arX

iv:1

303.

7250

v2 [

cond

-mat

.mtr

l-sc

i] 5

Nov

201

3

Non-magnetic impurities to induce magnetism in α-PbO crystal structure

J. Berashevich and A. ReznikThunder Bay Regional Research Institute, 290 Munro St., Thunder Bay, ON, P7A 7T1, Canada and

Department of Physics, Lakehead University, 955 Oliver Road, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1

A new route to d0 magnetism is established with help of the first principles methods. Non-magnetic elements in groups 13 and 14 of the periodic table are found to act as the magnetic centersupon embedding in polycrystalline α-PbO structure. Thus, the local magnetic moment is generatedon the impurity site (1.0µB and 2.0µB for elements in group 13 and 14, respectively) due to p-orbitals partially filled with electrons whose on-site spin ordering is governed by the first Hund’srule. The magnetic interactions between impurities are controlled by occupation of the p-orbitalssuch as antiferromagnetic ordering (AFM) occurs between impurities of 2.0µB while ferromagnetic(FM) between impurities possessing 1.0µB . In respect to the strength of the magnetic interactions,the atomic radius of impurity is found to be a key to tune the wave function tails of localizedelectrons: with reduction of the atomic radius the on-site stability of the spin polarized state growswhile losing in the long-rang order interactions. However, it has been shown that a suppressionof the long-rang order interactions can be compensated by higher impurity concentration that isallowed by shift of the solubility limit to higher magnitude.

The research on magnetic semiconductors has inten-sified in recent years due to requirements imposed bythe rapidly developing field of spintronics [1]. Originally,magnetic semiconductors were created by doping of theconventional semiconductors with magnetic ions whose dor f orbitals are partially filled [2, 3]. The enormous at-tention given to so-called ”diluted magnetic semiconduc-tors” has been rewarded with the discovery of a mech-anism of the ’intrinsic’ magnetism in semiconductors -defect-induced magnetism. Initially, in the semiconduc-tors doped with magnetic ions, the intrinsic defects wereconsidered only to mediate the magnetic coupling be-tween localized spins occupying the partially filled d or forbitals of ions thus contributing to the collective mag-netism effect [4–6]. However, a better understanding ofthe defect properties has revealed that the defects withtheir sp localized spins are able to generate the magneticphenomenon themself [7–11]. The discovery of defect-induced magnetism dubbed as d0 magnetism, i.e. mag-netism which occurs not due to partially filled d orbitals,brought new impetus into field of magnetic semiconduc-tors and more importantly in spintronics.

In order to pursue the spintronics applications, thecollective magnetic ordering is required to be estab-lished between the magnetic centers provided the spin-polarization energy of the localized state is large enoughfor the local magnetic moment to appear above the roomtemperature. The stability of the local magnetic mo-ment is defined by the impurity wave function localiza-tion that unfortunately results in suppression of its tailsthus precluding the collective ordering. Therefore, suc-cess of d0 magnetism in spintronics is recognized to bedefined by the proper combination of defect/host [3] en-abling both components. In practice, the weak magneticinteractions between the magnetic centers can be com-pensated by their high concentration [7, 8]. However,raising a defect concentration is not always a straight-forward solution [3]. For those defects known to inducemagnetism: the vacancy [10–12] and substitutional de-

fects [13–15], the low limit to the defect concentrationeven at the most favorable growth conditions is oftenapplied as defined by their formation energy [12]. More-over, defects especially in high concentration are not al-ways mechanically tolerated by the crystal lattice, not tomention that the defect-induced lattice perturbation maylead to unwanted changes in the electronic properties [3].Therefore, an idea of intrinsic magnetism requires someefforts to bring it to a level of practical applications.

