory for the lindblad equation ( [ lme ] ) . at each order of the expansion
, we must satisfy the secular conditions ( [ secularconditionsgeneral ] ) , before proceeding to the next order .
construction of the inverse @xmath144 is illustrated in the appendix .    applying the perturbation theory to our model , we find that the unknown apriori matrices @xmath145 are fully determined by secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) for @xmath146 , as will be illustrated further on an example .
for any @xmath147 the set of matrices @xmath148 is nontrivial .
the case of zero anisotropy @xmath80 turns out to be special in that all @xmath149 and is discussed separately below .      for @xmath80 we can guess a zero approximation @xmath150 for arbitrary @xmath16 : @xmath151 comparing with ( [ initialchoicero0 ] )
, we see that @xmath152 .
all further @xmath153 and all secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) are trivially satisfied at all orders .
this fact was checked explicitly for small system sizes @xmath154 and is conjectured to be true for arbitrary @xmath16 .
consequently , the general recurrence ( [ recurrence ] ) is reduced to @xmath155)$ ] for all @xmath156 . at the first order of expansion , we obtain @xmath157=q_{1}$ ] , where @xmath158 which is easily inverted @xmath159 and so on . at all orders we notice @xmath160 , which allows to conjecture
that magnetization current vanishes for @xmath80 in spite of twisting boundary gradients , @xmath161 note that for odd @xmath16 , the statement ( [ zerocurrdelta0 ] ) also follows from ( [ j_odd ] ) .    for @xmath115 , the perturbative expansion ( [ pt_largecouplings ] )
can be summed up for all orders due to the fact that it closes at the third step : @xmath162 .
consequently , ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) is rewritten as @xmath163 where @xmath164 and @xmath165 .
summing up the series , we obtain @xmath166 it can be verified straightforwardly that ( [ rhode0_n=3 ] ) is a stationary solution of lme ( [ lme ] ) for @xmath167 . the sum ( [ n3_de0_strongcoupling ] )  converges for @xmath168 .
however , since the lme solution is unique , the expression ( [ rhode0_n=3 ] ) is valid for any @xmath50 . in particular , for @xmath169 we obtain the weak coupling limit @xmath170 , which is also unique by a continuity argument , @xmath171 as expected , @xmath172 commutes with the @xmath173 hamitonian , @xmath174=0 $ ] , and corresponds to zero currents , @xmath175 .    from the above example
we see that perturbative series ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) are useful even outside of their radius of convergence : if the perturbative series for @xmath176 or for a particular observable @xmath177 can be summed , the result of the summation is valid for all @xmath50 within its analyticity range , see also ( [ delta1_n3 ] ) , ( [ delta1_n4 ] ) .      for any nonzero @xmath3 , the matrices @xmath179 from ( [ recurrence ] )
are nontrivial and are determined from secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) .
the secular conditions for two consecutive orders @xmath180 reduce to a system of linear equations which determine @xmath181 and @xmath182 .  in such a way , the perturbative series ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) is uniquely defined at all orders .
below we present analytic results for @xmath127 and small @xmath16 which define the ness through eq.([initialchoicero0 ] ) . @xmath127 and @xmath183 are obtained by satisfying secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) for @xmath184 and @xmath26 .
the procedure is illustrated below for the simplest case @xmath111 .
for @xmath115 , the most general form of the matrices @xmath185 , @xmath186 , by virtue of the symmetry ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) , is @xmath187 , @xmath188 where @xmath189 are unknown constants . the secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) for @xmath184 do not give any constraints on @xmath190 , while those for @xmath26 give two nontrivial relations @xmath191 and @xmath192 from which both @xmath127 and @xmath183 are determined . for @xmath118
each of the matrices @xmath193 compatible with the symmetry ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) , contains @xmath194 unknowns , all fixed by the secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) for @xmath195 , and so on .
for @xmath111 we obtain @xmath196@xmath197 where @xmath198 .
matrices @xmath127 obey the symmetries ( [ symmetryeven])([symmetryglobal ] ) .
steady state spin currents @xmath199 in the limit @xmath200 are @xmath201@xmath202 while the energy current vanishes @xmath203 as expected from ( [ j_heat ] ) .
we note that the current for @xmath118 is nonzero at @xmath80 which seems to contradict our prediction ( [ zerocurrdelta0 ] ) .
the contradiction arises because the limits @xmath204 and @xmath205 do not commute .
indeed , we find that even orders of the perturbative expansion @xmath206 contain terms which become singular for @xmath205 .
the leading singular term at the order @xmath207 of the expansion is @xmath208 , where @xmath209 .
since the singularities become stronger with @xmath210 , for any given infinitesimal @xmath211 there will be a region @xmath212 where the expansion ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) will diverge .
the origin behind the non - commuting limits is the existence of an extra symmetry ( [ j_even ] ) of the ness at the point @xmath80 .
similar situation is encountered e.g. in kubo linear response theory , where a nonergodicity at zero point in the momentum space @xmath213 is inflicted by an extra conservation law at this point @xcite .
reversing order of the limits @xmath214 and @xmath205 does yield @xmath215 for any @xmath50 , so that the current expression for @xmath216 has to be modified as @xmath217 while @xmath218 as given by ( [ r0_delta0 ] ) . for any finite @xmath50
the dependence @xmath95 is smooth and does not contain any singularities , see fig.[fig_j4 ] .
we find the noncommutativity of the limits @xmath214 , @xmath219 for all even system sizes @xmath220 , see also ( [ j6 ] ) . since for large @xmath16 one should not be able to differentiate between even and odd system sizes , we expect that the @xmath221 for @xmath222 vanishes in the thermodynamic limit : @xmath223 .
the number of equations to solve ( [ secularconditions ] ) at each order of perturbation theory grows exponentially with the system size @xmath16 , although the symmetry ( [ symmetryglobal ] ) restricts the number of independent variables .
the matrices @xmath127 for @xmath224 are given by lengthy expressions and are not reproduced here .
instead , we report ness currents at @xmath225 , given for @xmath226 by @xmath227@xmath228 the ness currents @xmath229 for odd / even number of sites @xmath16 are even / odd functions of @xmath3 respectively , as expected from ( [ j_even ] ) , ( [ j_odd ] ) and depend rather nontrivially on the anisotropy @xmath3 , see fig.[fig_j5 - 7 ] .    in particular for @xmath224 one observes sharp peaks in the @xmath221 resembling resonances at which the current changes its sign and amplitude .
one gets an insight by comparing average magnetization profiles @xmath230 and @xmath231 for values of @xmath3 inside and outside the resonance region .
the average magnetization at boundaries @xmath232 is fixed by the lindblad reservoirs @xmath233 , @xmath234 and @xmath235 , @xmath236 so that the lowest interpolating fourier mode has the wavelength @xmath237 where @xmath238 is the lattice constant . in the resonance region
we observe that @xmath239 @xmath240  becomes the dominant fourier mode , see fig.[fig_xyprofiles](b ) .
one can interpret this frequency tripling as a triple increase of a twisting angle along the chain .
note , see fig.[fig_xyprofiles](a , b ) that there is a @xmath11 phase shift between the dominant harmonics describing @xmath230 and @xmath231 profiles .
in particular , in the resonance region , fig.[fig_xyprofiles](b ) , @xmath230 @xmath241 @xmath242 , where @xmath243 . in the meanfield approximation the respective magnetization current is @xmath244 , which is amazingly close to the exact current value at the resonance @xmath245 . with the increase of system size
, one might expect an appearance of further resonances at wavelengths @xmath246 corresponding to larger twisting angles @xmath247 etc .. why higher fourier harmonics become stable under a strong lindblad action for narrow lacunae of @xmath3 , and how to predict a location of the peaks remains an intriguing open question . as coupling @xmath50 decreases ,
the resonances become smoother and then ultimately disappear , but their precursors can still be seen for @xmath50 of the order of the heisenberg exchange interaction and larger ( data not shown ) .    examining analytic expressions for the current for small @xmath16
, we can extrapolate its behaviour for @xmath248 and @xmath249  and finite @xmath16 as @xmath250@xmath251  the eq.([limitjfordeltalarge ] ) implies an exponential decay of the current with the system size @xmath16 for fixed large @xmath3 , @xmath252 with @xmath253 , and is generically expected from an insulating nature of the @xmath0 chain in the @xmath248 ising limit .
similar behaviour of the ness current at large @xmath3 was found for driven chain with @xmath6-polarized boundary baths @xcite . on the other hand , eq.([limitjfordeltasmall ] ) implies a complete flattening of the current near @xmath80 in the thermodynamic limit @xmath254 , which is a new unusual feature .
the flattening is already well seen in fig.[fig_j5 - 7 ] for @xmath255 . note that the results ( [ limitjfordeltalarge ] ) , ( [ limitjfordeltasmall ] ) would be very difficult to obtain by studying perturbative series in @xmath3 or in @xmath256 : in both cases @xmath222 and @xmath257 the first nonzero term will appear only in the order @xmath258 of the expansion !
vs @xmath50 for @xmath111 ( thick and thin line , respectively ) for isotropic heisenberg model @xmath259 , given by ( [ delta1_n3]),([delta1_n4 ] ) . dashed lines indicate limiting values of the current for @xmath106.,scaledwidth=40.0% ]      the analytic results derived in previous subsection concerned the limits of @xmath106 and strong driving @xmath108 .
what can we say about generic @xmath50 and @xmath49 ?
examining perturbative series ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) for various @xmath16 and @xmath3 we notice that nonzero contributions to ness  current appear only at even orders of the expansion @xmath260 .
if the ness current @xmath113 is an analytic function of @xmath50 , then we can expect the current to be an even function of @xmath261 .
in particular , for small @xmath262 one expects the the current to behave as @xmath263 , since the current must vanish at zero coupling @xmath264 .
our expectations are confirmed by exact expressions for the current as function of @xmath50 , obtained for special case of isotropic @xmath265 model , for which one can sum up the series ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) and obtain @xmath266 indeed the above expressions contain only even @xmath50 orders and @xmath263 , see also fig.[fig_jversusga ] .
numerically , we observe @xmath263 for other @xmath3 values as well .
generically , we find the current amplitude to be a smooth function of @xmath50 for a fixed value of the anisotropy @xmath3 . for large couplings
, it asymptotically approaches its limiting value @xmath221 at @xmath200 .
interestingly , the magnetization current is not suppressed for large couplings @xmath50 , as it happens for @xmath6-polarized lindblad baths @xcite,@xcite due to a quantum zeno effect .
indeed for our choice of the bath ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) and large coupling , the quantum zeno effect `` freezes '' @xmath267 and @xmath268 spin components at the boundaries , while hoppings in the @xmath69 component , contributing to the magnetization current , may still occur .
finally , we investigated the current dependence on the boundary gradient @xmath49 , which can be manipulated by a choice of the amplitudes of the lindblad operators in ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) . by fourier law , we may expect the current to be proportional to @xmath49 , for small gradients @xmath49 , and introduce a conductivity tensor @xmath269 as a proportionality coefficient between the current @xmath270 and the infinitesimal boundary gradient @xmath271 in the spin component @xmath272 , @xmath273 .
with our perturbative method we construct iteratively an expansion ( [ pt_largecouplings ] ) for a ness for an arbitrary amplitude of the boundary gradient @xmath49 from ( [ lindbladoperators ] ) .
we observe that the current is a rather nontrivial function of @xmath49 , and in particular that it vanishes as @xmath274 or faster for small @xmath49 . consequently ,
@xmath275 so that the off - diagonal elements of the conductivity tensor @xmath276 vanish .
note that diagonal elements of the conductivity tensor are nonzero @xcite .
numerically , we find that the leading order of expansion of @xmath277 for small @xmath49 depends on @xmath16 and @xmath3 in a nontrivial way . more details will be given elsewhere .
finally , note that our model shows a behaviour fundamentally different from that with usually considered boundary driving along the @xmath6-axis , referred to below as a `` scalar '' setup .
just to mention two crucial differences : the scalar setup leads to a ballistic current in the critical gapless region of the @xmath0 model @xmath278 @xcite , while in the @xmath2-driven chain the alternating signs phenomenon ( [ symmetryeven]-[currentsignalternation ] ) rules out the possibility of a ballistic current . in the `` scalar '' setup the current at strong coupling
is suppressed due to a zeno effect , @xmath279 , while in the @xmath2-driven chain of finite size the spin current in the limit @xmath106 remains finite .
we considered an open @xmath0 spin 1/2 chain with a twisting in @xmath2- plane , imposed by boundary gradients .
symmetries of the lindblad equation were found which impose drastic restrictions on the steady state reduced density matrix , and various observables . for our boundary setup the ness energy current vanishes , and the magnetization current alternates its sign with system size , which rules out the possibility of a ballistic current .
we argued that the current sign alternation under trasverse gradients is a robust phenomenon in quantum transport which does not rely on integrability .
the qualitative difference in quantum transport in even- and odd - sized systems adds to a list of similar phenomena observed in quantum diffusion in periodic chains @xcite . to support our findings
, we constructed a nonequilibrium steady state solution of the lindblad master equation in the form of a perturbative expansion in orders of @xmath45 , and calculated the zeroth - order term analytically for small system sizes , by solving a set of linear equations which guarantee the self - consistency of the expansion , the secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) . we find that , for @xmath147 , the current remains finite even in the limit of infinitely strong effective coupling .
further on , for large couplings we find a nontrivial dependence of the magnetization current on the anysotropy @xmath95 , and observed sharp peaks in @xmath95 inside the critical gapless region of the @xmath0 model @xmath278 , the origin of which was attributed to an appearance of higher fourier harmonics in magnetization profiles .
we observe an anomalous flattening of the current near @xmath80 point for odd @xmath16 and noncommutativity of limits @xmath205 and @xmath204 for even @xmath16 . for weak driving @xmath52 and small system sizes , we find @xmath275 for all values of @xmath3 , signalizing subdiffusive current in the direction trasverse to @xmath2 boundary gradients .
* acknowledgements * the author thanks n. plakida , r. vaja , m. g. pini , m. salerno and r. moessner for stimulating discussions .
support from the italian miur through prin 20083c8xfz initiative is acknowledged .
@xmath23 and @xmath24 are linear super - operators acting on a matrix @xmath17 as defined by ( [ lindbladaction ] ) . in our case , each super - operator act locally on a single qubit only .
we find the eigen - basis @xmath280 of @xmath281 in the form @xmath282 where @xmath283 are pauli matrices and @xmath284 .
the respective eigenvalues are @xmath285 .
analogously , the eigen - basis and eigenvalues of the eigenproblem @xmath286 are @xmath287 and @xmath288 , where @xmath289 .
since the basises @xmath290 and @xmath291 are complete , any matrix @xmath292 acting in the appropriate hilbert space can be expanded as @xmath293 in the unique way .
indeed , let us introduce complementary basises @xmath294 and  @xmath295 , trace - orthonormal to the @xmath296 respectively , @xmath297 , @xmath298 .
then , the coefficients of the expansion ( [ ro_expansion ] ) are given by @xmath299 .
on the other hand , in terms of the expansion ( [ ro_expansion ] ) the superoperator inverse @xmath300 is simply@xmath301 note however that the above sum contains a singular term with @xmath302 , because @xmath303 to eliminate the singularity , one must require @xmath304 , which produces the secular conditions ( [ secularconditions ] ) .                                                                          within the repeated interaction scheme @xcite , @xcite , the lme ( [ lme ] ) describes a system evolution where coupling to reservoir is rescaled as @xmath305 where @xmath306 is a time interval between the two successive interactions with the ancilla bath .
the relaxation times depend on spin component , the targeted spin component relaxing two times faster than other spin components .
e.g. at the left boundary , @xmath39- and @xmath7-spin components of @xmath17 relax as @xmath307 while the @xmath40-spin component relax as @xmath308 , see @xcite .


dynamic coupling of ferromagnets has been of interest in the field of magnetism .
the dipole interaction has been the basic interaction to excite the coupled motion of the magnetizations , and is applied to magnetic recording @xcite . another method to realize the coupling is to use the spin - transfer effect @xcite , where the application of an electric current to ferromagnetic / nonmagnetic multilayers results in the magnetization switching and self - oscillation @xcite .
the coupled dynamics through pure spin current generated in spin pumping @xcite and nonlocal @xcite geometries have also been observed .
it should be emphasized that these couplings are strongly restricted by the characteristic length scales .
for example , the dipole coupling decays according to the inverse cube detection law , whereas the spin transfer effect by a spin - polarized electric or pure spin current occurs in a system smaller than the spin diffusion length .
recently , physical phenomena , such as the spin torque @xcite and magnetoresistance effects @xcite , due to the spin hall effect @xcite in bilayers consisting of an insulating or metallic ferromagnet and a nonmagnetic heavy metal have attracted much attention .
the latter , known as the spin hall magnetoresistance , originates from the charge - spin conversion of an external electric current by the direct and inverse spin hall effects , and has been observed by measuring the longitudinal and transverse electric currents , which are given by @xmath0 @xmath1 respectively , where @xmath2 is the electric current density generated by the external electric field .
the definitions of the dimensionless coefficients , @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath5 , are given below .
it should be emphasized that the currents given by eqs .
( [ eq : longitudinal_current ] ) and ( [ eq : transverse_current ] ) depend on the magnetization direction @xmath6 .
when another ferromagnet is placed onto the same nonmagnet , these currents will be converted to spin current by the spin hall effect again , and excite spin torque on this additional ferromagnet .
then , the magnetization dynamics of two ferromagnets will be coupled through the angular dependencies of the electric current given by eqs .
( [ eq : longitudinal_current ] ) and ( [ eq : transverse_current ] ) .
this coupling is unavoidable whenever several ferromagnets are placed onto the same nonmagnet , and is not restricted by the distance between the ferromagnets because it is carried by the electric current . since the structure consisting of several ferromagnets on the nonmagnetic heavy metal will be important from the viewpoints of both fundamental physics and practical applications based on the spin hall effect , such as magnetic random access memory , spin torque oscillators , and bio - inspired computing @xcite , it is of interest to clarify the role of this coupling .    in this paper , we investigate the coupled dynamics of magnetizations in ferromagnets in the presence of the spin hall effect by solving the landau - lifshitz - gilbert ( llg ) equation numerically for both longitudinal and transverse geometries .
in addition to the external electric current , the current contributing to the spin hall magnetoresistance also excites the spin torque .
the strength of this additional torque is estimated from the theory of the spin hall magnetoresistance extended to the system consisting of several ferromagnets .
the conventional spin torque is proportional to the spin hall angle @xmath7 , whereas the new torque is on the order of @xmath8 , and therefore , its value is two orders of magnitude smaller than the conventional spin torque .
nevertheless , it is found that this additional new torque affects the phase difference of the magnetization in the self - oscillation state .
the numerical simulation reveals that the in - phase or antiphase synchronization is observed in the transverse geometry . on the other hand , in addition to them , the phase difference becomes a quarter of a period in the longitudinal geometry .
it is found that these phase differences depend on the values of the gilbert damping constant and the dimensionless field - like torque strength . an analytical theory clarifying the relation among the current , frequency , and phase difference
is also developed .
the paper is organized as follows . in sec .
[ sec : system description and llg equation ] , we describe the system under consideration , and discuss the theoretical formula of the spin torque excited by the spin hall effect in the presence of the several ferromagnets and the spin hall magnetoresistance effect . in sec .
[ sec : numerical analysis of synchronization ] , we study the phase differences in the synchronized state of the magnetizations for both the longitudinal and transverse geometries by solving the llg equation numerically . in sec .
[ sec : theoretical analysis of current - frequency relation ] , the theory clarifying the relation among the current , frequency , and phase difference is developed based on the llg equation averaged over constant energy curves . the summary of the paper is given in sec . [
sec : conclusion ] .
( @xmath9 ) are placed onto the same nonmagnet n. the external electric field is applied to the @xmath10 direction .
( b ) schematic view of the generations of electric currents by the direct and inverse spin hall effect ( she and ishe ) in the longitudinal geometry .
the total electric current is the sum of the conventional electric current @xmath11 and the current generated near the f@xmath12/n and f@xmath13/n interfaces , @xmath14 and @xmath15 . ]
in this section , we describe the system adopted in this study , and show the spin torque formulas including the coupling torques between the ferromagnets .      the system we consider is schematically shown in fig .
[ fig : fig1](a ) , where three ferromagnets f@xmath16 ( @xmath9 ) are placed onto the same nonmagnet n. we assume that the material parameters in the ferromagnets are identical , for simplicity .
the external electric field , @xmath17 , is applied to the @xmath10 direction , inducing the electric current density @xmath11 , where @xmath18 is the conductivity of the nonmagnet .
the direct and inverse spin hall effects produce electric currents in the longitudinal ( @xmath10 ) and transverse ( @xmath19 ) directions .
these electric currents are converted to the spin current and injected into the f@xmath13 and f@xmath20 layers due to the spin hall effect , resulting in the excitation of the spin torque .
then , the magnetization dynamics in the f@xmath16 ( @xmath21 ) layer is affected by that in the f@xmath12 layer , and vice versa .
we call the coupling between the f@xmath12 and f@xmath13 layers the longitudinal coupling , whereas that between the f@xmath12 and f@xmath20 layers the transverse coupling .
we assume that both the ferromagnet and nonmagnet are metallic because metallic bilayers are generally used to measure the magnetization switching and oscillation by the spin hall effect @xcite .
although the spin hall magnetoresistance was originally studied for insulating ferromagnets @xcite , a large spin hall magnetoresistance in metallic system has also been reported recently @xcite .
the dimensionless coefficients , @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath5 , in eqs .
( [ eq : longitudinal_current ] ) and ( [ eq : transverse_current ] ) for single ferromagnets have been derived for an insulating @xcite or metallic @xcite ferromagnet , which are given by @xmath22    \tanh^{2 }    \left (      \frac{d_{\rm n}}{2 \lambda_{\rm n } }    \right ) ,     \label{eq : chi } \end{split}\ ] ] @xmath23 @xmath24 where @xmath25 and @xmath26 are thickness and spin diffusion length of the nonmagnet , respectively , whereas @xmath27 with the cross section area of the ferromagnetic / nonmagnetic interface @xmath28 .
the dimensionless mixing conductance @xmath29 consists of its real and imaginary parts @xcite , and @xmath30 is defined as @xmath31 here , @xmath32 is the sum of the conductances of the spin - up and spin - down electrons , whereas @xmath33 is its spin polarization .
the ferromagnetic / nonmagnetic interface resistance @xmath34 is related to @xmath35 via @xmath36 .
we also introduce @xmath37 , where @xmath38 is the conductivity of the ferromagnet and @xmath39 is its spin polarization .
the thickness and spin diffusion length of the ferromagnet are denoted as @xmath40 and @xmath41 , respectively .
the term related to @xmath30 is neglected when the ferromagnet is an insulator @xcite , i.e. , @xmath42 .
the following quantities correspond to the effective spin polarizations of the damping - like ( or slonczewski @xcite ) torque and the field - like torque , respectively , @xmath43 for the later discussion , we introduce @xmath44 which corresponds to the ratio of the field - like torque to the damping - like torque .
the values of the parameters used in the following calculations are derived from recent experiments on the w / cofeb heterostructure @xcite , where @xmath45 k@xmath46 nm , @xmath47 , @xmath48 nm , @xmath49 k@xmath46 nm , @xmath50 nm , and @xmath51 , whereas the thicknesses are assumed to be @xmath52 nm and @xmath53
the interface conductances were not evaluated in ref .
@xcite by assuming a transparent interface .
instead , we use typical values of the interface conductances obtained from the first - principles calculations @xcite , @xmath54 k@xmath46nm@xmath55 , @xmath56 , and @xmath57 nm@xmath58 . we note that the imaginary part of the mixing conductance , @xmath59 , is either positive or negative , depending on the material and thickness @xcite .
the sign of @xmath59 determines those of @xmath4 and @xmath60 , or equivalently , @xmath61 .
for example , when @xmath62 nm@xmath58 , @xmath63 , @xmath64 , @xmath65 , @xmath66 , and @xmath67 ( @xmath68 ) ; see appendix [ sec : values of parameters in numerical simulations ] . in the following calculations , we study the magnetization dynamics for several values of @xmath61 .      equation ( [ eq : longitudinal_current ] )
was derived for a system having single ferromagnet . in this case , @xmath2 is the external electric current density , whereas @xmath69 is the current density generated as a result of the charge - spin conversion by the direct and inverse spin hall effects . in the longitudinal geometry in the present study , on the other hand , two ferromagnetic / nonmagnetic interfaces ,
i.e. , f@xmath12/n and f@xmath13/n interfaces , contribute to the generation of the longitudinal current through the direct and inverse spin hall effects , as schematically shown in fig .
[ fig : fig1](b ) .
let us denote the electric current density generated by these effects near the f@xmath16/n interface as @xmath70 ( @xmath71 ) .
this current density is determined by the conservation law of the electric current , as follows .
considering in a similar manner to the case of the single ferromagnet , the electric current @xmath72 is converted to the spin current by the spin hall effect near the f@xmath13/n interface , and this spin current produces an additional electric current @xmath73 by the inverse spin hall effect .
therefore , the total longitudinal electric current density near the f@xmath13/n interface is @xmath74 .
similarly , the electric current density near the f@xmath12/n interface can be expressed as @xmath75 .
these currents should be equal to the total electric current density , @xmath76 , according to the conservation law of the electric current .
then , we find that @xmath70 is given by @xmath77 where we neglect the higher order terms of @xmath7 .
then , the spin torque excited on the f@xmath16 layer by the spin hall effect in the longitudinal geometry is obtained by replacing the external electric current density @xmath11 in the previous work @xcite with @xmath78 , and is given by @xmath79 where @xmath80 or @xmath81 .
the unit vector pointing in the magnetization direction of the f@xmath16 layer is @xmath82 , and @xmath83 , @xmath84 , and @xmath85 are the gyromagnetic ratio , the saturation magnetization , and the thickness of the ferromagnet , respectively .
note that the terms , @xmath86 in eq .
