e-mail: gsznajd@int.pan.wroc.pl

Rules are given for determining special directions in the Brillouin zone which optimize the description of various physical quantities with G ₁ type symmetry. We consider the cubic, hexagonal, tetragonal and trigonal (e.g. Bi) lattice. These rules allow us to construct, in all of momentum space, quantities which have the full symmetry of the Brillouin zone such as the Fermi surface, momentum density and others, from the knowledge of these quantities for a limited number of special directions. These results can also be used for determining the projections which should be measured either in Compton scattering or in positron annihilation experiments in order to reconstruct properly the electron momentum density. Such a treatment is approximately equivalent to applying Gaussian quadrature in calculations of the radial functions that occur in the expansion of data into lattice harmonics.

keywords: lattice harmonics, Compton profiles, positron annihilation, reconstruction, electronic structure

In crystalline solids various physical quantities are invariant under a suitably chosen projection operator, which is a sum (with appropriate coefficients) of transformations of the point group of the crystal. In this paper we restrict our attention to reciprocal lattices (in which screw-rotation axes and glide-reflection planes are replaced by plain rotation axes and reflection planes) as well as to quantities which have a symmetry of the G ₁ type (i.e., the full symmetry of the Brillouin zone). Examples are r (k) and r (p) (the electron density in the reduced and extended zone), the Fermi momentum k_F(k), the effective mass and others. These quantities can be expressed as a series of lattice harmonics of a given symmetry:

, (1)

where the index n distinguishes harmonics of the same order, the angles (Q ,j ) are the azimuthal and polar angles of the direction p with respect to the reciprocal lattice coordinate system and the f_l,n (p) are the radial coefficients of the function f(p). The number of coefficients f_l,n which properly describe f(p) depends both on the anisotropy and the symmetry of f(p). As was discussed in Refs. [1-3] (which deal with cubic structures), the maximum number of f_l,n (p) that can be fitted to f(p) without undue loss of precision is equal to the number of data f(p’) only if the p’ are chosen along very particular directions p’(Q ,j ). So, knowledge of these directions is important, particularly for structures where the irreducible part of the Brillouin zone (1/48, 1/24, 1/16 and 1/12 for the cubic, hcp, tetragonal and trigonal lattices, respectively) is large.

Our considerations mainly concern measurements of both two-dimensional (2D) angular correlation of annihilation radiation (ACAR) spectra:

, (2)

and 1D ACAR or Compton scattering profiles:

. (3)

We wish to answer the question: which projections and how many should be measured in these experiments in order to reconstruct properly the density r (p). Of course, our results are more general and can be applied also to other problems [1-4]. Special directions will be estimated for various structures (cubic, hcp, tetragonal and trigonal). The case of 2D functions f(p) will be discussed in Sec. II, while Sec. III treats 3D functions. Application to real data is discussed in Sec. IV.

2D quantities occur in the case of 2D ACAR data if the reconstruction of 3D density is reduced to sets of reconstructions of 2D densities, performed independently on parallel planes p_y = const. If the plane p_y = const. is perpendicular to an R-fold rotation axis, the lattice harmonics reduce to a cosine series and r (p) (and N(p_x,p_y)) can be described, in the polar system, by [5]:

, (4)

with n = (m - 1)R and m = 1, 2,... . Here we wish to answer the question: if functions f(p’) are known for some limited (M) number of directions p’(j ), how to choose those in order to get the M coefficients f_n(p) that are the best determined.

As is well known, the directions p’(j ) should be equally spaced, i.e. their angular distance, D j , should be constant [6]. Let us now consider the following case: we measure M projections, and consequently only the first M radial components (with n = 0, R, … ,(M - 1)R) can be evaluated, but the magnitude of the next component N_MR(p) is still not to be neglected, i.e., f(p) should be described by:

.

It is clear that proper functions f_n(p) (with nŁ M) will be obtained if f(p,j ) are known for such angles j which fulfill the condition cos(RMj ) = 0. This is satisfied for j = D j /2 + (m - 1)D j where D j = p /(RM), i.e., for low symmetry directions. It should be noted that here D j is M/(M - 1) times smaller than the interval D j = p /(R(M - 1)) for the case in which there are two high (j ₁ = 0 and j _M = p /R) and M - 2 low symmetry directions. We come to the same conclusion on the basis of other considerations, as shown below for the example of the hcp structure (R = 6) and M = 4. In this case we are able to construct only four radial components (denoted here by f_n^a(p)) which are related to proper f_n(p) by the following relation (for more details see Appendix 1):

with l = 24 for n = 0, 12 and l = 30 for n = 6, 18.

Fig. 1. Model densities reconstructed from 21 (a) and t3 low symmetry (b) projections. Their absolute differences (|(a) - (b)|) are displayed in part (d). Absolute differences between densities reconstructed from 21 and 2 high and 1 low symmetry directions are shown in part (c)..

Thus, in order to obtain the first four proper coefficients f_n^a(p), being equal to f_n(p), an angle j should be found for which a_n(j ) = 0. For the first three components (n = 0, 6 and 12) this is fulfilled for j = D j /2 + (m - 1)× D j where D j = p /(4R) (low symmetry directions) while for n = 18, j = (m - 1)× D j with D j = p /(3R) (two high and two low symmetry directions). However, since for n = 18, l = 30, we found (as before) that the f_n^a(p) are better determined if one uses only low symmetry directions. This is demonstrated in Fig. 1 which shows the quality of the reconstructed r (p) by using three line projections for |R| = 4 (cubic or tetragonal system), measured either along three low (j ₁ = 7.5⁰ and D j = 15⁰) or two high and one low (j ₁ = 0⁰ and D j = 22.5⁰) symmetry directions. In this figure we marked only values greater than 1% of the maximum density (for real data such small values are of the order of the experimental noise) and (in order to see every detail of the satellite spheres) lower than 0.1 (in units r (0)=1). Presented model contains the central sphere and four satellite spheres with 2.5 times lower radius and about 10 times lower densities

It is clearly visible that low symmetry directions reproduce the density more faithfully. This is demonstrated also for real Gd data [7] (Fig. 2) for densities reconstructed from three projections and for model densities reconstructed from only one projection (Fig. 3). Actually, if in rare earth metals four projections are measured, with FWHM=0.1 [a.u.], their choice is not important anymore as long as a constant D j is used. The model simulates electron-positron densities in simple metals (such as the alkalis): r (p) inside the spherical Fermi surface is enhanced (due to e-p correlation effects) and there is also a small contribution of the Umklapp components around the first reciprocal lattice vector along [100].

 

Fig. 2. Distortion of r (p,0⁰) -r (p,30⁰) and r (p,30⁰) - r (p,15⁰) (circles and triangles, respectively) from their true values (reconstructed from 16 projections) for r (p) reconstructed from three low (solid) and 2 high + 1 low symmetry directions (open symbols), in units r (0) = 1 and 0<p<1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here we consider separately structures with a principal rotation axis (tetragonal, trigonal or hcp lattices) and cubic structures having three fourfold axes. In the case of structures with one R-fold axis the lattice harmonics have the form:

. (5)

The P_l^|m| are associated Legendre polynomials, a are the normalization constants [8] and R is equal to 6, 4 and 3 for hcp, tetragonal and trigonal systems, respectively. This form of the lattice harmonics allows us to rewrite equation (1) as:

, (6)

where new functions f_n(p,Q ) for n=iR (after combining Eqs. (1), (5), (6)) are defined as:

.

Now we are able to estimate the choice of directions p ^’ş p^’(Q ,j ), considering independently its dependence on the angle Q and j , in the same way as in the previous section. Since in general the radial component f_l,0(p) is larger than f_l,n (p) (with n > 0), if we want to describe f(p) by lattice harmonics up to the order l_max, we have to take such directions p^’ for which the lattice harmonics of order l = l_max + 2 are equal to zero. For instance, for l_max = 8 this is fulfilled for the five angles Q _i = 13.12⁰, 30.11⁰, 47.20⁰, 64.32⁰, 81.44⁰ which define 7, 9 or 10 directions p^{’ ş} p^’(Q _i,j ) for the hcp, tetragonal or trigonal lattice, respectively, as depicted in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. The choice of special directions p^’(Q ,j ) for the hcp (stars), tetragonal (squares) and trigonal (circles) lattice for l_max = 8. For comparison we marked (solid triangles) 7 crystallographic directions [100], [110], [001], [101], [102], [111] and [112] crossing the characteristic directions of the hcp Brillouin zone with lattice ratio c/a =1.59.

We demonstrate the choice of special directions for the example of lattice harmonics of order less than 8. In such a case our measurements should be performed for four angles Q₁ = 16.2⁰, Q₂ = 37.2⁰, Q ₃ = 58.3⁰ and Q ₄ = 79.4⁰ (the zeros of P₈(cosQ)). For the hcp structure there are four lattice harmonics a_lP_l(cosQ ) of order l Ł 6 and only one which depends on both Q and j via the term a_6,1P₆(cosQ)cos6j . So, here M would be equal to 5 and the desired projections are given by the directions p’ described by: (Q_i = 1,2,3,j = 15⁰), (Q 4,j = 7.5⁰) and (Q₄, j = 22.5⁰) – for such a choice of angles j all harmonics with cos(12j ) are vanishing. However, because in this case they are of much higher order than the first neglected harmonic P₈(cosQ ), we can use also j = 0⁰ and 30⁰ for Q₄. Such a choice of angles j (0⁰ and 30⁰) is proposed for experimental data what is discussed in the next Chapter. For the tetragonal lattice (and for the same l_max), M = 6 and the anisotropy f₄(p,Q ), as far as its dependence on j is concerned (see Eq. (6)), will be described by two harmonics P₄⁴(cosQ)cos4j and P₆⁴(cosQ)cos4j . So, here one should measure two profiles for both Q₃ and Q₄. For trigonal systems M should be equal to 7, i.e. one should measure two profiles for Q₃ and three profiles for Q₄ (with j = 10⁰, 30⁰ and 50⁰ or 0⁰, 30⁰ and 60⁰) to get two anisotropic components f₃(p,Q ) and f₆(p,Q ).

In order to describe, within FWHM=0.1 [a.u.], strongly anisotropic quantities (such as densities in rare-earth metals having the hcp symmetry) we need 15 directions [8]. So, here l_max=14 (the highest order of used harmonics), and the special directions are defined by 8 values of Q (zeros of P₁₆(cosQ )) while the functions f_n(p,Q ) are described by 8, 5 and 2 components f_l,n (p) for n = 0, 6 and 12, respectively. For the same l_max = 14 but for the tetragonal lattice we obtain 20 directions (8, 6, 4 and 2 components f_l,n (p) for n = 0, 4, 8 and 12, respectively) and 24 for the trigonal structure (8, 6, 5, 3 and 2 components f_l,n (p) for n = 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12, respectively). The increase in the number of p^’(Q ,j ) with growing Q is connected with the fact that the anisotropy with respect to the angle j increases with Q (the directions (Q  = 0⁰,j  =j _max) and (Q  = 0⁰,j  = 0⁰) are equivalent) — see Fig. 4. The importance of a proper choice of directions p’ is demonstrated in Fig. 5 where we show results of reconstructing the first component f₀(p,Q) from seven Compton profiles known for either seven special directions or for seven high symmetry directions: [100], [110], [001], [101], [102], [111], [112] (marked in Fig. 4).

Fig. 5. Model density f₀(p,Q) (parts (a) and (d)) for the hcp structure, reconstructed from seven special (b) and seven other plane projections (c), marked in Fig. 4 by stars and solid triangles, respectively.

It is seen that although these seven high symmetry directions seem to be a reasonable choice (cf. the solid triangles in Fig. 4), the reconstructed densities are much worse than for the seven special directions. Contrary to the harmonics for other structures, the cubic lattice harmonics are linear combinations of the associated Legendre polynomials [1]. As a consequence, the number of zeros of each harmonic F_l(Q ,j ) is infinite and in such a case it is much more difficult to estimate the special directions p’ [1-4]. In Fig. 6 we present lines of zeros of the first few harmonics (F₄, F₆, F₈ and F₁₀) and some proposed directions p’.

 

As was found by Bansil [4], the intersection of F₄ and F₆ (given by the star in Fig. 6) determines the direction p^’(Q = 74.53⁰,j = 26⁰) which gives the most accurate isotropic component f₀(p) in the case of knowledge of only one f(p’). In Fig. 7 we demonstrate that if f(p) is known only for this one special direction we obtain a much more accurate isotropic average f₀(p) than when it is calculated from the three high symmetry directions following Ref. [9] (the same after using ). If one applies three special directions estimated by Bansil (triangles in Fig. 6) the reproduction of f₀(p) is almost perfect. Our three special directions give somewhat worse shape of f₀(p) but they allow us to get also a proper shape of two next components f₄(p) and f₆(p) (this will be shown in Fig. 9). Three special directions found in [2], give results comparable with using high symmetry directions.

In Ref. [4] the quality of the coefficient f₀(p) was of primary interest, i.e., Bansil found special directions which represent the average properties of solids. Fehlner and Vosko [2] calculated the common roots of two polynomials formed from linear combinations of cubic harmonics either to move sufficient common roots inside the domain of integration (M = 2, 3, 6, 10) or to maximize the number of useful products (M = 4, 6, 10) [2].

Our investigations are directed at defining directions for which all f_n are of comparable quality, although there is no doubt that the lower the degree of the function f_n the more important is the function. Initial tests showed that not all results obtained in Refs. [2-4] are optimal for our purposes. For example, for M = 10 Fehlner and Vosko (Table 1 in Ref. [3]) obtained directions such that for any model the first seven f_n can be reproduced with good accuracy. However, f₈ is incorrect and f₉ and f₁₀ are completely wrong (their values are ten times greater than in the model). We found that the best way of determining p^’(Q ,j ) is to choose such zeros of the first omitted harmonic which, first of all, are more or less equally spaced and secondly are equal to or close to zeros of the first and second next higher harmonics. In this manner we estimated 3, 7 and 10 special directions presented in Figs. 6 and 8; corresponding results of test reconstructions are shown in Figs. 9 and 10.

Fig. 8. Zeros of cubic harmonics F₁₄ and F_18,1 (solid and dotted lines, respectively). The special directions p’(Q,j) are described by: 7 - (62.3⁰, 39.2⁰), (71.9⁰, 38⁰), (72.5⁰, 27.2⁰), (81.3⁰, 18⁰), (83.7⁰, 38.2⁰), (85.3⁰, 26.1⁰), (86.4⁰, 8.8⁰) (solid circles); 10 - (88⁰, 7⁰), (86.6⁰, 20.1⁰), (82.8⁰, 13.6⁰), (85⁰, 29.2⁰), (85.2⁰, 39.9⁰), (75.5⁰, 20⁰), (76.5⁰, 29.2⁰), (68⁰, 29.5⁰), (74.7⁰, 39.1⁰), (62.6⁰, 40.5⁰) (open circles). All angles are in degrees.

It is visible that three special projections do not allow us to reproduce properly the anisotropy (i.e., the densities inside the satellite spheres) while seven special projections give quite good results for both the central and satellite spheres. Another test reconstruction, performed for another anisotropic model, clearly shows that 10 special projections were determined properly (in this case seven our special projections reproduce density with almost the same accuracy as 10 projections).

Fig. 9. Model densities f(p) on the (001) plane, reconstructed from three (part (d)), seven (part (c)) and 10 (part (b)) special plane projections, compared with model f(p) (part (a)). Values less than 5% of the maximum density were neglected.

 

 

 

 

Fig. 10. Model densities on the (001) plane (a) and reconstructed from 10 special plane projections (b).

Knowing the answer which projections should be measured (from the point of view of the number of proper terms in the expansion of f(p)), we discuss the question: which and how many line and plane projections should be measured in order to get the best reconstructed densities and to minimize the effects of noise in the reconstructed densities s (r (p)). We define the quantity:

, (7)

which shows the averaged (with respect to the radial variable p) contribution of the appropriate f_n(p,Q ) function to its cosine series. Based on 16 experimental projections for Gd [7] we were able to surmise how many projections should be measured for real electron-positron densities with an anisotropy similar to those for rare earths. The quantities s_n for Gd and for model projections (with an anisotropy similar to the model in Fig. 1) are displayed in Fig. 11. After normalizing all s₀ to 1000, we find for Gd s₆ = 3.8, s₁₂ = 0.125 and s₁₈ = 0.02. s₁₈ is of the order of the experimental noise, i.e. the series of s_n is quickly decreasing with n which is connected with the symmetry (most of the anisotropic components are vanishing). Here we would like to point out that the last component f₁₈(p) in some regions (but only for deconvoluted spectra) has values somewhat higher than the experimental error. So, this component cannot be neglected the more so as the consistency condition [10] draws its shape with high accuracy.

This picture clearly shows that for both high resolution spectra (of the order 0.1 [a.u.]) and a good statistics (about 50 000 counts at peak) we are not able to go into more details than described by the lattice harmonics with the highest terms containing cos(16j ) (for the cubic and tetragonal structures) and cos(18j ) for the hcp and trigonal lattices. This should be correlated with the resolution function of the equipment (FWHM) as shown by Mijnarends [11]. The author estimated the tangential FWHM for densities described by the lattice harmonic up to order l_max equals, approximately, FWHM(q )=180⁰/l_max. In the case of 2D quantities, described by the Eq. (4), FWHM(j )=90⁰/n_max. With reference to Fig. 2.6 in [11] we define FWHM(p) = 2p tg(FWHM(j /2) which denotes the line dimension of the object “seen” by the FWHM(j ), depending on its distance p from the center of the unit system (p=0). It is clear (see Fig. 12) that the expansion of data into a finite harmonics series (Eq.(4)) provides a “better resolution” for low momenta p than for higher ones. So, if we have at disposal a resolution function of the equipment FWHM=0.15 and we would like to reproduce properly (e.g. for momenta above p=1.2) all changes of r (p) described by FWHM(p)=0.15, we must use n_max>12.

Fig.12. Resolution function FWHM(p) following from the expansion of data into the cos(nj ) series. In the case of the expansion into P_l(cosQ ), n_max should be replaced by l_max/2. All units are in [a.u.]^.

Our studies performed for real experimental 2D ACAR data for rare-earth metals (Y [12] and Gd [7], measured with the total FWHM=0.1 [a.u.]) showed that n_max=18 and if four projections are measured, their choice is not important anymore as long as a constant D j is used. Of course, when an experiment is performed with a higher instrumental resolution and at low temperature we propose to measure one or two projections more. In the case of the Compton experiment, by drawing a similar diagram as presented in Fig. 11, we can estimate l_max which provides a quantitative measure for a goodness of a reconstruction. E.g. l_max=12, 16 and 18 allows us, in the case of the experimental FWHM=0.15 [a.u.], reproduce properly densities only up to momenta about 0.6, 0.85 and 0.95 [a.u], respectively, what corresponds to measuring 7, 10 and 12 Compton profiles but for special directions. However, here one should take into account that the higher is n_max (or l_max) the lower absolute values of f_n(p) are, i.e. such an experiment needs also very high statistics ( Fig. 11) .

In the previous Chapters we found that low symmetry directions give better determined radial components f_n(p) (see also Appendix). However, according to Mijnarends [13], while the best choice of orientations (from the point of view of the number of proper terms in the expansion of f(p)) corresponds to low symmetry directions, in order to minimize the effects of noise on the reconstructed density, s (r (p)), the high symmetry directions are more profitable. Our considerations, presented below on a simple example, lead us to the similar conclusion. Let us assume that we perform a measurement for some simple hcp metal where five lattice harmonics are quite sufficient to describe the anisotropy of densities. In the case of CP’s their last radial component f_6,2(p) is determined by f_6,2(p)=c(j )[N₁(Q ₄,j ₁)- N₂(Q ₄,j ₂)], where Q ₄=79.4⁰. For j ₁=7.5⁰ and j ₂=22.5⁰, c(j )=0.32374 while for j ₁=0⁰ and j ₂=30⁰, c(j )=0.22892. When each of CP’s is measured for the same statistic, the absolute noise for the difference of two spectra N₁-N₂ does not depend on j . Meanwhile, N₁(Q ₄,0⁰) - N₂(Q ₄,30⁰) = 1.414*[N₁(Q ₄,7.5⁰) - N₂(Q ₄,22.5⁰)], i.e. the relative error for f_6,2(p) will be 1.414 times lower in the case of measuring projections along high symmetry lines and a more proper shape of f_6,2(p) will be determined. As we discussed in the previous Chapter, the choice of special directions has only a strong requirement as concerns the choice of the angle Q (angles j must be only equally spaced). Due to this reason we propose to replace Fig. 4 by Fig. 13 what is also consistent with Weyrich’s remark “radial components f_n(p) will be obtained the more accurately the larger its contribution to a particular f(p) is” [14].

Fig. 13. The choice of special directions p^’(Q ,j ) for the hcp (stars), tetragonal (squares) and trigonal (circles) lattice for l_max = 8.

Finally, last remark connected with some eventual experimental imperfections. Knowing the experimental FWHM we have decided to measure e.g. 7 special directions because harmonics of a higher order than 7^th harmonic are "outside" of our equipmental resolution. After performing experiment and next some tests for measured spectra we have noticed that one projection is wrong and we can use only six projections. But 6 of 7 special directions are not 6 special directions. So, in such a case we will be able to expand data (or Fourier transform or densities) only into e.g. 4 lattice harmonics. In this connection, knowing that total statistics is important (either high number of profiles with lower statistics or lower number of profiles with higher statistics) we propose to measure higher number of profiles. Higher number of profiles give us, additionally, more information about the quality of data. Namely, since all spectra represent integrals of the same density, there must be some relationships between them and these relationships can be used to filtering the data [10]. The number of these relationships depend on the number of properly determined the radial components f_n(p), i.e. is maximal for special directions.

Our studies performed for many various model densities as well as for real experimental data (taking as a criterion the behaviour of s_n, s (r (p)) and errors arising from a proper choice of special directions in the Brillouin zone) lead us to the following conclusions.

When line projections are measured, p_z should be perpendicular to the rotation axis of the crystal (the direction [001], i.e. Q = 90⁰) and equidistant angles j _i should be used. Low symmetry directions are more profitable, i.e. we recommend to measure M projections with D j = p /(|R|M) and j ₁= D j /2. However, if for some particular reason one wishes to include also high symmetry projections, one should measure M + 1 projections to obtain the same D j as before (these can then be measured with somewhat lower statistics.

However, when nothing is known about the anisotropy of r (p) we propose to measure two high-symmetry projections (along [100] and [110]) in order to obtain f₀(p) and f_R(p) and subsequently the corresponding s_n according to Eq. (7). Comparing these with the s_n presented in Fig. 11 allows one to decide how many additional projections are needed. The cubic structures are an exception to this rule as for them the experimental errors are reduced to a high degree by the symmetry condition: r (p_x,p_y,p_z) = r (p_x,p_z,p_y) = r (p_y,p_z,p_x). Thus, even if e.g. the component s₄ (estimated after measuring two projections) is very small (of the order of the experimental noise) one should measure one or two projections more [15].

In the case of a measurement of plane projections N(p_z), high symmetry directions p_z are never recommended if one wishes to determine M components f_n(p) from M profiles. For the hcp, tetragonal and trigonal systems the number M of measured spectra should be equal to the number of all lattice harmonics lower than F_l,1(Q,j ) = a_l P_l(cosQ). The special directions p^’(Q ,j ) are then determined by the positive zeros of P_l(cosQ) (their number equals l/2) and angles j being equidistant and changed from 0⁰ (D j = p /(R(M_Q-1)) where M_Q denotes the number of measurements for a given Q) – some examples were given in the Chapter III. Such a treatment is equivalent to applying the Gauss quadratures formulae in calculating the radial functions f_n(p). Namely, due to the orthogonality of the lattice harmonics, these functions (defined in Eq. (1)) are equal to

.

This integral can be replaced by the sum only for some particular directions (Q ,j ) which define special directions in the Brillouin zone.

For cubic systems the choice of special directions is much more complicated and our investigations in this field were carried out for M = 1, 3, 7 and 10. However, if for some particular reason one cannot measure N(p_z) along special directions, a method proposed by Mijnarends [13] can be applied in which a smaller number of lattice harmonics than the number of measured profiles is used and a least-squares fit of the truncated series is made using conventional matrix inversion techniques [16]. Such a method, which gives very reasonable results, has been applied in e.g. Refs. [17,18].

Acknowledgements. We are very grateful to Prof. P.E. Mijnarends for critical comments which lead to an improvement of the paper, to Prof. R. N. West for making available his experimental data.

[8] G. Kontrym-Sznajd, M. Samsel-Czekała, Appl. Phys. A 70, 89 (2000).