1: % Fractal analysis of Sampled Profiles: Systematic Study

2: %

3: %  C. Castelnovo, A. Podest{\`a},P. Piseri, P. Milani

4: 

5: \documentclass[twocolumn,footinbib,pre,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}

6: 

7: \usepackage{graphicx}

8: 

9: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

10: 

11: \begin{document}

12: 

13: \title{Fractal analysis of Sampled Profiles: Systematic Study}

14: \date{\today}

15: \author{C. Castelnovo, A. Podest{\`a}, P. Piseri, P. Milani}

16: \email{pmilani@mi.infn.it}

17: \homepage{http://webcesid1.fisica.unimi.it/~labmilani/} \affiliation{INFM

18: - Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit{\`a} degli Studi di Milano,\\ Via

19: Celoria 16, 20133 Milano, Italy}

20: 

21: \begin{abstract}

22: A quantitative evaluation of the influence of sampling on the numerical

23: fractal analysis of experimental profiles is of critical importance.

24: Although this aspect has been widely recognized, a systematic analysis of

25: the sampling influence is still lacking. Here we present the results of a

26: systematic analysis of synthetic self-affine profiles in order to clarify

27: the consequences of the application of a poor sampling (up to 1000 points)

28: typical of Scanning Probe Microscopy for the characterization of real

29: interfaces and surfaces. We interprete our results in term of a deviation

30: and a dispersion of the measured exponent with respect to the ``true''

31: one. Both the deviation and the dispersion have always been disregarded in

32: the experimental literature, and this can be very misleading if results

33: obtained from poorly sampled images are presented. We provide reasonable

34: arguments to assess the universality of these effects and we propose an

35: empirical method to take them into account. We show that it is possible to

36: correct the deviation of the measured Hurst exponent from the ``true''one

37: and give a reasonable estimate of the dispersion error. The last estimate

38: is particularly important in the experimental results since it is an

39: intrinsic error that depends only on the number of sampling points and can

40: easily overwhelm the statistical error. Finally, we test our empirical

41: method calculating the Hurst exponent for the well-known 1+1 dimensional

42: directed percolation profiles, with a 512-point sampling.

43: \end{abstract}

44: 

45: \pacs{05.40.a, 46.65.+g, 61.43.Hv} \keywords{fractal, self-affine, Hurst

46: exponent, numerical analysis, sampling effects}

47: 

48: \maketitle

49: 

50: \section{Introduction}

51: The characterization of interfaces and of the mechanisms underlying their

52: formation and evolution is a subject of paramount importance for a broad

53: variety of phenomena such as crystal growth, rock fracture, biological

54: growth, vapor deposition, surface erosion by ion sputtering, cluster

55: assembling, etc ... (\cite{bar95,man82,fam84,mea98,pietro85} and

56: references therein). Since the pioneering work of B.B. Mandelbrot, fractal

57: geometry has been widely used as a model to describe these physical

58: systems that are too disordered to be studied with other mathematical

59: tools but that still hold a sort of ``order'' in a scale-invariance sense

60: \cite{bar95,man82,vic92}. In particular, the growth of interfaces

61: resulting from the irreversible addition of subunits from outside (vapor

62: deposition of thin films, low energy cluster beam deposition, etc...)

63: shows a typical asymmetric scale invariance, because of the existence of a

64: privileged direction (e.g. the direction of growth)

65: \cite{kar86,wit83,fam85,mes85,mea86,mea87,mea98,lic86,fam90,kri95,csa92,bal90,mul90,sit99,yoo99,mil01a,mil01b,buz00}.

66: These interfaces belong to the class of self-affine fractals and they can

67: be described either by the fractal dimension $D$ or by the well-known

68: Hurst exponent $H$ \cite{pei89,mea89,vos89,sch95a,man85,man86}. If these

69: systems are the result of a temporally evolving process, they usually show

70: also a time scale-invariance described by the exponent $\beta$

71: \cite{vic92,bar95}. Because of the close relationship between the scaling

72: exponent(s) and the fundamental mechanisms leading to scale invariance,

73: universality classes can be defined \cite{vic92,bar95}. An accurate

74: knowledge of $H$ (and $\beta$) is required to identify the universality

75: class of the system and to give a deep insight on the underlying formation

76: processes.

77: 

78: The possibility of characterizing the topography of an interface in a

79: dimension range from the nanometer up to several tens of microns, in a

80: relatively simple and quick way by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM) and

81: Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) \cite{bin82,bin86} has stimulated an

82: upsurge of experimental report claiming for self-affine structures (see

83: Refs. \cite{mal97,mal98} and references therein). The abundance of

84: experimental characterization of different systems and the limited

85: sampling capability of the scanning probe microscopies (SPM) prompted at

86: the attention of many authors the need of an accurate methodological

87: approach to the determination of the exponent $H$ and of its error

88: \cite{den99a,tat98}, realistically considering the consequences of the

89: finite sampling inherent to SPM. Typical sampling with an AFM or a STM is

90: 256 or 512 points per line, for a maximum of 512 lines. Most of the

91: results published in the late eighties and early nineties were based upon

92: 256x256-point data-sheets, or even smaller ones (see list of references in

93: Ref. \cite{mal97}). Commercially available SPMs offer today a maximum of

94: 512x512-point resolution, and homemade instruments hardly go beyond this

95: value.

96: 

97: Many authors have questioned the reliability of the measurement of the

98: Hurst exponent from a poorly sampled profile

99: \cite{dub89,sch95,meh97,alm96}. In order to quantify the influence of the

100: sampling on the determination of $H$, a numerical analysis can be

101: performed on artificial self-affine profiles, generated with a specific

102: algorithm, with a fixed number of points $L$ and known Hurst exponent

103: $H_{in}$. The ``true'' exponents ($H_{in}$) are then compared with the

104: ones measured directly from the generated profiles ($H_{out}$). Usually a

105: sensible discrepancy between the measured $H_{out}$ and the expected

106: $H_{in}$ is found \cite{dub89,meh97,alm96}. The discrepancy is not uniform

107: but depends on the value of $H_{in}$. As one would expect, the discrepancy

108: is globally dependent on the number $L$ and it approaches zero for large

109: values of $L$. In particular, for $L<1000$ the sampling effect is of great

110: importance since the discrepancy can be of the order of the exponent

111: itself (100\% relative error) \cite{sch95}. Dubuc \textit{et al.} have

112: reported that even for values of $L$ as high as 16384, the discrepancy is

113: still significant \cite{dub89}.

114: 

115: Although the problem of sampling has been clearly addressed and discussed,

116: quite surprisingly a systematic analysis of the problem, considering

117: different generation algorithms, is still lacking. The dependence of the

118: sampling effect on $L$ has been investigated \cite{dub89,sch95} and also

119: many different methods for the measurement of $H_{out}$ have been

120: considered for different values of $H_{in}$ in the range $[0.1-1]$

121: \cite{dub89,sch95,meh97,alm96}. However, either only one single generation

122: algorithm has been used \cite{sch95,alm96}, or the results from different

123: generation algorithms have not been compared \cite{meh97}. We believe that

124: this comparison is of fundamental importance.

125: 

126: Indeed profiles from different generation algorithms can be considered as

127: different self-affine objects sampled in $L$ points. For a fixed value of

128: $H_{in}$, these objects would all have the same fractal dimension if they

129: were sampled with an infinite number of points. The fundamental question

130: at this point is whether the discrepancy of $H_{out}$ from $H_{in}$, for a

131: finite value of $L$, is the same for every self-affine object (i.e. for

132: every generation algorithm). Only an analysis that considers different

133: self-affine objects has a statistical validity and allows a reliable

134: interpretation of the results. Up to now the results obtained in

135: literature from a single generation algorithm did non allow a discussion

136: of the nature of the aforementioned discrepancy, which has been

137: interpreted as an uncontrollable error affecting the analysis of sampled

138: profiles. The main conclusion drawn by these authors is the

139: non-reliability of results obtained from profiles with less than 1024

140: sampling points \cite{sch95}.

141: 

142: Our aim is to achieve a deeper understanding of the effects of sampling in

143: order to answer the question whether the measurement of the Hurst exponent

144: with a poor number of sampling points is reliable or not. This point is

145: crucial both for future analysis of self-affine profiles and for a correct

146: interpretation of the results already present in literature.

147: 

148: From a more general point of view, fractality is characterized by the

149: repetition of somehow similar structures at all length scales and can be

150: described in its major properties by a single number: the fractal

151: dimension $D$ \cite{fal90,man82}. Any finite sampling of a fractal object

152: poses both an upper and a lower cut-off to this scale invariance. It has

153: been shown that these cut-offs introduce a deviation in $D$ and the

154: sampled object has a dimension different from the one of the underlying

155: continuous object \cite{dub89,alm96,meh97}. However, it is still unknown

156: whether the sampling influences in a different way different objects

157: characterized by the same ideal dimension, thus breaking the sort of

158: universality that makes a fractal be identified by its dimension only.

159: 

160: In this paper we present a systematic analysis considering together all

161: the generation algorithms found in literature. The aim of our analysis is

162: to understand whether the discrepancy of the measured $H_{out}$ for a

163: fixed $L$ and for every generation algorithm is completely random or has a

164: universal dependence on $H_{in}$. The latter observation can be

165: interpreted as a reminiscence of the fact that a fractal object is

166: completely characterized by its dimension \footnote{As pointed out by Voss

167: \textit{et al.} in Refs. \cite{vos86a,vos86b} this is not completely true,

168: because fractal objects have also properties that do not depend on the

169: fractal dimension only, such as lacunarity. However, the main statistical

170: properties of a fractal object are characterized by its dimension

171: \cite{man82,fal90}}. The distinction is of crucial importance because in

172: the case of universal dependence of $H_{out}$ on $H_{in}$ , one can

173: empirically correct the discrepancy of the measured exponents from the

174: ``true'' ones. Some authors independently suggested to use directly the

175: $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ curves as correction, but they considered only one

176: generation algorithm without discussing the universal character that these

177: curves must have in order to be utilized for any self-affine object

178: \cite{den99a}.

179: 

180: Conversely, on the basis of our analysis, we will interpret the

181: discrepancy in terms of two distinct contributions: a universal deviation

182: and a random dispersion. We will propose a powerful method to correct the

183: universal deviation and we will discuss the nature of the dispersion,

184: which is due to both statistical fluctuations and an intrinsic sampling

185: effect. The latter turns out to be a sort of systematic error that cannot

186: be corrected unless one knows the generation algorithm that produced the

187: self-affine object. In the case of generic self-affine profiles which have

188: not been generated by a specific algorithm, such as experimental profiles,

189: the above arguments no longer hold. A new procedure to quantify the

190: intrinsic error in the measurement of the Hurst exponent of generic

191: self-affine profiles is thus needed.

192: 

193: On these basis, we will discuss the effect of sampling on the reliability

194: of the fractal analysis of poorly sampled self-affine profiles, focusing

195: on both the deviation and the dispersion of the measured exponents from

196: the ideal ones, showing that the conclusions drawn by Schmittbuhl

197: \textit{et al.} that ``\textit{... a system size less than 1024 can hardly

198: be studied seriously, unless one has some independent way of assessing the

199: self-affine character of the profiles and very large statistical

200: sampling}'' were too restrictive \cite{sch95}. Moreover, we will point out

201: that the estimate of the intrinsic error is essential for a correct

202: classification of a process in terms of universality classes. In fact, in

203: order to distinguish exponents belonging to different classes, it is

204: necessary to quantify the error on the measurement. Up to now, the

205: statistical error or the error of the fit have been used to quantify the

206: error on the measurement of $H$ \cite{kri93,den99b,iwa93}. Both the

207: statistical error and the error of the linear fit can be made very small,

208: if a large number of profiles are averaged. However, if the measurement is

209: likely to be affected by more subtle intrinsic errors, such as the

210: aforementioned dispersion due to the sampling, considering only the

211: statistical error may lead to serious misleading. The intrinsic error in

212: many cases may indeed be much larger than the statistical one.

213: 

214: In the following sections we will present a systematic analysis of

215: synthetic self-affine profiles with the aim of both achieving a deep

216: understanding of the effects of sampling and providing the

217: experimentalists of a reliable tool for the fractal analysis of surfaces

218: and interfaces. To this purpose we have developed a new automated fitting

219: protocol in order to avoid any arbitrariness in the measurement. With this

220: new methodology we will study the effects of sampling, enlightening the

221: main characteristics of the deviation and the dispersion of the measured

222: exponents. We will present a new powerful method to correct the deviation

223: of $H_{out}$ and to estimate the error of the measurement. Finally, we

224: will apply our empirical correction procedure to 512-point profiles

225: created with the directed percolation (DP) algorithm \cite{bul92}. This

226: system provides a simple benchmark to test our protocol and allows

227: noticing the opportunity of the correction.

228: 

229: \section{The Automated Fitting Protocol}

230: 

231: Self-affine systems occurring in nature are usually profiles or surfaces.

232: In order to measure their Hurst exponents the 2+1 dimensional case of

233: surfaces is usually reduced to 1+1 dimensions, considering the

234: intersection of the surface with a normal plane. The particular case of

235: in-plane anisotropy results in a dependence of $H$ on the orientation of

236: the plane with respect to the surface \cite {dub89,sch95,fal90,bar95}.

237: 

238: Once we have scaled down the analysis to 1+1 dimensions, the following

239: general properties characterize a self-affine profile. If $h(x)$ is the

240: height of the profile in the position $x$, the orthogonal anisotropy can

241: be expressed by the scaling relationship:

242: \begin{equation}

243: h(\lambda x)=\lambda^H h(x)

244: \end{equation}

245: where $H \in (0,1)$ is the Hurst exponent, $\lambda$ is a positive scaling

246: factor and the equation holds in a statistical sense \cite{bar95,sta71}.

247: The fractal dimension $D$ of the profile is related to the Hurst exponent

248: by the equation $D=2-H$ while the dimension of the surface is $D=3-H$

249: \cite{man86,mor94}. The lower is $H$, the more space invasive is the

250: surface. In most of the physical self-affine surfaces, the scale

251: invariance does not extend to all length scales but there is an upper

252: cut-off above which the surface is no longer correlated. The length at

253: which this cut-off appears is defined as the correlation length $\xi$

254: \cite{bar95,mal97}. In the present analysis, we consider only profiles

255: whose correlation length (expressed in number of points) is equal to their

256: length $L$. To this purpose we have carefully studied each generation

257: algorithm in order to grant the condition $\xi = L$. For this reason we

258: were often forced to generate very long profiles and to consider only

259: their central portion \cite{mak96,meh97,sim99}. The usual procedure to

260: measure the Hurst exponent of a self-affine profile $h(x)$ is to calculate

261: appropriate statistical functions from the whole profile. These functions

262: of analysis (AFs) show a typical power law behavior on self-affine

263: profiles:

264: \begin{equation}

265: AF[h(\cdot),k]=c\,k^{f(H)}

266: \end{equation}

267: where $c$ is a constant, $k$ is a variable indicating the resolution at

268: which the profile $h$ is analyzed (typically a frequency or a

269: spatial/temporal separation), and $f(H)$ is a simple function of the Hurst

270: exponent $H$ \cite{meh97,bar95,yan97,mor94,pen94,pre86,sim98}. The power

271: law behavior of the AF is then fitted in a log-log plot in order to

272: calculate the exponent $H$. In the analysis of statistical self-affine

273: profiles there are random fluctuations super-imposed to this power law

274: behavior. The signal-to-noise ratio of these fluctuations is

275: scale-dependent, the AFs being calculated as averages of statistical

276: quantities at different length scales \cite{bar95}. To reduce this noise,

277: the average of the AFs obtained from $N$ independent profiles is usually

278: taken before the execution of the linear fit. However, while small-scale

279: fluctuations are easily smoothed, larger scale fluctuations converge very

280: slowly.

281: 

282: The identification of the linear region in the analysis of the AFs is a

283: puzzling point. Windowing saturation is present at length scales

284: comparable with the profile length depending on the nature of the profiles

285: \cite{yan97}. This results in a departure from the power law behavior to a

286: constant value. Moreover, the degradation of the fractality due to the

287: sampling causes a diversion of the AFs from their ideal power law

288: behavior. This produces both a discrepancy of the measured Hurst exponent

289: from the ideal value (a change of the slope in the log-log plot) and a

290: shortening of the linear region as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:1}.

291: \begin{figure}

292: \begin{center}

293: \includegraphics{Fig1}

294: \caption{\label{fig:1}Average height-height correlation function $C_{2}$

295: calculated from $N=500$ profiles of $L = 512$ points, generated with the

296: random addition method with Hurst exponent $H_{in} = 0.1$. It is also

297: shown the linear region and the fit obtained with the automated fitting

298: protocol (AFP). One can clearly see the overall curved shape due to the

299: sampling.}

300: \end{center}

301: \end{figure}

302: Here, the presence of curved regions is clearly visible. It can be seen

303: that this anomalous behavior is not localized at length scales close to

304: the length of the profile, but involves also the shortest length scales

305: especially for values of $H$ close to zero. It is important to notice that

306: this effect is not due to experimental conditions, such as the finite size

307: of the SPM scanning probe. Thus it is necessary, in particular for small

308: values of $H$, to chose a linear region instead of fitting the whole

309: function. The methods proposed in the literature to identify the linear

310: region (e.g. the consecutive slopes method \cite{bou91,bar95}, correlation

311: index method \cite{bar89}, the coefficient of determination method

312: \cite{ham96} and the ``fractal measure'' method \cite{li99}) are usually

313: based on an arbitrary (human) choice. This is particularly delicate since

314: the curvature in the AFs can be so small, if compared to the statistical

315: noise, that it is hard to distinguish the correct linear region. Because

316: of this reason, we think that the proposed methods suffer of a high degree

317: of arbitrariness. Moreover, all these methods make no distinction between

318: a straight line with statistical noise and a slightly curved line.

319: 

320: Due to the previous arguments and since no universally accepted fitting

321: procedure is available in literature, we were prompted to develop an

322: automated fitting protocol (AFP) with two purposes: to reduce as much as

323: possible the effects of the curved regions on the measured exponent, and

324: to define a standard algorithm for the choice of the linear region,

325: eliminating, as much as possible, any arbitrariness. This is very

326: important for the reliability of the results, in particular for the

327: comparison of different generation algorithms. Moreover, the automation of

328: the fitting procedure is essential to perform a systematic analysis. In

329: fact, in order to have good statistics, a large number of AFs must be

330: calculated and fitted.

331: 

332: In our procedure, that is an implementation of the consecutive slopes

333: algorithm \cite{bar95}, the curve to be fitted is divided in many portions

334: of the same length $\ell$ (in number of points) and each of them is

335: considered separately. A linear and a cubic fit are performed on each

336: portion. Comparing the mean distance of the linear fit from the portion to

337: the mean distance of the cubic from the linear fit, we evaluate whether

338: the portion is almost linear with uncorrelated noise or it presents a

339: definite curvature. Obviously, the distinction is not immediate and we

340: have to set a threshold to separate the two cases through a parameter in

341: the fitting procedure. The use of a parameter is common to other methods

342: (see for example the coefficient of determination method used in Ref.

343: \cite{ham96}). Once the fitting parameter is set, our procedure is able to

344: decide automatically whether the portion is ``curved'' or ``linear''. Only

345: the ``linear'' portions are then considered. They undergo a

346: straight-line-fit analysis through which the slopes and their errors are

347: determined. A distribution of the slopes weighted with the values of the

348: errors is then built (see Fig. \ref{fig:2}a) and its main peak position

349: and width are measured. We do not consider here the presence of more than

350: one linear region with different slopes. Thus, there is a well-defined

351: main peak in the distribution. We have extended our procedure also to the

352: case of more than one linear region, but this extension is out of the

353: scopes of this article.

354: 

355: The procedure described above is repeated varying the length $\ell$ of the

356: portions from a minimum value $\ell_{min}$  up to the length of the curve.

357: The results are then shown in a plot of the peak position (i.e. a slope

358: value) versus the length of the portion, with the peak widths as error

359: bars (see Fig. \ref{fig:2}b).

360: \begin{figure}

361: \begin{center}

362: \includegraphics{Fig2_a}

363: \includegraphics{Fig2_b}

364: \caption{\label{fig:2}Application of the fitting protocol step by step:

365: (a) the distribution of the slopes for a single value of the length $\ell$

366: of the portion ($\ell = 0.35$ decades) and (b) the final plot of the

367: slopes (peak positions) vs. $\ell$, with an inset magnification showing

368: the error bars.}

369: \end{center}

370: \end{figure}

371: If the analyzed curve presents a linear region, this plot shows a plateau

372: for $\ell$ ranging from $\ell_{min}$ to the length of the whole linear

373: region. This plateau is usually very easy to be identified because of the

374: distinction between linear and curved portions. In fact, portions of

375: length larger than the length of the whole linear region are considered

376: curved portions and discarded. Thus, the plot usually drops to zero at the

377: end of the plateau. Eventually, through an average and a standard

378: deviation, we obtain the final slope value and its fitting error, while

379: the length of the plateau gives the length of the linear region. In

380: conclusion, our AFP is able to identify not only the slope of the linear

381: region but also its length. We have tested our AFP before its application

382: to the systematic analysis and we have found that the measured Hurst

383: exponent is widely independent of the fitting parameter \footnote{As

384: Hamburger \textit{et al.} did in Ref. \cite{ham96}, we have not chosen a

385: value of the parameter, being this choice not relevant to the purposes of

386: the article. Nevertheless, we have tested a wide range of reasonable

387: values of the parameter in order to be sure of the repeatability of the

388: results obtained.}. Conversely, the length of the linear region strongly

389: depends upon the value of the parameter and must be considered only an

390: internal parameter of the analysis and not a direct measurement of the

391: scale invariance range.

392: 

393: \section{Numerical Analysis}

394: 

395: With all the generation algorithms published in literature we have created

396: sampled self-affine profiles with known fractal dimension $D=2-H$. We have

397: varied the exponent $H$ between 0.1 and 1 and we have focused on the value

398: $L=512$ sampling points (the best sampling obtainable with most of the

399: SPMs). We discuss also different values of $L$ up to 16384. Because there

400: exists only a few algorithms that generate exactly self-affine profiles,

401: we have used algorithms that generate statistically self-affine profiles,

402: which are more difficult to handle but closer to reproduce natural

403: physical systems. The algorithms we have used are known in literature as:

404: the random midpoint displacement \cite{sch95,vos86a}, the random addition

405: algorithm \cite{fed88,pei89}, the fractional Brownian motion \cite{fed88},

406: the Weierstrass-Mandelbrot function \cite{lop94,ber80}, the inverse

407: Fourier transform method \cite{vos86a} and a variation of the independent

408: cut method \cite{fal90}. For the measurement of the Hurst exponent of

409: self-affine profiles we have used the height-height correlation function

410: $C_2$ \cite{yan97} and the root mean square variable bandwidth with fit

411: subtraction method \cite{mor94,pen94}. The value of $H_{out}$ has been

412: calculated from the slope in the log-log plot of the average over $N$

413: statistically independent AFs, measured with our AFP.

414: 

415: The results are expressed in terms of $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ plots. Each

416: plot is characteristic of a single AF and generation algorithm and it

417: represents the relationship between the measured Hurst exponent $H_{out}$,

418: calculated from the average of $N$ AFs, and the nominal exponent $H_{in}$

419: of the profile. Grouping the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ plots obtained using

420: the same AF for all the generation algorithms, the dispersion of the

421: $H_{out}$ values comes to evidence.

422: \begin{figure}

423: \begin{center}

424: \includegraphics{Fig3_a}

425: \includegraphics{Fig3_b}

426: \caption{\label{fig:3}$H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs calculated from N =

427: 500 profiles of L = 512 points each: (a) Height-height correlation

428: function and (b) Root mean square variable bandwidth (with fit

429: subtraction). The black dotted line represents the ideal $H_{out} =

430: H_{in}$ behavior. The other line styles are related to different

431: generation algorithms: random midpoint displacement (black continuous

432: line), inverse Fourier transform (black dashed line), random addition

433: (black dash-dotted line), Weierstrass-Mandelbrot (grey continuous line),

434: fractional Brownian motion (grey dashed line) and independent cut (grey

435: dash-dotted line).}

436: 

437: \end{center}

438: \end{figure}

439: In Fig. \ref{fig:3} we show the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs obtained

440: from $N=500$, $L=512$ profiles, as explained in the previous section. We

441: show separately in Figs. \ref{fig:3}(a) and \ref{fig:3}(b) the different

442: AFs used. Since the profiles are \textit{statistically} self-affine, the

443: measured $H_{out}$ are subject to a statistical error that is inversely

444: related to $N$ \cite{den99b}. In order to characterize the dependence of

445: this statistical error on the number $N$ of averaged AFs, we let $N$ vary

446: from 1 to 50 using the same profiles considered in Fig. \ref{fig:3}. With

447: these values of $N$ we have repeated the numerical analysis (i.e.

448: calculation of the AFs, averaging and application of the AFP) and we have

449: extracted a standard deviation $\sigma_{N}$ of the measured exponents.

450: \begin{figure}

451: \begin{center}

452: \includegraphics{Fig4_a}

453: \includegraphics{Fig4_b}

454: \includegraphics{Fig4_c}

455: \caption{\label{fig:4}$H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs with error bars equal

456: to twice the standard deviation $\sigma_N$ of the measured exponents.

457: These graphs correspond to different values of the number $N$ of

458: statistically independent profiles from which an average Hurst exponent is

459: measured: (a) $N=1$, (b) $N=10$ and (c) $N=50$. It can be seen that for $N

460: > 10$ and for $H_{in} < 0.3$ the overlap between the error bars

461: corresponding to different generation algorithms is small or completely

462: absent. For the sake of clarity we do not distinguish between different

463: generation algorithms}.

464: \end{center}

465: \end{figure}

466: In Fig. \ref{fig:4} we show the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs, analogous

467: to those in Fig. \ref{fig:3}, with the calculated error bars (twice the

468: standard deviation $\sigma_{N}$), for a few values of $N$. We present the

469: results for a single AF (the root mean square variable bandwidth with fit

470: subtraction), the results for the other AFs being similar.

471: \begin{figure}

472: \begin{center}

473: \includegraphics{Fig5_a}

474: \includegraphics{Fig5_b}

475: \includegraphics{Fig5_c}

476: \caption{\label{fig:5}$H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs calculated with the

477: height-height correlation function from: (a) $N = 500$, $L = 512$

478: profiles. (b) $N = 50$, $L = 4096$ profiles. (c) $N = 15$, $L = 16384$

479: profiles. Line styles are the same as in Fig. \ref{fig:3}.}

480: \end{center}

481: \end{figure}

482: In Fig. \ref{fig:5} we show three $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs obtained

483: respectively with $N=500$, $L=512$ profiles, $N=50$, $L=4096$ profiles and

484: $N=15$, $L=16384$ profiles. Again, we present only one AF (the

485: height-height correlation function $C_2$).

486: 

487: \section{\label{sec:results&discussion}Results and Discussion: Deviation and Dispersion from the Ideal

488: Behavior}

489: 

490: Ideal continuous fractal profiles are statistically characterized by their

491: fractal dimension (universality) and their $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ graphs

492: are straight lines \cite{bar95,fed88,fal90}.

493: 

494: In Fig. \ref{fig:3} a deviation from the ideal behavior is observed for

495: both the AFs. It turns out that the sampling of a profile affects in a

496: different way different methods of analysis. The deviation from the ideal

497: behavior has been already observed in literature (for example, see Ref.

498: \cite{sch95}) and our results are in good agreement with the previous

499: ones.

500: 

501: Moreover, within the same method of analysis we observe that the different

502: generation algorithms give significantly different $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$

503: plots. This dispersion is pointed out here for the first time because

504: different generation algorithms are considered together. The significance

505: of the dispersion can be inferred from the characterization of the

506: statistical error of the measured exponent discussed hereafter.

507: 

508: In Fig. \ref{fig:4} we show that for $N>25$ and $H_{out}<0.3$ the error

509: bars of $H_{out}$ for different generation algorithms hardly overlap. This

510: fact suggests that the statistical error is not the only reason of the

511: differences between the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ plots shown in Fig. 3.

512: \begin{figure}

513: \begin{center}

514: \includegraphics{Fig6}

515: \caption{\label{fig:6}Graph of the statistical standard deviation $\sigma$

516: of the Hurst exponent, obtained from the definition of the standard

517: deviation of the mean (Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma})), vs. the number $N$ of

518: averaged AFs. It can be clearly seen the saturation for values of $N$

519: bigger than 25 for almost all the generation algorithms.}

520: \end{center}

521: \end{figure}

522: In Fig. \ref{fig:6} we plot the statistical error $\sigma_{N}$ times the

523: square root of $N$ vs. $N$. For $N\geq10$ the curves approach a constant

524: value according to the relationship between the standard deviation of

525: independent, normally distributed measurements and the standard deviation

526: of the mean upon $N$ measurements:

527: \begin{equation}

528: \sigma_{N}=\frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{N}}  \label{eq:sigma}

529: \end{equation}

530: This result shows that the AFP and the averaging of the AFs do commute.

531: The assessment of this property is non-trivial due to the complexity of

532: the AFP. Thus, we extrapolate the statistical error of the measured

533: exponents in Fig. \ref{fig:3} ($N=500$) using Eq. (\ref{eq:sigma}) where

534: $\sigma$ is extracted from the plateau in Fig. \ref{fig:6}. Overestimating

535: $\sigma$ with the value 0.16 we obtain $\sigma_{500}=0.007$. This value

536: produces an error bar in Fig. \ref{fig:3} as small as the symbol used to

537: mark the data. A direct calculation of $\sigma_{500}$, obtained averaging

538: AFs calculated on groups of $N=500$ profiles for every $H\in [0.1,1]$ and

539: for every generation algorithm, fitting and extracting a mean value and a

540: standard deviation of $H$, would have required a huge and time consuming

541: calculation.

542: 

543: These results suggest that the observed dispersion between the $H_{out}$

544: vs. $H_{in}$ curves for different generation algorithms is an intrinsic

545: effect of the sampling, depending only on the number of sampling points

546: $L$. This fact has an important consequence on a fractal analysis of

547: experimental surfaces. While looking at a real sample, we do not know what

548: kind of ``algorithm'' has generated the surface. This introduces an

549: uncertainty on its real fractal dimension independent of the statistical

550: error. Thus, there is an intrinsic upper limit to the precision of the

551: measurement of the exponent. It is useless to strengthen the statistics

552: once the number of acquired profiles makes the statistical error smaller

553: than the intrinsic dispersion.

554: 

555: In Fig. \ref{fig:5} we see that as $L$ increases both the deviation and

556: the dispersion decrease in agreement with their expected vanishing in the

557: limit of $L$ going to infinity \cite{sch95}. This is also an \textit{a

558: posteriori} proof of the correctness of both the generation algorithms and

559: the methods of analysis.

560: 

561: Our interpretation of these effects is that the sampling of a self-affine

562: profile lessens its fractality in such a way that it is no longer

563: characterized universally by its fractal dimension (or Hurst exponent).

564: While for a continuous self-affine profile the relationship

565: $H_{out}=H_{in}$ holds, for sampled profiles we can see that different AFs

566: produce different $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ plots from the same sampled

567: fractal profile. Considering instead a single AF, our results show that

568: sampled fractal profiles generated with different generation algorithms

569: but with the same ideal dimension give different measured Hurst exponents.

570: 

571: However, Fig. \ref{fig:5} clearly shows that the lessening of fractality

572: of a profile is rather a continuous process than a sharp transition: the

573: poorer is the sampling, the worse are the deviation and the dispersion. In

574: Figs. 5 and 3 we observe that the lessening of fractality acts in a

575: similar way on profiles generated with different algorithms. The common

576: trend of the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ curves obtained from different

577: generation algorithms is interpreted as a consequence of the universality

578: of fractal objects.

579: 

580: It is then reasonable to assume the existence for every AF of a universal

581: region in the $H_{out}$-$H_{in}$ plane containing all the $H_{out}$ vs.

582: $H_{in}$ plots obtained with every possible generation algorithm. This

583: region, approximately identifiable with the envelope of the $H_{out}$ vs.

584: $H_{in}$ plots, has a width that depends on the number of sampling points

585: and approaches the 1-dimensional $H_{out}=H_{in}$ ideal curve for very

586: large values of $L$. We expect that, given any continuous self-affine

587: profile with a Hurst exponent $H_{in}$ and given the exponent $H_{out}$

588: measured from an $L$-point sampling of the continuous profile, the pair

589: ($H_{in}$,$H_{out}$) belongs to the universal region of the corresponding

590: graph (specific for every AF and number of sampling points $L$). Provided

591: a good characterization of the aforementioned regions (i.e. using as many

592: generation algorithms as possible), we can use them to generate

593: calibration graphs for every $L$ and AF describing the relationship

594: between the measured $H_{out}$ and the true value $H_{in}$.

595: 

596: To produce the calibration graphs we proceed as follows. First of all, we

597: make two general assumptions in order to take quantitatively into account

598: the problem of measuring the Hurst exponent of a sampled profile. We

599: assume that the $H_{out}$ values corresponding to the same $H_{in}$ are

600: normally distributed around a mean $\langle H_{out}\rangle$, and we assume

601: also that the values obtained with the available generation algorithms are

602: a random sampling of the gaussian distribution. We then measure the

603: average and the standard deviation of the dispersed $H_{out}$ values

604: corresponding to each $H_{in}$ separately. Thus we obtain a sampling of

605: the functions describing the dependence of $\langle H_{out}\rangle$ and

606: $\sigma_{H_{out}}$ from $H_{in}$. With an interpolation algorithm using

607: smooth functions, we derive the curve representing the relationship

608: between $\langle H_{out}\rangle$ and $H_{in}$. We also derive the pair of

609: curves corresponding to $\langle H_{out}\rangle+n\sigma_{H_{out}}$ and

610: $\langle H_{out}\rangle-n\sigma_{H_{out}}$ vs. $H_{out}$ which define the

611: $n$-th confidence level. For every value of $H_{out}$ it is possible to

612: find the confidence interval of $H_{in}$ for any given confidence level.

613: The resulting graphs for $L=512$ are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:7}.

614: \begin{figure}

615: \begin{center}

616: \includegraphics{Fig7_a}

617: \includegraphics{Fig7_b}

618: \caption{\label{fig:7}Calibration graphs $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ for the

619: methods of analysis used in this article: (a) height-height correlation

620: function and (b) variable bandwidth with fit subtraction. From the value

621: of the measured exponent, one can easily extract the corresponding

622: confidence interval of the corrected exponent, as represented graphically

623: in (a).}

624: \end{center}

625: \end{figure}

626: These calibration graphs allow to take into account the deviation and the

627: dispersion due to the sampling. A similar method has been independently

628: proposed in Ref. \cite{den99a} even though the analysis was limited to a

629: single generation algorithm and the discussion on the reliability of the

630: calibration regions together with the intrinsic dispersion were completely

631: neglected.

632: 

633: Using the calibration graphs it is possible to measure the Hurst exponent

634: of poorly sampled profiles correcting for the first time the deviation due

635: to the sampling and providing a reasonable estimate of the error on a

636: confidence level basis. The quantification of the error is of paramount

637: importance, as pointed out in the introduction, since many authors

638: estimated the error from the precision of the linear fit

639: \cite{kri93,iwa93} or from the standard deviation of the measured

640: exponents \cite{den99b}. Our results show that they usually underestimated

641: the true error.

642: 

643: \section{\label{sec:DP}Application of the calibration graphs to the study of directed

644: percolation numerical profiles}

645: 

646: We have applied our procedure to the 1+1 dimensional directed percolation

647: (DP) model, described by S.V. Buldyrev \textit{et al.} \cite{bul92}. This

648: model mimics the paper wetting process by a fluid. The resulting pinned

649: interface is self-affine with exponent $H\simeq 0.63$.

650: 

651: We have analyzed $N=30$, $L=16384$ DP profiles with the height-height

652: correlation function (\textit{h.-h. corr}) and the variable bandwidth with

653: fit subtraction (\textit{vbw}), using the automated fitting protocol to

654: measure the Hurst exponents. The results are shown in the second column of

655: Tab. \ref{tab:DP}. We have not calculated the statistical error (see

656: Section \ref{sec:results&discussion}) because it would have been

657: excessively time consuming. Thus, the error shown is simply the error of

658: the fit calculated with the AFP.

659: \begin{table*}

660: \caption{\label{tab:DP}Measured Hurst exponents of sampled DP profiles

661: (theoretical value: $H\simeq 0.63$ \cite{bul92})}  %\addvspace{0.3cm}

662: \begin{ruledtabular}

663: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}

664:    & \hspace{1cm}$H_{out}^{16384}$\,

665:    \footnote{The error for $L=16384$ is the error of the fit.}

666:    \hspace{1cm} & \hspace{1cm}$H_{out}^{512}$\,

667:    \footnote{The error for $L=512$ is the \textit{rms} value of the statistical error and the error of the fit}

668:    \hspace{1cm} & \hspace{1cm}$H_{in}^{512}\;(68\%)$\hspace{1cm} \\

669: \hline

670: \hline

671: \hspace{1cm}\textit{h.-h. corr.}\hspace{1cm}          & $0.615\pm0.004$     & $0.609\pm0.002$    & $[0.613-0.635]$\\

672: \hline

673: \textit{vbw}       & $0.620\pm0.003$     & $0.608\pm0.012$    & $[0.611-0.644]$\\

674: \end{tabular}

675: \end{ruledtabular}

676: %\addvspace{.3cm}

677: \end{table*}

678: The values of the measured exponents $H_{out}^{16384}$ are significantly

679: lower than the ones predicted by the DP model, suggesting that a

680: correction is needed even in the case of profiles of $L=16384$ points,

681: which are widely considered as continuous.

682: 

683: We have then analyzed $N=1000$, $L=512$ profiles extracted from the

684: $L=16384$ profiles. We have applied the correction procedure based on the

685: calibration graphs shown in Fig. \ref{fig:7} to the exponents measured

686: with the AFP. In the third column of Tab. \ref{tab:DP}, the uncorrected

687: measured exponents ($H_{out}^{512}$) are shown. The error is calculated as

688: the root mean square (\textit{rms}) value of the statistical error

689: $\sigma_{1000}$ (evaluated as explained in Section

690: \ref{sec:results&discussion}) and the error of the fit calculated with the

691: AFP. In the fourth column, the confidence intervals corresponding to the

692: $68\%$ probability for the ``true'' exponents are shown

693: ($H_{in}^{512}\;(68\%)$).

694: 

695: The results summarized in Tab. \ref{tab:DP} allow to notice the

696: effectiveness of the calibration graphs in the analysis of self-affine

697: profiles when the effects of sampling are non negligible. In the example

698: reported here, the poor sampling causes a discrepancy of about $4\%$

699: between the measured exponents and the theoretical one for DP profiles.

700: After the correction with the calibration graphs, the expected value

701: $H_{in}\simeq 0.63$ is consistent with the confidence intervals of the

702: three AFs. Moreover, the intrinsic error due to the dispersion (about half

703: the width of the confidence interval) turns out to be usually one order of

704: magnitude larger than the aforementioned \textit{rms} error.

705: 

706: In conclusion, our calibration graphs have allowed to correct the

707: deviation and to quantify the intrinsic error of the Hurst exponent of

708: poorly sampled ($L=512$) DP profiles.

709: 

710: \section{Conclusions}

711: 

712: We have carried out a systematic analysis in order to achieve a deeper

713: understanding of the effects of sampling on the measurement of the Hurst

714: exponent of self-affine profiles. This is a crucial point for the

715: assessment of the reliability of fractal analysis of experimental

716: profiles, such as topographic profiles of growing thin films and

717: interfaces acquired with a Scanning Probe Microscope. We have pointed out

718: that some of the steps leading to the measurement of the Hurst exponent

719: have been only superficially discussed, although worth of deeper

720: attention. We have focused on the quantification of the effects of

721: sampling and possibly on their correction, allowing a more reliable

722: identification of the universality class of growth.

723: 

724: In order to perform such a quantitative analysis we have developed a new

725: automated fitting protocol that allows to remove the ambiguity in the

726: choice of the region for the linear fit of the analysis functions. This

727: point is usually underestimated in the published experimental literature,

728: and appears to be a significant source of error in the whole analysis.

729: Moreover, an automated protocol sensibly reduces the time required for the

730: fitting of a large number of noisy curves, allowing a higher statistics.

731: With our automated fitting protocol we have systematically investigated

732: synthetic self-affine profiles generated with all the generation

733: algorithms found in literature using different method of analysis.

734: 

735: The systematic analysis presented in this paper has been carried out on

736: 1+1 dimensional profiles and we have not considered 2-dimensional methods

737: of analysis (e.g. see \cite{den99a,kri93}). However, it is reasonable to

738: suppose that even in this case the effects of sampling cannot be

739: neglected, and the conclusions drawn in Ref. \cite{den99a} are probably

740: incorrect. The similarity between Fig. 1 in Ref. \cite{den99a} and the

741: analogous results presented in this paper (see the variable bandwidth

742: analysis of profiles generated with the random midpoint displacement shown

743: in Fig. \ref{fig:3}c) suggests that conclusions very close to those

744: presented here can be drawn also in the 2-dimensional case.

745: 

746: Studying the discrepancy between the measured Hurst exponent $H_{out}$ and

747: the ``true'' one ($H_{in}$) for synthetic self-affine profiles with

748: $L=512$ points, we have shown that the main effects of sampling are a

749: deviation of the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ plots from the ideal behavior and

750: a dispersion of the exponents calculated from different generation

751: algorithms. Both these effects smoothly reduce with increasing values of

752: $L$. The deviation turns out to be universal in the sense that the trend

753: of the $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$ curves is common to all of the generation

754: algorithms, depending only on the number of sampling points and on the

755: function used in the analysis. We propose that this behavior is

756: reminiscent of the fact that a fractal object is completely characterized

757: by its dimension and therefore the deviation can be at least empirically

758: corrected. The dispersion instead has to be considered as an intrinsic

759: error due to the sampling, but for the very special case of profiles whose

760: generation algorithm allows to build their specific $H_{out}$ vs. $H_{in}$

761: plot. This dispersion error must be quantitatively taken into account

762: since it cannot be reduced with an increase in the statistics but only

763: with an increase in the number of sampling points.

764: 

765: The existence of an intrinsic dispersion error in the measurement of the

766: Hurst exponent that depends only on the number of sampling points is very

767: important. In fact, this intrinsic error easily overwhelms the statistical

768: error for poorly sampled profiles. It is definitely clear that a reliable

769: result cannot be based on the consideration of the statistical error only.

770: Moreover, the dispersion poses an upper limit to the precision in the

771: measurement of the Hurst exponent of sampled profiles. It becomes useless

772: to increase the statistics once the statistical error has been made

773: reasonably smaller than the intrinsic one. This is particularly important

774: in an experimental analysis because it usually reduces significantly the

775: number of profiles that have to be acquired, making the analysis much less

776: time consuming.

777: 

778: Thanks to our systematic analysis, we have built, for each method of

779: analysis, a calibration graph representing the region of the

780: $H_{out}$-$H_{in}$ plane where the true exponents fall within a given

781: confidence level. We have originally proposed to use these graphs as a

782: reliable empirical method to correct the measured value of the Hurst

783: exponent of a poorly sampled profile and to estimate its intrinsic

784: sampling error. The reliability of the calibration graphs is based on two

785: assumptions:

786: \begin{enumerate}

787: \item[i)] The measured exponents for all the possible self-affine profiles, with

788: the same ``true'' exponent $H_{in}$ and with the same number of sampling

789: points, are normally distributed;

790: \item[ii)] The numerical generation algorithms known in literature provide a

791: statistically reliable sample of all the possible self-affine profiles.

792: \end{enumerate}

793: Even though we have found just six generation algorithms in literature, we

794: believe that they still allow to obtain reasonable results or at least the

795: only ones obtainable to date. These results represent a step forward to a

796: reliable fractal analysis of both numerical and experimental profiles and

797: to the individuation of the universality classes in the study of the

798: evolution of many different systems.

799: 

800: In conclusion, we have demonstrated that a reliable measurement of the

801: Hurst exponent of poorly sampled self-affine profiles is possible,

802: provided that the measured $H_{out}$ is corrected of its deviation and

803: that the sampling error is quantitatively taken into account. We have thus

804: given strength to experimental analyses, since the numerical results

805: reported in literature to date led to the conclusion that the analysis of

806: self-affine profiles sampled with less than 1000 points is not reliable

807: \cite{sch95}. Even with the great improvement introduced by the use of the

808: calibration graphs in the analysis of self-affine profiles, we definitely

809: agree with Schmittbuhl \textit{et al.} in pointing out that the comparison

810: of the results obtained with different method of analysis is of

811: fundamental importance \cite{sch95}. Furthermore, we shortly comment on

812: the common experimental procedure of connecting AFs calculated from

813: profiles acquired with different scan sizes \cite{kri93,iwa93,fan97}. This

814: connection allows investigating a wider range of length scales with a

815: limited number of sampling points and makes the measurement more reliable.

816: However, the deviation and dispersion are not influenced by this

817: procedure, since they depend only on the number of sampling points of the

818: profiles on which the AFs are calculated.

819: 

820: The AFP and the calibration graphs have been tested on numerically

821: generated 1+1 dimensional directed percolation (DP) profiles, which have

822: provided a benchmark to check our protocol. We have shown that for $L=512$

823: profiles a correction is needed and the calibration graphs allow to

824: recover the theoretical value of $H$ predicted by the DP model. We have

825: also shown that a correction is needed even for the $L=16384$ profiles,

826: which are widely considered as continuous.

827: 

828: Our results provide a powerful tool for the accurate extraction of the

829: Hurst exponent from poorly sampled profiles, and for the quantification of

830: the error in the measurement. This is of paramount importance for

831: experimentalists who study the scale invariance of surfaces and interfaces

832: by Scanning Probe Microscopy or other techniques, with the aim of

833: identifying the underlying universality classes. The huge amount of

834: experimental results published in the past two decades about the

835: fractality of many interfaces can be now analyzed under a new light.

836: 

837: \begin{acknowledgments}

838: We thank E.H. Roman and G. Benedek for discussions. Financial support from

839: MURST under the project COFIN99 is acknowledged.

840: \end{acknowledgments}

841: 

842: \begin{thebibliography}{62}

843: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

844: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

845:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

846: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

847:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

848: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

849:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

850: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

851:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

852: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

853: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2} \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

854: 

855: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Barabasi and Stanley}(1995)}]{bar95}

856: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.-L.} \bibnamefont{Barabasi}} \bibnamefont{and}

857:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~E.} \bibnamefont{Stanley}},

858:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Fractal Concepts in Surface Growth}}

859:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{University Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Cambridge},

860:   \bibinfo{year}{1995}).

861: 

862: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mandelbrot}(1982)}]{man82}

863: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Mandelbrot}},

864:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The Fractal Geometry of Nature}}

865:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Freeman}, \bibinfo{year}{1982}).

866: 

867: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Family and Landau}(1984)}]{fam84}

868: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Family}} \bibnamefont{and}

869:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Landau}}, eds.,

870:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Kinetics of aggregation and gelation}}

871:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{North-Holland}, \bibinfo{address}{Amsterdam},

872:   \bibinfo{year}{1984}).

873: 

874: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Meakin}(1998)}]{mea98}

875: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Meakin}},

876:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Fractals, Scaling and Growth Far From Equilibrium}},

877:   vol.~\bibinfo{volume}{5} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge Nonlinear Science

878:   Series}, \bibinfo{address}{Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{1998}).

879: 

880: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pietronero and Tosatti}(1985)}]{pietro85}

881: \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Pietronero}} \bibnamefont{and}

882:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Tosatti}}, eds.,

883:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Fractals in Physics}}

884:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{North-Holland}, \bibinfo{address}{Amsterdam},

885:   \bibinfo{year}{1985}).

886: 

887: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vicsek}(1992)}]{vic92}

888: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Vicsek}},

889:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Fractal Growth Phenomena}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{World

890:   Scientific}, \bibinfo{address}{Singapore}, \bibinfo{year}{1992}).

891: 

892: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kardar et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Kardar, Parisi, and

893:   Zhanh}}]{kar86}

894: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Kardar}},

895:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Parisi}}, \bibnamefont{and}

896:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.-C.} \bibnamefont{Zhanh}},

897:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

898:   \bibinfo{pages}{889} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

899: 

900: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Witten and Sander}(1983)}]{wit83}

901: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Witten}} \bibnamefont{and}

902:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Sander}},

903:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{27}},

904:   \bibinfo{pages}{5686} (\bibinfo{year}{1983}).

905: 

906: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Family and Vicsek}(1985)}]{fam85}

907: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Family}} \bibnamefont{and}

908:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Vicsek}},

909:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{18}},

910:   \bibinfo{pages}{L75} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

911: 

912: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Messier and Yehoda}(1985)}]{mes85}

913: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Messier}} \bibnamefont{and}

914:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Yehoda}},

915:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Appl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

916:   \bibinfo{pages}{3739} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

917: 

918: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Meakin et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Meakin, Ramanlal, and

919:   Ball}}]{mea86}

920: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Meakin}},

921:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Ramanlal}}, \bibnamefont{and}

922:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~S.~R.} \bibnamefont{Ball}},

923:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{34}},

924:   \bibinfo{pages}{5091} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

925: 

926: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Meakin}(1987)}]{mea87}

927: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Meakin}}, \bibinfo{journal}{CRC

928:   Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences}

929:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{13}}, \bibinfo{pages}{143} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).

930: 

931: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lichter and Chen}(1986)}]{lic86}

932: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Lichter}} \bibnamefont{and}

933:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Chen}},

934:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

935:   \bibinfo{pages}{1396} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

936: 

937: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Family}(1990)}]{fam90}

938: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Family}},

939:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physica A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{168}},

940:   \bibinfo{pages}{561} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

941: 

942: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Krim and Palasantzas}(1995)}]{kri95}

943: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Krim}} \bibnamefont{and}

944:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Palasantzas}},

945:   \bibinfo{journal}{Int. J. Mod. Phys. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{9}},

946:   \bibinfo{pages}{599} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).

947: 

948: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Csahok and Vicsek}(1992)}]{csa92}

949: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Csahok}} \bibnamefont{and}

950:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Vicsek}},

951:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{46}},

952:   \bibinfo{pages}{4577} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).

953: 

954: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bales et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Bales, Bruinsma,

955:   Eklund, Karunasiri, Rudnick, and Zangwill}}]{bal90}

956: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Bales}},

957:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Bruinsma}},

958:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Eklund}},

959:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Karunasiri}},

960:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Rudnick}}, \bibnamefont{and}

961:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Zangwill}},

962:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{249}},

963:   \bibinfo{pages}{264} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

964: 

965: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Muller-Pfeiffer

966:   et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Muller-Pfeiffer, Anklam, and

967:   Haubenreisser}}]{mul90}

968: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Muller-Pfeiffer}},

969:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.-J.} \bibnamefont{Anklam}},

970:   \bibnamefont{and}

971:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Haubenreisser}},

972:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Stat. Sol. (b)} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{160}},

973:   \bibinfo{pages}{491} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

974: 

975: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Sit et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Sit, Vick, Robbie, and

976:   Brett}}]{sit99}

977: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Sit}},

978:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Vick}},

979:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Robbie}}, \bibnamefont{and}

980:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Brett}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

981:   Mater. Res.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{14}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1197}

982:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

983: 

984: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yoona et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Yoona, Akulina,

985:   Cahuzaca, Carliera, de~Frutosa, Massona, Moryb, Colliex, and

986:   Br\'{e}chignac}}]{yoo99}

987: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Yoona}},

988:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.}~\bibnamefont{Akulina}},

989:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Cahuzaca}},

990:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Carliera}},

991:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{de~Frutosa}},

992:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Massona}},

993:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Moryb}},

994:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Colliex}}, \bibnamefont{and}

995:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Br\'{e}chignac}},

996:   \bibinfo{journal}{Surface Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{443}},

997:   \bibinfo{pages}{76} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

998: 

999: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Milani et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Milani,

1000:   Podest{\`a}, Piseri, Barborini, Lenardi, and Castelnovo}}]{mil01a}

1001: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Milani}},

1002:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Podest{\`a}}},

1003:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Piseri}},

1004:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Barborini}},

1005:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lenardi}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1006:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Castelnovo}},

1007:   \bibinfo{journal}{Diamond Rel. Mat.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{10}},

1008:   \bibinfo{pages}{240} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{a}}).

1009: 

1010: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Milani et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Milani,

1011:   Piseri, Barborini, Podest{\`a}, and Lenardi}}]{mil01b}

1012: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Milani}},

1013:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Piseri}},

1014:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Barborini}},

1015:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Podest{\`a}}},

1016:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lenardi}},

1017:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{19}},

1018:   \bibinfo{pages}{2025} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}{\natexlab{b}}).

1019: 

1020: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Buzio et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Buzio, Gnecco,

1021:   Boragno, Valbusa, Piseri, Barborini, and Milani}}]{buz00}

1022: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Buzio}},

1023:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Gnecco}},

1024:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Boragno}},

1025:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{U.}~\bibnamefont{Valbusa}},

1026:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Piseri}},

1027:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Barborini}},

1028:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Milani}},

1029:   \bibinfo{journal}{Surface Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{444}},

1030:   \bibinfo{pages}{L1} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).

1031: 

1032: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{{Peitgen,H.-O.} and Saupe}(1989)}]{pei89}

1033: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{{Peitgen,H.-O.}}} \bibnamefont{and}

1034:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Saupe}},

1035:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{The {S}cience of {F}ractal Images}}

1036:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer}, \bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1037: 

1038: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Meakin}(1989)}]{mea89}

1039: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Meakin}},

1040:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physica D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}},

1041:   \bibinfo{pages}{252} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1042: 

1043: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Voss}(1989)}]{vos89}

1044: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~F.} \bibnamefont{Voss}},

1045:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physica D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{38}},

1046:   \bibinfo{pages}{362} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1047: 

1048: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schmittbuhl

1049:   et~al.}(1995{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Schmittbuhl, Schmitt, and

1050:   Scholz}}]{sch95a}

1051: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Schmittbuhl}},

1052:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Schmitt}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1053:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Scholz}},

1054:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Geophys. Res.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{100}},

1055:   \bibinfo{pages}{5953} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}{\natexlab{a}}).

1056: 

1057: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mandelbrot}(1985)}]{man85}

1058: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Mandelbrot}},

1059:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physica Scripta} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{32}},

1060:   \bibinfo{pages}{257} (\bibinfo{year}{1985}).

1061: 

1062: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mandelbrot}(1986)}]{man86}

1063: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Mandelbrot}}, in

1064:   \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Fractals in Physics}}, edited by

1065:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Pietronero}}

1066:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Tosatti}}

1067:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.},

1068:   \bibinfo{year}{1986}), p.~\bibinfo{pages}{3}.

1069: 

1070: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Binnig et~al.}(1982)\citenamefont{Binnig, Rohrer,

1071:   Gerber, and Weibel}}]{bin82}

1072: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Binnig}},

1073:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Rohrer}},

1074:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Gerber}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1075:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Weibel}},

1076:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}},

1077:   \bibinfo{pages}{57} (\bibinfo{year}{1982}).

1078: 

1079: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Binnig et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Binnig, Quate, and

1080:   Gerber}}]{bin86}

1081: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Binnig}},

1082:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Quate}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1083:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Gerber}},

1084:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

1085:   \bibinfo{pages}{930} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}).

1086: 

1087: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Malcai et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Malcai, Lidar, and

1088:   Biham}}]{mal97}

1089: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Malcai}},

1090:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Lidar}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1091:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Biham}},

1092:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

1093:   \bibinfo{pages}{2817} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1094: 

1095: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Avnir et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Avnir, Biham, Lidar,

1096:   and Malcai}}]{mal98}

1097: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Avnir}},

1098:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Biham}},

1099:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Lidar}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1100:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Malcai}},

1101:   \bibinfo{journal}{Science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{279}},

1102:   \bibinfo{pages}{39} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1103: 

1104: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Deng et~al.}(1999{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Deng, Ye,

1105:   Long, and Lung}}]{den99a}

1106: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Deng}},

1107:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Ye}},

1108:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.}~\bibnamefont{Long}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1109:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lung}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1110:   Phys. D} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{32}}, \bibinfo{pages}{L45}

1111:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}{\natexlab{a}}).

1112: 

1113: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tate}(1998)}]{tat98}

1114: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{N.}~\bibnamefont{Tate}},

1115:   \bibinfo{journal}{Computers and Geosciences} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{24}},

1116:   \bibinfo{pages}{325} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1117: 

1118: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dubuc et~al.}(1989)\citenamefont{Dubuc, Quiniou,

1119:   Roques-Carmes, Tricot, and Zucker}}]{dub89}

1120: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Dubuc}},

1121:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Quiniou}},

1122:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Roques-Carmes}},

1123:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Tricot}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1124:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Zucker}},

1125:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{39}},

1126:   \bibinfo{pages}{1500} (\bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1127: 

1128: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schmittbuhl

1129:   et~al.}(1995{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Schmittbuhl, Vilotte, and

1130:   Roux}}]{sch95}

1131: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Schmittbuhl}},

1132:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Vilotte}},

1133:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Roux}},

1134:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{51}},

1135:   \bibinfo{pages}{131} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}{\natexlab{b}}).

1136: 

1137: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Mehrabi et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Mehrabi, Rassamdana,

1138:   and Sahimi}}]{meh97}

1139: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Mehrabi}},

1140:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Rassamdana}},

1141:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Sahimi}},

1142:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

1143:   \bibinfo{pages}{712} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1144: 

1145: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Schmittbuhl et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Schmittbuhl,

1146:   Vilotte, and Roux}}]{alm96}

1147: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Schmittbuhl}},

1148:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Vilotte}},

1149:   \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Roux}},

1150:   \bibinfo{journal}{Surface science} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{355}},

1151:   \bibinfo{pages}{221} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1152: 

1153: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Falconer}(1990)}]{fal90}

1154: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Falconer}},

1155:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Fractal Geometry: Mathematical Foundations and

1156:   Applications}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Whiley}, \bibinfo{address}{Chichester},

1157:   \bibinfo{year}{1990}).

1158: 

1159: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Krim et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Krim, Heyvaert,

1160:   Haesendonck, and Bruynseraede}}]{kri93}

1161: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Krim}},

1162:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Heyvaert}},

1163:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~V.} \bibnamefont{Haesendonck}},

1164:   \bibnamefont{and}

1165:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Bruynseraede}},

1166:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},

1167:   \bibinfo{pages}{57} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

1168: 

1169: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Deng et~al.}(1999{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Deng, Ye,

1170:   Long, and Lung}}]{den99b}

1171: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Deng}},

1172:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Ye}},

1173:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Q.}~\bibnamefont{Long}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1174:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Lung}},

1175:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{59}},

1176:   \bibinfo{pages}{8} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}{\natexlab{b}}).

1177: 

1178: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Iwasaki and Yoshinobu}(1993)}]{iwa93}

1179: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Iwasaki}} \bibnamefont{and}

1180:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Yoshinobu}},

1181:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{48}},

1182:   \bibinfo{pages}{8282} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).

1183: 

1184: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Buldyrev et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Buldyrev, Barabasi,

1185:   Caserta, Havlin, Stanley, and Vicsek}}]{bul92}

1186: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Buldyrev}},

1187:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.-L.} \bibnamefont{Barabasi}},

1188:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Caserta}},

1189:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Havlin}},

1190:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Stanley}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1191:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Vicsek}},

1192:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}},

1193:   \bibinfo{pages}{R8313} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).

1194: 

1195: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Stanley}(1971)}]{sta71}

1196: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~E.} \bibnamefont{Stanley}},

1197:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Introduction to Phase Transitions and Critical

1198:   Phenomena}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Oxford University Press},

1199:   \bibinfo{address}{New York}, \bibinfo{year}{1971}).

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Moreira et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Moreira, da~Silva,

1202:   and Kamphorst}}]{mor94}

1203: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Moreira}},

1204:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~K.~L.} \bibnamefont{da~Silva}},

1205:   \bibnamefont{and}

1206:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Kamphorst}},

1207:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{27}},

1208:   \bibinfo{pages}{8079} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1209: 

1210: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Makse et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Makse, Havlin,

1211:   Schwartz, and Stanley}}]{mak96}

1212: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Makse}},

1213:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Havlin}},

1214:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Schwartz}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1215:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Stanley}},

1216:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{53}},

1217:   \bibinfo{pages}{5445} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1218: 

1219: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Simonsen and Hansen}(1999)}]{sim99}

1220: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Simonsen}} \bibnamefont{and}

1221:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Hansen}},

1222:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{A fast algorithm for generating long self-affine

1223:   profiles}}, \bibinfo{howpublished}{preprint SISSA, arXiv:cond-mat/9909055}

1224:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1225: 

1226: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Yang et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Yang, Zhao, Chan, Lu,

1227:   and Wang}}]{yan97}

1228: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.-N.} \bibnamefont{Yang}},

1229:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.-P.} \bibnamefont{Zhao}},

1230:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Chan}},

1231:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.-M.} \bibnamefont{Lu}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1232:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.-C.} \bibnamefont{Wang}},

1233:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{56}},

1234:   \bibinfo{pages}{4224} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1235: 

1236: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Peng et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Peng, Buldyrev, Havlin,

1237:   Simons, Stanley, and Goldberg}}]{pen94}

1238: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.-K.} \bibnamefont{Peng}},

1239:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Buldyrev}},

1240:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Havlin}},

1241:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Simons}},

1242:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Stanley}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1243:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Goldberg}},

1244:   \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{49}},

1245:   \bibinfo{pages}{1685} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1246: 

1247: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Press et~al.}(1986)\citenamefont{Press, Flannery,

1248:   Teukolsky, and Vetterling}}]{pre86}

1249: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Press}},

1250:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Flannery}},

1251:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Teukolsky}},

1252:   \bibnamefont{and}

1253:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Vetterling}},

1254:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Numerical Recipes}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Cambridge

1255:   University Press}, \bibinfo{address}{Cambridge}, \bibinfo{year}{1986}).

1256: 

1257: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Simonsen et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Simonsen, Hansen,

1258:   and Nes}}]{sim98}

1259: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Simonsen}},

1260:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Hansen}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1261:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Nes}},

1262:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{58}},

1263:   \bibinfo{pages}{2779} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

1264: 

1265: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Bourbonnais et~al.}(1991)\citenamefont{Bourbonnais,

1266:   Kertesz, and Wolf}}]{bou91}

1267: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Bourbonnais}},

1268:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Kertesz}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1269:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Wolf}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1270:   Phys. II} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{1}}, \bibinfo{pages}{493}

1271:   (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).

1272: 

1273: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Barlow}(1989)}]{bar89}

1274: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Barlow}},

1275:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Statistics}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{John Wiley and Sons},

1276:   \bibinfo{address}{Chichester}, \bibinfo{year}{1989}).

1277: 

1278: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Hamburger et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Hamburger, Biham,

1279:   and Avnir}}]{ham96}

1280: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Hamburger}},

1281:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{O.}~\bibnamefont{Biham}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1282:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Avnir}},

1283:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. E} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{53}},

1284:   \bibinfo{pages}{3342} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).

1285: 

1286: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Li et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Li, Lu, Su, and

1287:   Lai}}]{li99}

1288: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Li}},

1289:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Lu}},

1290:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Su}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1291:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lai}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1292:   Appl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}}, \bibinfo{pages}{2526}

1293:   (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

1294: 

1295: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Voss}(1986{\natexlab{a}})}]{vos86a}

1296: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Voss}}, in

1297:   \emph{\bibinfo{booktitle}{Fundamental Algorithms for Computer Graphics. Proc.

1298:   NATO ASI}}, edited by

1299:   \bibinfo{editor}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Earnshaw}}

1300:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer-Verlag}, \bibinfo{year}{1986}{\natexlab{a}}),

1301:   pp. \bibinfo{pages}{805--835}.

1302: 

1303: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Feder}(1988)}]{fed88}

1304: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Feder}},

1305:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Fractals}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Plenum Press},

1306:   \bibinfo{address}{New York}, \bibinfo{year}{1988}).

1307: 

1308: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Lopez et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Lopez, Hansali, and

1309:   J.C. Le~Boss{\'e}}}]{lop94}

1310: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Lopez}},

1311:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Hansali}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1312:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.~M.} \bibnamefont{J.C. Le~Boss{\'e}}},

1313:   \bibinfo{journal}{J. Phys. III France} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{4}},

1314:   \bibinfo{pages}{2501} (\bibinfo{year}{1994}).

1315: 

1316: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Berry and Lewis}(1980)}]{ber80}

1317: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Berry}} \bibnamefont{and}

1318:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Z.}~\bibnamefont{Lewis}},

1319:   \bibinfo{journal}{Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{370}},

1320:   \bibinfo{pages}{459} (\bibinfo{year}{1980}).

1321: 

1322: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Fang et~al.}(1997)\citenamefont{Fang, Haplepete, Chen,

1323:   and Helms}}]{fan97}

1324: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Fang}},

1325:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Haplepete}},

1326:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{Chen}}, \bibnamefont{and}

1327:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Helms}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.

1328:   Appl. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}}, \bibinfo{pages}{5891}

1329:   (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

1330: 

1331: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Voss}(1986{\natexlab{b}})}]{vos86b}

1332: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Voss}},

1333:   \bibinfo{journal}{Physica Scripta} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{T13}},

1334:   \bibinfo{pages}{27} (\bibinfo{year}{1986}{\natexlab{b}}).

1335: \end{thebibliography}

1336: 

1337: \end{document}

1338: