arXiv:0804.1400v2 [cond-mat.mes-hall] 18 Oct 2008 oeiti aiu ytm,icuigsemiconductor including systems, various in heterostructures exist to u11 ufcsa omtemperature. room at surfaces Au(111) precession, spin phenomena. include spin-dependent phenomena intriguing studied Well of plenty on sion ierin linear hc r ngo gemn ihtesi-eovdpho- spin-resolved the with experiments. agreement toemission first-principles recognized good in the are later performing which calculations, was by photoemission and effect splitting electronic-structure Rashba spin LaShell the observed as by their pioneered of was states face larger. orders two or (CISP), ization (SHE), effect Hall Rashba the as known is splitting coupling, spin mechanisms spin-orbit such underlying the to of leading one semiconduc- and heterostructures, In removed tor spin-split. is becomes dispersion symmetry, energy inversion the combining the de- in- the (Kramers and symmetry degeneracy, the generacy) reversal time spin by the the of introduced consequence surface, symmetry or inversion terface of lack the eV vntog h ahaeethsbe hw oexist to shown been has effect Rashba therein. reporte the is states though surface even metallic Con- in these heterostructures. of none trarily, in observed tally utrhtrsrcue r tms fteodro 10 of order the of or most constant at of are coupling values heterostructures Typical Rashba ductor the parameter. Rashba as the to referred monly w pnslteeg rnhsaeepesdas expressed are branches energy spin-split two h ahasi pitn ∆ splitting spin Rashba the ~ 2 k w-iesoa lcrngs(DG sknown is (2DEG) electron Two-dimensional h rteiec fsi pitn nmtli sur- metallic in splitting spin of evidence first The otelws re nteipaewv vector wave inplane the in order lowest the To A, ˚ k 2 / 7 2 , m 10 11 , ⋆ 13 k , 12 ± k eetepootoa constant proportional the Here . hl nmtli ufc states surface metallic in while αk pnsltigaepretyfi ya ffcietight-bindin effective an by with fit lattice perfectly hexagonal are splitting spin ASnmes 32.t 32.b 71.70.Ej 73.23.-b, phen 73.20.At, spin numbers: these PACS for latter the in experiments urge heterostructur d Ra therefore semiconductor and (iii) in and surface observed polarization, Au(111) experimentally spin the current-induced on sandwiching (ii) density setup fect, spin two-terminal Landauer-Keldy strong a show the in results perform transport to spin imported librium then are parameters 2 eateto hsc n srnm,Uiest fDelawar of University Astronomy, and Physics of Department h elkoneprmnal observed experimentally well-known The k 7 , .INTRODUCTION I. 1 ( 8 m , 9 n ealcsraestates. surface metallic and 6 , , 10 3 ⋆ 7 , h lcrneetv as,s that so mass), effective electron the hc tmltsasre fdiscus- of series a stimulates which 8 l fwihhv enexperimen- been have which of all 1 eateto hsc,Ntoa awnUiest,Taipei University, Taiwan National Physics, of Department n urn-nue pnpolar- spin current-induced and oeulbimsi rnpr nA(1)surfaces Au(111) on transport spin Nonequilibrium 15 , 16 igHoLiu, Ming-Hao ocue ahaparame- Rashba Concluded E = p E z obtladnaetniho opn ny h xrce r extracted The only. hopping neighbor nearest and -orbital + − 1, E 11 α − ∗ α tal. et nsemicon- in h origin The o-se Chen, Son-Hsien a eone be can 2 = Dtd coe 8 2008) 18, October (Dated: α 2 4 scom- is u to Due , k 5 αk E k spin- , ± 14 k sp the , − on 15 d, = drvdA(1)Soke ufc ttswt Rashba with states surface Shockley Au(111) -derived is 2 oei kthdi h ne.()Ttldniyo ttsand states of density Total (b) inset. the E in sketched is zone fRef. of rvdsteLnae-eds omls (LKF) formalism then Landauer-Keldysh which us- the (TBM), structure model provides tight-binding band simplest the the of ing description successful enables about is states surface Au(111) the of ter I.1 Clroln)()Tgtbnigeeg dispersion energy Tight-binding (a) online) (Color E 1: FIG. parameters. band realistic even or reasonable with n nB/g11 ufc alloy surface Bi/Ag(111) in and xii o nysrn ahaculn u losim- also but coupling dispersions. Rashba parabola-like strong ple which only spin states, not surface nonequilibrium Au(111) exhibit by study held 2DEG theoretically In in on transport we coupling. observed Rashba paper strong be this with surfaces to metallic phenomena those spin-dependent tioned sas lie nB(1)surfaces Bi(111) in coupling claimed spin-orbit also Rashba is giant of findings Subsequent ± ± TBM TBM E (eV) 2 1, hsppri raie sflos nSec. In follows. as organized is paper This ti hrfr eiiaet xettepeiul men- previously the expect to legitimate therefore is It −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 hasi rcsin l fwihhv been have which of all precession, spin shba 0