( [ eq : torque_l ] ) are the conventional spin torques generated by the external electric current @xmath2 and the spin hall effect , and are often referred to as the damping - like torque and the field - like torque , respectively . on the other hand , the terms @xmath87 in eq .
( [ eq : torque_l ] ) originate from the current @xmath88 , and are newly introduced in this study .
it should be emphasized that eq .
( [ eq : torque_l_coupling ] ) depends on the magnetization direction of the other ferromagnet f@xmath89 ( @xmath90 or @xmath91 ) , @xmath92 , resulting in the coupling between the f@xmath12 and f@xmath13 layers .
let us next show the spin torque formulas in the transverse geometry .
we denote the electric current density flowing in the @xmath19 direction generated near the f@xmath16/n ( @xmath93 ) interface by the inverse spin hall effect as @xmath94 .
the conservation law of the total electric current density , @xmath95 , gives ( see also appendix [ sec : derivation of coupling torque in transverse geometry ] ) @xmath96    j_{0 } \\
& \simeq    -\left (      \chi      m_{\ell x }      m_{\ell y }      +      \chi^{\prime }      m_{\ell z }    \right )    j_{0}.     \label{eq : electric_current_y } \end{split}\ ] ] in addition to the conventional spin torque , eq .
( [ eq : torque_conventional ] ) , this transverse electric current also excites the spin torque on the other ferromagnet . in total
, the spin torque acting on the f@xmath16 layer is given by [ @xmath97 or @xmath98 @xmath99 the last two terms represent the coupling torque between the f@xmath12 and f@xmath20 layers .
note that the direction of this coupling torque is different from that of the conventional torque because the currents @xmath2 and @xmath94 flow in different directions .    in the following , the torques related to @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath5 in eqs .
( [ eq : torque_l ] ) and ( [ eq : torque_t ] ) are referred to as coupling torque .
the ratio of these new torques to the conventional spin torque is on the order of @xmath100 . since the conventional spin torque due is proportional to the spin hall angle @xmath101 , the coupling torque is proportional to @xmath8 .
although the spin hall angle is usually a small quantity , it will be shown that the coupling torques play a non - negligible role on the magnetization dynamics , as shown below .      in the following sections , we study the magnetization dynamics excited by the spin torque given by eq .
( [ eq : torque_l ] ) or ( [ eq : torque_t ] ) both numerically and analytically .
we neglect the transverse coupling when the role of the longitudinal coupling is studied , and vice versa , for simplicity , which corresponds to considering a system consisting of the f@xmath12 and f@xmath13 layers , or f@xmath12 and f@xmath20 layers .
the magnetization dynamics in the f@xmath16 ( @xmath9 ) is described by the llg equation , @xmath102 where the gilbert damping constant is denoted as @xmath103 . in the following calculations ,
we use the values of the material parameters , @xmath104 rad/(oe s ) and @xmath105 , derived from the experiments @xcite . for the later discussion , it is useful to show the explicit forms of the llg equation in the longitudinal and transverse geometries .
equation ( [ eq : llg ] ) for the longitudinal geometry is @xmath106 whereas that for the transverse geometry is @xmath107
in this section , we study the magnetization dynamics in the ferromagnets in the presence of the coupling torques by solving eq .
( [ eq : llg ] ) numerically .
the self - oscillation of the magnetization provides an interesting example to understand the role of the coupling torque .
note that the coupling torques are proportional to the parameters @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath5 , and their products to other parameters such as @xmath108 , the values of which are relatively small , as can be seen in eqs .
( [ eq : llg_l_exact ] ) and ( [ eq : llg_t_exact ] ) . nevertheless , the coupling torques lead to the phase synchronization , as shown below .
the self - oscillation of the magnetization in single ferromagnets by the spin hall effect has been observed for in - plane magnetized ferromagnets @xcite , and is induced by the conventional spin torque given by eq .
( [ eq : torque_conventional ] ) .
therefore , in the following , we assume that the magnetic field , @xmath109 consists of an in - plane anisotropy field @xmath110 along the @xmath19 direction and a demagnetization field @xmath111 in the @xmath112 direction , which we assume as @xmath113 oe and @xmath114 emu / c.c . @xcite in the following calculations .
it is known for the case of the single ferromagnet @xcite that the in - plane self - oscillation can be excited when the electric current density @xmath2 is in the range of @xmath115 , where @xmath116 @xmath117 which in this study are @xmath118 and @xmath119 ma / cm@xmath55 .    ) numerically for the transverse geometry .
the dotted lines indicate the oscillation direction .
( b ) the time evolutions of @xmath121 and @xmath122 near the initial state .
the time variations of the @xmath10 and @xmath19 components of the magnetizations in the steady state are shown in ( c ) and ( d ) for @xmath123 and ( e ) and ( f ) for @xmath124 .
the solid red lines correspond to time evolution in f@xmath12 , and dotted blue lines to those in f@xmath20 for ( b ) through ( f ) . ]
let us first investigate the magnetization dynamics in the transverse geometry because this geometry provides a simple example of the coupled motion .
we start with solving the llg equation given by eq .
( [ eq : llg_t_exact ] ) for the f@xmath12 and f@xmath20 layers . figure [ fig : fig2](a ) shows an example of the trajectory of the magnetization dynamics obtained by solving eq .
( [ eq : llg_t_exact ] ) numerically , where @xmath125 ma / cm@xmath55 .
as shown , the in - plane oscillation is observed in the steady state .
the initial conditions set for @xmath126 and @xmath127 are different as @xmath128 and @xmath129 .
therefore , the dynamics of @xmath126 and @xmath127 near the initial time are different , as shown in fig .
[ fig : fig2](b ) , where the time evolutions of @xmath121 and @xmath130 in @xmath131 ns are shown .
nevertheless , the dynamics of @xmath126 and @xmath127 synchronize gradually , and finally , synchronization of @xmath132 and @xmath133 is realized , as shown in figs .
[ fig : fig2](c ) and [ fig : fig2](d ) .
we emphasize here that the dynamics shown in these figures are obtained for @xmath123 .
the mutual , as well as self , synchronization of the spin torque induced magnetization oscillation by using spin waves , electric current , microwave field , or dipole coupling has been an exciting topic from the viewpoints of both nonlinear science and practical applications @xcite .
the key quantity of the synchronization is the phase difference @xmath134 between each magnetization to enhance the emission power from the spin torque oscillators and to investigate new practical applications such as neuromorphic architectures @xcite .
the synchronization found here , i.e. , @xmath135 , is called the in - phase synchronization .
we should emphasize here that , although the results shown in figs .
[ fig : fig2](b ) and [ fig : fig2](c ) are shown for one certain initial condition , the in - phase synchronizations are confirmed for the present set of the parameters even when the initial conditions are changed .
, for several values of @xmath103 on the field - like torque strength @xmath61 in the transverse geometry .
@xmath136 and @xmath137 correspond to the in - phase and antiphase , respectively .
the values of the current density , @xmath2 , is increased linearly , where @xmath125 ma / cm@xmath55 for @xmath105 . ]    on the other hand , it was shown for the case of the current - injection locking of the spin torque oscillator that the phase difference between the magnetization oscillation and the alternative current depends on the strength of the field - like torque @xcite .
the field - like torque in the present system can be either positive or negative , as mentioned above .
these facts motivate us to study the magnetization dynamics for different values of @xmath61 . when @xmath138 , synchronized dynamics is observed in a similar manner , but in this case , the phase difference is antiphase , i.e. , @xmath139 , as shown in figs .
[ fig : fig2](e ) and [ fig : fig2](f ) .
figure [ fig : fig3 ] summarizes the dependences of the phase difference , @xmath134 , between the magnetizations on the field - like torque strength @xmath61 for the several values of the damping constant @xmath103 .
the vertical axis in this figure represents the phase difference in the unit of the oscillation period ; i.e. , @xmath136 corresponds to the in - phase synchronization . on the other hand
, @xmath140 means that the phase difference is half of a period , and thus , is antiphase .
the algorithm evaluating @xmath134 in the numerical simulation is summarized in appendix [ sec : values of parameters in numerical simulations ] .
the results indicate that the phase difference is antiphase for positive @xmath61 , whereas it becomes in - phase when @xmath61 becomes smaller than a certain value , except for the narrow intermediate region near @xmath141 , where the phase difference is in between in - phase and antiphase .     and
@xmath19 components of the magnetizations in the f@xmath12 ( solid , red ) and f@xmath13 ( dotted , blue ) in the longitudinal geometry are shown in ( a ) , ( c ) and ( b ) , ( d ) respectively , where @xmath123
. the initial conditions of @xmath142 are different between ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) , ( d ) .
the magnetization dynamics for @xmath124 are shown in ( e ) and ( f ) ]      next , we study the magnetization dynamics in the longitudinal geometry between f@xmath12 and f@xmath13 layers by solving eq .
( [ eq : llg_l_exact ] ) numerically . figure [ fig : fig4](a ) and [ fig : fig4](b ) show @xmath143 and @xmath144 in a steady state , where @xmath123 .
the initial conditions in these figures are @xmath128 and @xmath145 .
an antiphase synchronization is observed in this case .
we notice , however , that the in - phase synchronization can also be realized when the initial conditions are changed .
figure [ fig : fig4](c ) and [ fig : fig4](d ) show such an example , where @xmath128 and @xmath146 are assumed .
these numerical results indicate that both the in - phase and antiphase synchronizations are stable in this case , and whether the phase difference finally becomes in - phase or antiphase depends on the initial conditions , material parameters , and current magnitude .
we also notice that the phase difference is changed when the value of @xmath61 is changed .
figures [ fig : fig4](e ) and [ fig : fig4](f ) show @xmath147 and @xmath148 for @xmath124 . in this case
, the phase difference of the magnetizations is a quarter of a precession period .
, for several values of @xmath103 on the field - like torque strength @xmath61 in the longitudinal geometry , where @xmath136 and @xmath137 correspond to the in - phase and antiphase , respectively .
@xmath149 means that the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
the values of the current density , @xmath2 , is increased linearly , where @xmath125 ma / cm@xmath55 for @xmath105 . ]
the dependences of the phase difference on the field - like torque strength @xmath61 for several values of the gilbert damping constant @xmath103 are summarized in fig .
[ fig : fig5 ] , where @xmath149 in this figure means that the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
the phase difference is found to become a quarter of the period for positive @xmath61 , whereas it becomes in - phase or antiphase for negative @xmath61 , depending on the initial states of the magnetizations .
let us summarize the results of the numerical simulations here . in the transverse geometry
, the coupling torque induces the synchronized oscillation of the magnetizations and finally stabilizes the configuration in the in - phase or antiphase state , depending on the values of the field - like torque strength @xmath61 and the damping constant @xmath103 .
the phase difference in the stable synchronized state in the longitudinal geometry also depends on the values of @xmath61 and @xmath103 , as well as the initial conditions . in this case , however , in addition to the in - phase or antiphase state , a phase difference with a quarter of a period is generated .    ) for in - phase synchronization ( solid line ) and antiphase synchronization ( dotted line ) .
( b ) the longitudinal electric current densities given by eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_x_total ] ) for in - phase or antiphase synchronization ( solid line ) and phase difference of a quarter of a period ( dotted line ) . ]
the phase difference can be measured from the spin hall magnetoresistance effect . according to eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_y ] ) , the total electric current density in the transverse direction is @xmath150 then , an oscillating current appears in the transverse direction for in - phase synchronization , whereas the transverse current becomes zero for antiphase synchronization , as shown in fig .
[ fig : fig6](a ) . the fourier transformation of eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_y_total ] ) for in - phase synchronization has peaks at the frequencies of @xmath151 ( @xmath152 ) , where @xmath153 is the lowest frequency ; see appendix [ sec : analytical solution of magnetization on a constant energy curve ] .
similarly , the total electric current density in the longitudinal direction is @xmath154 the oscillation frequency of this current is different for the synchronizations having the phase difference of in - phase or antiphase and that of a quarter of a period , as shown in fig .
[ fig : fig6](b ) .
the fourier transformation of eq.([eq : electric_current_x_total ] ) has the peaks at @xmath155 for in - phase or antiphase and @xmath156 when the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
an interesting question regarding these numerical results is to clarify the reason why the phase difference finally becomes a certain value for a given set of the parameters , i.e. , which phase difference is an attractor of the limit cycle .
it is , however , difficult to answer this question directly due to the following reason .
we note that the present model includes several small - valued parameters , @xmath103 , @xmath61 , @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath5 , as shown in eqs .
( [ eq : llg_l_exact ] ) and ( [ eq : llg_t_exact ] ) , and is complicated . the torque related to the lowest order of @xmath61 in these equations is the conventional field - like torque given by @xmath157 \mathbf{m}_{\ell } \times \mathbf{e}_{y}$ ] .
it should be noted that the phase difference is not determined solely by this term because this lowest order term of the field - like torque does not include the coupling between the magnetizations .
similarly , the attractor is not determined solely by the lowest order term of the coupling torque , which is @xmath158 \chi m_{\ell^{\prime } y}^{2 } \mathbf{m}_{\ell } \times \left ( \mathbf{e}_{y } \times \mathbf{m}_{\ell } \right)$ ] in eq .
( [ eq : llg_l_exact ] ) and @xmath158 \chi m_{\ell^{\prime } x } m_{\ell^{\prime } y } \mathbf{m}_{\ell } \times \left ( \mathbf{e}_{x } \times \mathbf{m}_{\ell } \right)$ ] in eq .
( [ eq : llg_t_exact ] ) , because this torque does not include the field - like torque .
their combinations or the higher order terms including both @xmath61 and the coupling torques related to @xmath3 , @xmath4 , and @xmath5 should be taken into account to answer the question , which is difficult due to the nonlinearity and complexity of the llg equation .
nevertheless , it is possible to reveal the relation between the current and frequency in the synchronized oscillation state by assuming a certain value of the phase difference between the magnetizations . the current - frequency relation has been often measured in the experiments , and therefore , it will be useful to develop a theory clarifying the role of the coupling on the current - frequency relation . in the next section , we will investigate this subject .
the purpose of this section is to develop an analytical theory of the synchronization revealing the relation among the current , frequency , and the phase difference of the magnetizations in the synchronized oscillation state .      here
, let us mention the basis of our theoretical analysis .
it is difficult to solve the llg equation exactly because of its nonlinearity .
instead , we employ the averaging technique of the llg equation on constant energy curves @xcite .
this approach has been used to study the spin torque switching in thermally activated regions @xcite and spin torque oscillators @xcite , as well as the microwave assisted magnetization reversal @xcite , but has not been applied to the coupled system .
this approach is valid when the magnetic energy is changed slowly compared with the oscillation period .
we note that only the lowest order terms in the llg equation is necessary to derive the current - frequency relation , as far as several parameters such as @xmath61 are small .
thus , we use the simplified llg equation maintaining only the dominant terms . the llg equation used in this section for the longitudinal geometry
is @xmath159 whereas that for the transverse geometry is @xmath160    in the self - oscillation state , the damping torque during the precession is balanced with the spin torque , and the torque due to the magnetic field , corresponding to the first term on the right hand side of eq .
( [ eq : llg ] ) , becomes the dominant term determining the magnetization dynamics .
the dynamic trajectory given by this field torque corresponds to constant energy curves of the energy density , @xmath161 , where its explicit form is @xmath162 the minimum and saddle points of eq .
( [ eq : energy ] ) are @xmath163 and @xmath164 , where the corresponding energy densities are @xmath165 and @xmath166 .
the solution of @xmath82 precessing on a constant energy curve is described by the jacobi elliptic function @xcite as ( see also appendix [ sec : analytical solution of magnetization on a constant energy curve ] summarizing the derivations ) @xmath167 ,    \label{eq : mx_sol}\ ] ] @xmath168 ,    \label{eq : my_sol}\ ] ] @xmath169 ,    \label{eq : mz_sol}\ ] ] where @xmath170 is the initial phase .
the period of @xmath171 and @xmath172 is @xmath173 , whereas that of @xmath174 is @xmath175 , where the precession frequency @xmath176 is given by @xmath177 where @xmath178 is the first kind of complete elliptic integral with the modulus @xmath179 note that eq .
( [ eq : frequency ] ) reproduces the ferromagnetic resonance ( fmr ) frequency , @xmath180 , in the limit of @xmath181 . identifying @xmath182 and @xmath170 corresponds to the determination of the initial condition .
the averaged technique investigates the energy change during a precession on a constant energy curve , which is obtained from the llg equation as @xmath183 where @xmath184 is the energy change by the conventional spin torque due to the spin hall effect , whereas @xmath185 is the dissipation due to the damping torque .
the integral range is over the precession period .
the explicit forms of @xmath184 and @xmath185 are given by @xcite @xmath186 \\    & =    \frac{\pi \hbar \theta_{\rm r } j_{0 } \left ( h_{\rm k } + 2e / m \right)}{ed_{\rm f } \sqrt{h_{\rm k } \left ( h_{\rm k } + 4 \pi m \right ) } } ,    \label{eq : melnikov_s } \end{split}\ ] ] @xmath187 \\    & =    -4 \alpha m     \sqrt{\frac{4\pi m-2e / m}{h_{\rm k } } }    \left [      \frac{2e}{m }      \mathsf{k}(k )      +      h_{\rm k }      \mathsf{e}(k )    \right ] ,    \label{eq : melnikov_alpha } \end{split}\ ] ] where @xmath188 is the second kind of complete elliptic integral .    on the other hand , @xmath189 represents the work done by the coupling torque in the longitudinal or transverse geometry , corresponding to the last term in eq .
( [ eq : llg_l_approx ] ) or ( [ eq : llg_t_approx ] ) .
the explicit forms of @xmath190 and @xmath191 are shown in the following sections .
for both cases , the relation between the current and frequency is clarified as follows . in the self - oscillation state , since the spin torque balances the damping torque , the following condition should be satisfied , @xmath192 the current density @xmath2 satisfying eq .
( [ eq : oscillation_condition ] ) is the current necessary to excite the self - oscillation on the constant energy curve of @xmath182 , and is denoted as @xmath193 .
the relation between the current and frequency in the self - oscillation state is given by this @xmath193 and @xmath194 given by eq .
( [ eq : frequency ] ) .
it should be emphasized that the current density @xmath193 depends on the phase difference between the magnetizations through @xmath189 .
we will therefore study the relation between the phase difference and the current - frequency relation in line with this deduction .      in this section ,
we investigate the current - frequency relation in the transverse geometry .
the work done by the coupling torque is defined as @xmath195 .
\label{eq : melnikov_t_def}\ ] ]    before advancing the calculation , let us briefly mention the definition of the phase difference in the present approach .
if the oscillation trajectory is a circle , the phase difference is easily defined , i.e. , the antiphase corresponds to @xmath196 , whereas @xmath136 is the in - phase . in the present case ,
on the other hand , the oscillation trajectory is described by the elliptic function , as shown in eqs .
( [ eq : mx_sol ] ) , ( [ eq : my_sol ] ) , and ( [ eq : mz_sol ] ) . in this case
, the phase difference is defined using the elliptic integral @xmath178 , where @xmath136 for the in - phase synchronization , and the antiphase synchronization corresponds to @xmath197 .
it is useful to note that @xmath197 becomes @xmath198 in the limit of @xmath199 , corresponding to the case that the oscillation trajectory becomes a circle .
similarly , @xmath200 means that the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
equation ( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) for an arbitrary phase difference is evaluated by numerically calculating the integral with the solutions of @xmath82 and @xmath92 shown in appendix [ sec : details of calculations ] .
it is , however , useful to derive the analytical solutions of eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) for specific values of the phase difference . equation ( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) for both the in - phase ( @xmath136 ) and antiphase [ @xmath197 ] becomes @xmath202 where the double sign means the upper for the in - phase ( @xmath136 ) synchronization and the lower for the antiphase [ @xmath197 ] synchronization .
equation ( [ eq : melnikov_t_sol ] ) is zero at @xmath203 and @xmath204 , and is negative ( positive ) for the energy density @xmath182 in the rage of @xmath205 when @xmath136 [ @xmath206 .
this means that the coupling torque acts as a damping ( an antidamping ) torque when the phase difference is in - phase ( antiphase ) .
we also note that @xmath207 when @xmath208 ; i.e. , the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
the calculations necessary to obtain these specific values of @xmath191 are also summarized in appendix [ sec : details of calculations ] .
we note that the sign change of @xmath191 with respect to the phase difference is related to the fact that the coupling torque in the transverse geometry , eq .
( [ eq : torque_t ] ) , has the angular dependence of @xmath209 .
because of this angular dependence , the coupling torque acts as an anti - damping ( a damping ) torque when @xmath147 and @xmath210 have the opposite ( same ) signs , resulting in the increase ( decrease ) of the energy supplied to the ferromagnets by the coupling torque .    in summary ,
the work done by the coupling torque , @xmath191 , is negative and minimized at the in - phase ( @xmath136 ) , zero for @xmath200 , and positive and maximized at the antiphase [ @xmath211 .    , necessary to excite the self - oscillation in the transverse geometry as a function of the oscillation frequency @xmath194 and the phase difference @xmath134 of the magnetizations .
the phase difference is in the unit of @xmath178 .
( b ) dependence of @xmath193 for the transverse geometry , on @xmath134 at @xmath212 ghz .
the dotted line represents @xmath193 in the absence of the coupling .
( c ) the relation among @xmath193 , @xmath194 , and @xmath134 in the longitudinal geometry .
( d ) the current density @xmath193 for @xmath212 ghz in the longitudinal geometry . ]    the current @xmath2 in the transverse geometry is defined as @xmath213 where @xmath214 and @xmath215 are defined as @xmath216,\ ] ] @xmath217 \\    & +    \gamma     \chi     \oint     dt     m_{\ell^{\prime } x }    m_{\ell^{\prime } y }    \left [      \mathbf{e}_{x }      \cdot      \mathbf{h}_{\ell }      -      \left (        \mathbf{m}_{\ell }        \cdot        \mathbf{e}_{x }      \right )      \left (        \mathbf{m}_{\ell }        \cdot        \mathbf{h}_{\ell }      \right )    \right ] .
\end{split}\ ] ] the explicit form of @xmath214 is obtained from eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_alpha ] ) as @xmath218.\ ] ] on the other hand , @xmath215 for the in - phase or antiphase is obtained from eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_s ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_t_sol ] ) as @xmath219}{\sqrt{h_{\rm k } \left ( h_{\rm k } + 4 \pi m \right ) } } , \end{split}\ ] ] where the double sign means the upper for the in - phase synchronization and the lower for the antiphase synchronization .    figure [ fig : fig7](a ) shows @xmath193 as functions of the oscillation frequency @xmath194 and the phase difference @xmath134 .
the current - frequency relation in the transverse geometry can be obtained from this figure . to reveal the role of the phase difference more clearly
, we show @xmath193 for a certain value of @xmath220 in fig .
[ fig : fig7](b ) .
note that @xmath193 is smaller than that in the absence of the coupling , which is shown by the dotted line , and minimized when @xmath197 , i.e. , the antiphase .
this is because the work done by the coupling torque is positive and maximized at the antiphase . on the other hand , @xmath193 is maximized at the in - phase , and is larger than that in the absence of the coupling because the work done by the coupling torque is negative and minimized at the in - phase .
we notice that the phase differences observed in the numerical simulation in sec .
[ sec : numerical analysis of synchronization ] , i.e. , the in - phase and antiphase , correspond to @xmath134 satisfying @xmath221 or equivalently , @xmath222 in other words , the phase differences observed in the numerical simulations correspond to those giving the extrema of @xmath2 ( @xmath191 ) .
let us investigate the theoretical relation between the current and frequency in the longitudinal geometry . in this case
, the averaged llg equation is given by @xmath223 where @xmath184 and @xmath185 are given by eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_s ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_alpha ] ) . on the other hand
, @xmath190 representing the energy change due to the longitudinal coupling is defined as @xmath224 .
\label{eq : melnikov_l_def}\ ] ] for both the in - phase and antiphase , eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_l_def ] ) becomes ( see appendix [ sec : details of calculations ] ) @xmath225}{h_{\rm k } \left ( h_{\rm k } + 4 \pi m \right)}.     \label{eq : melnikov_l_sol } \end{split}\ ] ] on the other hand , when the phase difference is a quarter of a period [ @xmath200 ] , eq . ( [ eq : melnikov_l_def ] ) becomes @xmath227 it should be emphasized that @xmath190 is always positive for an arbitrary phase difference .
this is because the coupling torque in eq .
( [ eq : torque_l ] ) always acts as an anti - damping torque .
we can determine the current density @xmath193 satisfying eq .
( [ eq : oscillation_condition ] ) in the longitudinal geometry , as in the case of the transverse geometry , by replacing @xmath215 in eq .
( [ eq : je_def ] ) with @xmath228 \\    & +    \gamma     \chi     \oint     dt     m_{\ell^{\prime } y}^{2 }    \left [      \mathbf{e}_{y }      \cdot      \mathbf{h}_{\ell }      -      \left (        \mathbf{m}_{\ell }        \cdot        \mathbf{e}_{y }      \right )      \left (        \mathbf{m}_{\ell }        \cdot        \mathbf{h}_{\ell }      \right )    \right ] .
\end{split}\ ] ] the explicit form of @xmath229 for both the in - phase and antiphase is obtained from eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_s ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_l_sol ] ) as @xmath230 } { \left [ h_{\rm k } \left ( h_{\rm k } + 4\pi m \right ) \right]^{3/2 } } , \end{split}\ ] ] whereas that when the phase difference is a quarter of a period is obtained from eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_s ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_l_sol_quarter ] ) as @xmath231    figure [ fig : fig7](c ) shows @xmath193 as functions of @xmath194 and @xmath134 .
the current - frequency relation in the longitudinal geometry can be obtained from this figure .
it is noted that @xmath193 is always smaller than that in the absence of the coupling because the coupling torque in the longitudinal geometry always points to the anti - damping direction , and therefore , the work done by the coupling torque is always positive .
figure [ fig : fig7](b ) shows @xmath193 as a function of @xmath134 at a certain value of @xmath194 .
as shown , @xmath193 has minima at both
the in - phase ( @xmath136 ) and the antiphase [ @xmath211 , whereas it is maximized when the phase difference is a quarter of a period [ @xmath200 ] .
we again notice that these phase differences found in the numerical simulations in sec .
[ sec : numerical analysis of synchronization ] correspond to @xmath134 satisfying @xmath232 , or equivalently , @xmath233      equation ( [ eq : llg_averaged ] ) describes the slow change of the magnetic energy in the oscillation state .
the magnetization dynamics is regarded as a motion of a point particle in an effective potential given by its right - hand side .
equations ( [ eq : stable_phase_condition_t ] ) and ( [ eq : stable_phase_condition_l ] ) correspond to the stability conditions of the point particle in this effective potential .
therefore , the phase difference found in the numerical simulation finally converges to one of these values satisfying eq .
( [ eq : stable_phase_condition_t ] ) or eq .
( [ eq : stable_phase_condition_l ] ) . whether the in - phase , antiphase , or the phase difference with a quarter of a period becomes the attractor depends on the higher order terms of the small parameters , as well as the initial states of the magnetizations , as mentioned at the end of sec .
[ sec : numerical analysis of synchronization ] .
this discussion is beyond the scope of this paper .
at mentioned at the beginning of sec .
[ sec : numerical analysis of synchronization ] , the in - plane self - oscillation for a single ferromagnet is stabilized when the current density is in the range of @xmath115 , where @xmath234 and @xmath235 are given by eqs .
( [ eq : j_c_single ] ) and ( [ eq : j_switch_single ] ) , respectively . at the end of this section ,
let us briefly discuss the effect of the coupling on these scaling currents .
let us remind the readers that @xmath234 is the current density necessary to destabilize the magnetization in equilibrium , whereas @xmath235 is the current necessary to overcome the energy barrier , @xmath236 .
these current densities are theoretically defined as @xcite @xmath237 @xmath238 it is confirmed that eqs . (
[ eq : j_c_single ] ) and ( [ eq : j_switch_single ] ) are reproduced by substituting eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_s ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_alpha ] ) in the definition of @xmath193 in the absence of the coupling .    on the other hand , in the presence of the transverse coupling ,
it is confirmed from eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_sol ] ) that a factor @xmath239 $ ] should be multiplied to the denominator of eq .
( [ eq : j_c_single ] ) when the phase difference between the magnetizations is in - phase , whereas this factor is replaced by @xmath240 $ ] when the phase difference is antiphase .
the other scaling current , @xmath235 , is unchanged for these phase differences . in the longitudinal geometry , we see from eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_l_sol ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_l_sol_quarter ] ) that the factor @xmath241 should be multiplied to the denominator of eq .
( [ eq : j_c_single ] ) when the phase difference is in - phase , antiphase , or a quarter of a period , whereas , for @xmath235 , the factor becomes @xmath242 $ ] for in - phase and antiphase , and @xmath243 when the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
in conclusion , the coupled magnetization dynamics in the ferromagnets through the spin hall magnetoresistance effect was investigated .
the coupling appears in both the longitudinal and transverse directions of the alignment of the ferromagnets .
the in - phase or antiphase synchronization of the magnetization oscillation was found in the transverse geometry by solving the llg equation numerically . on the other hand , in addition to them , the synchronization having the phase difference of a quarter of a period is also found in the longitudinal geometry .
it was shown that these phase differences depend on the values of the damping constant and the field - like torque strength .
the analytical theory revealing the relation among the current , frequency , and phase difference was also developed .
it was shown that the phase differences observed in the numerical simulations correspond to that giving the fixed points of the energy supplied by the coupling torque .
the author is grateful to takehiko yorozu for his contributions to the analytical calculations , and to hitoshi kubota , sumito tsunegi , yoichi shiota , shingo tamaru , tazumi nagasawa , kiwamu kudo , and yoji kawamura for valuable discussions .
the author is also thankful to satoshi iba , aurelie spiesser , atsushi sugihara , takahide kubota , hiroki maehara , and ai emura for their support and encouragement .
this work was supported by jsps kakenhi grant - in - aid for young scientists ( b ) 16k17486 .
the exact values of the parameters used in the simulations , evaluated from the parameters found in the experiment @xcite , are @xmath244 , @xmath245 , @xmath246 , @xmath247 , and @xmath248 for @xmath249 nm@xmath58 . in the main text , @xmath250 and @xmath138
correspond to @xmath245 and @xmath251 , respectively . strictly speaking
, the change of the value of @xmath59 affects not only @xmath61 but also other quantities such as @xmath252 , @xmath3 , and @xmath4 .
we , however , change the value of @xmath61 only in the numerical simulation , for simplicity , because the results do not change significantly unless @xmath253 .
the llg equation with these parameters is solved by using the fourth - order runge - kutta method from @xmath254 to @xmath255 @xmath256s with the time step of @xmath257 fs ; i.e. , the number of the time mesh is @xmath258 .
the present system has two stable states at @xmath259 . for convention
, we assume that the magnetizations initially stay near one equilibrium , @xmath260 . for in - phase synchronizations , such as those shown in figs .
[ fig : fig2](c ) and [ fig : fig2](d ) , the @xmath112 components are also synchronized with in - phase , i.e. , @xmath261 . on the other hand , for antiphase synchronization shown in , for example in figs .
[ fig : fig2](e ) and [ fig : fig2](f ) , the @xmath112 components are also synchronized with antiphase , @xmath262 .    the algorithm evaluating the phase differences shown in figs .
[ fig : fig3 ] and [ fig : fig5 ] from the discrete numerical data is as follows .
we gathered @xmath263 data of @xmath264 ( @xmath9 ) from @xmath265 to @xmath266 @xmath256s .
then , the averaged periods @xmath267 of the oscillation of each magnetization were evaluated from the peaks of @xmath264 in this time range as @xmath268/\left ( n_{\ell}-1 \right)= \left ( t_{\ell , a}-t_{\ell,1 } \right)/\left ( n_{\ell}-1 \right)$ ] , where @xmath269 is the number of the peaks in @xmath264 , whereas @xmath270 is the time corresponding to the @xmath271-th peak .
then , the phase difference is evaluated as @xmath272 , where @xmath273 $ ] and @xmath274 with @xmath97 for the transverse geometry , whereas that is @xmath275 for the longitudinal geometry . for the in - phase synchronization
, this @xmath134 is zero because @xmath276 . when the phase difference is antiphase , @xmath140 because @xmath277 in this case .
similarly , @xmath134 is @xmath278 when the phase difference is a quarter of a period .
note that the critical current density to excite the self - oscillation , given by eq .
( [ eq : j_c_single ] ) , is proportional to the damping constant @xmath103 .
therefore , the value of the current density should be increased to observe the self - oscillation when @xmath103 is varied , as in the case of figs .
[ fig : fig3 ] and [ fig : fig5 ] . in these figures , @xmath2 is assumed as @xmath279 ma / cm@xmath55 for @xmath280 ( @xmath281 ) .    the numerical simulation in fig . [ fig : fig2](e ) indicates that the antiphase synchronization is an attractor for @xmath138 .
an exception is that if the initial conditions are set to be identical , the final state becomes in - phase synchronization due to the symmetry of the llg equation with respect to the change of @xmath282 . since eq .
( [ eq : stable_phase_condition_t ] ) is satisfied , the phase difference is fixed to in - phase even if it is unstable .
similar situations occur in other cases for such specific initial conditions .
in a ferromagnetic / nonmagnetic bilayer , the spin current density flowing in the @xmath283 direction ( @xmath284 ) with the spin polarization in the @xmath285 direction is related to the electrochemical potential @xmath286 and the spin accumulation @xmath287 via @xmath288 where @xmath289 is the electric field in the @xmath290 direction , and therefore , @xmath291 is the electric current density .
we assume that this equation is extended to @xmath292 in the transverse geometry , where @xmath293 is the spin current density flowing near the f@xmath16/n interface in the @xmath112 direction with the spin polarization in the @xmath285 direction .
the spin accumulation obeys the diffusion equation , and the boundary conditions of the diffusion equation are given by the spin current density at the boundaries . using eq .
( [ eq : spin_current_t ] ) , the solution of the spin accumulation is given by @xcite @xmath294    \right\ } ,    \label{eq : spin_accumulation_sol_t } \end{split}\ ] ] where we assume that the nonmagnet is in the region of @xmath295 .
the spin current density , @xmath296 , at the f@xmath16/n interface is given by @xcite @xmath297 \\    & -    \frac{\hbar}{2e }    j_{\ell^{\prime } y }    \left [      \vartheta_{\rm r }      \mathbf{m}_{\ell }      \times      \left (        \mathbf{e}_{x }        \times        \mathbf{m}_{\ell }      \right )      +      \vartheta_{\rm i }      \mathbf{e}_{x }      \times      \mathbf{m}_{\ell }    \right ] ,     \label{eq : spin_current_fn_t } \end{split}\ ] ] where the vector notation in boldface represents the direction of the spin polarization , whereas the spatial direction of eq .
( [ eq : spin_current_fn_t ] ) is defined as the positive direction , i.e. , from the nonmagnet to the ferromagnet .    on the other hand , the electric current density in the nonmagnet flowing in the @xmath283 direction
is given by @xmath298 in the present case , the electric current density near the f@xmath16/n interface flowing in the @xmath19 direction becomes @xmath299 substituting eqs .
( [ eq : spin_accumulation_sol_t ] ) and ( [ eq : spin_current_fn_t ] ) into eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_t ] ) , and averaging along the @xmath112 direction as @xmath300 , we find that @xmath301 the conservation law of the electric current along the @xmath19 direction requires that @xmath302 . solving this equation for @xmath303 and @xmath304 , we obtain eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_y ] ) .
the spin torque is defined from eq .
( [ eq : spin_current_fn_t ] ) as @xmath305
in this appendix , we shows the derivation of the analytical solution of the magnetization on a constant energy curve . for simplicity
, we remove the subscript @xmath306 distinguishing the ferromagnets . the magnetization dynamics on a constant energy curve
is described by the landau - lifshitz ( ll ) equation @xmath307 the magnetic field , eq .
( [ eq : field ] ) , is related to the magnetic energy density @xmath182 via @xmath308 , as mentioned in the main text . using the relation @xmath309 , eq .
( [ eq : energy ] ) is rewritten as @xmath310 this equation indicates that @xmath172 and @xmath171 can be expressed as @xmath311 and @xmath312 , respectively , where @xmath313 and @xmath314 are defined as @xmath315 and @xmath316 . then , @xmath317=\left ( v / m_{z } \right ) \left ( d m_{x}/dt \right)$ ] , which becomes , from eq .
( [ eq : ll ] ) , @xmath318 introducing new variable @xmath319 , this equation gives @xmath320 where the modulus @xmath321 is given by eq .
( [ eq : modulus ] ) .
the modulus monotonically varies from @xmath322 to @xmath323 by changing the energy density @xmath182 from its minimum @xmath324 to saddle @xmath204 .
we also notice that @xmath325 .
equation ( [ eq : elliptic_integral_def ] ) indicates that @xmath326 is given by @xmath327,\ ] ] where @xmath328 is the jacobi elliptic function , and @xmath170 is the initial phase determined by the initial condition . using the relations @xmath329 and @xmath330 , we find that the solution of @xmath331 on the constant energy curve is given by eqs .
( [ eq : mx_sol ] ) , ( [ eq : my_sol ] ) , and ( [ eq : mz_sol ] ) .    the peak frequencies of the fourier transformation of eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_y_total ] ) in the transverse geometry are discussed as follows .
we note that eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_y_total ] ) for in - phase synchronization is proportional to @xmath332 and @xmath333 .
substituting the following formulas @xcite , @xmath334,\ ] ] @xmath335,\ ] ] @xmath336 , \end{split}\ ] ] to eqs .
( [ eq : mx_sol ] ) , ( [ eq : my_sol ] ) , ( [ eq : mz_sol ] ) , where @xmath337 $ ] , it is found that the peak frequencies of eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_y_total ] ) appear at @xmath151 ( @xmath152 ) , where the lowest frequency @xmath153 is given by eq .
( [ eq : frequency ] ) .    in the longitudinal geometry , eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_x_total ] ) is proportional to @xmath338 .
when the phase difference of the magnetizations is in - phase or antiphase , it becomes @xmath339 . in this case , using the formula @xcite @xmath340,\ ] ] it is found that the fourier transformation of eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_x_total ] ) has the peaks at @xmath155 . on the other hand , when the phase difference is a quarter of a period , eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_x_total ] ) is proportional to @xmath341 = { \rm dn}^{2}(u , k)+\left [ \left ( 1-k^{2 } \right)/{\rm dn}^{2}(u , k ) \right]$ ] .
we notice that @xmath342=g(u)$ ] , indicating that the fourier transformation of eq .
( [ eq : electric_current_x_total ] ) in this case has the peaks at @xmath156 .
equations ( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_l_def ] ) can be calculated by substituting the solution of @xmath82 on a constant energy curve to the integrals . as emphasized in the main text
, the phase difference @xmath134 between the magnetizations is an important quantity . according to eqs .
( [ eq : mx_sol ] ) , ( [ eq : my_sol ] ) , and ( [ eq : mz_sol ] ) , we set @xmath82 and @xmath92 as @xmath343 ,    \label{eq : mx_sol_1}\ ] ] @xmath344 ,    \label{eq : my_sol_1}\ ] ] @xmath345 ,    \label{eq : mz_sol_1}\ ] ] and @xmath346 ,    \label{eq : mx_sol_2}\ ] ] @xmath347 ,    \label{eq : my_sol_2}\ ] ] @xmath348 .
\label{eq : mz_sol_2}\ ] ] the value of @xmath134 varies in the rage of @xmath349 .
@xmath136 corresponds to the in - phase synchronization , whereas @xmath134 is @xmath350 for the antiphase synchronization .    the analytical formulas of eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_l_def ] ) for the in - phase and antiphase synchronizations can be obtained as follows .
first , since the elliptic functions satisfy @xmath351=-{\rm sn}(u , k)$ ] , @xmath352=-{\rm cn}(u , k)$ ] , and @xmath353={\rm dn}(u , k)$ ] , @xmath191 has the same magnitude but different sign for @xmath136 and @xmath354 , whereas @xmath190 is the same for the in - phase and antiphase .
therefore , it is sufficient to calculate @xmath191 and @xmath190 for the in - phase case . in this case , it is unnecessary to distinguish @xmath82 and @xmath92 . next , it should be noted that eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) includes the following two integrals , @xmath355 @xmath356 by replacing the integral variable from @xmath357 with @xmath358 , and noting that @xmath359 , these integrals are calculated as @xmath360 + \left ( 4 - 3 k^{2 } \right)\sin^{-1}x}{8 } , \end{split}\ ] ] @xmath361 using these integrals , eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_sol ] ) is obtained . on the other hand , eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_l_def ] ) includes the following three integrals , @xmath362 @xmath363+\left ( 8 - 8k^{2}+3 k^{4 } \right)\sin^{-1}x}{8 } , \end{split}\ ] ] @xmath364 + \left ( 4 - k^{2 } \right ) \sin^{-1}x}{8}. \end{split}\ ] ] using these integrals , eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_l_sol ] ) is obtained .
when the phase difference is a quarter of a period ( @xmath200 ) , the relations , @xmath365={\rm cn}(u , k)/{\rm dn}(u , k)$ ] , @xmath366=-\sqrt{1-k^{2}}{\rm cn}(u , k)/{\rm dn}(u , k)$ ] , @xmath367=\sqrt{1-k^{2}}/{\rm dn}(u , k)$ ] , are used to evaluate eqs .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) and ( [ eq : melnikov_l_def ] ) . in this case
, we notice that all the integrands in eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_t_def ] ) become odd functions of @xmath368 , and the integrals over @xmath369 are zero .
therefore , @xmath207 for @xmath200 . on the other hand ,
the following integrals are necessary to obtain eq .
( [ eq : melnikov_l_sol_quarter ] ) , @xmath370}{\sqrt{1-k^{2 } } } , \end{split}\ ] ] @xmath371 @xmath372}{k^{2}}. \end{split}\ ] ]