Our recent finding of new route to d0 magnetism of-fers an elegant solution and, therefore, promises a break-through in development of magnetic semiconductor [16].Instead of crystalline systems, the layered materials areproposed to be applied as the semiconductor host. Incrystalline solids, the vacancies only have been consid-ered to establish d0 magnetism [10–15] because the for-mation energy of other defects is too high to reach theconcentrations required for the magnetic percolation tooccur. In respect to the layered systems, the interstitialdefects become a feasible source of unpaired electronsbecause they are incorporated between layers that sig-nificantly lowers their formation energy. In this work weconsider the polycrystalline α-PbO to be semiconductorhost for d0 magnetism. We found that the Pb interstitialdefect in α-PbO induces the local magnetic moment of2.0 µB [16]. The origin of the local magnetic momentupon bonding of the impurity with the host is unique;the Pb interstitial of Pbi:6s

26p2 valence shell utilizes itsonly Pbi:6s

2 electrons to be attached to the host (throughPb:6s2 electrons as well) while leaving two unperturbed6p2 electrons on the defect site. The Hund’s rule dictatesthe spin alignment of the 6p2 electrons (the triplet groundstate) that manifests in on-site magnetic moment of 2.0µB and provides the high stability of the spin polarizedstate defined by the spin-polarization energy Epol=0.235eV [16]. As a result, the Pb atom gains magnetizationupon embedding as the interstitial defect into the α-PbOcrystal lattice (an appearance of the magnetic moment isverified experimentally [17]). In analogy with magnetic

2

ions, magnetism occurs due to partially filled orbitals,but here it is due to the p orbital.

The unique mechanism of bonding which utilizes onlys2 valence electrons allow to extend a choice of host andthe impurity to several candidates. Because family ofthe α-PbO lattice shows the lone pair s2 valence shellelectrons as a common feature, in principal any of thosesystems can be used as the host. In fact, α-PbO crys-tal structure is well recognized in superconductivity [18]:Fe-pnistides (basics are FeSe, FeAs), cuprate (basics areCuO, CuS), and lanthanum compounds (basics are LaF,LaO). However, among others the α-PbO compound isseems to be the best candidate due to its wide band gap.For the wide band systems, impurity induces the local-ized defect states inside the band gap which location mayvary with impurity choice. Any chemical elements pos-sessing partially filled p valence shell can gain magneticproperties upon embedding into the α-PbO crystal lat-tice. Thus, elements of the same valence shell as Pbatom, i.e. belonging to group 14th of the periodic table(see Fig. 1(b)), are expected to induce the local magneticmoment 2.0µB. Following the same principal, the chem-ical elements of s2p1 valence shell from group 13 of theperiodic table would work as magnetic centers character-ized by the local magnetic moment 1.0µB. Since we canexpect both, a difference in the atomic radius of impurityand occupation of the p orbital, to control the magneticbehavior, focus is on possibility to tune magnetism withdifferent impurities looking for a proper combination im-purity/host allowing to reach d0 ferromagnetism. If ourhypothesis is proven true, this approach can open a wideperspective to design the desired magnetic behavior inthe α-PbO semiconductor by generating a network of theinterstitial defects acting as the magnetic centers. Thefeasibility to generate such network is considered throughthe thermodynamics of the defect formation.

In our study we applied the generalized gradient ap-proximation (GGA) with the PBE parametrization [20]provided by WIEN2k package for the density functionalcalculations [21] (augmented plane wave + local orbitalsapproach). The Pb:5p, 5d, 6s, 6p and O:2s, 2p electronshave been treated as the valence electrons (the energycutoff was -8 Ry). The supercell approach (RKmax=7)with sufficiently large supercell of 108-atom size (3×3×3array of the primitive unit cells) has been used for singleimpurity calculation while the 190-atom size (4×4×3)supercell for the interacting defects. For integration ofthe Brillouin-zone, the Monkhorst-Pack scheme of the5×5×4 (or 4×4×2) k-mesh was applied. In applicationto the unpaired electrons, GGA often fails to perform thelocalization of the defect wave function due to an electronself-interaction error [22] that has been examined herewith the Hartree-Fock (HF) approach applied directly tothe unpaired electrons. Moreover, it is known that whenthe band gap size is underestimated by GGA, the hole-carrying impurity orbital may appear above the bottomof the conduction band thus inducing the spurious long-range order interactions [3]. For the lattice parameters

FIG. 1: (a) The α-PbO crystal structure which contains theimpurity interstitial atom. (b) The list of impurities fromgroup 13 and 14 in periodic table used by us to create the localmagnetic moment µ=1.0µB and µ=2.0µB , respectively (theatomic number on the top and the standard atomic weightat the bottom). (c) The Pb self-interstitial: the spin densitymap is plotted with isovalues of ±0.003 e/A3 in Xcrysdenfor the energy range (ED + EV )±0.15 eV. It demonstratesalignment of electrons at the impurity site for which defecttails can be traced up to the last oxygen atom shown.

optimized with GGA, the band gap is 1.8 eV (very closeto the experimental value [23]) while it found to shrinkby 0.22 eV when the experimental lattice parameters areconsidered [24]. Such gap deviation originates as a resultof the interlayer distance mismatch to occur upon lat-tice optimization performed with GGA [24]. Since in theα-PbO crystal structure the band gap size is controlledby the interlayer interactions of the Pb:6s2 electrons, ap-plication of GGA to optimization of the lattice param-eters through overestimation of the interlayer distancecauses the band gap to increase. In order to prevent the”spurious” effect, calculations of the electronic propertyare performed for the lattice parameters optimized withGGA as it gives the better agreement of the band gap sizewith the experimental data. On other hand, to precludethe defect formation energies to be underestimated, theexperimentally determined interlayer distance has beenused for those calculations. The formation energies ofthe interstitials have been evaluated for the vacuum con-ditions (details on the formation energy simulations arepresented in Ref. [25]).

3

FIG. 2: The band diagram for the α-PbO crystal structurecontaining the Pb self-interstitial defect: 1u and 1d are thebands formed by the p-localized electrons Pb:6p2x+y, while 2u

and 2d are the antibonding orbitals of the Im-Pb bond [16].

In respect to origin of the local magnetic moment inthe α-PbO compound on site of the Pb interstitial [16],our study had revealed that the Pb interstitial com-bines the advantages of the vacancies [7–11] and mag-netic ions [2, 3]. The high spin-polarization energy isobserved for Pb interstitial due to the spin ordering of6p2x+y to be governed by the Hund’s rule as for mag-netic ions. At the same time a hybridization of impuritystate with the host lattice results in the extended defecttails promising to induce the long-range order interac-tions. As shown in Fig. 1(c), the defect tails appear inupper and lower layers, they are extended up to sevennearest-neighbors and show the higher spin localizationat the oxygen atoms. Although the impurity interactswith the top layer through bonding while with bottomlayer only through the hybridization interactions, the de-fect tails are observed to be more pronounced at the bot-tom layer. It occurs because the Pb interstitial is tightlysandwiched between layers that results in its strong hy-bridization with the bottom layer.

The redistribution of the spin density from Pb inter-stitial site to the host lattice explains the on-site stabil-ity of the triplet state (Epol=0.235 eV) to be lowered incomparison to the magnetic impurities of d or f types[26] known to exhibit the localized nature of the un-paired electrons. We expect a hybridization with thehost to be a key to tune the magnetic behavior whenthe atomic radius of the impurity is reduced. In thiswork we track an alteration in the electronic propertiesof the host upon replacement of the Pb interstitial withdifferent impurities through a behavior of the impurityassociated bands depicted in Fig. 2 as 1u, 1d, 2u and 2d.The 1u and 1d bands are those induced by p-localized

electrons (the spin-up band 1u is occupied by p electronsfrom the impurity valence shell, while spin-down band 1d

is empty), the 2u and 2d bands are antibonding orbitalsof the impurity-host bond (Im-Pb). An appearance ofall four bands inside the band gap upon changing theimpurity type is shown in Fig. 3 (absence of 2u and 2d

bands is referred to the antibonding orbitals outside ofthe band gap). Other important parameters such as im-purity atomic radius RIm, length of the impurity-hostbond Im-Pb, spin-polarization energy Epol and splittingof the 1u and 1d bands (E1−E2) are disclosed in Table I.

The common trends on formation of the local mag-netic moment as a function of the impurity atomic radiusare investigated based on elements from group 14 withs2p2 valence shell generating the local magnetic moment2.0µB. It was found that reduction in atomic radius ofimpurity leads to shift of both impurity bands 1u and1d (1u is occupied by two electrons) towards the valenceband (EV ) but in the same time the gradual enhance-ment of the splitting of these bands occurs. The 2u bandis also shifted towards the lower energy due to shorten-ing of the Im-Pb bond, while the energetic position ofthe 2d band deviates in narrow energy range. The en-hanced splitting of the 1u and 1d bands (see (E1−E2) inTable I) indicates a gain in stability of the spin-polarizedstate and, indeed, a raise in the spin-polarization energyEpol is observed. We found that for the Si and C impu-rities which electronic interactions with the bottom layerare reduced because of shortening of the Im-Pb bond,the on-site stability already approaches the magnitudesknown for the magnetic ions [26].

The effect of the spin-orbit coupling (+so) on the de-fect bands splitting has been investigated with GGA+sofor the heavier elements (see Fig. 3). It is found that forPb impurity the spin-orbit coupling breaks degeneracy ofthe 1u and 1d levels resulting in their splitting by 0.52eV. Although, such large splitting is responsible for re-duction of (E1−E2), the triplet state remains stable thatis confirmed by exhibition of the local magnetic momentin experiment at room temperature [17]. The spin-orbiteffect is less pronounced for the Sn impurity for which thespin-orbit splitting is reduced to 0.19 eV. For elementswith smaller atomic radius, the spin-orbit coupling canbe neglected: it is 0.07 eV for Ge atom and decreasesfurther down for impurities of smaller radius.

We also have examined an effect of the electron self-interaction error [22] on magnetic behavior of the Pb im-purity through application of the HF approach directlyto the unpaired electrons. The spin-polarization energyis found to increase more than twice to Epol=0.490 eVas a result of enhancement of the splitting of the 1u and1d bands to 1.12 eV: the 1u orbital is shifted towards thevalence band while 1d towards the conduction band by∼ 0.4 eV each. However, the opposite effect is observedwhen the experimental lattice parameters are taken intoaccount because a reduction in the interlayer distance re-sults in enhancement of impurity hybridization with theopposite host layer. When both are applied, the compen-

4

FIG. 3: The energetic location of the 1u, 1d, 2u and 2d bands relative the top of the valence band EV and splitting of the 1u

and 1d bands.

sation effect is developed causing a reduction of the bandsplitting to (E1 − E2)=0.68 eV. This value is very closeto that found with GGA (see Table I) that indicates thereliability of GGA for this task.The chemical elements from group 13 in the periodic

table are also found to be able to act as the magnetic im-purity forming the local magnetic moment 1.0µB inducedby p electron occupying the s2p1 valence shell. Since the2u and 2d bands appears in the conduction band, theyare not presented in Fig. 3. In contrast to s2p2 impuri-ties, the 1u orbital occupied by single unpaired electron isfound to appear very close to the conduction band. Thiscauses the significant defect wave function delocalizationand, therefore, much weaker splitting of the 1u and 1d

bands. Thus, the In atom possesses almost zero splitting.The expected growth of (E1−E2) is observed for the Gaimpurity for which splitting reaches 0.17 eV. Because ofsmall splitting, electron from 1u leaks to 1d inducing re-duction of the local magnetic moment to 0.96µB. Thespin-orbit coupling effect is weakly pronounced for theGa impurity causing a negligible reduction of (E1 − E2)by 0.015 eV. Although further increase in the splitting ofthe 1u and 1d bands has been expected for the Al impu-rity, the modification of the bonding mechanism has dis-continued such trend. The Al atom is attached to the Pbatom from the bottom layer instead of top layer shown inFig. 1 (a). It results in shift of the Im-Pb bonding orbitalfrom valence band into the band gap. The splitting of the1u and 1d bands is found to decrease to 0.13 eV that in-duces a further reduction of the local magnetic momentto 0.78µB. For the B atom as the magnetic impurity,a suppression of the (E1 − E2) is even stronger leadingto disappearance of the local magnetic moment. There-fore, for new bonding mechanism, the opposite trend isobserved: the spin-polarization energy Epol defining thestability of the local magnetic moment decreases with

TABLE I: The stability of the spin-polarized state determinedwithin GGA calculation as a function of impurity atomic ra-dius RIm [27]: the spin-polarization energy Epol and the en-ergy splitting of the 1u and 1d bands (E1 − E2). Im-Pb is alength of the bond to be formed between impurity and thehost.

Im RIm, A Im-Pb, A Epol, eV (E1 −E2), eVPb 1.81 2.90 0.235 0.523Sn 1.72 2.86 0.258 0.585Ge 1.52 2.70 0.306 0.680Si 1.46 2.65 0.338 0.734C 0.90 2.30 0.538 1.058In 2.00 3.06 0.000 0.000Ga 1.81 2.92 0.051 0.173Al 1.82 2.71 0.003 0.131Al 1.17 2.71 0.000 0.000

reduction of the atomic radius. The general conclusion,among chemical elements from group 13 in the periodictable only Ga impurity promises some advantages for d0

magnetism.

In respect to formation energy of defect, reduction inthe atomic radius of impurity leads to less distortionwithin the α-PbO crystal structure: in order to accom-modate the Pb interstitial the layers of the host moveapart while for impurity of smaller radius the interlayerdistance is preserved. As a result, we have observed a re-duction of the defect formation energy: 1.23 eV is foundfor Pb interstitial (for details on calculation of the for-mation energy see [25]), 0.79 eV for the Sn impurity, justabove zero for Ge, Si and Ga, and it is becoming negativefor C impurity. The low formation energy promises notonly the better mechanical tolerance of the host latticeto defects but also the higher finite defect concentrationto be reached. Thus, thermodynamically granted defect

5

concentration for the negative formation energy can be ashigh as number of the sites available for bonding ∼1022

cm−3. The formation energies are found to drop downwhen impurity is placed on surface of single crystal thatopens a way to perform a doping of the nearest-neighborssites (for example by almost 1.0 eV for the Pb intersti-tial [25]). Although the impurity of small atomic radiusshows a better on-site stability of the local magnetic mo-ment and the low formation energy, but stronger local-ization of the defect wave function implies shorter defecttails that would influence the long-order interactions.

The collective magnetic ordering may only occur whentwo impurities are close to each other to establish themagnetic coupling of their localized spins. In this respectthe long range order interactions play the essential role.The magnetic coupling between impurities has been sim-ulated for the system containing two interstitials of s2p2

valence shell. The p2x+y electrons localized on impuritieshave been aligned on-site, while their inter-site orderinghas been switched from antiferromagnetic to ferromag-netic in order to evaluate EM = EAFM − EFM . The6p2x+y state is exactly half filled and, therefore, if thelocalized electrons of two interacting impurities are fer-romagnetically coupled (the total magnetic moments is 4µB), the inter-site virtual hopping is not allowed [3, 10].The virtual hopping is supported only for AFM coupling(the total magnetic moment for two interacting impuri-ties is zero) and because it lowers the total energy, AFMbecomes the ground state. For two Pb interstitials placedon distance 4.0 A we found that EM(Pb−Pb)=-0.96 eV (anegative sign indicates the AFM ground state) while fortwo interacting C interstitials it is reduced to EM(C−C)=-0.38 eV. The electronic interactions and the magneticcoupling between defects exponentially decrease with de-fect separation. Thus, for two defects placed on a dis-tance 12.5 A (for this calculation the size of the super-cell was 4×4×3), the energy difference between AFM andFM states is drastically supressed to EM(Pb−Pb)=-0.0056eV and EM(C−C)=-0.0023 eV for the Pb and C intersti-tials, respectively. These data prove that the larger isthe atomic radius of impurity, the stronger is the hy-bridization of the impurity state with the host latticebeing responsible for extension of the defect tails. To es-tablish the magnetic percolation, a reduction in the inter-impurity coupling to occur for the impurities of smalleratomic radius can be compensated by the impurity con-centration which can be increased due to a shift of thethermodynamic limit of defect formation to the highermagnitudes. For example, since the C interstitial pos-sesses the negative formation energy, potentially it can beinduced on the nearest-neighbouring sites. For this case,the theoretical limit of the exchange interaction strengthdefined by EM(C−C)=-0.38 eV can be achieved.

Although the impurities of s2p2 valence shell show theinteresting physics, but their inter-site AFM ordering andappearance of the defect states deep inside the band gap(the coupling of the impurity state to the band like stateis essential to support the spin-polarized carrier trans-

port) make them inappropriate for spintronics applica-tions. The impurities from group 13 have a better fit tothe requirements imposed by spintronics: the 1u and 1d

bands both couples to the conduction band and the FMground state should be granted for interacting impurities.Since the Ga impurity has shown the highest potentialdue to its high spin-polarization energy, here we focus ondevelopment of the magnetic interactions between twoGa impurities. We found that for two defects placed ona distance 4.0 A, the strength of the magnetic coupling isdefined by EM(Ga−Ga)=1.08 eV (a positive sign indicatesthe FM ground state). The distance between impuritieshas been increased twice that corresponds to the realisticdefect concentration x=2.5%. To simulate the worse-casescenario, the impurities have been attached to the oppo-site layers. In this case, the overlap of the defects tailsis weakest as the defect tails for small atomic radius im-purity are stronger pronounced in the layer the impurityis attached to. Secondly, instead of straight line loca-tion, the impurities have been placed obliquely that alsoreduces the interaction of their defect tails (oblique lineinvolves the lead atoms while the defect tails are strongeron the oxygen atoms to be on the straight line shown inFig. 1(c)). For such impurity location, the exchange in-teraction strength are accounted by EM(Ga−Ga)=0.04 eV

(a distance between impurities was 8.66 A). In order toroughly estimate the Curie temperature TC , the simpli-fied mean-field approximation for the Heisenberg modelcan be applied as TC = 2/3kBEM [28] (kB is the Boltz-mann constant). The Curie temperature is found to bejust above 300 K for 2.5% of impurity but this value israther underestimated as the worse-case scenario on im-purity location has been applied.

In summary, we propose to generate the local magneticmoment in compounds of α-PbO crystal structure by itsdoping with non-magnetic impurities belonging to group13th or 14th of the periodic table. In analogy with mag-netic ions, the magnetic moment origin is due to partiallyfilled orbitals, but instead of d or f types it is being ofp-type. The partial occupation of p orbital appears asa result of the unique bonding of impurities with thehost lattice: the original partial occupation of p orbitalof impurity is preserved after its bonding to the host. Wefound that the magnetic behavior of the dopants dependson their atomic radius: dopants with the smaller radiusare found to establish the higher on-site stability of thelocalized spins. For the Si and C impurities, the on-sitestability reaches such a high magnitude that it becomescomparable with that for the magnetic ions of d or ftypes [26]. Another benefit of the small atomic radiusof impurity is its near zero defect formation energy thatshifts the solubility limit to magnitudes as high as ∼1022

cm−3. For the spintronics applications, the chemical el-ements from group 13 of the periodic table are found toinduce d0 ferromagnetism. Among all, in particular theGa impurity shows the characteristics required to estab-lish the magnetic percolation above the room tempera-ture. Overall, it has been shown that the α-PbO crystal

6

structure is a good candidate to become the semiconduc-tor host for d0 magnetism as it offers a flexibility to tunemagnetism by the changing the impurity type.

I. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was made possible by the computationalfacilities of Dr. O. Rubel and the Shared Hierarchi-

cal Academic Research Computing Network (SHAR-CNET:www.sharcnet.ca) and Compute/Calcul Canada.Financial support of Ontario Ministry of Research andInnovation through a Research Excellence Program On-tario network for advanced medical imaging detectors ishighly acknowledged.

[1] Ando K., Science 312 2006, 1883.[2] Mahadevan P. Zunger A. and Sarma D.D. Phys. Rev.

Lett. 93 2004, 177201.[3] Zunger A., Lany S. and Raebiger H. Physics 3 2010, 53.[4] Xu H.J. Zhu H.C., Shan X.D., Liu Y.X., Gao J.Y., Zhang

X.Z., Zhang J.M., Wang P.W., Hou Y.M. and Yu D.P.,J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 22 2010, 016002.

[5] Dietl T., Ohno H., Matsukura F., Cibert J. and FerrandD., Science 287 2000, 1019.

[6] Y. Gohda Y. and Oshiyama A., Phys. Rev. B 78 2008,161201.

[7] Coey J.M.D. Solid State Sciences 7, 2005, 660.[8] Venkatesan M., Fitzgerald C.B. and Coey J.M.D. Nature

430 2004, 630.[9] Podila R., Queen W., Nath A., Arantes J. T., Schoenhalz

A. L., Fazzio A., Dalpian G. M., He J., Hwu S.J., SkoveM. J. and Rao A. M. Nano Letters 10 2010, 1383.

[10] Dev P., Xue Y. and Zhang P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 2008,117204.

[11] Peng H., Xiang H. J., Wei S.-H., Li S.-S., Xia J.-B. andLi J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102 2009, 017201.

[12] Osorio-Guillen J., Lany S., Barabash S.V. and Zunger A.Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 2006, 107203.

[13] Khan Z. A. and S. Ghosh Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 2011,042504.

[14] Ye L.-H.,Freeman A. J. and Delley B. Phys. Rev. B 73

2006, 033203.[15] Shen L., Wu R. Q., Pan H., Peng G. W., Yang M., Sha

Z.D. and Feng Y.P. Phys. Rev. B 78 2008, 073306.[16] Berashevich J, and Reznik A. arXiv:1304.2945[17] Preliminary results: EPR spectroscopy performed on un-

doped PbO samples has revealed the paramagnetic cen-ters in the triplet state at room temperature.

[18] Lee P.A., Nagaosa N. and Wen X.-G. Rev. Mod. Phys.17 2006, 78.

[19] Berashevich J, Semeniuk O., Rowlands J.A. and ReznikA. EPL 99 2012, 47005.

[20] Perdew J.P., Burke K. and Ernzernof M. Phys. Rev. Lett.77 1996, 3865.

[21] Blaha P., Schwarz K., Madsen G.K.H., Kvasnicka D. andLuitz J. Wien2k, Techn. Universitat Wien, Austria, 2001.

[22] d’Avezac M., Calandra M. and Mauri F. Phys. Rev. B71 2005, 205210.

[23] Thangaraju B. and Kaliannann P. Semicond. Sci. Tech-nol. 15 2000, 542.

[24] Berashevich J., Semeniuk O., Rubel O., Rowlands J.A.and Reznik A. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 25 2013,075803.

[25] Berashevich J. and Reznik A. J. Phys.:Condens. Matter.25 2013, 475801.

[26] Janak J. F. Phys. Rev. B 16 1977, 255.[27] Slater J. C. Journal of Chemical Physics 41 1964, 3199.[28] Ya P., Jin X.F., Kudrnovsky J., Wang D.S. and Bruno

P. Phys. Rev. B 77 2008, 054431.