−0.2 s u o nmtli ufc tts We states. surface metallic in not but es, M n hn-a Chang Ching-Ray and _ n h xeietlymaue idn energy binding measured experimentally the and along oe,cnieigatwo-dimensional a considering model, g omena. → ← 11 E E E E u11 ufc hne.Obtained channel. surface Au(111) a − exp + exp − TBM + TBM ln the along , mntae()itiscsi-alef- spin-Hall intrinsic (i) emonstrate −0.1 hfraimt aclt nonequi- calculate to formalism sh ,Nwr,D 91-50 USA 19716-2570, DE Newark, e, Γ ¯ K ¯ k || (A and E Γ _ 0 K _ ° F Γ _ −1 M _ ) M _ K 01,Taiwan 10617, ¯ Γ ¯ 0.1 M M ¯ ¯ directions. (a) ieto.TesraeBrillouin surface The direction. 0.2 M _ 1

19 Γ _

Total DensityofStates(10 18 h atrcharacteristic latter The aitcband ealistic 0 17 with with 1 Band Bottom Band Top α E F α 2 ≈ α 0 = K _ ≈ 3 . 5eV 05 3 0 3 II . eV (b) . 6eV 36 TDOS E E 3eV 83 + TBM − TBM −1 20 ede- we ) M _

, −0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 E 21 A. ˚ ± exp , A. ˚ 22 E (eV) A ˚ 2 scribe the Au(111) surface band structure by using an In the vicinity of Γ¯, i.e., k a 1, Eqs. (3) and | k| ≪ effective TBM, through which the experimentally mea- (4) are approximated by F (kk) 3VR (kx iky) a and 11 2 ≈−2 − sured energy dispersions can be perfectly reproduced. G(k ) 6Vppπ (3Vppπa /2)k , respectively, and the k ≈ − k Section III is devoted to nonequilibrium spin transport Hamiltonian matrix (2) then takes the form on a finite Au(111) surface channel attached to two exter- 2 nal leads, using the LKF with band parameters extracted 3Vppπa 2 E0 k 3VR (kx iky) a in Sec. II. The intrinsic SHE, the CISP, and the Rashba H  − 2 k − −  kka≪1 = 2 , spin precession will be shown by directly imaging the lo- 3Vppπa 2  3VR (kx + iky) a E0 kk  cal spin densities. We conclude in Sec. IV.  − − 2  (6) where E Ep + 6Vppπ. Equation (6) is consistent 0 ≡ II. Au(111) SURFACE BAND STRUCTURE with the pz-resolved effective Hamiltonian of the earlier TBM by Petersen and Hedeg˚ard, who considered all the three p-orbitals, subject to the intra-atomic spin-orbit A. Effective tight-binding model coupling.26

We first demonstrate that the sp-derived Shockley sur- face states on Au(111) from Ref. 11 can be well described B. Extraction of band parameters by an effective TBM [see Fig. 1(a)] for a single sheet of two-dimensional hexagonal lattice, taking into account We now fit our tight-binding dispersions (5) with the only pz-orbital hopping between nearest neighbors, sub- experiment of Ref. 11. This can be done by comparing ject to the Rashba spin-orbit coupling. The Hamiltonian the low-kk expansion of Eq. (5), matrix can be written as23,24 2 3Vppπa k t 2 H i k· I E(kk) Ep +6Vppπ k 3VRa kk , (7) = Ep11+ e [Vppπ11+ VRez (~σ tI )] , (1) ka≪1 ≈ − 2 k ± | | · × XtI with that of the free-electron model, E(kk) = E0 + ~2 ⋆ 2 where 11 is the 2 2 identity matrix, Ep is the p-orbital ( /2m )kk αkk. In addition to the band offset E0 = × ± 2 2 ⋆ energy, tI represents the six nearest neighbor hopping Ep + 6Vppπ, we identity Vppπ = (2/3a )(~ /2m ) − vectors, Vppπ is the band parameter describing the orbital and VR = α/3a. Using the reciprocal vector g1 = −1 integral under the two-center approximation of Slater and (4π/√3a)(1/2, √3/2, 0) and M¯ = 1.26 A˚ from Ref. 25 Koster, V is the Rashba hopping parameter, and ~σ = 2 R 11, we have ~2/2m⋆ 15.2 eV A˚ , α 0.3557 eV A,˚ (σ , σ , σ ) is the Pauli matrix vector. The three terms in x y z and E 0.415 eV.≈ The norm of g≈gives M¯ such Eq. (1) are the energy band offset, the kinetic hopping, 0 1 that the≈ lattice − constant is a = 4π/√3 g = 5. 7581 A.˚ and the Rashba hopping, respectively. Arranging the two 1 Hence we deduce V = 0.3056 eV, V| |= 0.0206 eV, primitive translation vectors for the hexagonal lattice as ppπ R and E =1.4188 eV. Substituting− these parameters into t = (√3/2, 1/2, 0)a and t = ( √3/2, 1/2, 0)a where a p 1 2 Eqs. (3)–(5), a nearly perfect consistency between our is the lattice constant, the six nearest− neighbor hopping effective TBM and the experimentally measured binding vectors are t = t , t , (t + t ), and Eq. (1) then I 1 2 1 2 energy of Ref. 11 can be seen in Fig. 1(a). The ex- takes the explicit± form± of ± perimentally measured Fermi surface of the concentric rings slightly distorted from circles19 can be reproduced H Ep + G(kk) F (kk) (kk)= ∗ (2) as well, but we do not explicitly show.  F (kk) Ep + G(kk)  with III. NONEQUILIBRIUM SPIN TRANSPORT

F (kk)= iVR[(1 + √3i) sin kk t1 · A. Landauer-Keldysh formalism vs tight-binding + (1 √3i) sin k t + 2 sin kya] (3) − k · 2 model √3kxa kya G(k )=2V [2 cos cos + cos(k a)]. (4) 21 k ppπ 2 2 y Next we apply the Landauer-Keldysh formalism, namely the nonequilibrium Keldysh Green’s function Equation (2) can be diagonalized to yield the energy dis- formalism27 applied on Landauer multiterminal ballistic persions nanostructures. For detailed introduction to the LKF, see Refs. 20,22. To make use of the previously extracted E(k )= Ep + G(k ) F (k ) . (5) k k ± | k | band parameters in the LKF calculation, we consider the second-quantized single particle Hamiltonian,24 Noting from Eq. (3) that VR is embedded in F (kk), the † † above dispersion contains the Rashba term to all (odd) = εnc cn + c [t + itR (~σ dmn) ] cn, (8) H n m 0 × z orders in kk. Xn hXm,ni 3

(a) such injection of an unpolarized electron current, we ex- pect (i) the SHE of the intrinsic type, and (ii) the CISP, + − which follows the Rashba eigenspin direction of the lower energy branch. Both of these can be seen respectively (b) in Figs. 2(a) and 2(b). The former shows an antisym- + − metric out-of-plane spin accumulation with Sz max = 1.2 10−3(~/2) at lateral edges, while the latterh i shows that× the inplane components of spins mostly point to 28 −4 ~ FIG. 2: (Color online) Local spin density of (a) the out- +y axis with average value Sy = 3.16 10 ( /2). Note that the local spin densitiesh i shown here× represent, of-plane component hSzi and (b) the inplane component 22 (hSxi, hSyi) in a 398.9 ×63.3 (total number of sites N = 931) by definition, the site-dependent total number of spins. 2 conducting sample made of Au(111) surface. The size of Dividing Sy by the hexagonal unit cell area √3a /2, h i each local marker depicts the magnitude. In (a), red/dark we deduce that the obtained spin (area) density due to −2 (green/light) dots denote hSzi > 0 (hSzi < 0). The maxi- CISP is in average 1101 µm , which is clearly much −3 mum of hSzi is 1.2 × 10 (~/2) while the mean of hSyi is stronger than that observed in the CISP experiment of −4 3.16 × 10 (~/2). Ref. 9, where the spin (volume) density less than 10 µm−3 (corresponding to a even weaker spin area density) is reported. which is equivalent to Eq. (1), provided εn = Ep, † t = Vppπ, and tR = VR. InEq. (8), c (cn) is the 0 − n creation (annihilation) operator of the electron on site n, C. Injection of spin-polarized current: Rashba spin m,n means that sites m and n are nearest neighbors to h i precession each other, and dmn is the unit vector pointing from n to m. Despite the different system sizes TBM and LKF con- Next we inject spin-polarized currents by replacing the sider (infinite for TBM and finite for LKF) and different left (source) lead with a ferromagnetic electrode. Previ- functions they provide (simple band calculation by TBM ously, the self-energy due to the normal metal lead, which and nonequilibrium transport by LKF), the equivalence is assumed to be semi-infinite, in thermal equilibrium, of the underlying Hamiltonians should contain the same and in perfect contact with the sample, can be obtained physics. The explicit correspondence can be shown by by solving the surface Green’s function of the lead,20 sub- comparing the band structure by the TBM with the to- ject to Hamiltonian = p2/2m+V . The momentum tal density of states (TDOS) by the LKF, provided that lead operator p = (p ,p H) is two-dimensional and the poten- the same parameters are used. x y tial V describes a infinite potential well of a semi-infinite For the LKF calculation, we consider a 80(a√3/2) ˚ ˚ × rectangle shape. The exact form of the lead self-energy 11a 398.9 A 63.3 A (total number of sites N = 931) reads channel≈ made of× an ideal Au(111) surface, in perfect con- tact with two unbiased normal metal leads at the left ∞ R 2t nπp1 nπp2 and right ends of the sample. We will further image the Σ (p1,p2)= sin sin −Nd +1 Nd +1 Nd +1 nonequilibrium spin transport on this two-terminal setup nX=1 ikna later. As shown in Fig. 1(b), the range of the calculated e sin (kna) nonvanishing TDOS is consistent with the TBM disper- 11 (9) × kna sion along the Γ¯K¯ direction, which corresponds to the nearest neighbor hopping direction as we considered in 2 with kna = (E En) /t and En = [nπ/(Nd + 1)] t. the underlying Hamiltonian (8). − Here p1(2) =p 1, 2, ,Nd is the lateral position (implic- itly in units of lattice· · · constant a) of the edge site in the sample in contact with the lead, t is the coupling be- B. Injection of unpolarized current: Intrinsic tween the sample and the lead and is usually set equal spin-Hall effect and current-induced spin to the kinetic hopping t0 in the sample, and (Nd + 1) a polarization is implicitly assumed to be the width of the lead. To take into account the exchange field inside the fer- Combination of the consistency between the experi- romagnetic lead, we adopt the Weiss mean field approx- mental and the TBM dispersions, and that between the imation and add a Zeeman term µB~σ Bex (µB −5 −1 − · ≈ dispersion by the TBM and the TDOS by the LKF, in- 5.8 10 eVT the Bohr magneton) to lead. Typ- × H −3 directly demonstrates that the following imaging of lo- ical exchange field may be as high as Bex 10 T | −|2 ≈ cal spin densities by the LKF stands on an experimental (Ref. 29), leading to µB Bex 5.8 10 eV. We | | ≈ × footing. As a first demonstration of the nonequilibrium will take this value in the forthcoming spin precession spin transport, we turn on the bias of potential differ- demonstration. The explicit form of the self-energy is σ ence eV = 0.2 eV between the two normal metal leads. obtained by substituting in Eq. (9) kna k a = 0 → n We will denote eV /2 on the leads by sign. With (E En + σ µBBex ) /t and 11 nσ nσ , ± 0 ± − | | → σ=± | ih | p P 4

(a) Note that a factor of √3/2 responsible for the net and y = 0 actual hopping distances has to be taken into account in + − x, since the crystal structure information remains. Ac- ↓↓↓↓↓ cordingly, good agreement between the LKF and the spin (b) vector formula can be seen in Fig. 3(c). Note that in + − view of both Figs. 2 and 3, size and edge effects, arising

↓↓↓↓↓ from the charge distribution, are also observed. The for-

−3 x 10 mer, the size effect, appears in the modulation along y

6 (c) direction with roughly 4 peaks corresponding to a wave length 32 A,˚ roughly shorter than the Fermi wavelength 4 ≈ 2π/kF 38 A;˚ the latter, the edge effect, appears in the 2 abnormal≈ charge accumulation near the side and drain 0 edges. −2 〈S 〉LKF 〈S 〉SVF x x −4 〈S 〉LKF 〈S 〉SVF y y 〈S 〉LKF 〈S 〉SVF −6 z z

Local spin density at y = 0 (hbar/2) IV. CONCLUSION −200 −150 −100 −50 0° 50 100 150 200 x (A) In conclusion, we have shown that the sp-derived FIG. 3: (Color online) Local spin density of (a) the out- Shockley surface states on Au(111),11,14,15,16,19 which ex- of-plane component hSzi and (b) the inplane component tend over the first few layers though, can be well de- (hSxi, hSyi), in a conducting sample made of Au(111) surface, scribed by an effective TBM for a two-dimensional hexag- subject to a ferromagnetic source lead with +x magnetization. onal lattice, taking into account pz-orbital and near- (c) hSxi, hSyi, and hSzi as a function of x at y = 0, i.e., along the dashed line sketched in (a). Computed values are com- est neighbor hopping only. Required parameters in the pared with the previously obtained spin vector formula based nonequilibrium spin transport calculation by the LKF, on . demonstrating (i) intrinsic SHE and CISP due to injec- tion of unpolarized current and (ii) the Rashba spin pre- cession due to injection of spin-polarized current, thus where nσ is the spin-1/2 state ket with quantization stand on an experimental footing of the pioneering work axis n.30| i of LaShell et. al..11 Calculated local spin densities in Applying the same voltage difference of 0.2 V and mag- all the three spin phenomena are much stronger than netizing the ferromagnetic source lead along +x axis, those in semiconductor heterostructures. Whereas the Figs. 3(a) and 3(b) show the out-of-plane and inplane magnetic optical Kerr effect (MOKE) can sensitively de- components of the local spin densities, respectively. The tect a spin volume density of less than 10 spins per µm3 injected x-polarized spins moving along +x and encoun- (Ref. 9), our results of more than 103 spins per µm2 sug- tering the Rashba effective magnetic field pointing to y, gest definitely measurable nonequilibrium spin transport are forced to precess about y-axis counterclockwise, and− supported by the Au(111) surface states and others with hence the Rashba spin precession− is observed. In the free even stronger Rashba coupling such as Bi(111) surfaces17 electron model, the spin precession length (the distance or Bi/Ag(111) surface alloys.18 Last, in addition to the within which the spin completes a precession angle of π) stronger local spin densities induced by stronger Rashba 2 ⋆ is Lso = (π/α)(~ /2m ) 134 A.˚ Thus the channel coupling, the spin precession length (typically of the or- ≈ length 398.9 A˚ is about 3 times Lso, which is consistent der of 1 µm in semiconductor heterostructures) in these to what we observe in Figs. 3(a) and 3(b). Note that here surface states is greatly reduced [134 A˚ for Au(111) re- the SHE competing with the spin precession is relatively ported here], such that the fine structure of the spin pat- weak due to the strong exchange field we consider in the terns due to spin precession or the intrinsic SHE requires source lead. However one can still observe the tiny asym- high resolution apparatus such as the spin-polarized scan- 32 metry of the Sz pattern of Fig. 3(a) along the lateral ning tunneling microscopy. h i direction (more + Sz and Sz accumulations near the bottom and top edges,h i respectively).−h i In the following we will concentrate on the spin precession only. To compare the LKF results with the free electron Acknowledgments model in further detail, we recall the spin vector for- mula [see Eq. (6) of Ref. 31], which takes the form of Financial support of the Republic of China National ( Sx , Sy , Sz ) = (cos∆θ, 0, sin ∆θ) here with ∆θ = Science Council Grant No. 95-2112-M-002-044-MY3 is h i h i h i (2m⋆/~2)αx = 2.34 10−2x, where x is in unit of A.˚ gratefully acknowledged. × 5

∗ Present address: No. 2-1, Fushou Lane, Chengsiang Vil- 16 M. Hoesch, M. Muntwiler, V. N. Petrov, M. Hengsberger, lage, Gangshan Township, Kaohsiung County 82064, Tai- L. Patthey, M. Shi, M. Falub, T. Greber, and J. Oster- wan; Electronic address: [email protected] walder, Phys. Rev. B 69, 241401(R) (2004). 1 J. H. Davies, The Physics of Low-Dimensional Semicon- 17 Y. M. Koroteev, G. Bihlmayer, J. E. Gayone, E. V. ductors (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., Chulkov, S. Bl¨ugel, P. M. Echenique, and P. Hofmann, 1998). Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 046403 (2004). 2 S. G. Davison and M. St¸e´slicka, Basic Theory of Surface 18 C. R. Ast, J. Henk, A. Ernst, L. Moreschini, M. C. Falub, States (Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K., 1992). D. Pacile, P. Bruno, K. Kern, and M. Grioni, Phys. Rev. 3 Y. A. Bychkov and E. I. Rashba, JETP Lett. 39, 78 (1984). Lett. 98, 186807 (2007). 4 Y. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. 19 F. Reinert, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 15, S693 (2003). Awschalom, Nature 427, 50 (2004). 20 S. Datta, Electronic Transport in Mesoscopic Systems 5 S. A. Crooker and D. L. Smith, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 236601 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995). (2005). 21 B. K. Nikolic, S. Souma, L. P. Zarbo, and J. Sinova, Phys. 6 Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. Rev. Lett. 95, 046601 (2005). Awschalom, Science 306, 1910 (2004). 22 B. K. Nikolic, L. P. Zarbo, and S. Souma, Phys. Rev. B 7 V. Shi, R. C. Myers, Y. K. Kato, W. H. Lau, A. C. Gossard, 73, 075303 (2006). and D. D. Awschalom, Nat. Phys. 1, 31 (2005). 23 G. Grosso and G. P. Parravicini, State Physics (Aca- 8 N. P. Stern, S. Ghosh, G. Xiang, M. Zhu, N. Samarth, and demic Press, 2000). D. D. Awschalom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 126603 (2006). 24 C. L. Kane and E. J. Mele, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 146802 9 Y. K. Kato, R. C. Myers, A. C. Gossard, and D. D. (2005). Awschalom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 176601 (2004). 25 J. C. Slater and G. F. Koster, Phys. Rev. 94, 1498 (1954). 10 C. L. Yang, H. T. He, L. Ding, L. J. Cui, Y. P. Zeng, J. N. 26 L. Petersen and P. Hedeg˚ard, Surf. Sci. 459, 49 (2000). Wang, and W. K. Ge, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 186605 (2006). 27 L. V. Keldysh, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1018 (1965). 11 S. LaShell, B. A. McDougall, and E. Jensen, Phys. Rev. 28 M.-H. Liu, S.-H. Chen, and C.-R. Chang (2008), Lett. 77, 3419 (1996). arXiv:0802.0366v2. 12 G. Bihlmayer, Y. M. Koroteev, P. M. Echenique, E. V. 29 C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics (Wiley, Chulkov, and S. Bl¨ugel, Surf. Sci. 600, 3888 (2006). 2005), 8th ed. 13 J. Nitta, T. Akazaki, H. Takayanagi, and T. Enoki, Phys. 30 J. J. Sakurai, Modern Quantum Mechanics (Addison- Rev. Lett. 78, 1335 (1997). Wesley, New York, 1994), revised ed. 14 J. Henk, A. Ernst, and P. Bruno, Phys. Rev. B 68, 165416 31 M.-H. Liu, K.-W. Chen, S.-H. Chen, and C.-R. Chang, (2003). Phys. Rev. B 74, 235322 (2006). 15 J. Henk, M. Hoesch, J. Osterwalder, A. Ernst, and 32 M. Bode, Rep. Prog. Phys. 66, 523 (2003). P. Bruno, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 16, 7581 (2004).