Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Scaling Relations, Morphological Stability, and Asymptotic Freedom of Plasma-Surface Deposition Dynamics

T0 review · 6 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the effective plasma-surface coupling is asymptotically free: it runs to zero logarithmically with scale, yielding exponential grain-area scaling and a faceting threshold set by crystal symmetry.

desk verdict A plausible but underived mapping between plasma parameters and the (∇h)^4 coupling makes the asymptotic-freedom claim a relabeled RG result, not a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10645 v1 pith:SPHLR2FB submitted 2025-07-14 physics.plasm-ph cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech

Joel Saucedo , Uday Lamba , Hasitha Mahabaduge This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.plasm-phcond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.stat-mech
keywords asymptoticfreedomrenormalizationgroupplasma-surfacecouplingthinfilmdepositiongraingrowthscalingpressureindependencemorphologicalfacetingEdwards-Wilkinsonmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the effective coupling between a plasma and a growing film surface is asymptotically free: on length scales $b$, the dimensionless coupling $g=\Phi a^2 \tau_{\mathrm{ion}}$ flows as $g(b)\sim 1/\ln b$, so that plasma-surface interactions weaken at macroscopic scales and continuum film-growth models become justified rather than merely empirical. The claim is built from a projection-operator coarse graining of the full plasma-surface dynamics, which produces an exponentially decaying memory kernel, followed by a momentum-shell renormalization-group analysis of an Edwards-Wilkinson-type Hamiltonian with a $(\nabla h)^4$ nonlinearity. From the RG flow the paper derives non-perturbative scaling of the mean grain area, $\langle A\rangle \propto \exp(\kappa/g)$, which yields empirically observed power laws only as a regime-restricted approximation, and it derives two parameter-free predictions: pressure independence of grain size in collision-dominated isotropic growth and a faceting threshold $\Lambda_c=1/(n^2-1)$ fixed by crystal symmetry. The payoff, if the framework works, is a small set of process variables---ion flux, collision time, and anisotropy---that quantitatively predict microstructural outcomes in thin film deposition.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective Hamiltonian $H=\int d^2x\,[\frac{\nu}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + g(\nabla h)^4 + \cdots]$ with $g=\Phi a^2\tau_{\mathrm{ion}}$ dimensionless, defined so the $(\nabla h)^4$ term is marginal under engineering scaling. The argument is carried by the momentum-shell renormalization-group calculation: integrating out fast height modes and rescaling produces the one-loop $\beta$ function $\beta(g)=-\frac{9}{2\pi\nu^2}g^2$, where the positive constant comes from a specific loop integral. Before the RG step, a projection-operator (memory-kernel) coarse graining supplies the exponentially decaying kernel $\mathcal{K}(s)\propto e^{-s/\tau_{\mathrm{ion}}}$, which makes the effective single-coupling description plausible and ties the coupling to plasma kinetics. The faceting criterion is carried by the boundary stiffness $\Sigma(\theta)=\gamma(\theta)+\gamma''(\theta)=\gamma_0[1-(n^2-1)\Lambda\cos(n\theta)]$, whose vanishing minimum sets $\Lambda_c=1/(n^2-1)$.

What would settle it

Measure the mean grain area in an isotropic, collision-dominated plasma while sweeping chamber pressure by at least an order of magnitude at fixed temperature and ion energy; if $\langle A\rangle$ changes systematically beyond experimental scatter, the prediction $(\partial\langle A\rangle/\partial P)_{T,\Lambda=0}=0$ fails and the central claim is undermined.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the plasma-surface system lies in the universality class of an Edwards-Wilkinson Hamiltonian with a $g(\nabla h)^4$ interaction, where $g=\Phi a^2\tau_{\mathrm{ion}}$ is the only dimensionless coupling, and that its renormalization-group flow is $dg/dl = -\frac{9}{2\pi\nu^2}g^2$. The negative sign gives asymptotic freedom: $g(b)=g_0/(1+K g_0\ln b)$ with $K=9/(2\pi\nu^2)$, so the interaction is irrelevant at long wavelengths and the infrared fixed point $g=0$ is stable. Through the renormalization-group equation for the correlation length this flow implies $\langle A\rangle \propto \xi^2 \propto \exp(\kappa/g)$, so observed power-law exponents are effective, with the ubiquitous $-1/3$ appearing when $Cg\approx 6$. In collision-dominated plasmas, the product $\Phi\tau_{\mathrm{ion}}$ is pressure-independent, giving $(\partial\langle A\rangle/\partial P)_{T,\Lambda=0}=0$, and the boundary-stiffness argument with kinetic anisotropy mapped to thermodynamic anisotropy gives the faceting threshold $\Lambda_c=1/(n^2-1)$, which is $1/15$ for cubic symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The whole claim depends on identifying the plasma-surface coupling with the coefficient $g=\Phi a^2\tau_{\mathrm{ion}}$ of a $(\nabla h)^4$ term in an Edwards-Wilkinson Hamiltonian; the paper states rather than derives this mapping from the microscopic Liouvillian, so if that identification fails the $\beta$ function describes a generic height model rather than plasma deposition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because $g(b)\sim 1/\ln b$, microscopic plasma physics is renormalization-group-irrelevant at large scales; continuum thin-film models are controlled consequences of the flow, not merely empirical conveniences.
  • The exponential scaling $\langle A\rangle\propto\exp(\kappa/g)$ predicts that apparent power-law grain-growth exponents are not universal, so the commonly observed $-1/3$ exponent is a regime signature rather than a critical exponent.
  • In collision-dominated isotropic growth, grain area should be independent of chamber pressure, giving a strong, easy-to-check process-level prediction.
  • The faceting threshold $\Lambda_c=1/(n^2-1)$ means cubic materials ($n=4$) facet at anisotropy $1/15$, far more easily than hexagonal materials ($n=6$) at $1/35$, which could guide material choice for smooth versus textured films.
  • Any measured departure from pressure independence becomes a diagnostic for transport regimes or extra diffusion pathways beyond the collision-dominated assumption.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • As an extension beyond the paper, the crossover length scale where $g(b^*)\sim 1$ would mark where continuum models lose validity; estimating $b^*$ from $\Phi$, $a$, and $\tau_{\mathrm{ion}}$ gives a concrete target for atomistic simulation comparisons.
  • Equation (53) predicts curvature in $\ln\langle A\rangle$ versus $\ln\Phi$ plots; re-analyzing published grain-size versus flux data for such curvature would provide an out-of-sample test of the exponential scaling.
  • If the kinetic-to-thermodynamic anisotropy equivalence holds, substrate symmetry alone sets the faceting onset; comparing columnar-growth thresholds for $n=4$ and $n=6$ materials under identical deposition conditions would isolate that effect.
  • The pressure-independence baseline turns any observed $d\langle A\rangle/dP\neq 0$ into a quantitative probe of collisionless ion transport or radiation-enhanced diffusion, a diagnostic use the paper only gestures at.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims a first-principles statistical-mechanical derivation of plasma-surface coupling and applies a Wilsonian renormalization group analysis to show asymptotic freedom of the effective coupling g=Φa²τ_ion. The derivation is organized as a master Fokker–Planck equation with Liouvillians for sputtering, ripening, plasma kinetics, and coupling; a Mori–Zwanzig projection to a generalized Langevin equation with an exponential memory kernel; and then an effective Edwards–Wilkinson-type Hamiltonian with a (∇h)^4 nonlinearity. The central outputs are the beta function β(g)=−(9/(2πν²))g², the grain-area scaling ⟨A⟩∼exp(κ/g), pressure independence of the grain area, and the faceting criterion Λ_c=1/(n²−1).

Significance. The paper identifies a potentially important target: connecting plasma parameters to film microstructure through a renormalization group framework, and it states several sharp, falsifiable predictions. The faceting criterion, if the kinetic-to-thermodynamic mapping were supplied, would be a useful organizing result, and the pressure-independence statement is a clearly testable claim. However, the central derivation is not carried out: the effective Hamiltonian and the identification g=Φa²τ_ion are posited, not derived from the microscopic Liouvillians, and the beta function is computed for an abstract height-field model. The value of the manuscript therefore rests on an asserted mapping rather than on a demonstrated microscopic result.

major comments (6)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (25)–(26); §III, g=Φa²τ_ion] The effective Hamiltonian (26) is posited, not derived. The Mori–Zwanzig section produces a generalized Langevin equation (13) and a memory kernel (14), but no step maps the plasma Liouvillians (1)–(5) to the coefficient of (∇h)^4 in the Hamiltonian. The identification g=Φa²τ_ion is declared in Section III rather than obtained from the preceding dynamics. Consequently, the beta function (42) governs an abstract Edwards–Wilkinson-type model, and the central claim that plasma-surface interactions exhibit asymptotic freedom is not established by the equations presented.
  2. [§II, Eq. (14)] Equation (14) asserts 𝒦(t)∝e^{−t/τ_ion} on the basis of physical reasoning. This exponential form is not derived from the Mori–Zwanzig projection of the stated Liouvillians, and τ_ion is introduced as the ion collision time without a calculation connecting it to the plasma transport operators. Since τ_ion enters the definition of g and hence all later predictions, the 'first-principles derivation' of the memory kernel is itself an assumption.
  3. [§II, Eq. (36)] There is an internal factor-of-two inconsistency in the derivation of the beta coefficient. Equation (36) writes C=9/(πν²)∫dk/k=9/(2πν²)ln b; the shell integral is ln b, so the two expressions differ by a factor 2. Additionally, Eq. (35) uses C as a constant, while Eq. (36) includes ln b in C itself. The numerical coefficient in Eqs. (41)–(42) is therefore not a reliable consequence of the preceding equations.
  4. [§III, Eq. (55)] The complete scaling relation (55) mixes the exact exponential form (53), ⟨A⟩∝exp(κ/g), with a local power-law approximation g^{−2/(Cg)} without stating the approximation. The recovery of the −1/3 exponent is achieved by setting Cg≈6, which is a post hoc choice keyed to the cited experiments rather than a prediction. The constants κ, C, α, and K are not fixed by the theory, so Eq. (55) does not have the parameter-sparse status claimed for it.
  5. [§III, Eqs. (56)–(58)] The pressure-independence statement (58) follows directly from defining g=Φa²τ_ion together with the assumed scalings Φ∝P and τ_ion∝P^{−1}; these scalings are inputs, not consequences of the derived dynamics. Calling the cancellation 'formally exact' and 'parameter-free' overstates the case, because the result contains no plasma-surface coupling beyond the definition of g and the assumed transport scalings.
  6. [§III, Eqs. (60)–(62)] The faceting threshold (62) rests on the equivalence γ_eff(θ)∝1/v_g(θ) asserted in Eq. (60). Herring's stiffness criterion in Eq. (61) applies to a thermodynamic surface energy, and the paper does not derive that a kinetic boundary velocity maps onto equilibrium stiffness. Without that mapping, the parameter-free prediction Λ_c=1/(n²−1) is not supported by the formalism as presented.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§II, after Eq. (18)] The bullet list contains two identical entries for the τ_ion→0 Markovian limit; one should be removed.
  2. [§III, Eq. (51)–(52)] The Callan–Symanzik equation (51) includes γ(g), but the solution (52) sets γ=0 without comment; if the height-field anomalous dimension is nonzero, the correlation-length scaling in Eq. (53) changes.
  3. [§III, Eq. (55)] The symbol α appears in Eq. (55) without definition; it should be defined or removed.
  4. [§II, Eq. (12)] The equilibrium condition ∇²κ+σκ=0 is not dimensionally consistent as written; the paper should clarify the rescalings or the missing β in that expression.
  5. [§III, Eq. (53)] The symbol κ is used both as the curvature field in Section II and as a positive constant in Eq. (53); distinct notation would avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Two central predictions reduce to the paper's own definitions: the pressure-independence result follows directly from the declared form of g = Φa²τ_ion with Φ ∝ P and τ_ion ∝ P⁻¹, and the recovery of the observed −1/3 exponent is achieved by imposing Cg ≈ 6.

  1. self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (56)-(58), with the definition g = Φa²τ_ion stated in Sections I and III.]
    "The consequence for the dimensionless coupling g = Φa2τion is a direct cancellation of these dependencies. Φ∝ni∝P (56) τion∝(ngσvth)−1∝P−1 (57) Therefore, the coupling g is predicted to be largely independent of pressure."

    Equation (58), (∂⟨A⟩/∂P)_{T,Λ=0} = 0, is presented as a prediction. But it is obtained by inserting the assumed scalings Φ ∝ P and τ_ion ∝ P⁻¹ into the definition g = Φa²τ_ion, so g is pressure-independent by construction. Since Eq. (53) gives ⟨A⟩ ∝ exp(κ/g), pressure independence of g immediately yields pressure independence of ⟨A⟩. No RG flow, Mori-Zwanzig dynamics, or plasma equation of motion is used. The 'prediction' is an algebraic consequence of the definition plus assumed proportionality relations, not of the derived formalism.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section III, after Eq. (54); also reflected in Eq. (55) and the Conclusion.]
    "For instance, widely reported scaling exponents near −1/3 for grain area [1, 29] are recovered within this framework under the condition that Cg ≈ 6. This is not a fine-tuning of the theory, but rather an identification of the specific physical regime probed by those experiments."

    The paper's own derivation gives the effective exponent n_eff = 1/(Cg), so the apparent grain-area exponent is −2n_eff = −2/(Cg). The paper recovers the empirical −1/3 exponent by imposing Cg ≈ 6. Because C contains ν and g = Φa²τ_ion is a declared coupling with no independent microscopic determination, this condition selects the parameter combination to match the data point it claims to explain. Labeling this an 'identification of the physical regime' rather than a fit does not change the fact that the numerical agreement is inserted, not derived.

full rationale

The one-loop beta function calculation for the (∇h)^4 Edwards-Wilkinson-type Hamiltonian in Eqs. (25)-(42) is self-contained as a generic RG calculation, and the plasma-specific interpretation rests on the declared identification g = Φa²τ_ion; that identification is a modeling assumption, a correctness concern, not itself an instance of circularity. However, two of the paper's headline quantitative predictions are circular or fitted. The pressure-independence prediction (Eq. 58) is true by construction once Φ ∝ P and τ_ion ∝ P⁻¹ are substituted into the definition of g. The claimed recovery of the −1/3 grain-area exponent is achieved by setting Cg ≈ 6, i.e., by choosing the theory's parameters in the window that reproduces the observed exponent. No load-bearing self-citation chain appears in the paper; references to Mori-Zwanzig, Edwards-Wilkinson, Herring, and standard RG texts are independent external methods. Because the central asymptotic-freedom result itself is generic and not plasma-derived, while the specifically plasma-facing predictions reduce to definitions or fitted regime choices, the overall circularity score is 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a handful of posited assumptions: an exponential memory kernel, an effective Edwards-Wilkinson Hamiltonian with a (nabla h)^4 coupling, a mapping of that coupling to plasma parameters, and pressure scalings for flux and collision time. The RG and Herring mathematics are standard, but the new plasma-specific content is asserted rather than derived, and the empirical match requires a post hoc choice of the regime Cg approximately 6.

free parameters (4)
  • g (via Cg) = effectively set to 6 in the -1/3 regime
    The match to the observed -1/3 grain-area exponent requires Cg approximately 6 (Eqs. 54-55, Section IV); g itself is not measured or calculated.
  • C = 9/(2 pi nu^2)
    RG coefficient depending on the unspecified surface-stiffness nu; no numerical value is given, so quantitative predictions are not made.
  • kappa = not specified
    Introduced in Eq. (53) as the coefficient in <A> proportional to exp(kappa/g); no expression or value is provided.
  • alpha = not specified
    Appears in Eq. (55) as e^{-|alpha| Lambda}; no derivation or value is given.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The plasma-surface system's state is fully captured by a probability density psi over surface and plasma phase spaces, obeying the master equation (1) with Liouvillians L_sput, L_rip, L_plasma, L_coupling.
    Standard statistical-mechanics setup; required for the Mori-Zwanzig step but not derived.
  • ad hoc to paper The memory kernel for the slow surface variables is exactly K(s) = Gamma e^{-s/tau_ion} (Eq. 14).
    Stated from 'physical reasoning' rather than computed from the plasma autocorrelation; the exponential form underpins the non-Markovian dynamics and subsequent analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective long-wavelength surface Hamiltonian is H = integral d^2x [nu/2 (nabla h)^2 + g (nabla h)^4 + ...] (Eq. 26) with g marginal at tree level.
    This Hamiltonian is posited, not derived from the Mori-Zwanzig equation; it is the input to the RG calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The dimensionless coupling g equals Phi a^2 tau_ion (Section III, 'we define g = Phi a^2 tau_ion').
    The mapping between the RG coupling and plasma parameters is declared, not derived; it is the only place ion flux and collision time enter.
  • domain assumption In collision-dominated plasmas, Phi proportional to P and tau_ion proportional to P^{-1} (Eqs. 56-57).
    Scaling relations taken from plasma textbook physics [20]; they are needed for the pressure-independence prediction.
  • ad hoc to paper Kinetic anisotropy Lambda_k is equivalent to thermodynamic anisotropy Lambda via gamma_eff(theta) proportional to 1/v_g(theta) (Eq. 60).
    The equivalence is argued by a Taylor expansion for small Lambda_k, but not rigorously derived; it is what allows the Herring criterion to be imported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Relations, Morphological Stability, and Asymptotic Freedom of Plasma-Surface Deposition Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPHLR2FB

@misc{pith2026250710645,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Relations, Morphological Stability, and Asymptotic Freedom of Plasma-Surface Deposition Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPHLR2FB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10645}
}
abstract

Connecting plasma processing parameters to the resultant film microstructure remains a fundamental challenge in materials synthesis, one that has largely confined process design to empirical approaches. To bridge this gap, we develop a predictive analysis of coupling by applying a renormalization group (RG) analysis to an effective Hamiltonian for the stochastic dynamics of the plasma-surface interface, derived systematically from microscopic principles. The central result from this formalism is the system's exhibition of asymptotic freedom; the effective dimensionless coupling, $g$, between the plasma and the growing surface is found to weaken systematically at macroscopic length scales, a finding that provides a rigorous justification for the success of continuum-level models in describing large-scale film evolution. The RG framework yields a non-perturbative scaling relation for the mean grain area, $\langle A \rangle \propto \exp(\kappa/g)$, where $g$ itself is defined by fundamental parameters such as ion flux ($\Phi$) and ion collision time ($\tau_{\text{ion}}$). This relation reveals the origin of widely-observed empirical power-law scaling, showing it to be an effective behavior limited to specific process regimes. Crucially, the model furnishes sharp, testable predictions, including the pressure-independence of grain size within collision-dominated plasmas and a parameter-free criterion, $\Lambda_c = 1/(n^2-1)$, for the onset of morphological instability and faceting based on crystal symmetry. This work establishes a quantitative, parameter-sparse engine for predicting and ultimately controlling microstructural outcomes in thin film synthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10645 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Conceptual illustration of the memory kernel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An enhanced illustration of the Mori-Zwanzig projection. The complex dynamics within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The renormalization group (RG) flow diagram. The negative beta function indicates that the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of how an effective power-law scaling emerges. While the true RG analysis predicts [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of the predicted scaling with pressure and anisotropy. For isotropic growth (Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Illustration of the morphological stability transition. (a) For low anisotropy (Λ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The morphological stability phase diagram. The boundary curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Graingrowthinpolycrystallinesilicon

    Abelson,J.R.etal.“Graingrowthinpolycrystallinesilicon.” J. Appl. Phys.67,7422–7427(1990)

    work page 1990

  2. [2]

    Renormalization-group approach to the Edwards-Wilkinson model

    Amar, J. G. & Family, F. “Renormalization-group approach to the Edwards-Wilkinson model.”Phys. Rev. A43,4548–4555(1991)

    work page 1991

  3. [3]

    Thermodynamicsandkineticsinmaterialsscience

    Aziz,M.J.“Thermodynamicsandkineticsinmaterialsscience.” Acta Mater.52,2889–2894(2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Growthmechanismsofpolycrystallinethinfilms

    Barna,P.B.etal.“Growthmechanismsofpolycrystallinethinfilms.” Microsc.Semicond.Mater.Conf. , 381–384(1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Fundamentalstructureformingphenomenaofpolycrystallinefilms

    Barna,P.B.&Adamik,M.“Fundamentalstructureformingphenomenaofpolycrystallinefilms.” Thin Solid Films317,27–33(1999)

    work page 1999

  6. [6]

    Multiscale modeling and design of thin-film deposition

    Braatz, R. D. et al. “Multiscale modeling and design of thin-film deposition.”Annu. Rev. Control28, 87–98(2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Transportprocessesinaplasma

    Braginskii,S.I.“Transportprocessesinaplasma.” Rev. Plasma Phys.1,205–311(1965)

    work page 1965

  8. [8]

    Brokenscaleinvarianceinscalarfieldtheory

    Callan,C.G.“Brokenscaleinvarianceinscalarfieldtheory.” Phys. Rev. D2,1541–1547(1970)

    work page 1970

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Physics of Radio-Frequency Plasmas.CambridgeUniversityPress(2011)

    Chabert,P.&Braithwaite,N. Physics of Radio-Frequency Plasmas.CambridgeUniversityPress(2011)

    2011

  2. [10]

    Thesurfacestatisticsofagranularaggregate

    Edwards,S.F.&Wilkinson,D.R.“Thesurfacestatisticsofagranularaggregate.” Proc.R.Soc.Lond.A 381,17–31(1982). 14

    1982

  3. [11]

    ÜberdievondermolekularkinetischenTheoriederWärmegeforderteBewegungvonin ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen

    A.Einstein,"ÜberdievondermolekularkinetischenTheoriederWärmegeforderteBewegungvonin ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen" (On the movement of small particles suspended in a stationaryliquiddemandedbythemolecular-kinetictheoryofheat). AnnalenderPhysik 17(8),549–560 (1905)

    1905

  4. [12]

    Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group.Addison-Wesley(1992)

    Goldenfeld,N. Lectures on Phase Transitions and the Renormalization Group.Addison-Wesley(1992)

    1992

  5. [13]

    Morphologicalevolutionduringepitaxialgrowth

    Greene,J.E.etal.“Morphologicalevolutionduringepitaxialgrowth.” ThinSolidFilms 449,1–7(2004)

    2004

  6. [14]

    Topography effects on plasma etching

    Hamaguchi, S. & Dalvie, M. “Topography effects on plasma etching.”Phys. Rev. E56, R4931–R4934 (1997)

    1997

  7. [15]

    Surfacetensionasamotivationforsintering

    Herring,C.“Surfacetensionasamotivationforsintering.” Phys. Rev.82,87–93(1951)

    1951

  8. [16]

    Statistical Physics of Fields.CambridgeUniversityPress(2007)

    Kardar,M. Statistical Physics of Fields.CambridgeUniversityPress(2007)

    2007

  9. [17]

    Time-resolved surface scattering of metal clusters

    Knoesel, E. et al. “Time-resolved surface scattering of metal clusters.”Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 4580–4583 (1998)

    1998

  10. [18]

    Originsofscaleinvarianceingrowthprocesses

    Krug,J.“Originsofscaleinvarianceingrowthprocesses.” Adv. Phys.46,139–282(1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    Fourlecturesonthephysicsofcrystalgrowth

    Krug,J.“Fourlecturesonthephysicsofcrystalgrowth.” Physica A340,647–659(2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    Principles of Plasma Discharges and Materials Processing.Wiley (2005)

    Lieberman,M.A.&Lichtenberg,A.J. Principles of Plasma Discharges and Materials Processing.Wiley (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    Surfacediffusionandislandgrowthduringhyperthermaldeposition

    Mayr,S.G.&Averback,R.S.“Surfacediffusionandislandgrowthduringhyperthermaldeposition.” Phys. Rev. B64,201403(2001)

    2001

  14. [22]

    Phasediagramsforbinaryalloyfilms

    Mayr,S.G.etal.“Phasediagramsforbinaryalloyfilms.” Phys. Rev. B68,195405(2003)

    2003

  15. [23]

    Revised structure zone model for thin film structure

    Messier, R. et al. “Revised structure zone model for thin film structure.”J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A12, 1810–1815(1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Transport,collectivemotion,andBrownianmotion

    Mori,H.“Transport,collectivemotion,andBrownianmotion.” Prog. Theor. Phys.33,423–455(1965)

    1965

  17. [25]

    Theoryofthermalgrooving

    Mullins,W.W.“Theoryofthermalgrooving.” J. Appl. Phys.28,333–339(1957)

    1957

  18. [26]

    Flattening of a nearly plane solid surface due to capillarity

    Mullins, W. W. “Flattening of a nearly plane solid surface due to capillarity.”J. Appl. Phys.30, 77–83 (1959)

    1959

  19. [27]

    Hardnanocompositecoatings: Thermalstability,oxidationresistanceandtoughness

    Musil,J.“Hardnanocompositecoatings: Thermalstability,oxidationresistanceandtoughness.” Surf. Coat. Technol.201,5148–5152(2006)

    2006

  20. [28]

    Mechanical Properties of Materials.Springer(2012)

    Pelleg,J. Mechanical Properties of Materials.Springer(2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Microstructural evolution during film growth

    Petrov, I. et al. “Microstructural evolution during film growth.”J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A21, S117–S128 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Particledensityeffectsinmagnetrons

    Rossnagel,S.M.etal.“Particledensityeffectsinmagnetrons.” J.Vac.Sci.Technol.A 21,236–241(2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Computersimulationofgraingrowth

    Rosten,H.I.&Spalding,D.B.“Computersimulationofgraingrowth.” ActaMetall. 36,269–280(1988)

    1988

  24. [32]

    Thin-filmsiliconsolarcelltechnology

    Shah,A.etal.“Thin-filmsiliconsolarcelltechnology.” Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl.7,39–50(1999)

    1999

  25. [33]

    Theoryofsputtering.I.Sputteringyieldofamorphousandpolycrystallinetargets

    Sigmund,P.“Theoryofsputtering.I.Sputteringyieldofamorphousandpolycrystallinetargets.” Phys. Rev.184,383–416(1969)

    1969

  26. [34]

    Mori-Zwanzigformalismforgeneralrelativity: Anewapproachto theaveragingproblem

    Tewari,S.&Bhattacharjee,A.K.“Mori-Zwanzigformalismforgeneralrelativity: Anewapproachto theaveragingproblem.” Phys. Rev. D102,084035(2020). 15

    2020

  27. [35]

    Stressandgraingrowthinthinfilms

    Thompson,C.V.&Carel,R.“Stressandgraingrowthinthinfilms.” J. Mech. Phys. Solids44,657–673 (1977)

    1977

  28. [36]

    Structureoffilmsdepositedbysputtering

    Thornton,J.A.“Structureoffilmsdepositedbysputtering.” Thin Solid Films40,335–344(1977)

    1977

  29. [37]

    Introduction to Surface and Thin Film Processes.CambridgeUniversityPress(2000)

    Venables,J.A. Introduction to Surface and Thin Film Processes.CambridgeUniversityPress(2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    Renormalizationgroupandcriticalphenomena

    Wilson,K.G.“Renormalizationgroupandcriticalphenomena.” Phys. Rev. B4,3174–3183(1971)

    1971

  31. [39]

    The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem

    Wilson, K. G. “The renormalization group: Critical phenomena and the Kondo problem.”Rev. Mod. Phys.47,773–840(1975)

    1975

  32. [40]

    Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena.OxfordUniversityPress(2002)

    Zinn-Justin,J. Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena.OxfordUniversityPress(2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Memoryeffectsinirreversiblethermodynamics

    Zwanzig,R.“Memoryeffectsinirreversiblethermodynamics.” Phys. Rev.124,983–992(1961)

    1961

  34. [42]

    Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics.OxfordUniversityPress(2001)

    Zwanzig,R. Nonequilibrium Statistical Mechanics.OxfordUniversityPress(2001). 16

    2001

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.