Ab initio calculation of spin fluctuation spectra using time dependent density functional perturbation theory, planewaves, and pseudopotentials

Kun Cao,1 Henry Lambert,1 Paolo G. Radaelli,2 and Feliciano Giustino1 1Department of Materials, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PH, United Kingdom 2Clarendon Laboratory, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, United Kingdom (Dated: July 18, 2017) We present an implementation of time-dependent density functional perturbation theory for spin fluctuations, based on planewaves and pseudopotentials. We compute the dynamic spin susceptibil- ity self-consistently by solving the time-dependent Sternheimer equation, within the adiabatic local density approximation to the exchange and correlation kernel. We demonstrate our implementation by calculating the spin susceptibility of representative elemental transition metals, namely bcc Fe, fcc Ni and bcc Cr. The calculated magnon dispersion relations of Fe and Ni are in agreement with previous work. The calculated spin susceptibility of Cr exhibits a soft-paramagnon instability, in- dicating the tendency of the Cr spins to condense in a incommensurate spin density wave phase, in agreement with experiment.

I. INTRODUCTION ergy renormalization resulting from Stoner excitations is absent.11,12,15 In addition this approach is sensitive to the choice of the discrete spin model and the determi- Spin fluctuations play a central role in magnetic nation of its parameters. It is clear that a more general systems.1 For example they underpin fundamental ther- approach is desirable in this context, thus motivating the modynamic properties of magnets, such as the Curie need for a fully ab initio approach to spin waves. temperature and the heat capacity; they have long been discussed as a potential source of pairing in high- The central quantity to describe spin fluctuations is temperature superconductivity2,3; and they offer new the wave vector- (q) and energy- (ω) dependent spin opportunities in the development of spintronics4–6 and susceptibility, χ(q, ω) (in the following Hartree atomic multiferroics.7 units will be assumed). Magnon excitations correspond 1 In ordered magnets, spin fluctuations manifest them- to the poles of χ(q, ω). A promising approach for cal- selves in two forms, magnons and Stoner excitations.1,8 culating χ(q, ω) from first principles is given by time- dependent density functional perturbation theory (TD- In standard textbooks, magnons or ‘spin waves’ are typi- 16 cally illustrated as a collective, wave-like rotation of spins DFPT). The main appeal of this method is that it al- around their direction in the ground-state;9 Stoner or lows one to describe spin waves and Stoner excitations ‘spin flip’ excitations correspond instead to electronic on the same footing, without invoking materials-specific transitions from occupied to empty states, whereby the approximations. TD-DFPT for spin fluctuations has al- ready been demonstrated using either all-electron15,17 or electron spin is reversed; this process can alternatively 18 be described as the creation of an electron-hole singlet pseudopotential implementations. Using the adiabatic local density approximation (ALDA) to the exchange and pair of spins. When spin waves and spin flip excitations 16,19–21 are degenerate, the spin wave is attenuated and sharp correlation kernel, it was shown that the formal- magnon excitations cease to exist. This phenomenon is ism can capture the experimental magnon spectra of typ- 10 ical transition metals (Fe, Co, Ni, Cr) with reasonable referred to as Landau damping, and a clear discussion 15,17,18 for the simplified case of the uniform electron gas can be accuracy, provided the underlying DFT calcula- found in Refs. 1 and 11. Landau damping is usually im- tions could reproduce measured Stoner splittings. portant in metallic systems,12 while it is generally weak Given these encouraging results on the use of TD- in insulators, owing to the large energy needed to excite DFPT for calculating spin fluctuations, it would be de- Stoner pairs across the band gap. sirable to have these techniques available in the context The majority of studies on spin waves are currently of popular DFT implementations based on planewaves and pseudopotentials. The first implementation of this arXiv:1707.05219v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 17 Jul 2017 based on the adiabatic approximation, whereby spin and 18 electronic excitations are decoupled.13,14 In this approach type was reported not long ago. In this implementa- one maps the magnetic degrees of freedom into an ar- tion the authors calculated the spin susceptibility using ray of local spins, and determines the coupling param- the sum-over-states approach, and dealt with Brillouin eters from total energy calculations based on density zone sampling using maximally-localized Wannier func- 22 functional theory (DFT), or from experiments. This ap- tions. proach proved to work well for insulating magnets, but In this work we present a planewaves/pseudopotential carries some limitations. For example the adiabatic ap- implementation of TD-DFPT for spin fluctuations which proximation does not admit Stoner excitations, therefore does not rely on unoccupied electronic states. Our im- Landau damping is not captured, and the magnon en- plementation employs the time-dependent Sternheimer 2 equation, in the spirit of related work in the area of Using this notation, the 2×2 density matrix becomes: GW calculations.23–29 The implementation is based on the linear-response modules of the Quantum ESPRESSO 1 X α,∗ β ραβ(r) = ψnk (r) ψnk(r), α, β = 1, 2, (4) 30 Nk materials simulation suite, and is currently hosted on k,n∈occ our GitHub repository.31 We demonstrate this develop- ment by calculating the spin fluctuations spectra of bcc where Nk is the number of k points used to discretize iron, fcc nickel and bcc chromium. Our results are in the first Brillouin zone (we assume a uniform sampling), good agreement with previous calculations. The calcu- and the asterisc denotes complex conjugation. Using the lated spectra of Fe and Cr are in agreement with experi- Pauli matrix σ, the density matrix can be decomposed ment, while our results for Ni deviate from experiments as in Eq. (2): owing to the incorrect Stoner splitting in the underlying 1 h i DFT calculation. ρˆ(r) = n(r)Iˆ+ σ · m(r) , (5) The manuscript is organized as follows. In Sec. II we 2 present the TD-DFPT formalism for the spin suscepti- where n(r) is the standard electron charge density, and bility and the time-dependent Sternheimer equation. We m(r) is the electron spin density. also discuss how to treat fractional occupations in met- In order to facilitate the algebra it is convenient to in- als, and how to perform the symmetry-reduction of the troduce an alternative expression for the density matrix, Brillouin zone. At the end of this section we provide using vector notation: some technical details of the implementation. In Sec. III we present calculation results on the elemental transition ρ0 = n, ρ1 = m , ρ2 = m , ρ3 = m . (6) metals Fe, Ni, and Cr. Here we compare our results to x y z previous calculations as well as experiments. We offer Using these definitions, together with σ0 = Iˆ we can our conclusions in Sec. IV, together with an outlook on rewrite Eq. (4) as follows: future work.

i 1 X −→ † i −→ ρ (r) = ψ nk(r) σ ψ nk(r), i = 0,... 3, Nk II. SPIN SUSCEPTIBILITY IN k,n∈occ TIME-DEPENDENT DENSITY FUNCTIONAL (7) PERTURBATION THEORY where the dagger indicates the Hermitian conjugate. We now consider a time-dependent external perturba- A. General theory tion, which can be either an electric potential or a mag- i netic field, δVext(rt), with: In this section we summarize the generalization of the δV 0 (rt) = V (rt), δV 1 (rt) = Bx (rt), (8) TD-DFPT formalism16 to non-collinear spins, as already ext ext ext ext discussed in Refs. 15, 17, 18, 32, and 33. In the following and similarly for j = 2, 3. We neglect diamagnetic effects, we do not consider spin-orbit coupling, and we use the so that the magnetic field Bext only couples to the spin spin g-factor g = 2. The DFT Kohn-Sham equations for degrees of freedom. In linear-response theory the vari- a non-collinear spin system read: ation of the density matrix in response to the external  ∇2  −→ −→ perturbation is written as: − Iˆ+ Vˆscf (r) ψ nk(r) = nk ψ nk(r), (1) 2 Z i X 0 0 ij 0 0 j 0 0 δρ (rt) = d(r t ) χ (rt, r t ) δVext(r t ), (9) j where Iˆ is the 2×2 identify matrix, and Vˆscf is the Kohn- Sham potential, expressed as the following 2×2 matrix: where the sum runs over the components of the four- ij 0 0 Vˆscf (r) = Vscf (r)Iˆ+ σ · Bscf (r). (2) vector, and χ (rt, r t ) is the generalized susceptibility. In TD-DFPT the generalized susceptibility is formally In this expression Vscf is the scalar part of the self- obtained via a Dyson’s equation:16 consistent potential, and Bscf is the effective magnetic X Z field arising from external potential as well as exchange χij(rt, r0t0) = χij (rt, r0t0) + d(r t )d(r t ) and correlation.34 The Pauli matrix is given by σ = KS 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 i kl σ ux + σ uy + σ uz, with σ the usual 2×2 Pauli matri-   ces, and the unit vectors such as u denoting Cartesian ik kl 2δk0δl0δ(t1 − t2) x ×χKS(rt, r1t1) fxc(r1t1, r2t2) + −→ |r1 − r2| directions. ψ nk is a Kohn-Sham two-spinor eigenfunc- lj 0 0 tion with wavevector k, band index n, and energy nk, ×χ (r2t2, r t ), (10) and corresponds to two scalar functions dependent on the kl ij space coordinate r, as follows: where fxc is the exchange and correlation kernel, and χKS is the non-interacting Kohn-Sham susceptibility.  1  −→ ψnk(r) The exchange-correlation kernel is usually written ψ nk(r) = 2 . (3) ψnk(r) within the adiabatic local spin-density approximation 3

(ALSDA) to time-dependent DFT, meaning that one B. Calculation of the spin susceptibility using the uses the static LSDA kernel at equal times:15,16,20,21 Sternheimer equation

δ2E f ij (rt, r0t0) = xc δ(r − r0)δ(t − t0). (11) The Sternheimer equation in time-dependent pertur- xc δρi(r)ρj(r0) bation theory reads:17   We note that this choice carries the additional implicit ∂ −→ −→ Hˆ − i Iˆ δ ψ nk(r, t) = −(1−Pˆocc) δVˆscf (r, t) ψ nk(r), approximation that the ALSDA kernel is derived by con- ∂t sidering an electron gas with collinear spins. (16) The Kohn-Sham susceptibility appearing in Eq. (10) where Hˆ is the unperturbed Kohn-Sham Hamiltonian, is defined so as to yield the density-matrix response to a corresponding to the term in square brackets in Eq. (1), variation of the self-consistent potential, in analogy with −→ δ ψ nk is the first-order change of the spinor wavefunction, Eq. (9): and δVˆscf is the first-order variation of the Kohn-Sham ˆ Z potential from Eq. (2). The operator Pocc is the projector i X 0 0 ij 0 0 j 0 0 on the manifold of unoccupied Kohn-Sham states. δρ (rt) = d(r t ) χKS(rt, r t ) δVscf (r t ). (12) j Equation (16) is naturally found as an intermediate step of the perturbation theory approach; by expressing In view of practical calculations it is more convenient to −→ work in the frequency domain rather than in the time δ ψ nk in the frequency domain and expanding on a basis domain. Since the unperturbed Hamiltonian is time- of (occupied and empty) Kohn-Sham states, this expres- independent, the susceptibility depends only on the time sion leads immediately to Eq. (15). In order to avoid difference t − t0. As a result, the last equation can be the computation of unoccupied states, Eq. (16) must be rewritten in the frequency domain as follows: solved directly as a non-homogeneous linear system. The Sternheimer equation was originally intro- Z i X 0 ij 0 j 0 duced for calculating the static dielectric polariz- δρ (r, ω) = dr χ (r, r , ω) δV (r , ω), (13) 35 j KS scf ability of atoms, and found widespread use in the DFT community to compute phonon disper- having defined: sion relations using DFPT.36–38 The time-dependent Z version of the Sternheimer equation was used to δρi(r, ω) = dt δρi(rt) e−iωt, (14) calculate spin susceptibilities,17 dynamic molecular polarizabilities,39 and the screened Coulomb interaction in GW calculations.25–29,40 and similarly for δV i (r, ω) and χij (r, r0, ω). Equa- scf KS We now consider an external perturbation given by a tions (9)-(11) are transformed into the freqency domain monochromatic planewave: along the same lines. Using standard perturbation the- ory, the Kohn-Sham susceptibility in the frequency do- j j h i(q·r+ωt)−ηt i δVext(rt) = δVext(q, ω) e + c.c. , (17) main can now be written explicitly in terms of unper- turbed Kohn-Sham spinors:16 with η being a positive infinitesimal. This perturbation induces a variation of the density matrix that can be eval- ij 0 1 X fnk − fmk+q uated using Eq. (16). After some lengthy but otherwise χKS(r, r , ω) = 2 N nk − mk+q + ω k nm,k,q straightforward algebra one finds: 1 −→† i −→ −→† 0 j −→ 0 i X −→† i −→ × ψ (r) σ ψ mk+q(r) ψ (r ) σ ψ nk(r ),(15) δρq(r, ω) = u nk(r) σ δ u nk+q(r, ω) nk mk+q Nk n∈occ,k where fnk and fmk+q are occupation numbers. 1 X −→† i −→ This formulation provides a two-step procedure for cal- + δ u nk−q(r, −ω) σ unk(r), (18) Nk culating the generalized susceptibility. First, the Kohn- n∈occ,k Sham susceptibility is calculated via Eq. (15), starting −→ where unk is the Bloch-periodic part of the Kohn-Sham from the unperturbed Kohn-Sham spinor wavefunctions. −→ wavefunction, i.e. ψ (r) = eik·r−→u (r), and similarly The computed χij is then used inside Eq. (10) (after nk nk KS for δ−→u (r, ω) and δρi (r, ω). The variation of the transforming to the frequency domain), so as as to eval- nk+q q Kohn-Sham wavefunctions appearing in the last expres- uate χij and obtain spin fluctuation spectra. sion can be found from Eq. (16), following the usual de- The main disadvantage of this procedure is that the coupling procedure employed in DFPT for phonons:36 evaluation of χ via Eq. (15) relies on the calculation KS ˆ −→ of unoccupied Kohn-Sham states, and the convergence of (Hk+q − nk + ω + iη) δ u nk+q(r, +ω) the results with respect to the number of empty bands = −(1 − Pˆ k+q) δVˆ +q(r, +ω)−→u (r), (19) is slow. In order to circumvent this bottleneck, here we occ scf nk employ an alternative approach which is based on the −→ (Hˆk−q − nk − ω + iη) δ u nk−q(r, −ω) Sternheimer equation,35 and which requires one to com- ˆ k−q ˆ −q −→ pute only occupied Kohn-Sham states. = −(1 − Pocc ) δVscf (r, −ω) unk(r). (20) 4

Here Hˆk denotes the k-projected unperturbed Kohn- Magnon excitation are expected to be damped in the ˆk Sham Hamiltonian. Similarly Pocc indicates the compo- presence of resonant Stoner spin-flip excitations. The re- nent of the projector operator on the occupied states with gion in the (q, ω) plane where Stoner excitations are al- ˆ +q wavevector k. δVscf (r, ω) is the Bloch-periodic compo- lowed corresponds to energy and momenta for which the +− 1 nent of the self-consistent variation of the Kohn-Sham non-interacting susceptibility, Im χKS (q, ω), is nonzero. potential, for the wavevector +q. In fact, by performing a Fourier transform of Eq. (15), The variation of the self-consistent potential is related we find immediately: to the variation of the charge density as follows: π 1 q j j +− X δVˆ (r, ω) = σ δV (q, ω) Im χKS (q, ω) = (fnk − fmk+q) scf ext 2 Nk Z 0 0 nm,k 0 δρq(r , ω) −iq·(r−r0) 0 + σ e dr −→ − −→ 2 |r − r0| × h umk+q|σ | unki δ(nk − mk+q + ω), (24) X + σi f ij [ρ(r), r] δρj (r, ω), (21) xc q where σ− = σ1 − iσ2. The r.h.s. of this expression ij corresponds to the standard transition rate as given by where the integration in the second line is in the unit the Fermi golden rule, with respect to an operator which cell, and the exchange-correlation kernel in the third line lowers the spin quantum number in a ferromagnet. is evaluated for the unperturbed density. From Eq. (20) ˆ q we see that, in addition to δVscf (r, ω), we also need ˆ −q δVscf (r, −ω). In order to evaluate this term via Eq. (21) C. Fractional occupations we simply change the signs of q and ω, and observe that i i∗ δρ−q(r, −ω) = δρq (r, ω). Equations (18)-(21) are to be solved self-consistently. The formalism described in the previous section is ap- The procedure starts from Eq. (21), by setting the initial plicable to insulators and semiconductors, where the oc- variation of the Kohn-Sham potential equal to the exter- cupied and unoccupied states are separated by a finite nal perturbation (i.e. by retaining only the first line). energy gap. In principle, the formalism also applies for Then Eqs. (19) and (20) are solved, and the solutions are metals at zero temperature. However, in the case of met- i als, a very dense sampling of the Brillouin zone would be used in Eq. (18) to obtain δρq(r, ω). We emphasize that the presence of an external magnetic field breaks time required to correctly describe the Fermi surface. To avoid reversal symmetry, therefore Eqs. (19) and (20) have to this complication in the case of metals, it is common to be solved separately. This is in contrast to what happens perform Brillouin zone integrals using the tetrahedron 37,42,43 36,44 in DFPT for phonons, whereby these two equations be- method, or to employ smearing techniques. In come equivalent after taking into account time-reversal this work we opted for the use of electronic smearing, and symmetry.36 in the following we discuss how the formalism introduced The self-consistent solution of Eqs. (18)-(21) yields the in Ref. 44 needs to be adapted to deal with frequency- j dependent perturbations and spinor wavefunctions. variation δρq(r, ω) of the density matrix in response to the external perturnation of Eq. (17). By taking the In the scheme of Ref. 44 each Kohn-Sham energy level unit-cell average of the density variation, δρi(q, ω) = is broadened by a smearing function defined by δγ () = R j ˜ ˜ dr δρq(r, ω), we can finally calculate the susceptibility δ(/γ)/γ. Here δ(x) is a normalized function such that as: δγ (x) tends to the Dirac δ function when the smearing width γ tends to zero. The simplest smearing function is i 30 ij δρ (q, ω) a Gaussian but there are many practical alternatives. χ (q, ω) = j . (22) δVext(q, ω) From the definition of δγ one naturally obtains a smooth approximation to the step function, θ(˜x) = R x δ˜(x0)dx0. This quantity can directly be compared with experi- −∞ ˜ ˜ ments. For example, in a ferromagnet with the spin den- Following Ref. 44 we define θn,m = θ[(n − m)/γ], and ˜ ˜ sity polarized along the z-direction, the transverse com- θF,m = θ[(F − m)/γ], with F the Fermi energy. Using ponent of spin susceptibilty, defined as χ+− = χ11 −iχ12, these definitions the smeared density matrix reads: yields the inelastic neutron scattering cross section ac- 41 cording to the equation: i 1 X ˜ −→† i −→ ρ (r) = θF,nk unk(r) σ unk(r), (25) Nk ∂2Σ nk ∝ Im χ+−(q, ω), (23) ∂Ω∂ω where the sum is over all states n. Since θ˜ is a smeared where q and ω have the meaning of momentum and en- step function, it is sufficient to only calculate all occu- ergy transfer, respectively, and ∂Ω is the element of solid pied states and a handfulf of unoccupied states, up to +− angle spanned by q. Sharp peaks of Imχ in the (q, ω) the energy ∼ F + 10γ. The linear density response to plane correspond to magnon excitations.1 an external monochromatic perturbation as in Eq. (17) 5

−→ reads: and similarly for δ unk−q(r, −ω). After replacing this expression in Eq. (26) one obtains: 1 X δρi (r, ω) = θ˜ −→u † (r) σi δ−→u (r, ω) q F,nk nk nk+q i 1 X Nk ˜ ˜ nk δρq(r, ω) = (θF,nk − θF,mk+q) Nk nm,k 1 X ˜ −→† i −→ + θF,nk δ unk−q(r, −ω) σ unk(r). (26) −→† i−→ −→ ˆ q −→ Nk u σ u mk+qh u mk+q|δV (r, ω)| u nki nk × nk scf . (28) nk − mk+q + ω − iη In this expression we are neglecting the contribution to To obtain a more compact expression, in the second line the density variation arising from a change in the Fermi of Eq. (26) we replaced k by k + q and m by n, and we level, which corresponds formally to the variation of the −q q ˜ used the identity δVˆ (r, −ω)† = δVˆ (r, ω). prefactor θF,nk. This contribution is only important for scf scf q = 0, and it vanishes for the perturbations considered Equation (28) contains a summation over all states, in this work. occupied and empty. In order to recast this expression into a sum over occupied states only, we observe that the The linear variation of the spinor wavefunction can be prefactor θ˜ − θ˜ vanishes when the states nk formally written using perturbation theory: F,nk F,mk+q and mk + q are both occupied or both unoccupied. This observation can be used to bring Eq. (28) into a form −→ −→ ˆ q −→ X u mk+qh umk+q|δV (r, ω)| unki ˜ δ−→u (r, ω) = scf , similar to Eq. (26), but without the θ prefactors. To this nk+q  −  + ω − iη ˜ ˜ m nk mk+q aim we note that θ(x) + θ(−x) = 1, therefore Eq. (28) (27) can be rewritten as:

−→† i−→ −→ ˆ q −→ i 1 X ˜ ˜ ˜ u nkσ u mk+qh u mk+q|δVscf (r, ω)| u nki δρq(r, ω) = (θF,nk − θF,mk+q)θmk+q,nk Nk nk − mk+q + ω − iη nm,k † " −→† i−→ −→ ˆ −q −→ # 1 X ˜ ˜ ˜ u nkσ u mk−qh u mk−q|δVscf (r, −ω)| u nki + (θF,nk − θF,mk−q)θmk−q,nk . (29) Nk nk − mk−q − ω − iη nm,k

Also in this case the second line has been rewritten with the summation running over the occupied states by exchanging k and k − q, n and m, and using plus a few empty states, as discusses for Eq. (25). The ˆ −q † ˆ q + δVscf (r, −ω) = δVscf (r, ω). By inspecting the terms parameters βnm,k+q are given by: (θ˜ −θ˜ )θ˜ we can see that now the sum- F,nk F,mk+q mk+q,nk +ω ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ mation over n effectively runs over occupied states, and βnm,k+q = θF,nk θnk,mk+q + θF,mk+q θmk+q,nk that over m runs over unoccupied states. At this point ˜ ˜ ˜ (θF,nk − θF,mk+q) θmk+q,nk it is a matter of alebra to show that the density matrix + α . (34)  −  + ω − iη variation can be written compactly as follows: nk mk+q An equation analogous to Eq. (31) is obained for the i 1 X −→† i −→ −→ δρq(r, ω) = u nk(r) σ δ vnk+q(r, ω) function δ vnk−q(r, −ω) needed in Eq. (30). In prac- Nk nk tice one only needs to change the signs of q and ω in 1 X −→† i −→ Eqs. (31)-(34). In order to derive Eqs. (30)-(34) starting + δ vnk−q(r, −ω) σ unk(r), (30) from Eq. (29) it is sufficient to act on the first line of the Nk nk r.h.s. with the operator nk − (Hˆk+q + αQˆk+q) + ω − iη. −→ where δ vnk+q(r, ω) is the solution of the modified Stern- These equations constitute a straightforward generaliza- heimer equation: tion of the treatment of fractional occupations in stan- dard DFPT for phonons.36,44 ˆ ˆ −→ (Hk+q + αQk+q − nk − ω + iη) δ v nk+q(r, +ω) As in the case of phonon calculations, the parameter α appearing in Eq. (31) is chosen so as to make the lin- = −(θ˜ − Pˆ+ω ) δVˆ +q(r, +ω)−→u (r). (31) F,nk n,k+q scf nk ear operator on the l.h.s. non-singular. When choosing In this equation α is a real parameter to be discussed η = 0, the system can become singular if mk+q is in res- below, and the projector operators are defined as: onance with nk + ω, where n belongs to the manifold of occupied states. To avoid a singularity it therefore suf- X −→ −→ Qˆk+q = | u mk+qih u mk+q|, (32) fices to choose α = F − min + ωmax + 10γ, where min m is the smallest eigenvalue of the occupied manifold, and +ω X +ω −→ −→ Pˆ = β | u mk+qih u mk+q|, (33) n,k+q m nm,k+q ωmax is the highest frequency considered in the calcula- 6 tions. If we set instead η > 0, the calculation is effectively In order to minimize fluctuations of the density matrix performed for a complex frequency, and strictly speaking during the self-consistent iterations, we employed a gen- the linear system cannot become singular. However, the eralization of the modified Broyden method for charge- 49 use of the projector αQˆk+q is still important in order to density mixing, following Ref. 25. We found that typi- reduce the condition number of the linear system. cally 5 iterations are enough to reach convergence in the self-consistent calculation. In this method we need to solve Eq. (30) both for the D. Symmetry reduction (+q, +ω) channel and the (−q, −ω) channel. The solu- tions for each channel are evaluated separately and inde- pendently. The parallelization of the algorithm is on the The summation over k-points in the Brillouin zone in k-points within each channel. Eq. (30) can effectively be performed by exploting crys- In all the calculations reported below we employed a tal symmetry operations. In standard DFPT symme- parameter α = 500 meV in Eq. (30), which lies above the try is used to reduce the set of k-points to a symmetry- highest magnon energy calculated in the three examples. irreducible wedge of the Brillouin zone.30 In the present work we are dealing with DFPT in the presence of spinor wavefunctions, therefore we also need III. RESULTS to take into account the effect of symmetry operations on the electron spins. To this aim we make use of spin-space groups (SSG).45 The action of an element S of the SSG In order to test our implementation we performed on a spinor wavefuntion can be described as: calculations on three representative elemental transition metals, namely bcc iron, fcc nickel, and bcc chromium. −→ −→ Ground-state DFT calculations were performed using S : {R |R|f} ψ (r) = R ψ (R−1r − f), (35) s s Quantum ESPRESSO, within the local density approx- imation for the exchange and correlation,50 and using where R is the spacial rotation, f is the possible fractional pseudopotentials from the repository ‘PSlibrary 0.3.1’.51 translation, and R is the matrix that rotates the spins. s When performing calculations of spin fluctuations, the Generally speaking one could also consider time- ground state calculation and the solution of the Stern- reversal symmetry in order to perform further reductions heimer equation must be carried out using the same sam- of the number of required k-points. Time-reversal can be 45 pling of the Brillouin zone. This is necessary in order combined with operations in the SSG. However, since to avoid spurious symmetry-breaking leading to the so- in our present work we are focusing on perturbations cor- called gap error, that is the presence of long-wavelength responding to magnetic fields, time-reversal symmetry is magnons with finite excitation energy.15,18,52 In all the broken. As a result we can only consider symmetry oper- following calculations we employed a 50×50×50 grid of ations in the SSG which do not involve time-reversal. In k-points for calculating both the ground state and the practice we perform symmetry-reduction by considering spin fluctuation spectra. all the symmetry operations S which do not contain time- Below, when comparing with previous work, we only reversal and which belong to the small group of q, where include the most recent theoretical studies. A more de- q is the wavevector of the perturbation (the small group tailed comparison between earlier theoretical results can is the sub-group of elements which leave q unchanged, be found in Refs. 18 and 32. Sq = q).

A. BCC Iron E. Implementation details We performed calculations using a norm conserving The method described in the preceeding sections was pseudopotential,46 using a planewaves kinetic energy cut- implemented using planewaves basis sets and pseudopo- off of 60 Ry. To deal with fractional occupations we tentials, starting from the linear response modules of the used a Gaussian smearing with a width of 10 mRy. Quantum ESPRESSO suite, and in particular from the We employed the experimental lattice parameter a = PHONON code.30 The development version of this code 5.406 bohr. Our calculations yield a ground-state mag- 31 is hosted on our GitHub repository . We have support netization of 2.16 µB per atom, and the mean Stoner for both norm-conserving46 and ultrasoft47 pseudopoten- splitting is 2.5 eV. We evaluated the transverse spin su- tials. ceptibility χ+−(q, ω) for wavevectors q along the ΓN In our implementation the Sternheimer equation, and the ΓH high-symmetry lines [N = (1/2, 1/2, 0)2π/a, Eq. (30), is solved separately for each frequency ω using H = (0, 0, 1)2π/a]. We sampled the frequency axis in the the complex biconjugate gradient method, as described range 0 to 400 meV, with a spacing of 2 meV between in Ref. 48. The implementation was adapted from re- consecutive grid points. The broadening parameter was lated work within the context of GW calculations from set to η = 0.1 ω; this choice was motivated by the ob- Ref. 25 and 29. servation that a larger broadening is required to obtain 7

FIG. 1. (Color online) (a) Calculated Imχ+−(q, ω) of Fe along the ΓN and ΓH directions. The susceptibility is given in atomic 3 +− units, 1/(Ry bohr ). (b) Calculated ImχKS (q, ω) along the ΓN and ΓH directions. We also show the magnon dispersion curves superimposed as dots. (c) Magnon bands of Fe along the ΓN and ΓH directions. We compare our results to the experimental data of Loong et al.53, and the calculations of Rousseau et al.,18 and Buczek et al..15 (d) Calculated Imχ+−(q, ω) of Fe, for selected wavevectors along the ΓN direction. All peaks are normalized to their maximum for clarity, and the wavevectors are given as q = 2π/a(1, 1, 0)q. converged spectra at higher frequencies. ment with the results of Ref. 18. This level of agree- The calculations are shown in Fig. 1. In particular, ment was to be expected since also the implementation Fig. 1(a) shows a two-dimensional plot of Im χ+− in the of Ref. 18 is based on the Quantum ESPRESSO pack- (q, ω)-plane. For clarity we also report some cuts for a age, although these authors used the method described few selected wavevectors in Fig. 1(d). The maxima of in Sec. II A instead of the Sternheimer equation. As the map in Fig. 1(a) are reported in the form of magnon pointed out in Ref. 18, theoretical results tend to differ frequency-wavevector dispersion relations in Fig. 1(c). significantly beyond |q| ∼ 0.4ΓN. Notably, our calcula- The map of Fig. 1(a) shows a significant attenuation of tions yield a plateau around |q| ∼ 0.5ΓN, while Ref. 15 the magnon resonances beyond |q| ∼ 0.38 ΓN, neverthe- reports a monotonic curve. We also observe that the dis- less we can clearly recognize the magnon excitations all crepancies lie in the region where Stoner excitations kick the way up to the Brillouin zone edge. Along the ΓH line in. It is likely that these differences between the various instead, magnon excitations are so strongly damped be- approaches arise from the difference in the underlying yond |q| ∼ 0.35 ΓH that no clear curve can be identified ground-state DFT calculations. Along the ΓH direction in this region. The difference in the magnon damping our results are in agreement with those of Ref. 15, which patterns along the two directions is a direct consequence also find a strong suppression of spin waves in the same of the anisotropic nature of the Stoner continuum, as it is range of wavevectors. Our calculations are in reasonable seen in Fig. 1(b). Here we see that along ΓH Stoner exci- agreement with the low-temperature experimental data tations become possible already around 100 meV, causing of Ref. 53 (taken at 10 K). One aspect which compli- the complete suppression of magnons with energies above cates the comparison between theory and experiment is this threshold. that the measurements were not taken exactly along the In Fig. 1(c) we also compare our results with previous ΓN or ΓH lines. Having more information on the pre- experimental and theoretical work. Along the ΓN direc- cise wavevector path probed in the experiments would tion our magnon dispersion curve is in excellent agree- be useful to perform a more detailed comparison. 8

+− +− FIG. 2. (Color online) (a) Calculated Imχ (q, ω) of Ni along the ΓX direction. (b) Calculated ImχKS (q, ω), with the magnon band superimposed as dots. (c) Calculated magnon dispersion curve of Ni along the ΓX direction. Our results are compared with experimental data of Mook et al.,54,55 and with the calculations of Rousseau et al.,18 Buczek et al.,15 and S¸a¸sıo˘glu et al.33 (d) Calculated Imχ+−(q, ω) of Ni for selected wavevectors along the ΓX direction. The peaks are normalized to their maximum value, and the wavevector is given as q = 2π/a(1, 0, 0)q.

B. FCC Nickel The calculated susceptibility is shown as a two- dimensional (q, ω)-map in Fig. 2(a). Also in this case we show representative cuts at selected wavevectors in In this case we performed calculations using an ultra- Fig. 2(d). From the map we recognize a well-defined soft pseudopotential,47 using a planewaves kinetic en- magnon band along the ΓX line. The excitation spec- ergy cutoff of 42 Ry for the wavefunction and a cutoff trum is sharp up to |q| ∼ 0.3ΓX, and becomes broadened of 236 Ry for the charge density. We employed Marzari- upon entering the Stoner continuum beyond this point. Vanderbilt smearing56 with a broadening parameter of This effect is clearly seen in Fig. 2(b), where we superim- 10 mRy. We used the experimental lattice parameter pose the spin wave dispersion curve to the Stoner spec- a = 6.65 bohr. We obtained a ground-state magnetiza- trum. Our calculated magnon band, as extracted from +− tion of 0.61 µB per atom and the mean Stoner splitting the maxima of Imχ (q, ω), is compared to previous cal- of 0.66 eV. We computed χ+−(q, ω) along the ΓX direc- culations and experiments in Fig. 2(c). Here we observe tion [X = (0, 0, 1)2π/a]. We sampled frequencies up to that theoretical data agree well for small wavevectors, 600 meV with a grid spacing of 2 meV and a broadening but start deviating significantly from each other near the parameter η = 0.1 ω. 9

FIG. 3. (Color online) (a) Calculated Imχ(q, ω) of Cr along the ΓH direction. (b) Calculated ReχKS(q, ω) of Cr along the ΓH direction. To highlight the effect of Fermi-surface nesting, we plot ReχKS(q, ω) − 0.2 and only show the positive values. zone boundary. which is also observed in Ref. 18. We ten- tations at finite wavevector is the signature of a SDW, i.e. tatively assign these deviations to the different choices a frozen spin-wave, analogous to charge-density waves employed to describe the ground-state electronic struc- observed in the presence of soft phonons. The role of ture. Fermi-surface nesting can be investigated by inspecting When comparing with experiment we see that our cal- the nesting function, that is ReχKS(q, ω), as shown in culations, as well as previous theoretical data, consis- Fig. 3(b). For ω = 0 the nesting function reaches a max- tently overestimate the experiments by up to a factor of imum at qnest ∼ (0, 0, 0.92)2π/a, which is close to our two. This phenomenon is well understood, and is related calculated SDW vector. This result confirm that nesting to the fact that the Stoner splitting of fcc Ni in standard is at the origin of the SDW in chromium. DFT is approximately twice as large as in experiment Our present results are in good agreement with previ- (0.66 eV vs. 0.3 eV, respectively).33,57,58 It was shown ous calculations,17 although we obtain a slightly shorter that the experimental magnon spectra can be reasonably SDW vector (0.86·2π/a vs. 0.92·2π/a). We assign this reproduced by manually reducing the LSDA exchange difference to the fact that we used the LDA functional, splitting by one-half.32,33 while in Ref. 17 the PBE functional was employed.64

C. BCC Chromium IV. CONCLUSIONS

For chromium we used a norm-conserving pseudopo- In conclusion, we described an implementation of tential with a cutoff of 60 Ry, and a Gaussian smearing of time-dependent density-functional perturnation theory 10 mRy. We set the lattice parameter to the experimen- for spin fluctuations, based on planewaves and pesudopo- tal value a = 5.5 bohr. We evaluated the susceptibility tentials, built around the linear response modules of the along the ΓH line, and we sampled frequencies using a Quantum ESPRESSO package. In the present approach grid spacing of 20 meV, up to a maximum value of 2 eV. we calculate the macroscopic spin susceptibility χ(q, ω) In this case we used a constant broadening parameter via a self-consistent solution of the time-dependent Stern- η = 100 meV. heimer equation. The main advantage of this formulation Experiments indicate that the ground-state electronic is that it avoids altogether the need for evaluating unoc- structure of Cr is a spin-density wave (SDW), with an cupied Kohn-Sham states. 59 incommensurate wave vector qSDW ' (0, 0, 0.95)2π/a. We demonstrated the methodology by calculating spin This SDW was attributed to the presence of pronouced wave spectra of bcc Fe, fcc Ni, and bcc Cr along sev- Fermi-surface nesting in paramagnetic Cr,60–62 a scenario eral high-symmetry directions in the Brillouin zone, and which was later confirmed by explicit DFT calculations.63 we rationalized the suppression of magnon excitations in The calculated spin susceptibility of paramagnetic Cr terms of Landau damping when the magnon energy res- is shown in Fig. 3(a). Here we see a clear peak for onates with the Stoner continuum. In the case of Fe wavevectors around (0, 0, 0.86)2π/a, extending down to and Ni, our calculated magnon dispersions relations are zero excitation energy. The presence of zero-energy exci- in good agreement with previous theoretical results near 10 the zone center, but we see some significant deviations anisotropy, for example multiferroic oxides. Apart from closer to the zone boundaries. These deviations likely re- these desirable improvements, we believe that our cur- sult from the underlying DFT description of the ground- rent implementation provides an important new addition state electronic structure. In the case of Fe, our calcula- to state-of-the-art techniques for investigating spin fluc- tions are in reasonable agreement with experiment, while tuations, magnon dispersions, and spin density waves in in the case of Ni the calculated magnon energies are too several important problems of condensed matter physics, large by a factor of two. This discrepancy is consistent and will serve as a starting point to explore incommen- with previous ab initio calculations, and is attributed to surate magnetic excitations systematically, without per- the fact that standard DFT yields too large a Stoner forming supercell calculations. splitting for this metal as compared to experiment. In the case of Cr, we demonstrated that the calculation of Note. We are aware of a closely related work, where the spin wave spectra can be a very powerful tool to iden- authors used TD-DFPT to calculate magnon dispersion tify SDW phases, and we obtained good agreement with relations.65 The present results are consistent with those previous theory and with experiment. of Ref. 65. Looking forward, we see two main avenues for future development. Firstly, it would be desirable to extend the present formalism and implementation to Hubbard- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS corrected DFT. The capability of calculating the spin suceptibility within DFT+U would make it possible to This work was funded by EPSRC grant No. explore many interesting correlated electron system, in- EP/M020517/1, entitled “Oxford Quantum Materials cluding for example the copper oxides high-temperature Platform Grant” and the Leverhulme Trust (Grant RL- superconductors. Secondly, it would be important to in- 2012-001). The authors acknowledge the use of the Uni- corporate support for spin-orbit coupling in the method- versity of Oxford Advanced Research Computing (ARC) ology. This further development will enable calculations facility (http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22558) and of spin wave spectra on systems with strong magnetic the ARCHER UK National Supercomputing Service.

1 T. Moriya, Spin fluctuations in itinerant electron mag- 18 B. Rousseau, A. Eiguren, and A. Bergara, Phys. Rev. B netism (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985). 85, 054305 (2012). 2 D. J. Scalapino, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1383 (2012). 19 E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 3 P. Monthoux, D. Pines, and G. G. Lonzarich, Nature 450, (1984). 1177 (2007). 20 U. von Barth and L. Hedin, J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. 4 S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Buhrman, J. M. 5, 1629 (1972). Daughton, S. von Moln´ar,M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelka- 21 J. Callaway and C. S. Wang, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5, nova, and D. M. Treger, Science 294, 1488 (2001). 2119 (1975). 5 I. Zuti´c,J.ˇ Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. 22 N. Marzari, A. A. Mostofi, J. R. Yates, I. Souza, and 76, 323 (2004). D. Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 1419 (2012). 6 A. Khitun, M. Bao, and K. L. Wang, J. Phys. D: Appl. 23 H. F. Wilson, F. m. c. Gygi, and G. Galli, Phys. Rev. B Phys. 43, 264005 (2010). 78, 113303 (2008). 7 A. Pimenov, A. A. Mukhin, V. Y. Ivanov, V. D. Travkin, 24 H. F. Wilson, D. Lu, F. m. c. Gygi, and G. Galli, Phys. A. M. Balbashov, and A. Loid, Nature Physics 2, 97 Rev. B 79, 245106 (2009). (2006). 25 F. Giustino, M. L. Cohen, and S. G. Louie, Phys. Rev. B 8 J. Van Kranendonk and J. H. Van Vleck, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 115105 (2010). 30, 1 (1958). 26 P. Umari, G. Stenuit, and S. Baroni, Phys. Rev. B 81, 9 C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (Wiley, 115104 (2010). 2004). 27 P. Umari, X. Qian, N. Marzari, G. Stenuit, L. Giacomazzi, 10 L. D. Landau, J. Phys. USSR 10, 25 (1946). and S. Baroni, Phys. Status Solidi B 248, 527 (2011), ISSN 11 P. A. Buczek, Ph.D. thesis (Martin Luther Universit¨at, 1521-3951. Halle-Wittenberg, 2009). 28 H.-V. Nguyen, T. A. Pham, D. Rocca, and G. Galli, Phys. 12 A. T. Costa, R. B. Muniz, and D. L. Mills, Phys. Rev. B Rev. B 85, 081101 (2012). 70, 054406 (2004). 29 H. Lambert and F. Giustino, Phys. Rev. B 88, 075117 13 S. V. Halilov, H. Eschrig, A. Y. Perlov, and P. M. Oppe- (2013). neer, Phys. Rev. B 58, 293 (1998). 30 P. Giannozzi, S. Baroni, N. Bonini, M. Calandra, R. Car, 14 R. Gebauer and S. Baroni, Phys. Rev. B 61, R6459 (2000). C. Cavazzoni, D. Ceresoli, G. L. Chiarotti, M. Cococcioni, 15 P. Buczek, A. Ernst, and L. M. Sandratskii, Phys. Rev. B I. Dabo, et al., J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21, 395502 84, 174418 (2011). (2009). 16 E. K. U. Gross and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2850 31 URL https://github.com/mmdg-oxford/magnon-dev. (1985). 32 K. Karlsson and F. Aryasetiawan, J. Phys.: Condens. Mat- 17 S. Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2570 (1998). ter 12, 7617 (2000). 11

33 E. S¸a¸sıo˘glu,A. Schindlmayr, C. Friedrich, F. Freimuth, 50 J. P. Perdew and A. Zunger, Phys. Rev. B 23, 5048 (1981). and S. Bl¨ugel,Phys. Rev. B 81, 054434 (2010). 51 A. D. Corso, Comput. Mater. Sci. 95, 337 (2014). 34 F. Giustino, Materials Modelling using Density Functional 52 S. Lounis, A. T. Costa, R. B. Muniz, and D. L. Mills, Phys. Theory, Properties and Predictions (Oxford University Rev. B 83, 035109 (2011). Press, 2014). 53 C. K. Loong, J. M. Carpenter, J. W. Lynn, R. A. Robinson, 35 R. M. Sternheimer, Phys. Rev. 96, 951 (1954). and H. A. Mook, J. Appl. Phys. 55, 1895 (1984). 36 S. Baroni, S. de Gironcoli, A. Dal Corso, and P. Giannozzi, 54 J. W. Lynn and H. A. Mook, Phys. Rev. B 23, 198 (1981). Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 515 (2001). 55 H. A. Mook and D. M. Paul, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 227 37 S. Y. Savrasov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2819 (1992). (1985). 38 X. Gonze, Phys. Rev. A 52, 1096 (1995). 56 N. Marzari, D. Vanderbilt, A. De Vita, and M. C. Payne, 39 X. Andrade, S. Botti, M. A. L. Marques, and A. Rubio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3296 (1999). The Journal of Chemical Physics 126, 184106 (2007). 57 R. Raue, H. Hopster, and R. Clauberg, Z. Phys. B - Con- 40 L. Reining, G. Onida, and R. W. Godby, Phys. Rev. B 56, densed Matter 54, 121 (1984). R4301 (1997). 58 D. E. Eastman, F. J. Himpsel, and J. A. Knapp, Phys. 41 T. Izuyama, D.-J. Kim, and R. Kubo, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Rev. Lett. 44, 95 (1980). 18, 1025 (1963). 59 C. R. Fincher, G. Shirane, and S. A. Werner, Phys. Rev. 42 A. A. Quong and B. M. Klein, Phys. Rev. B 46, 10734 Lett. 43, 1441 (1979). (1992). 60 A. W. Overhauser, Phys. Rev. 128, 1437 (1962). 43 M. Kawamura, Y. Gohda, and S. Tsuneyuki, Phys. Rev. 61 W. M. Lomer, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) 80, 489 (1962). B 89, 094515 (2014). 62 E. Fawcett, Rev. Mod. Phys. 60, 209 (1988). 44 S. de Gironcoli, Phys. Rev. B 51, 6773 (1995). 63 R. Hafner, D. Spiˇs´ak,R. Lorenz, and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. 45 L. M. Sandratskii, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 3, 8565 B 65, 184432 (2002). (1991). 64 J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. 46 D. R. Hamann, M. Schl¨uter,and C. Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). Lett. 43, 1494 (1979). 65 T. Gorni, Ph.D. thesis (SISSA - Scuola Internazionale 47 D. Vanderbilt, Phys. Rev. B 41, 7892 (1990). Superiore di Studi Avanzati, Trieste, Italy, 2016), URL 48 D. A. H. Jacobs, IMA J Number Anal 6, 447 (1986). http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11767/43342. 49 A. A. Quong and B. M. Klein, Phys. Rev. B 38, 12807 (1988).