1: \documentstyle[aps,prl,amssymb,twocolumn,latexsym]{revtex}
2: %\usepackage{latexsym}
3:
4: \newcommand {\beq} {\begin {equation}}
5: \newcommand {\eeq} {\end {equation}}
6: \newcommand {\ds} {\displaystyle}
7: \newcommand {\klm}[1] {{\, \left(\, {#1} \,\right) }}
8: \newcommand {\ekl}[1] {{\, \left[\, {#1} \,\right] }}
9: \newcommand {\gkl}[1] {{\, \left\{\, {#1} \,\right\}}}
10: \newcommand {\skl}[1] {{\left\langle {#1} \right\rangle}}
11: \newcommand {\abs}[1] {{\, \left| \,{#1}\,\right|}}
12: \newcommand{\lsed}{\mbox{$l_{\mbox{\scriptsize SED}}$}}
13: \newcommand{\ld}{\mbox{$l_{\mbox{\scriptsize D}}$}}
14: \newcommand{\lt}{\mbox{$l$}}
15: \newcommand{\lc}{\mbox{$l_c$}}
16: \newcommand{\lr}{\mbox{$l_r$}}
17: \newcommand{\li}{\mbox{$l_\ell$}}
18: %\newcommand{\lr}{\mbox{$l_{\mbox{\scriptsize r}}$}}
19: %\newcommand{\li}{\mbox{$l_{\mbox{\scriptsize l}}$}}
20: \newcommand{\tw}{\widetilde{w}}
21:
22: \begin{document}
23:
24: \twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
25:
26: \title{\bf Particle currents and the distribution of terrace sizes in unstable epitaxial
27: growth}
28: \author{{\sc M. Biehl$^{1,2}$, M. Ahr$^{1}$, M. Kinne$^{3}$, W.
29: Kinzel$^{1}$,
30: and S. Schinzer$^{1,2}$}}
31: \noindent
32: \address{
33: $^{1}$Institut f\"ur Theoretische Physik und Astrophysik,
34: $^{2}$Sonderforschungsbereich 410\\
35: Julius--Maximilians--Universit\"at W\"urzburg\\
36: Am Hubland, 97074 W\"urzburg, Germany\\
37: $^{3}$Lehrstuhl f\"ur Physikalische Chemie II\\
38: Friedrich--Alexander--Universit\"at Erlangen--N\"urnberg \\
39: Egerlandstr. 3, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
40: }
41:
42:
43: \maketitle
44:
45: \begin{abstract}
46: A solid--on--solid model of epitaxial growth in $1+1$ dimensions
47: is investigated in which slope dependent upward and downward
48: particle currents compete on the surface. The
49: microscopic mechanisms which give rise to these currents
50: are the smoothening
51: incorporation of particles upon deposition and
52: an Ehrlich--Schwoebel barrier which hinders inter--layer transport
53: at step edges. We calculate the distribution of
54: terrace sizes and the resulting currents on a stepped surface with
55: a given inclination angle. The cancellation of the competing effects
56: leads to the selection of a stable {\sl magic slope\/}.
57: Simulation results are in very good agreement with the theoretical findings.
58: \end{abstract}
59: {PACS numbers: 81.10.Aj, 05.70.Ln, 68.55.-a} \ \\ ]
60:
61: Epitaxial growth has become a standard method for the production
62: of high--quality crystals and films, needed for e.g.\ semiconductor devices.
63: An overview of experimental techniques can be found in \cite{Krim}, for instance.
64: Significant effort has been devoted to a theoretical
65: understanding of the many morphologies and scaling behaviors
66: that can be observed in epitaxial growth, see e.g.\ \cite{pimpinelli} for a review of
67: theoretical approaches.
68: Here we address the frequently observed phenomenon
69: of mounds in unstable growth which has
70: attracted considerable interest, see e.g.
71: \cite{rostkrug,siegert,tang,epl,sed,gitter}.
72: Specifically, we consider situations in which competing
73: smoothening and steepening effects control the surface morphology
74: and lead to the selection of a stable slope
75: in the system.
