1: \documentclass[aps,prb,preprint,superscriptaddress,showpacs,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \begin{document}
4: \title{Lattice gas models of coherent strained epitaxy}
5: \author{V. I. Tokar}
6: \affiliation{
7: IPCMS-GEMM, UMR 7504 CNRS, 23, rue du Loess,
8: F-67037 Strasbourg Cedex, France
9: }
10: \affiliation{Institute of Magnetism, National Academy of Sciences,
11: 36-b Vernadsky str., 03142 Kiev-142, Ukraine}
12: \author{H. Dreyss\'e}
13: \affiliation{
14: IPCMS-GEMM, UMR 7504 CNRS, 23, rue du Loess,
15: F-67037 Strasbourg Cedex, France
16: }
17: \date{\today}
18: \begin{abstract}
19: The harmonic Frenkel-Kontorova model is used to illustrate with an
20: exactly solvable example a general technique of mapping a coherently
21: strained epitaxial system with continuous atomic displacements onto a
22: lattice gas model (LGM) with only discrete variables. The misfit strain
23: of the original model is transformed into cluster interatomic
24: interactions of the LGM. The clusters are contiguous atomic chains of
25: all lengths but the interaction strength for long chains is
26: exponentially small. This makes possible the application of efficient
27: Monte Carlo techniques developed for discrete variables both in kinetic
28: and equilibrium simulations. The formalism developed can be applied to
29: 1D as well as to 2D systems. As an illustrative example we consider
30: the problem of self-organization of 1D size calibrated clusters on the
31: steps of the vicinal surfaces.
32: \end{abstract}
33: \pacs{05.65.+b, 68.66.La, 81.16.Dn}
34: \maketitle
35: \section{Introduction}
36: The phenomena of self-assembly and self-organization of coherent
37: (i.~e., dislocation-free) size calibrated nano- and atomic-scale
38: structures observed during the heteroepitaxial growth in some
39: systems~\cite{discovery,dots} are considered to be promising tools for
40: fabrication of microelectronic devices~\cite{devices}.
41:
42: A major factor influencing the phenomenon of self-assembly is the
43: lattice size misfit (LSM) between the substrate and the growing
44: overlayer commonly encountered in heteroepitaxial
45: systems~\cite{mismatch}. The LSM-induced strain is believed to be the
46: driving force behind the above phenomena \cite{mismatch,lannoo}. So an
47: adequate account of the strain effects should lie at the basis of any
48: theory of strained epitaxy. Because strained systems exhibit
49: complicated kinetics and morphologies, analytic approach is difficult,
50: so a major technique in theoretical studies of strained epitaxy is the
51: kinetic Monte Carlo simulation. The application of this technique,
52: however, is severely hampered by the necessity to simulate the
53: continuous atomic displacements. Because of this, atomistic models in
54: such simulations are currently restricted to rather small systems
55: consisting of only a few thousand atoms \cite{2D3D} while
56: experimentally observed 3D quantum dots sometimes consist of several
57: tens of thousand atoms each \cite{dots}.
58:
59: Our research is based on the observation that as long as we are
60: interested only in the {\em coherent} structures, there is a
61: possibility to map the system onto a purely lattice model because in
62: the absence of dislocations the relaxed atom can only either deviate
63: from its symmetric position inside the same cell or to be displaced to
64: another cell but there always exists a lattice site of a regular
65: lattice to which this atom can be ascribed. So our first goal is to
66: develop a formalism which would allow to map a coherent heteroepitaxial
67: system with the continuous variables onto a lattice gas model with only
68: discrete variables.
69:
70: One of important goals of the heteroepitaxial studies is the
71: development of techniques of growth of 1D quantum wires (QW) which can
72: be used, e. g., for experimental investigation of the Luttinger model
73: of interacting 1D electrons \cite{nat_chains}. Furthermore, the QW may
74: find application in microelectronics circuitry \cite{devices}, as well
75: as in magnetic memory devices \cite{magnetism}. The latter applications
76: would require the 1D structures of finite length. In the case of the
77: memory devices it is also desirable that these atomic clusters (or
78: chains) were of similar length and that they were arranged into
79: periodic arrays in order to simplify the memory access. All these
80: requirements can be satisfied by self-organized size calibrated
81: structures similar to quantum dots of the 2D epitaxy \cite{dots}. A
82: phenomenological theory explaining the mechanism of formation of
83: quantum dots was proposed in Ref.\ \cite{lannoo}. The theory is quite
84: general and can be applied to objects in any number of dimensions. So
85: to illustrate the techniques developed in the present paper we will
86: study the conditions of formation of the 1D size calibrated monatomic
87: chains.
88: \section{The model}
89: A simple approach to theoretical description of the misfit is provided
90: by the 1D Frenkel-Kontorova model (FKM) which is frequently been used
91: in qualitative~\cite{2d1d,model2} and semi-quantitative
92: studies~\cite{baskiPRL} of strained epitaxy. To illustrate the
93: generality of our approach we first present the formalism appropriate
94: to the 2D epitaxy but in concrete examples we will restrict ourselves
95: to the 1D case.
96:
97: We consider an ensemble of a fixed number ($N$) of atoms coherently
98: deposited on a surface with a square lattice of deposition sites. The
99: rectangular lattice geometry was chosen because it allows for the
100: separation of $x$ and $y$ variables (see Ref.\ \cite{2d1d} and below).
101: Let us first consider more general model with the energy of the
102: epilayer of the form
103: \[
104: U = \sum_{\bf i}n_{\bf i}V_s({\bf R_i + u_i})
105: + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bf ij}n_{\bf i}n_{\bf j}V({\bf u_i
106: + R_i - u_j - R_j}),
107: \]
108: where ${\bf R_i}=(a^xi_x,a^yi_y)$ ($a^\gamma$ the lattice constants in
109: the two directions, $i_x$ and $i_y$ integers ), $n_{\bf i} = 0, 1$ is
110: the occupation number of site ${\bf i}$, ${\bf u_i}$ the atomic
111: displacement, $V_s$ the potential of interaction with the substrate,
112: and $V$ the interatomic potential.
113:
114: The analysis of the system considerably simplifies at low temperatures
115: where it can be approximately reduced to a lattice gas model. This is
116: achieved by exploiting the fact that the residence time of atoms at the
117: lattice sites can be arbitrarily large due to the Arrhenius law obeyed
118: by the probability of activated hopping over the potential barriers
119: separating neighboring sites \cite{thereference}. The dynamics of the
120: variables ${\bf u_i}$, on the other hand, do not have any energy
121: barriers. So at sufficiently low temperature these variables are
122: capable of reaching their thermal equilibrium distribution during the
123: time intervals between the atomic hops, i. e., with the atomic
124: configuration remaining unchanged. Averaging over ${\bf u_i}$ will
125: leave us with an effective non-equilibrium free energy function
126: $F_{\text{eff}}$ of variables $n_{\bf i}$ only:
127: \begin{equation}
128: \label{F}
129: \exp(- F_{\text{eff}}/k_BT) = \int \prod_{\{n_{\bf i} = 1\}} d{\bf
130: u_i}\exp(-U/k_BT).
131: \end{equation}
132: This purely lattice model can be further used in both equilibrium and
133: kinetic studies.
134:
135: For the purposes of qualitative analysis it will suffice to average out
136: the displacement variables in Eq.\ (\ref{F}) in the harmonic
137: approximation, i. e., by expanding $V_s$ and $V_p$ in the above
138: equation up to the second order in the displacement variables $\bf u_i$
139: \cite{baskiPRL,model3} which is valid for small $|{
140: u^\gamma_i}|/a^\gamma$. This allows to perform the calculation exactly
141: (see below). However, the integration can be extended to approximately
142: account also for anharmonic terms. This extension, besides making the
143: approach more accurate, can also account for some qualitative phenomena
144: \cite{model2}.
145:
146: To facilitate comparison with other studies based on the
147: Frenkel-Kontorova model \cite{2d1d,model1,model2,baskiPRL} we write the
148: harmonic approximation as the second order power series expansion in
149: $\bf u_i$ for $V_s$ and in $\bf u_i - u_{i-\gamma}$ for the pair
150: potential $V_p$:
151: \begin{eqnarray}
152: \label{U}
153: U &\approx& V_sN+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{{\bf i}\gamma}n_{\bf i}
154: k^\gamma_s(u^\gamma_{\bf i})^2
155: + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bf ij}n_{\bf i}n_{\bf j}
156: V_{\bf ij} \nonumber\\&&+ \frac{1}{2}
157: \sum_{\bf i\gamma}k^\gamma_p[(u_{\bf i}^{\gamma}
158: - u_{\bf i+\gamma}^{\gamma} - f_\gamma)^2- f_\gamma^2]
159: n_{\bf i}n_{\bf i+\gamma}\nonumber\\
160: &=&V_sN + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bf ij}V_{\bf ij}n_{\bf i}n_{\bf j}
161: \nonumber\\&&+ \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bf ij\gamma}k^\gamma_pD_{\bf
162: ij}^\gamma u_{\bf i}^\gamma u_{\bf j}^\gamma
163: +\sum_{\bf i\gamma}k^\gamma_pf_\gamma u_{\bf i}^{\gamma}
164: \nabla^{\bf \gamma}_{\bf i}n_{\bf i}n_{\bf i + \gamma}
165: \end{eqnarray}
166: where $V_s$ and $V_{\bf ij}$ are the values of the substrate and the
167: pair potentials at the lattice sites for the atom in the symmetric
168: position (the zero order approximation), $\gamma$ denotes $x$ or $y$
169: component; $f_\gamma=-V^\prime_\gamma/V^{\prime\prime}_{\gamma\gamma}$
170: (where $V$ is the pair potential) is interpreted as the misfit
171: parameter in the direction $\gamma$, $k^\gamma_s$ and $k^\gamma_p$ are
172: the second derivatives of the corresponding potentials, $D_{\bf
173: ij}^\gamma$ is the dimensionless dynamical matrix defined by this
174: equality, and $\nabla^{\bf \gamma}_{\bf i}F_{\bf i}\equiv F_{\bf
175: i}-F_{\bf i-\gamma}$. A major simplification is achieved under the
176: nearest neighbor (NN) approximation for the relaxation because, as is
177: seen from the last line of Eq.\ (\ref{U}), in this case the variables
178: $u_{\bf i}^x$ and $u_{\bf i}^y$ separate, and the relaxations along the
179: two directions are independent.
180:
181: With approximation (\ref{U}) the statistical average amounts to the
182: Gaussian integration to give
183: \begin{eqnarray}
184: \label{F2}
185: F_{\text{eff}} =&& \bar{V}_sN+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\bf
186: ij}n_{\bf i}n_{\bf j}V_{\bf ij}
187: -\frac{k_BT}{2}\sum_\gamma\ln\det G^\gamma \nonumber\\
188: &&- \frac{k_pf^2}{2}\sum_{\bf ij\gamma}
189: G^{\gamma}_{\bf ij}\nabla^{\bf \gamma}_{\bf i}n_{\bf i}n_{\bf i + \gamma}
190: \nabla^{\bf \gamma}_{\bf j}n_{\bf j}n_{\bf j + \gamma},
191: \end{eqnarray}
192: where $G^{\gamma} = 1/D^\gamma$ and in $\bar{V}_s$ we gathered all
193: terms which are proportional to the total particle number, such as the
194: normalization of the determinant coming from the in-plane Gaussian
195: integration and a similar term from the integration along
196: $z$-direction. We do not discuss these contributions here because in
197: the present study we restrict ourselves to systems with a fixed number
198: of deposited atoms $N$. In case of necessity these terms can be easily
199: recovered. We also note the entropic contribution (the second term in
200: the first line) which naturally appears in our formalism and which was
201: shown to be crucial for proper description of the processes of
202: deposition~\cite{einstein1} as well as for the correct prediction of
203: the shape of the atomic clusters~\cite{einstein2}.
204:
205: Because of the gradient factors, only the ends of contiguous chains of
206: atoms contribute into the last term of Eq.\ (\ref{F2}) leaving two
207: matrix elements of $G^{\gamma}_{\bf ij}$ in the sum over ${\bf ij}$
208: inside every chain: the diagonal one which we denote as $G^{(0)}_{l}$
209: ($l$ the length of the chain; we omit the superscript $\gamma$ to
210: simplify notation) and the matrix element $G^{(l-1)}_{l}$ connecting
211: the two ends of the chain. Furthermore, in the NN approximation the
212: matrix $D$ is block-diagonal because the atoms belonging to different
213: chains do not couple. Therefore, the determinant factorizes and the
214: relaxation part of the free energy which consists of the terms in Eq.\
215: (\ref{F2}) containing $G$ takes the form
216: \begin{eqnarray}
217: \label{Frelax}
218: F_{\text{relax}}&=& -\sum_{\text{chains}} \{\frac{k_BT}{2}\ln\det
219: \frac{G_l}{G_1}+k_pf^2[G^{(0)}_{l}-G^{(l-1)}_{l}]\}\nonumber\\
220: &\equiv&\sum_{\text{chains}}(-TS_l+W_l)\equiv\sum_{\text{chains}}E_l,
221: \end{eqnarray}
222: where the summation is over the chains consisting of two or more
223: atoms. Besides, in the first term on the right hand side (r. h. s.) we
224: subtracted the single atom entropy term by assuming that it is
225: accounted for in $\bar{V}_s$ which we discarded to simplify notation.
226: It is easy to show that $F_{\text{relax}}$ can be expanded into an
227: infinite sum of multiatom interactions of the form $V_ln_{\bf i}n_{\bf
228: i+\hat{\gamma}}\dots n_{{\bf i} + (l-1)\hat{\gamma}}$, where
229: $\hat{\gamma}$ is the unit vector in the direction $\hat{\gamma}$. The
230: expansion coefficients are given by the expression
231: \begin{equation}
232: \label{V_l}
233: V_l=E_l-2E_{l-1}+E_{l-2}
234: \end{equation}
235: valid for all $l\geq2$ with $E_0=E_1=0$.
236: \section{The relaxation free energy}
237: Omitting the superscript $\gamma$ to simplify notation, the matrix
238: $D_l$ for chain of length $l$ is defined according to Eq.\ (\ref{U}) as
239: \begin{equation}
240: k_p\sum_{ij}(D_l)_{ij}u_iu_j=k_su_1^2+k_p(u_1-u_2)^2+k_su_2^2+\dots
241: +k_p(u_{l-1}-u_l)^2+k_su_l^2.
242: \end{equation}
243: Hence, the square matrix $k_pD_l$ have the following structure:
244: \begin{equation}
245: \label{kD}
246: k_pD_l=\left(\underbrace{
247: \begin{array}{ccccccc}
248: k_p+k_s & -k_p & 0 &\dots&0&0&0\\
249: -k_p & 2k_p+k_s& -k_p &0&\dots&0&0\\
250: 0 & -k_p & 2k_p+k_s&-k_p&0&\dots&0\\
251: \vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \ddots &\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
252: 0& \dots &0& -k_p & 2k_p+k_s & -k_p & 0 \\
253: 0&0&\dots &0 & -k_p & 2k_p+k_s & -k_p \\
254: 0&0&0&\dots & 0 & -k_p & k_p+k_s
255: \end{array}}_{\textstyle l}
256: \right)
257: \end{equation}
258: In Appendix \ref{appendix} we have shown that the matrix elements of
259: $G_l=1/D_l$ entering the expression for the relaxation free energy
260: (\ref{Frelax}) can be calculated with the use of recursion formulas for
261: the tridiagonal matrices as [see Eqs.\ (\ref{ GG}) and (\ref{
262: recursion})]
263: \begin{equation}
264: \label{ GG1}
265: \left\{
266: \begin{array}{lcl}
267: G^{(0)}_{l+1} &=& 1/(1+\alpha-d_l)\nonumber\\
268: G^{(l)}_{l+1} &=& \det G_{l+1} =G^{(0)}_{l+1}b_l,\nonumber
269: \end{array}
270: \right.
271: \end{equation}
272: where $\alpha = k_s/k_p$; $d_l$ and $b_l$ are generated by the
273: recursion relations
274: \begin{equation}
275: \label{ recursion1}
276: d_{l+1} = 1/(2+\alpha - d_l)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
277: b_{l+1} = d_{l+1}b_l.
278: \end{equation}
279: The recursion relations (\ref{ recursion1}) at large $l$ drive $d_l$
280: and $b_l$ to the fixed point $d_\star, b_\star$:
281: \begin{eqnarray}
282: d_\star &=& 1 + \frac{\alpha}{2} -\sqrt{\alpha + \frac{\alpha^2}{4}}<1\\
283: b_\star &=&0.
284: \end{eqnarray}
285: This means that at large $l$ $G^{(0)}_{l}$ saturates to a constant
286: value while $G^{(l)}_{l}=\det G_{l}\sim d_\star^l$ [see Eqs.\ (\ref{
287: GG1})]. This in particular means that the entropic contribution into
288: $F_{relax}$ which is proportional to $\ln (\det G_{l})$ is
289: asymptotically linear in $l$ (see Fig.\ \ref{fig1}).
290:
291: Two contributions into $F_{\text{relax}}$ calculated with these
292: formulas are shown in Fig. \ref{fig1}. The entropic contribution is
293: negative because in our canonical ensemble formalism we discarded the
294: entropy corresponding to $N$ isolated atoms which is reflected in the
295: denominator $G_1$ in the expression (\ref{Frelax}) for the free
296: energy. This means, in particular, that when $k_p\to0$ the atomic
297: displacements within the cell became mutually independent (the on-site
298: pair interactions do not depend on the atomic positions inside the
299: cell), so $G_l\to G_1\hat{I}$, where $\hat{I}$ is the unit matrix, and
300: the entropy term tends to zero [see Eq.\ (\ref{Frelax}) and
301: Fig.\ \ref{fig1}]. When $k_p$ is not equal to zero, the atomic
302: displacements became restricted by its neighbors, so their entropy
303: diminishes. For large chains the interior atoms are practically in
304: translationally invariant environment, so for long chains the entropy
305: loss is proportional to $l$. The above restrictions on the atomic
306: displacements are the more stringent the larger $k_p$. This is
307: reflected in the slope of $S_l$ which is larger for smaller
308: $\alpha=k_s/k_p$ (see Fig.\ \ref{fig1}).
309:
310: Because the entropic contribution in Eq.\ (\ref{Frelax}) is multiplied
311: by $T$, at low temperature it can be neglected. The remaining term
312: $W_l$ is negative and saturates to a finite value at large $l$ (see
313: Fig. \ref{fig1}b). From Eq.\ (\ref{U}) it follows that the NN
314: interatomic interaction $V_{\text{NN}} = V_{\text{NN}}^{\text{ch}}
315: +k_pf^2$, where the first term ($V_{\text{NN}}^{\text{ch}}$) is some
316: ``chemical'' interaction and the second term is the unrelaxed repulsion
317: due to LSM. Thus, the relaxation energy in Eq.\ (\ref{Frelax}) is the
318: difference between the relaxed elastic energy of the chain
319: $E^{el}_{rel}(l)$ and the unrelaxed one $E^{el}_0(l)=(l-1)k_pf^2$ with
320: both energies being positive, as it should be for elastic energies.
321: Thus,
322: \[
323: W_l=E^{el}_{rel}(l)-E^{el}_0(l)
324: \]
325: and is negative because relaxation lowers the energy. Now, if
326: $V_{\text{NN}}^{\text{ch}}$ is negative but such that $V_{\text{NN}}$
327: is not too large, then the reduced chain energy $[W_{l} +
328: V_{\text{NN}}(l-1)]/l$ will have a minimum corresponding to an
329: equilibrium chain length. In two dimensions these chains will unify in
330: square platelets. Thus, our model contains the mechanism for the size
331: calibration of atomic clusters which was phenomenologically described
332: in Ref.\ \cite{lannoo}. In 2D this conclusion as well as the formula of
333: Ref.\ \cite{lannoo} were verified with the use of the Monte Carlo
334: simulation \cite{molphys}.
335:
336: Because the entropic contribution $S_l$ (see Fig. \ref{fig1}a) is
337: practically linear in $l$ according to Eq.\ (\ref{V_l}) which has the
338: form of the discrete second derivative it essentially contributes only
339: into the pair interaction $V_2$ (the multiatom contributions were found
340: to be $\sim10\%$). Thus, the relaxation entropy formally amounts to
341: effective NN interatomic repulsion which grows linearly with
342: temperature. The entropic forces of this kind were earlier discovered
343: in alloys (see Appendix E of Ref.\ \cite{rmp2} and references to
344: earlier literature therein).
345:
346: At low temperature the main contributions into $V_l$ for $l\geq3$ come
347: from $W_l$ (Fig.\ref{fig1}b). Because the r. h. s. of Eq.\ (\ref{V_l})
348: has the form of the discrete second derivative and the curve $W_l(l)$
349: is concave, all multiatom interactions are repulsive. On the other
350: hand, in the case under consideration when atoms are supposed to
351: assemble into clusters, there should exist attractive interactions
352: which in our model are necessarily the pair ones [see Eq.\ (\ref{U})].
353: \begin{figure}
354: \includegraphics[viewport = 70 70 275 415, scale = 0.7]{fig1.ps}
355: \caption{Relaxation entropy in units of $k_B$ (a) and relaxation energy
356: in units of $k_pf^2$ (b) for chains of length $l$. At both figures the
357: first curve from the horizontal zero axis corresponds to $\alpha=2$,
358: the second to $\alpha=0.5$, and the third one to $\alpha=0.2$ (note
359: difference in scale).}
360: \label{fig1}
361: \end{figure}
362: \section{Examples from metallic heteroepitaxial systems}
363: To illustrate the above formalism with realistic examples of strained
364: epitaxy we consider two metallic heteroepitaxial systems---Ag/Pt and
365: Pt/Co---which currently are being actively studied both experimentally
366: \cite{AgPt,1D2Dexp,Pt997} and theoretically \cite{CoPtth,PtCoth2}. For
367: simplicity we considered 1D case and used the geometry of Ref.
368: \cite{1D2Dth} where the growth on the steps of the closed packed (111)
369: vicinal surface was studied. The position of a deposited atom was
370: relaxed to its equilibrium value in order to find the value $k_s$ as
371: the second derivative of the potential near equilibrium. The many-body
372: ``potentials'' and corresponding parameters were taken from
373: Ref.\ \cite{1D2Dth} for the Ag/Pt system and from Ref.\ \cite{PtCoth2}
374: for the Pt/Co system. These potentials were devised specifically to
375: application in the heteroepitaxy and for the (111) surfaces so we
376: expect our results below are quite reliable. Other parameters listed in
377: Table \ref{table1} were calculated for the atomic pairs relaxed only in
378: vertical position because in our approach we need the first and second
379: derivatives [see discussion after Eq.\ (\ref{U})] calculated in the
380: center of of symmetry of the 1D cell. In both calculations only the NN
381: interactions were taken into account because the NNN ones were found to
382: be negligeable.
383:
384: According to our calculations the Ag/Pt system has the following
385: parameters: (the energy unit is eV, the length unit \AA):
386: $V^p_{\text{NN}} \approx -0.57$, $V^p_{\text{NNN}} \approx
387: -8.8\cdot10^{-3} $, $k_pf^2 \approx 0.72$, and $\alpha\approx 3.7$. The
388: large value of $\alpha$ means that the relaxation of the strain is very
389: weak (see Fig.\ \ref{fig1}) so there is no size calibration with the
390: above parameters. The crucial parameter $\alpha$, however, can
391: strongly vary in different systems. For example, according to our
392: estimates based on the potentials of Ref.\ \cite{PtCoth2}, in Pt/Co
393: $\alpha\simeq0.32$ is an order of magnitude smaller. Because of this
394: the system is quite close to the self-assembly but the misfit strain is
395: still too small. To enhance the misfit, in our model calculations we
396: assumed that the Co underlayer is further compressed (e. g., by means
397: of deposition on an appropriate substrate) by the factor $1-\epsilon$.
398: (see Table \ref{table1} and Fig.\ \ref{fig2}). But for $\epsilon$ below
399: the critical value $\epsilon_c\approx2\%$ there is no self-assembly at
400: $T=0$ because there is no minimum in $E_l(T=0)/l$ (see
401: Ref.\ \cite{lannoo}). However, because of the $T$-dependent entropic
402: contribution in the effective energy (\ref{F2}), slightly below
403: $\epsilon_c$ the system does exhibit the self-assembly at intermediate
404: temperatures which, however, disappears as $T\rightarrow0$ (see
405: Fig.\ \ref{fig2}). Thus, our model predicts a new phenomenon which may
406: be called the entropy driven transient self-assembly. For higher values
407: of strain the $E_l(T=0)/l$ curve does have a minimum (see
408: Fig.\ \ref{fig2}) in which case the qualitative analysis of
409: Ref.\ \cite{lannoo} fully applies.
410: \begin{table}
411: \label{table1}
412: \caption{Parameters corresponding to the Pt/Co heteroepitaxial
413: system }
414: \begin{center}
415: %\caption{Total and Reduced Energies of Square Clusters}
416: \begin{tabular*}{8cm}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}cccc}
417: $\epsilon$&$\alpha$&$k_pf^2$ (eV)&$V_{NN}$ (eV)\\
418: \hline
419: 0\%& 0.32&0.049&-0.218\\
420: 2\%& 0.25&0.100&-0.179\\
421: 3\%&0.22& 0.136&-0.152\\
422: \hline
423: \end{tabular*}
424: \end{center}
425: \end{table}
426: \begin{figure}
427: \includegraphics[viewport = 195 520 415 740, scale = 1.]{Relax.ps}
428: \caption{Length dependence of the reduced energy at zero temperature
429: of the Pt monatomic
430: chains for different values of compression $\epsilon$ of the Co substrate.}
431: \label{fig2}
432: \end{figure}
433: \section{conclusion}
434: In this paper we considered a simple model of strained 1D epitaxy and
435: have shown that similarly to the 2D case the mechanism of self-assembly
436: and size calibration proposed in Ref.\ \cite{lannoo} is operative also
437: in this case. We considered only two explicit examples for which there
438: exist in literature reliable interatomic potentials and in one system
439: already found the size calibration for stressed substrate. In our
440: opinion, this shows that the above phenomena should be as common in 1D
441: as they are in 2D heteroepitaxy. Further argument in favor of this
442: conclusion is that for the size calibration to be plausible the crucial
443: parameter $\alpha=k_s/k_p$ should be as small as possible. This favors
444: small values of $k_s$. However, the geometry considered in the present
445: paper is not quite favorable because of the high coordination of the
446: atoms deposited at the steps with 5 NN atoms of the substrate (see
447: Ref.\ \cite{1D2Dth}) which enhances $k_s$. It may be hoped that with
448: lower coordination of the deposited atoms (as in the case of 1D
449: structures of Ref.\ \cite{nat_chains}) the conditions for the size
450: calibration will be more favorable.
451: \begin{acknowledgments}
452: One of us (VT) expresses his gratitude to University Louis Pasteur de
453: Strasbourg and IPCMS for their hospitality.
454: \end{acknowledgments}
455: \appendix
456: \section{}
457: \label{appendix}
458: According to Eq.\ (\ref{kD})
459: \begin{equation}
460: \label{ D}
461: D_l=\left(\underbrace{
462: \begin{array}{ccccccc}
463: 1+\alpha & -1 & 0 &\dots&0&0&0\\
464: -1 & 2+\alpha& -1 &0&\dots&0&0\\
465: 0 & -1 & 2+\alpha&-1&0&\dots&0\\
466: \vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \ddots &\ddots&\vdots&\vdots\\
467: 0& \dots &0& -1 & 2+\alpha & -1 & 0 \\
468: 0&0&\dots &0 & -1 & 2+\alpha & -1 \\
469: 0&0&0&\dots & 0 & -1 & 1+\alpha
470: \end{array}}_{\textstyle l}
471: \right),
472: \end{equation}
473: where $\alpha=k_s/k_p$. Because matrices $D_l$ are tri-diagonal, their
474: determinants satisfy recurrence relations which can be used to
475: calculate all quantities entering Eqs.\ (\ref{Frelax}) and
476: (\ref{V_l}). The diagonal element of the matrix $G_l=1/D_l$ is
477: \begin{equation}
478: \label{ G0}
479: G^{(0)}_{l}=r_{l-1}/\det D_l,
480: \end{equation}
481: where $r_{l-1}$ is the determinant of the matrix obtained from $D_l$
482: by crossing out its first row and the first column:
483: \begin{equation}
484: \label{ m}
485: r_{l-1}=\left|\underbrace{
486: \begin{array}{cccccc}
487: 2+\alpha & -1 & 0 &\dots&0&0\\
488: -1 & 2+\alpha& -1 &0&\dots&0\\
489: 0 & -1 & 2+\alpha&-1&0&0\\
490: \vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \ddots &\ddots&\vdots\\
491: 0& \dots &0& -1 & 2+\alpha & -1 \\
492: 0&0&\dots &0 & -1 & 1+\alpha\\
493: \end{array}}_{\textstyle l-1}
494: \right|.
495: \end{equation}
496: Expanding $\det D_l$ with respect to the first row we get
497: \begin{equation}
498: \label{ detD}
499: \det D_l = (1+\alpha)r_{l-1}-r_{l-2}.
500: \end{equation}
501: Comparing this with Eq.\ (\ref{ G0}) we get
502: \begin{equation}
503: G^{(0)}_{l}=1/(1+\alpha-d_{l-1}),
504: \end{equation}
505: where $d_{l-1}=r_{l-2}/r_{l-1}$.
506: Now, expanding determinant Eq.\ (\ref{ m}) with respect to the elements
507: of the first row we get the following three term recurrence relation
508: \begin{equation}
509: \label{ mm}
510: r_{l-1}=(2+\alpha)r_{l-2}-r_{l-3}.
511: \end{equation}
512: But because Eq.\ (\ref{ G0}) includes only the ratio $r_{l-2}/r_{l-1}$
513: by dividing Eq.\ (\ref{ mm}) by $r_{l-2}$ we can transform it to a
514: simpler form
515: \begin{equation}
516: \frac{1}{d_{l-1}}=2+\alpha - d_{l-2}.
517: \end{equation}
518: The off-diagonal matrix element $G_l^{(l-1)}$ of the inverse matrix
519: $G_l$ is equal to the ratio of the determinant of the matrix obtained
520: from $D_l$ by crossing out its first row and the last column multiplied
521: by $(-1)^{l+1}$ and divided by $\det D_l$. As is easy to see from Eq.\
522: (\ref{ D}) the matrix thus obtained is a triangular matrix with the
523: diagonal elements being all equal to -1. Hence its determinant is equal
524: to $(-1)^{l-1}$ and
525: \begin{equation}
526: G_l^{(l-1)}=1/\det D_l = \det G_l.
527: \end{equation}
528: From Eq.\ (\ref{ detD}) we get
529: \begin{equation}
530: G_l^{(l-1)}=\frac{1}{\det D_l}=\frac{1}{r_{l-1}(1+\alpha-d_{l-1})}
531: =\frac{b_{l-1}}{1+\alpha-d_{l-1}}=b_{l-1}G^{(0)}_{l},
532: \end{equation}
533: where $b_{l-1}=1/r_{l-1}=d_{l-1}b_{l-2}$ (see the definition of
534: $d_{l-1}$ above).
535: Finally, making the shift $l-1\to l+1$ the above formulas
536: can be summarized as
537: \begin{equation}
538: \label{ GG}
539: \left\{
540: \begin{array}{lcl}
541: G^{(0)}_{l+1} &=& 1/(1+\alpha-d_l)\nonumber\\
542: G^{(l)}_{l+1} &=& \det G_{l+1} =G^{(0)}_{l+1}b_l,\nonumber
543: \end{array}
544: \right.
545: \end{equation}
546: where $d_l$ and $b_l$ are generated by the recursion
547: relations
548: \begin{equation}
549: \label{ recursion}
550: d_{l+1} = 1/(2+\alpha - d_l)\quad\mbox{and}\quad
551: b_{l+1} = d_{l+1}b_l
552: \end{equation}
553: initialized by $d_0=b_0=1$.
554: \begin{thebibliography}{18}
555: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
556: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax
557: \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi
558: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax
559: \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi
560: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax
561: \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi
562: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax
563: \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi
564: \expandafter\ifx\csname urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi
565: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}
566: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}
567:
568: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Eaglesham and Cerullo}(1990)}]{discovery}
569: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~J.} \bibnamefont{Eaglesham}}
570: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Cerullo}},
571: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},
572: \bibinfo{pages}{1943} (\bibinfo{year}{1990});
573: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.-W.} \bibnamefont{Mo}},
574: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~E.} \bibnamefont{Savage}},
575: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~S.} \bibnamefont{Swartzentruber}},
576: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.~G.}
577: \bibnamefont{Lagally}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
578: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1020} (\bibinfo{year}{1990});
579: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Guha}},
580: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Madhukar}}, \bibnamefont{and}
581: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~C.} \bibnamefont{Rajkumar}},
582: \bibinfo{journal}{Appl. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{57}},
583: \bibinfo{pages}{2110} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).
584:
585: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Notzel et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{Notzel, Temmyo, and
586: Tamamura}}]{dots}
587: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Notzel}},
588: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Temmyo}}, \bibnamefont{and}
589: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{T.}~\bibnamefont{Tamamura}},
590: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature (London)} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{369}},
591: \bibinfo{pages}{131} (\bibinfo{year}{1994});
592: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Leonard}
593: \bibnamefont{et~al.}},
594: \bibinfo{journal}{Appl. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{63}},
595: \bibinfo{pages}{3203} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).
596:
597: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Orlov et~al.}(1996)\citenamefont{Orlov, Amlani, Lent,
598: and Snider}}]{devices}
599: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~O.} \bibnamefont{Orlov}},
600: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Amlani}},
601: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.~S.} \bibnamefont{Lent}},
602: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~L.}
603: \bibnamefont{Snider}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}
604: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{277}}, \bibinfo{pages}{928} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).
605:
606: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{van~der Merwe et~al.}(1994)\citenamefont{van~der Merwe,
607: T\"onsing, and Stoop}}]{mismatch}
608: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{van~der Merwe}},
609: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.~L.} \bibnamefont{T\"onsing}},
610: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.~M.} \bibnamefont{Stoop}},
611: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{312}},
612: \bibinfo{pages}{387} (\bibinfo{year}{1994});
613: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Henzler}},
614: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{357--358}},
615: \bibinfo{pages}{809} (\bibinfo{year}{1996});
616: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Tan}},
617: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Ghazali}}, \bibnamefont{and}
618: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~C.~S.} \bibnamefont{L\'evy}},
619: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{369}},
620: \bibinfo{pages}{360} (\bibinfo{year}{1996}).
621:
622: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Priester and Lannoo}(1995)}]{lannoo}
623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Priester}} \bibnamefont{and}
624: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Lannoo}},
625: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{75}},
626: \bibinfo{pages}{93} (\bibinfo{year}{1995}).
627:
628: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Khor and Sarma}(2000)}]{2D3D}
629: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.~E.} \bibnamefont{Khor}} \bibnamefont{and}
630: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~D.} \bibnamefont{Sarma}},
631: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{62}},
632: \bibinfo{pages}{16657} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
633:
634: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Segovia et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Segovia, Purdie,
635: Hensenberger, and Baer}}]{nat_chains}
636: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Segovia}},
637: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Purdie}},
638: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Hensenberger}},
639: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Baer}},
640: \bibinfo{journal}{Nature (London)} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{402}},
641: \bibinfo{pages}{504} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
642:
643: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Dorantes-D{\'a}vila and Pastor}(1998)}]{magnetism}
644: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Dorantes-D{\'a}vila}}
645: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.~M.}
646: \bibnamefont{Pastor}}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
647: \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{81}}, \bibinfo{pages}{208} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).
648:
649: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Snyman and van~der Merwe}(1974)}]{2d1d}
650: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Snyman}} \bibnamefont{and}
651: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~H.} \bibnamefont{van~der Merwe}},
652: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{45}},
653: \bibinfo{pages}{619} (\bibinfo{year}{1974}).
654:
655: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Korutcheva et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Korutcheva,
656: Turiel, and Markov}}]{model2}
657: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Korutcheva}},
658: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~M.} \bibnamefont{Turiel}},
659: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{I.}~\bibnamefont{Markov}},
660: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},
661: \bibinfo{pages}{16890} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
662:
663: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Erwin et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Erwin, Baski, Whitman,
664: and Rudd}}]{baskiPRL}
665: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.~C.} \bibnamefont{Erwin}},
666: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~A.} \bibnamefont{Baski}},
667: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.~J.} \bibnamefont{Whitman}},
668: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.~E.} \bibnamefont{Rudd}},
669: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{83}},
670: \bibinfo{pages}{1818} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
671:
672: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Uebing and Homer}(1991)}]{thereference}
673: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Uebing}} \bibnamefont{and}
674: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{R.}~\bibnamefont{Homer}}, \bibinfo{journal}{J.
675: Chem. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{95}}, \bibinfo{pages}{7626}
676: (\bibinfo{year}{1991}).
677:
678: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Orr et~al.}(1992)\citenamefont{Orr, Kessler, Snyder,
679: and Sander}}]{model3}
680: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.~G.} \bibnamefont{Orr}},
681: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Kessler}},
682: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Snyder}}, \bibnamefont{and}
683: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Sander}},
684: \bibinfo{journal}{Europhys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{19}},
685: \bibinfo{pages}{33} (\bibinfo{year}{1992}).
686:
687: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Ratsch and Zangwill}(1993)}]{model1}
688: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Ratsch}} \bibnamefont{and}
689: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Zangwill}},
690: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{293}},
691: \bibinfo{pages}{123} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).
692:
693: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Venables}(1987)}]{einstein1}
694: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~A.} \bibnamefont{Venables}},
695: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{36}},
696: \bibinfo{pages}{4153} (\bibinfo{year}{1987}).
697:
698: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Doye and Calvo}(2000)}]{einstein2}
699: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~P.~K.} \bibnamefont{Doye}} \bibnamefont{and}
700: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Calvo}},
701: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{86}},
702: \bibinfo{pages}{3570} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).
703:
704: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Tokar and Dreyss\'e}(2002)}]{molphys}
705: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{V.~I.} \bibnamefont{Tokar}} \bibnamefont{and}
706: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Dreyss\'e}},
707: \bibinfo{journal}{Molec. Phys.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{100}},
708: \bibinfo{pages}{3151} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
709:
710: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{van~de Walle and Ceder}(2002)}]{rmp2}
711: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{van~de Walle}}
712: \bibnamefont{and} \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Ceder}},
713: \bibinfo{journal}{Rev. Mod. Phys} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{74}},
714: \bibinfo{pages}{11} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).
715:
716: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Becker et~al.}(1993)\citenamefont{Becker, Rosenfeld,
717: Poelsema, and Comsa}}]{AgPt}
718: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.~F.} \bibnamefont{Becker}},
719: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Rosenfeld}},
720: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{B.}~\bibnamefont{Poelsema}}, \bibnamefont{and}
721: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Comsa}},
722: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{70}},
723: \bibinfo{pages}{477} (\bibinfo{year}{1993}).
724:
725: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gambardella
726: et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{a}})\citenamefont{Gambardella, Blanc, Brune, Kuhnke,
727: and Kern}}]{1D2Dexp}
728: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Gambardella}},
729: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Blanc}},
730: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Brune}},
731: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kuhnke}}, \bibnamefont{and}
732: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kern}},
733: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},
734: \bibinfo{pages}{2254} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}{\natexlab{a}}).
735:
736: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Gambardella
737: et~al.}(2000{\natexlab{b}})\citenamefont{Gambardella, Blanc, B{\"u}rgi,
738: Kuhnke, and Kern}}]{Pt997}
739: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Gambardella}},
740: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Blanc}},
741: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{B{\"u}rgi}},
742: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kuhnke}}, \bibnamefont{and}
743: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{K.}~\bibnamefont{Kern}},
744: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{449}},
745: \bibinfo{pages}{93} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}{\natexlab{b}}).
746:
747: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goyhenex and Tr{\'e}glia}(2000)}]{CoPtth}
748: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Goyhenex}} \bibnamefont{and}
749: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Tr{\'e}glia}},
750: \bibinfo{journal}{Surf. Sci.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{446}},
751: \bibinfo{pages}{272} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
752:
753: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Goyhenex et~al.}(1999)\citenamefont{Goyhenex, Bulou,
754: Deville, and Tr{\'e}glia}}]{PtCoth2}
755: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Goyhenex}},
756: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Bulou}},
757: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.-P.} \bibnamefont{Deville}},
758: \bibnamefont{and}
759: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Tr{\'e}glia}},
760: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{60}},
761: \bibinfo{pages}{2781} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).
762:
763: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Picaud et~al.}(2000)\citenamefont{Picaud, Ramseyer,
764: Girardet, and Jensen}}]{1D2Dth}
765: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{F.}~\bibnamefont{Picaud}},
766: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Ramseyer}},
767: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Girardet}}, \bibnamefont{and}
768: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Jensen}},
769: \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. B} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{61}},
770: \bibinfo{pages}{16154} (\bibinfo{year}{2000}).
771:
772: \end{thebibliography}
773: \end{document}
774: