Spin susceptibility of magnetic-ion-diluted Kondo insulators

The static spin susceptibility and spectral function of the system corresponding to the magnetic-ion-diluted Kondo insulator is calculated using the framework of dynamical mean-field theory with a coherent potential approximation. The system is described by a periodic Anderson model with randomly distributed impurity sites which have no f electron. The impurity concentration dependence of the static spin susceptibility in the present result is in qualitative agreement with the experimental magnetic susceptibility measurements of (Yb,Lu)B 12 .

References
1 For a few review of experimental studies, seeG.Aeppli and Z.Fisk: Comments Condens. Matter Phys. 16 (1992) 155; L.Degiorgi:Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 (1999) 687.
2 For a few review of theoretical studies, seeP.Schlottmann: inCurrent Problem in Condensed Matter: Theory and Experiment, ed. J. L.Moran-Lopez (Plenum, New York, 1998); P.Riseborough: Adv. Phys. 49 (2000) 257.
3 For example, A.Sumiyama, Y.Oda, H.Nagano, Y.Ōnuki, K.Shibutani, and T.Komatsubara:J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 55 (1986) 1294.
4 M. F.Hundley, P. C.Canfield, J. D.Thompson, and Z.Fisk:Phys. Rev. B 50 (1994) 18142.
5 F.Iga, S.Hiura, J.Klijn, N.Shimizu, T.Takabatake, M.Ito, Y.Matsumoto, F.Masaki, T.Suzuki, and T.Fujita:Physica B 259–261 (1999) 312.
6 A.Georges, G.Kotliar, W.Krauth, and M. J.Rozenberg:Rev. Mod. Phys. 68 (1996) 13.
7 T.Mutou:Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001) 245102.
8 T.Mutou:Phys. Rev. B 64 (2001) 165103.
9 C.Grenzebach, F. B.Anders, G.Czycholl, and T.Pruschke:Phys. Rev. B 77 (2008) 115125.
10 Magnetic ions Yb3+ have an f hole in Yb-based compounds. Here, however, we refer them as f electrons in the present theoretical model.
11 The g factor for f electrons generally differs from that for conduction electrons. With considering the fact, it is often assumed that the magnetic filed is applied only to f electrons in the theoretical model of the Kondo insulator.[18] In the present study, however, we assume that the magnetic field is applied to both, for simplicity.
12 A.Yoshimori and H.Kasai:Solid State Commun. 58 (1986) 259.
13 Z.Li and Y.Qiu:Phys. Rev. B 43 (1991) 12906.
14 P.Schlottmann:Phys. Rev. B 46 (1992) 998.
15 R.Shiina:J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 64 (1995) 702.
16 M.Jarrell, H.Akhlaghpour, and Th.Pruschke:Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 1670; M.Jarrell:Phys. Rev. B 51 (1995) 7429.
17 D. S.Hirashima and T.Mutou:Physica B 199–200 (1994) 206; T.Mutou and D. S.Hirashima:J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 63 (1994) 4475.
18 T.Saso and M.Itoh:Phys. Rev. B 53 (1996) 6877.
19 It was pointed out that the careful consideration of the orbital degeneracy and/or the wave vector dependence of the kinetic energy and the hybridization energy themselves is needed to discuss the condition that the hybridization gap opens; seeH.Kuroiwa, Y.Imai, and T.Saso:J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 76 (2007) 124704.
20 H.Kajueter and G. Kotliar: Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 (1996) 131; H.Kajueter, G.Kotliar, and G.Moeller:Phys. Rev. B 53 (1996) 16214.
21 M.Potthoff, T.Wegner, and W.Nolting:Phys. Rev. B 55 (1997) 16132.
22 J. M.Luttinger and J. C.Ward:Phys. Rev. 118 (1960) 1417.
23 T.Mutou and H.Kontani:Phys. Rev. B 74 (2006) 115107.
24 J. M.Luttinger:Phys. Rev. 119 (1960) 1153.
25 We have confirmed that there is no serious difference between results obtained by both conditions as long as we restrict ourselves to treat the system near the particle–hole symmetric case and/or for not so large values of U (not shown here).