76:
77: We discuss potential microscopic mechanisms which result in the
78: emergence of mounds and slope selection in the frame of
79: a discrete $(1+1)$--dimensional model.
80: The net particle currents as well as the distribution of terrace
81: sizes on a surface of a given slope can be worked out and this
82: allows then to evaluate the magic slope as well as
83: the complete statistical properties of the emerging surface.
84: The analysis complements previous theoretical investigations
85: which address the mean terrace size only or neglect
86: fluctuations explicitly \cite{georg} in the spirit of Burton Cabrera Frank (BCF)
87: theory \cite{pimpinelli,BCF}.
88: We demonstrate that the full distribution of terrace sizes
89: carries relevant information that should be taken into account.
90: Our results suggest, for example, that it should be possible
91: to identify relevant microscopic mechanisms from
92: experimental data.
93:
94: Our $(1+1)$--dimensional model obeys the solid--on--solid (SOS)
95: restriction,
96: i.e.\ the surface can be described by an integer array of height
97: variables $h_k$. Single particles are deposited at
98: randomly chosen sites $k \in \{1,2,\ldots,L\}$.
99: Upon arrival, an incorporation process moves a particle to
100: the lowest available site within a neighborhood of $\pm
101: R$ lattice constants, i.e.\ the site $j$ with
102: $h_j = \min \left\{h_{k-R},\ldots,h_k,\ldots
103: h_{k+R} \right\} $.
104: In case of a tie, the site closest to the deposition is
105: chosen. Only if this is still ambiguous, an additional random
106: selection is performed. Such a smoothening mechanism, in absence
107: of further effects, is commonly associated with the Edwards--Wilkinson
108: universality class of
109: growth \cite{pimpinelli}.
110: The parameter $R={\cal O}(1)$ (in lattice constants)
111: is termed the incorporation radius and sets the
112: typical length
113: scale of the process. Various interpretations of incorporation have
114: been considered, including downward funneling
115: on non--trivial
116: lattices and knock--out--processes due to the
117: momentum of incoming particles, see e.g.\ \cite{evans,yue}.
118:
119:
120: A particle which is, after deposition and possibly incorporation,
121: not yet bound to a lateral neighbor diffuses on the surface by
122: performing a random walk (RW) until it
123: reaches an additional binding partner and
124: becomes immobile or until it collides with
125: another moving adatom and forms an island
126: nucleus.
127: In a density of diffusing particles, this nucleation process
128: would result in a typical collision free path
129: $\ld$. In the case of irreversible aggregation on a flat
130: substrate, and if islands
131: of two or more adatoms are considered immobile, it has been
132: shown that $\ld \propto \left(d/f\right)^{1/4}$ in $(1+1)$
133: dimensions \cite{pimpinelli,villain}. Here, $d$ is the diffusion constant
134: and $f$ the incoming flux, with all
135: lengths in dimensionless lattice constants.
136:
137:
138: In \cite{epl,sed,gitter} nucleation is represented in an
139: effective single particle picture and $\ld$ fixes
140: the typical distance of island nuclei in the first layers
141: on a flat
142: substrate.
143: After the formation of mounds, terrace sizes
144: are much smaller than $\ld$, typically.
145: \iffalse
146: Throughout the following we will assume that typical terrace sizes
147: $\lt$ on the stepped surface are much smaller than the diffusion
148: length
149: $\ld$.
150: \fi
151: Hence we will completely neglect nucleation on the stepped surface
152: which is justified
153: for small incoming flux or fast diffusion, respectively.
154:
155:
156: Here, the RW ends whenever the particle sticks irreversibly to a lateral
157: neighbor, i.e. when it reaches a terrace step. Attachment can occur
158: from below and above, in principle, but this symmetry is broken due
159: to the so--called Ehrlich--Schwoebel (ES) effect \cite{pimpinelli}:
160: An additional energy barrier $E_{es}$ at step edges hinders downward
161: moves of diffusing adatoms as this would involve loosely bound
162: intermediate positions. Our model takes the ES effect into account by
163: assigning a probability $ p_{es} \, \propto \exp\ekl{-E_{es}/(k T)}$
164: to
165: downward moves.
166:
167: The ES effect results in an uphill current of adatoms
168: because particles will stick
169: to upper terraces preferably for any $p_{es} < 1$.
170: On the other hand, incorporation
171: constitutes a downhill
172: current. Both effects are slope dependent and their cancellation
173: gives rise to
174: the formation of mounds with a well--defined inclination angle.
175: Once the structures have built up the {\it magic slope}, a coarsening
176: process begins
177: which decreases the number of mounds, see \cite{epl,sed,gitter} for details.
178:
179: We will first work out the distribution of terrace sizes
180: which emerges in our model on surfaces with a given, fixed
181: inclination.
182: Further, we will calculate
183: the mean displacement of a particle's final position from
184: its deposition site. The latter corresponds to the net particle
185: current on the growing surface and its zero as a function of the
186: inclination angle determines the stable slope.
187:
188:
189: We consider a triple of terraces on an inclined surface
190: with a central terrace $c$ of width $l_{c}$ (lattice sites
191: $j=1,2,\ldots l_c$)
192: and its neighbors $\ell$ to the left ($r$ to the right) with size $\li$ $(l_r)$.
193: Without loss of generality, we assume
194: that the surface height decreases to the right.
195: For a particle deposited on a site $k$ of terrace $c$ with $l_c > R$
196: we have to distinguish the following cases: \\[-6mm]
197: \begin{itemize}
198: \item[(a)] $k > l_c - R$:~ the incorporation process places the
199: particle
200: at its final position at site $l_c +1$, attaching to the lower
201: terrace end.\\[-6mm]
202: \item[(b)] $1\leq k \leq l_c -R$:~ the particle performs a random
203: walk until
204: it reaches one of the {\it trap sites} $j=1$ or $j=l_c+1$ where it
205: comes to rest. This includes deposition at site $k=1$ without
206: subsequent
207: diffusion. \\[-6mm]
208: \end{itemize}
209: A diffusing particle located at a site $j$ with $2\!\leq\!j\!\leq\!l_c\!-\!1$ moves
210: to one of the neighboring positions $j\pm1$ with equal probability
211: $1/2$.
212: The asymmetry of the RW (b) is due to the ES--barrier
213: present for jumps from site $j=l_c$. We denote
214: with
215: $p_{es}/2$ the
216: probability for a downward move to site $l_c+1$.
217: With probability
218: $(1-p_{es})/2$ the move is
219: rejected and the particle remains at $j=l_c$ for the next time step, whereas with
220: probability $1/2$ it jumps to $l_c -1$.
221:
222: A straightforward exercise
223: yields the probability
224: for a RW initiated at site $k$ to end in $j=\lc\!+\!1$ by downward
225: diffusion:
226: $q(k,l_c) = \left. \klm{(k\!-\!1)\, p_{es}} \right/ \klm{1\!+\!(l_c
227: \!-\!1) p_{es}} $
228: which obviously satisfies $q(1,l_c)=0$ for all $p_{es}$.
229: For similar problems of this type see for instance
230: \cite{Shehawey}.
231:
232: Hence, the total probability $d(l_c)$ for a deposition event
233: to occur on terrace $c$ with
234: subsequent downward diffusion is $ d(\lc) = \Delta(\lc)/L$
235: with \\[-4mm]
236: \beq
237: \ds \label{deltadef}
238: \Delta(\lc) = \sum_{k=1}^{l_c\!-\!R} q(k,\lc) \!=\!
239: \frac{\klm{\lc\!-\!R}\klm{\lc\!-\!R-1} p_{es}}
240: {2 + 2 \klm{\lc-1} p_{es}} \eeq
241: if $\lc > R$ and $\Delta(\lc) =0 $
242: else.
243: The second case accounts for the fact that any particle directly
244: deposited onto a terrace of width $\lc \leq R$ will be
245: incorporated
246: without performing diffusion.
247:
248:
249: The quantity $\Delta(l_c)$ can be interpreted as the effective number of
250: deposition sites which contribute to downward diffusion from terrace $c$.
251: The prefactor $1/L$ of $d(\lc)$ is simply the constant probability for deposition
252: on any of the sites in the system.
253:
254:
255: Now we can work out the probability $\tw(\lc\!\to\!\lc\!-\!1)$ for the
256: central terrace $c$ to be shortened by the next deposition event.
257: For $\lc > R$ one finds
258: \begin{eqnarray}
259: \tw (\lc\!\to\!\lc\!-\!1) &=&
260: \klm{R\!+\! [\lc\!-\!R\!-\!\Delta(\lc)] \!\
261: +\!\Delta(\li)} / L \nonumber \\
262: &=& \klm{\lc \!-\! \Delta(\lc) \!+\! \Delta(\li)} /L.
263: \label{shorten}
264: \end{eqnarray}
265: The first contribution, $R$, represents deposition on any of the $R$ sites
266: left of terrace $c$. Note that the outcome of the subsequent
267: incorporation process is completely independent of the surface
268: configuration, in particular of the left neighbor terrace width
269: $\li$. The second term $\ekl{\ldots}$ accounts for deposition on
270: $c$ with final attachment to the upper terrace. Finally
271: $\Delta(\li)/L$ is the probability for the shortening of $c$ through
272: diffusion from terrace $\ell$.
273:
274: If $0<\lc<R$, only two processes can shorten the central terrace:
275: incorporation from exactly $\lc$ sites left of $c$ and downward
276: diffusion from terrace $\ell$. One obtains $\tw (\lc\!\to\!\lc\!-\!1) =
277: (\lc\!+\!\Delta(\li))/L$ and we finally observe
278: that Eq.\ (\ref{shorten})
279: is valid for any $\lc \geq 1$ since $\Delta(\lc)=0$ for all $\lc
280: \leq R$. Obviously, $\tw (\lc \to \lc-1) = 0$ if $\lc=0$ already.
281:
282:
283: Since $\lc$ can only increase at the cost of shortening $\lr$ at the
284: same time, one obtains immediately the result
285: \beq \label{lengthen}
286: \tw (\lc\!\to\!\lc\!+\!1) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
287: \frac{1}{L} \klm{\lr\!-\!\Delta(\lr) \!+\!\Delta(\lc)} & \mbox{if~}
288: \lr>0 \\
289: 0 & \mbox{if~} \lr=0. \end{array} \right.
290: \eeq
291: We proceed by assuming that in a {\it population} of terraces the
292: distribution of their sizes factorizes, i.e.\ that a single,
293: identical
294: $p(l)$ is sufficient to describe their statistics.
295: For the limiting case of an infinite ES barrier ($p_{es}=0$) the
296: evolution of a terrace is independent of the entire configuration
297: left of it, and the above property can be shown to hold true.
298: In general, neighbor terraces clearly
299: interact. Nevertheless, our simulations show that the assumption of
300: identically distributed, independent terrace sizes yields excellent
301: approximations, at the very least. Figure \ref{strom} shows, for instance, that
302: the correlation coefficient of neighboring terrace sizes in a
303: system with $L=1000$ and $p_{es} = 0.2$ vanishes within error bars.
304:
305:
306: The analysis simplifies significantly if terrace sizes are considered
307: to be uncorrelated. The above expressions
308: (\ref{shorten},\ref{lengthen}) were obtained for a given
309: triple of terraces $\gkl{\ell,c,r}$. By averaging
310: $\tw (\lc\!\to\!\lc\!\pm\!1)$
311: over $p(\li)$ and
312: $p(\lr)$, respectively, one obtains the mean probabilities
313: $w(\lc\!\to\!\lc\!\pm\!1)$:
314: \begin{eqnarray}
315: \label{lengthenmean}
316: w(\lc\!\to\!\lc\!-\!1) & = &
317: % \sum_{\lr =0}^{\infty} p(\lr) \tw(\lc\!\to\!\lc\!+\!1) =
318: \left\{ \begin{array}{cl}
319: \frac{1}{L} \klm{\lc\!-\!\Delta(\lc) \!+\!\skl{\Delta}}
320: & \mbox{for~~} \lc >0 \\
321: 0 & \mbox{for~~} \lc=0 \end{array} \right. \\
322: \label{shortenmean}
323: w (\lc\!\to\!\lc\!+\!1) & = &
324: % \sum_{\li =0}^{\infty} \, p(\li) \tw (\lc \to \lc-1) \, =
325: \klm{\skl{l} \!-\!\skl{\Delta} \!+\! [1\!-\!p(0)]
326: \Delta(\lc) } / L
327: \end{eqnarray}
328: where the r.h.s.\ involve only the width of the considered terrace itself,
329: the frequency $p(0)$ of vanishing terrace sizes and the mean values
330: $\skl{l}=\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \, j p(j)$ and $ \skl{\Delta} =
331: \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} \, \Delta(j) p(j)$, see Eq.\ (\ref{deltadef}).
332:
333:
334:
335:
336: The evolution of terraces according to
337: (\ref{lengthenmean},\ref{shortenmean}) produces a stationary distribution $p(l)$,
338: if $ p(l\!+\!1) w(l\!+\!1\!\to\!l) = p(l) w(l\!\to\!l\!+\!1) $,
339: hence
340: \begin{equation} \label{recursion}
341: p(l+1) = p(l) \, \frac{\skl{l} - \skl{\Delta} + [1\!-\!p(0)] \Delta(l)}
342: {l+1 - \Delta(l+1) + \skl{\Delta}}
343: \end{equation}
344: for $l\geq0$. This relation is implicit, since all $p(l)$ have to be known
345: for the evaluation of the averages on the r.h.s.
346: In the particular case of an infinite ES barrier, Eq.\ (\ref{recursion})
347: reads $ p(l\!+\!1)=p(l) \skl{l}/(l\!+\!1)$ which is satisfied
348: by the Poissonian $p(l) = \lambda^l \, e^{-\lambda} / l!$ with mean
349: $\skl{l}=\lambda$.
350:
351: In order to obtain the stationary $p(l)$ for $p_{es}>0$ on a
352: surface with a given
353: mean terrace size $\lambda$, we replace $\skl{l}$ with $\lambda$
354: and $\skl{\Delta}$ with an adjustable parameter $D$ in Eq.\ (\ref{recursion}).
355: The quantities $p(0)$ and $D$ are determined such
356: that $\sum_l p(l)=1$ is satisfied and $\skl{l}=\lambda$ is reproduced self--consistently.
357: Note that then, by construction,
358: (\ref{recursion}) guarantees $\skl{\Delta}=D$ as well.
359: In the numerical treatment, sums are truncated at a value $l_{max}$,
360: with the resulting $p(l_{\max})$
361: small enough to justify the truncation a posteriori.
362:
363:
364: A particle deposited at, say, lattice site $i$ will become immobile at
365: a final position $j\neq i$ after incorporation and diffusion, in general.
366: The expected displacement $ \delta = \skl{j-i} $ depends on the distribution of
367: terrace sizes in the system. Taking into account all possible displacement processes
368: and their corresponding probabilities one finds
369: \begin{eqnarray} \label{totaldelta}
370: \delta & = &
371: \frac{1}{2} R (R+1) - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{l=0}^{R\!-\!1} p(l) \ekl{(R-l)(R-l+1)} + \\
372: & & \sum_{l=R\!+\!1}^{\infty} p(l) \klm{ -l(l\!-\!R\!-\!\Delta(l))\!+\!\frac{1}{2} l
373: (l\!+\!1) - \frac{1}{2} R(R\!+\!1)}, \nonumber
374: \end{eqnarray}
375: where the $p(l)$ obtained from (\ref{recursion}) have to be inserted for a
376: given $\skl{l}=\lambda$.
377: Here, the first line corresponds to the expected (positive, downward)
378: effect of incorporation
379: and the second represents the total (negative, upward) contribution of diffusion.
380: In the limiting case $p_{es}=0$ Eq. (\ref{totaldelta}) reduces to
381: $\delta = R \skl{l} - \skl{l}^2/2$, exploiting the fact that $\Delta(l)=0$ in this case
382: and $\skl{l^2} - \skl{l}^2 = \skl{l}$ for the Poisson distribution.
383:
384: Figure \ref{strom} shows the result of Monte Carlo simulations of
385: the growth process in a system of size $L=1000$ for the model with $R=2$ and
386: different values of $p_{es}$, where boundary conditions were used to fix
387: $\skl{l}=\lambda$. We have displayed the particle current $\delta/\lambda$
388: on the surface as a function of $\lambda$.
389: Note that $\delta$ in Eq. (\ref{totaldelta}) was obtained
390: for the normalization $\sum_l p(l)=1$
391: which corresponds to a fixed number of terraces.
392: In systems with a fixed number $L$ of
393: lattice sites, an additional factor has to be introduced as the number of
394: terraces grows like $1/\lambda$.
395:
396: For very
397: steep surfaces, $\lambda\to0$, the displacement approaches
398: the limiting value $R$,
399: representing the fact that
400: \begin{figure}[t]
401: \begin{center}
402: \setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
403: \begin{picture}(160,130)(0,0)
404: \put(0,0){\makebox(160,125)
405: {\special{psfile=r2strom.ps
406: angle=270 hoffset=-160 voffset=170 hscale=32 vscale=32}}}
407: \put(1,125){\large $\delta/\lambda$}
408: \put(65,54){\large$\lambda$}
409: \caption{The mean particle displacement $\delta/\lambda$ vs.\ $\lambda=\skl{l}$, cf.\ Eq.\
410: (\ref{totaldelta}), shown for the model with $R=2$
411: and different ES barriers. Symbols represent
412: the result of simulations with $L=1000$ for
413: $p_{es}= 0 (\mbox{\Large$\bullet$}), 0.1 (\blacksquare), 0.2
414: (\mbox{\large $\blacktriangledown$}),
415: 0.4
416: (\mbox{\large $\blacktriangle$})$.
417: Averages were performed over 100 runs and standard error bars
418: would be smaller than the symbols, where not shown.
419: In addition, the correlation coefficient $\rho\!=\!(\skl{l_a l_b}\!-\!
420: \skl{l}^2)/(\skl{l^2}\!-\!\skl{l}^2)$ for neighboring terraces $a$ and $b$
421: is displayed for the case $p_{es}=0.2$;
422: crosses and error bars correspond to $10\cdot\rho$.}
423: \label{strom}
424: \end{picture}
425: \end{center}
426: \end{figure}
427: \noindent
428: every deposited particle is shifted by $R$ lattice
429: constant in the incorporation and then comes to rest. In the limit of vanishing
430: slope, our model yields a diverging negative ``upward'' current.
431: This is an artifact of completely neglecting nucleation, which inevitably
432: becomes
433: important as $\lambda\to\infty$ and imposes a maximal displacement on the order of $\ld$.
434:
435: On mounded surfaces, bottom and top terraces limit the extension of
436: inclined flanks. Any slope that results in a net uphill current according to
437: Eq.\ (\ref{totaldelta}) will steepen
438: this portion of the surface and
439: vice versa. Accordingly, a mean terrace width $\lambda_o$ will be stabilized which corresponds
440: to the zero of $\delta (\lambda)$.
441: In the presence of an infinite ES--barrier we find the exact relation $\lambda_o=2R$.
442: A naive and not quite correct argument was used in \cite{epl} to obtain
443: the same result.
444: It is instructive to check that the magic slope cannot be obtained
445: from the condition that the mean displacement vanishes on a particular terrace of size
446: $\hat{\lambda}$. This would correspond to setting $p(l)=\delta_{l,\hat{\lambda}}$
447: in Eq. (\ref{totaldelta})
448: and ~ gives results ~ analogous to the BCF--like
449: treatment in \cite{georg}
450: which does not account for fluctuating terrace sizes.
451: For $p_{es}=0$ one obtains, e.g., $\hat{\lambda}=2R\!+\!1\!=\!\lambda_o\!+\!1$.
452:
453: Fig. \ref{distri} shows the frequency of terrace sizes as observed in two different
454: systems which both stabilize the mean $\lambda_o=6$.
455: In one we have set $p_{es}=0$
456: and $R=3$, the second \mbox{example corresponds to $R=2$ and $p_{es}=0.258$.}
457: Computer simulations
458: show excellent agreement.
459: Systems with a very pronounced ES--effect produce a narrow distribution
460: with a very low frequency $p(0)$ of {\sl step\/}
461: {\sl bunching\/}, i.e. zero terrace sizes.
462: As a limiting case one
463: finds $p(0)=e^{-\lambda_o}=e^{-2R}$ for infinite ES--barrier $(p_{es}=0)$.
464: \begin{figure}[t]
465: \begin{center}
466: \setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
467: \begin{picture}(160,108)(0,0)
468: \put(0,0){\makebox(160,105)
469: {\special{psfile=vgl.ps
470: angle=270 hoffset=-150 voffset=150 hscale=32 vscale=32}}}
471: \put(2,105){\large $p(l)$}
472: \put(80,36){\large$l$}
473: \caption{Frequency $p(l)$ of terrace sizes in two cases with
474: $\skl{l}=\lambda_o=6$. The dashed line shows the theoretical
475: prediction for $R=3, p_{es}=0$, triangles represent
476: simulations (as in Fig.\ \ref{strom}); the solid line and bullets
477: correspond to $R=2, p_{es}=0.258$.
478: The dot--dashed curve displays a geometric distribution with $\skl{l}=6$
479: for comparison.}
480: \label{distri}
481: \end{picture}
482: \end{center}
483: \end{figure}
484: \noindent
485: On the
486: contrary, step bunching is observed with a much larger frequency in cases
487: with a weaker ES--effect where the distribution $p(l)$ is much broader.
488: Fig.\ \ref{mvsp} displays $\lambda_o$ and the variance $\sigma^2$ of the
489: terrace size distribution as functions of $p_{es}$. Note that $\sigma^2$
490: grows drastically with increasing $p_{es}$, indicating
491: significant deviations from the Poissonian for
492: infinite ES--effect.
493:
494: The analysis of experimental data is frequently based on the
495: simple assumption of random, non--interacting terrace sizes on
496: vicinal surfaces. This leads to the geometric distribution
497: $p_g(l) = (1-1/\lambda)^{l-1} / \lambda $ with $\skl{l}=\lambda$,
498: see e.g.\ \cite{wollschlaeger} for a discussion.
499: Note that $p_g(l)$ differs significantly from the type of statistics
500: that we find in our model, cf.\ Fig.\ \ref{distri}.
501: In particular, step bunching is much more frequent in this
502: simple picture: $p_g(0)=(\lambda\!-\!1)^{-1}$.
503:
504:
505: In summary we have presented a microscopic model of unstable
506: epitaxial growth in which it is possible to derive the net
507: particle currents on surfaces of a given inclination. For the
508: first time it is possible to work out the full distribution of
509: terrace sizes in such a system. Further,
510: we were able to calculate the stable mean terrace
511: size and the corresponding statistical properties of the surface.
512: We have restricted ourselves to the
513: analysis of $(1+1)$--dimensional growth in this work.
514: However, our results should carry over to a more
515: realistic $(2+1)$--dimensional picture to a large extent,
516: whenever terrace edges do not meander significantly.
517:
518: Our findings allow for a qualitative interpretation of experimental results
519: in systems which display slope selection: frequent step bunching
520: and a broad distribution hint at a relatively weak ES--barrier.
521: Narrow distributions with little or no step bunching indicate that
522: a significant ES--effect is present but is compensated for
523: by smoothening effects like downhill funneling.
524:
525: Extensions of this work will concern desorption and its
526: \begin{figure}[t]
527: \begin{center}
528: \setlength{\unitlength}{2pt}
529: \begin{picture}(160,108)(0,0)
530: \put(0,0){\makebox(160,105)
531: {\special{psfile=mvsp.ps
532: angle=270 hoffset=-145 voffset=150 hscale=32 vscale=32}}}
533: \put(1,100){\large $\lambda_o,\sigma^2$}
534: \put(68,34){\large$p_{es}$}
535: \caption{The selected mean $\lambda_o$ (solid lines) and $\sigma^2 =
536: \skl{l^2}-\lambda_o^2$ (dashed) vs.\ $p_{es}$.
537: Pairs of curves correspond to (from below) $R=1,2,3$.
538: Note that for $p_{es}=0$ we find $\lambda_o=\sigma=2R$. The symbols represent two choices
539: of $(p_{es},R)$ which result in $\lambda_o=6 $, cf.\ Fig.\ \ref{distri}.}
540: \label{mvsp}
541: \end{picture}
542: \end{center}
543: \end{figure}
544: \noindent
545: influence on the growth process. Preliminary results indicate that
546: a significant desorption rate can trigger a transition from slope selection
547: to rough growth
548: and we expect non--trivial
549: effects in the statistics of terrace sizes.
550:
551: This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
552: through a grant (M. Ahr) and through the
553: Sonderforschungsberich 410 (S. Schinzer). We thank R. Metzler
554: for a critical reading of the manuscript.
555:
556:
557: \ \\[-1.0cm]
558: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
559: \bibitem{Krim} J.\ Krim, G.\ $\!\!$ Palasantzas, Int.\ $\!\!$ J.\ $\!\!$ Mod.\ $\!\!$ Phys.\ B
560: {\bf 9}, $599, \!\! 1995$
561: \bibitem{pimpinelli} A.\ Pimpinelli, J.\ Villain, {\it Physics
562: of Crystal Growth\/}, Cambridge University Press, 1998
563: \bibitem{rostkrug} M.\ Rost, J.\ Krug, Phys.\ Rev.\ E {\bf 55}, 3952, 1997
564: \bibitem{siegert} M.\ Siegert, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 81}, 5481, 1998
565: \bibitem{tang} L.-H.\ Tang, P.\ Smilauer, D.D. Vvedensky, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ B {\bf 2}, 409,
566: 1998
567: \bibitem{epl} M.\ Biehl, W.\ Kinzel, S.\ Schinzer, Europhys.\ Lett.\
568: {\bf 41}, 443, 1998
569: \bibitem{sed} S.\ Schinzer, M.\ Kinne, M.\ Biehl, W.\ Kinzel, Surf.\ Sci,\ {\bf 439}, 191, 1999
570:
571: \bibitem{gitter} M.\ Ahr, M.\ Biehl, Surf.\ Sci.\ {\bf 465}, 339, 2000
572:
573: \bibitem{georg} S.\ Schinzer, S.\ K\"ohler, G.\ Reents, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ B {\bf 15}, 161,
574: 2000
575:
576: \bibitem{BCF} W.K.\ Burton, N.\ Carbrera, F.C.\ Frank, Philos.\ Trans.\ R.\ Soc.\
577: London A {\bf 243}, 299, 1951
578:
579: \bibitem{evans} J.W.\ Evans, D.E.\ Sanders, P.A.\ Thiel, A.E.\ DePristo,
580: Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 41}, 5410, 1990
581:
582: \bibitem{yue} Y.\ Yue, Y.K.\ Ho, Z.Y.\ Dan Phys.\ Rev.\ B {\bf 57},
583: 6685, 1998
584:
585: \bibitem{villain} J.\ Villain, A.\ Pimpinelli, L.\ Tang, D.\ Wolf, J.\
586: Phys.\ I (France) {\bf 2}, 2107, 1992
587:
588: \bibitem{Shehawey} M.A.\ El--Shehawey, J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 33}, 9005, 2000
589:
590:
591: \bibitem{wollschlaeger} J.\ Wollschl\"ager, F.\ Sch\"afer, K.M.\ Schr\"oder,
592: Surf.\ Sci.\ {\bf 396}, 94, 1997
593:
594:
595:
596: \end{thebibliography}
597: \end{document}
598: