\section*{\label{sec:sec1}1. Introduction}

The nucleation which occurs within the bulk metastable material is called {\it homogeneous nucleation}~\cite{Kelton10,Oxtoby88}.  However, it is frequently assisted by the presence of a surface.  Nucleation in this case is called {\it heterogeneous nucleation}~\cite{Kelton10,Oxtoby88,Turnbull49,Fletcher58,Gretz66,Scheludko81,Joanny86,Lazaridis93,Winter09}.  In the case of vapor to liquid nucleation, for example, a liquid droplet of semi-spherical shape will be formed on the substrate which attracts liquid within the {\it oversaturated} vapor.  The shape of this critical nucleus of the liquid is characterized by the apparent contact angle $\theta_{a}$ shown in Fig.~1.

The nucleation is characterized by the nucleation rate $J$, which is the number of critical nuclei formed per unit time per unit volume.  Usually it is written in Arrhenius activation form
\begin{equation}
J = A \exp\left(-\frac{W}{k_{\rm B}T}\right)
\label{Eq:1x}
\end{equation}
where $A$ is a kinetic pre-exponential factor which is believed to be weakly dependent on temperature $T$, $k_{\rm B}$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $W$ is the reversible work of formation of critical nucleus

According to classical nucleation theory (CNT)~\cite{Turnbull49}, the work of formation (free energy barrier) of heterogeneous nucleation $W_{\rm hetero}$ is expressed using the apparent contact angle $\theta_{a}$ and the free energy barrier $W_{\rm homo}$ of the homogeneous nucleation as
\begin{equation}
W_{\rm hetero} = W_{\rm homo}f\left(\theta_{a}\right),
\label{Eq:2x}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
f\left(\theta_{a}\right)=\left(\theta_{a}-\cos\theta_{a}\sin\theta_{a}\right)/\pi
\label{Eq:3x}
\end{equation}
for the two-dimensional semi-cylindrical nucleus, and
\begin{equation}
f\left(\theta_{a}\right)=\left(1-\cos\theta_{a}\right)^{2}\left(2+\cos\theta_{a}\right)/4.
\label{Eq:4x}
\end{equation}
for the three-dimensional axi-symmetric semi-spherical nucleus.  The contact angle $\theta_{a}$ characterizes the interaction between the liquid and substrate.  When $\pi>\theta_{a}>0$ the liquid is said to incompletely wet the substrate.  When $\theta_{a}=0$, the liquid is said to completely wet the substrate.
Since $0< f\left(\theta_{a}\right)<1$, the presence of the substrate enhances the nucleation rate (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:1x})) when the liquid incompletely wets the substrate ($\pi>\theta_{a}>0$) as $W_{\rm hetero}<W_{\rm homo}$.  In a completely wettable substrate where the liquid completely wets the substrate ($\theta_{a}=0$), CNT predicts that no nucleation barrier exists ($W_{\rm hetero}=0$) as $f\left(\theta_{a}=0\right)=0$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig1bk.eps}
\caption{
An ideal critical nucleus of heterogeneous nucleation on a substrate.  The apparent contact angle $\theta_{a}$ is defined as the angle at the intersection of the cylindrical or spherical droplet surface with an effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$ and height $L$ from the substrate with a wetting layer of thickness $l_{e}$.
}
\label{fig:1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

This heterogeneous nucleation of a new bulk phase on a flat substrate can be associated with the surface phase transition called wetting transition as both phase transitions can occur on the same surface~\cite{Talanquer96}.  In fact, there exists a critical nucleus and a free energy barrier if the first-order so-called prewetting transition~\cite{Dietrich88,Bonn01,Bonn09} can occur on a completely-wettable substrate.  This transition occurs in the undersaturated vapor and separates states of thin and thick liquid films on a completely-wettable substrate with the zero contact angle. The shape of the critical nucleus is flat and pancake-like~\cite{Joanny86b}, and cannot be characterized simply by a contact angle.  Therefore, in contrast to the prediction of CNT, the critical nucleus and the free energy barrier for heterogeneous nucleation can exist even if the substrate is completely-wettable and the contact angle $\theta_{a}=0$ (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:2x})). By varying the chemical potential or the vapor pressure from undersaturation to oversaturation, the droplet changes character from the critical nucleus of the prewetting surface phase transition to that of the vapor to liquid bulk phase transition.  Recently, Sear~\cite{Sear08} has shown by a direct numerical calculation of the nucleation rate that the nucleus "does not notice" this change when it crosses the coexistence.

In this paper, we summarize the previous study~\cite{Iwamatsu2011} and the morphology and the work of formation of a critical nucleus rather than the nucleation rate~\cite{Sear08} on a completely-wettable flat and spherical substrates are re-examined across the coexistence using the interface-displacement model (IDM).  This model has been successfully used for studying wetting phenomena~\cite{Dietrich88,Bonn01,Bonn09}, line tensions~\cite{Indekeu92,Dobbs93} and even layering transitions~\cite{Iwamatsu98}.   In fact, various properties of critical nucleus of prewetting transition rather than that of the bulk critical nucleus have already been studied~\cite{Bausch92,Bausch93,Blossey95,Bausch96,Nakanishi82,Blockhuis95}.  However other authors paid most attention to the nucleation of wetting transition in the undersaturated vapor {\it below} the bulk coexistence.  In fact, the heterogeneous nucleation of bulk phase transition occurs in the oversaturated vapor {\it above} the bulk coexistence.  Therefore, we will pay attention to those properties which are relevant to the bulk heterogeneous nucleation.  In this case only a few authors such as Talanquer and Oxtoby~\cite{Talanquer96} and Sear~\cite{Sear08} have considered such properties.

\section*{2. Interface-displacement model}

Within the interface displacement model (IDM) in $d$-dimensional space the free energy $\Omega$ of a liquid film of local thickness $l\left({\bf x}\right)$ is given by~\cite{Wyart91,Bauer99,Yeh99,Dobbs99,Starov09,Bausch92,Bausch93,Blossey95}
\begin{equation}
\Omega\left[l\right]=\int\left[\gamma \left(\left(1+ \left(\nabla l\right)^{2}\right)^{1/2}-1\right)+V\left( l\right)-\mu l\right]d^{d-1}x,
\label{Eq:5x}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma$ is the liquid-vapor surface tension, $V\left(l\right)$ is the effective interface potential~\cite{Derjaguin87,Dietrich88,Bonn09,Dietrich91} from the substrate,  and $\mu$ denotes the deviation of the chemical potential from liquid-vapor coexistence such that $\mu=0$ is the bulk coexistence and for $\mu>0$ the vapor is oversaturated. In Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}) we keep the nonlinear dependence on $\nabla l$. The morphology and the apparent contact angle $\theta_{a}$ of the critical nucleus of heterogeneous nucleation will be determined by minimizing Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}).

Sometimes it is useful to consider the full potential $\phi(l)$, which includes the chemical potential $\mu$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\phi(l)=V(l)-\mu l.
\label{Eq:6x}
\end{equation}
instead of the effective interface potential $V\left(l\right)$.  This full potential $\phi(l)$ depends not only on the chemical potential $\mu$ but also on the temperature $T$.  Figure \ref{fig:2} shows typical shapes of the full potential $\phi(l)$ of a completely-wettable substrate.  The full potential $\phi(l)$ exhibits double-well shape typical of the first-order surface phase transition, and its two minimums at $l_{e}$ and at $L_{e}$ correspond to the metastable thin and the stable thick wetting films.  Figure~\ref{fig:2} indicates that the thick wetting film becomes infinitely thick ($L_{e}=\infty$) when $\mu\ge 0$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig2bk.eps}
\caption{
Typical shapes of the full potential $\phi\left(l\right)$ as a function of the film thickness $l$. Reduced full potential $\tilde{\phi}(\tilde{l})$ (Eq.(\ref{Eq:23x})), which will be defined in section 3, as a function of the reduced film thickness $\tilde{l}$ (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:24x})) of a completely-wettable substrate for various reduced chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$ (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:24x})). (I) at the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$ ($\tilde{\mu}_{\rm p}=-0.00299$) where a thin film and thick film coexist, (II) below the bulk coexistence and above the prewetting line $0>\mu>\mu_{\rm p}$ ($\tilde{\mu}=-0.0015$) where the thick film is stable, (III) at the bulk coexistence $\mu=0$ ($\tilde{\mu}=0.0000$) where the thick film becomes infinitely thick, (IV) above the bulk coexistence $\mu>0$ ($\tilde{\mu}=+0.0015$) where the vapor is oversaturated and the bulk liquid phase becomes stable. The $d=2$-dimensional droplet height $L$ is determined from the energy conservation law (\ref{Eq:18x}).
}
\label{fig:2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

The schematic surface phase diagram is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} in the $T$-$\mu$ (temperature-chemical potential) plane~\cite{Bonn01,Bonn09,Indekeu92,Dobbs93,Bausch92,Blossey95}.  Since the local minimum $V\left(l_{e}\right)$ at $l_{e}$ is related to the spreading coefficient $S$ and the temperature $T$ through~\cite{Bausch92,Blossey95}
\begin{equation}
\phi\left(l_{e}\right)=S\propto T-T_{\rm w},
\label{Eq:7x}
\end{equation}
where $T_{\rm w}$ is the wetting temperature, and $S$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
S=\gamma_{\rm sv}-\gamma_{\rm sl}-\gamma,
\label{Eq:8x}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_{\rm sv}$ and $\gamma_{\rm sl}$ are the substrate-vapor and the substrate-liquid interfacial tensions, the first-order wetting transition from the incomplete wetting of a thin liquid film with thickness $l_{e}$ ($\phi\left(l_{e}\right)<0=\phi\left(l=\infty\right)$) to the complete wetting of an infinite thickness with $l=\infty$ ($\phi\left(l_{e}\right)>0=\phi\left(l=\infty\right)$) will occur at the wetting transition point W at $T=T_{\rm w}$ (wetting temperature) along $\mu=0^{-}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}. From the Young's formula
\begin{equation}
\gamma\cos\theta_{a}=\gamma_{\rm sv}-\gamma_{\rm sl}
\label{Eq:9x}
\end{equation}
we have
\begin{equation}
\cos\theta_{a}=1+\frac{S}{\gamma}.
\label{Eq:10x}
\end{equation}
Therefore the apparent contact angle vanishes ($\theta_{a}=0$) in the complete-wetting regime with $S\ge 0$, and so does the free-energy barrier Eq.~(\ref{Eq:2x}).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{fig3bk.eps}
\caption{
Schematic surface phase diagram in the spreading coefficient $S$ or the temperature $T$ and chemical potential $\mu$ plane.  The horizontal line $\mu=0$ corresponds to the bulk coexistence line, on which at the wetting transition point W with $S=0$ ($T=T_{\rm w}$) a first-order wetting transition occurs.  The prewetting transition line $\mu_{\rm p}$ starts at W and terminates at the prewetting critical point PW.  Above this prewetting line and below the bulk coexistence ($0>\mu>\mu_{\rm p}$), the stable state is a thick film.  The thickness diverges at the bulk coexistence and this infinitely thick film becomes bulk liquid phase above the coexistence ($\mu\ge 0$).  A large arrow indicates the route of the isothermal heterogeneous nucleation on a completely-wettable substrate.}
\label{fig:3}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Next, we will discuss the surface phase diagram in the complete-wetting regime ($S>0, \;\;T>T_{\rm w}$).  In this regime, the prewetting transition $\mu_{\rm p}(T)$($<0$) line appears below the bulk coexistence line $\mu=0$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:3}). At the prewetting chemical potential $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$, the full potential $\phi(l)$ has double-minimum shape with the same depth shown as the curve (I) in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, which satisfies
\begin{equation}
\phi\left(l_{e}\right) = \phi\left(L_{e}\right),
\label{Eq:11x}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left.\frac{d\phi}{dl}\right|_{l_{e}} = \left.\frac{d\phi}{dl}\right|_{L_{e}}=0.
\label{Eq:12x}
\end{equation}
Then the thin (thickness $l_{e}$) and the thick (thickness $L_{e}$) wetting films can coexist at $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}<0$, which plays the role of bulk coexistence $\mu=0$ for the heterogeneous nucleation in the complete-wetting regime ($T>T_{\rm w}$). When the chemical potential is increased ($0>\mu>\mu_{\rm p}$) along the arrow indicated in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}, the thick film with thickness $L_{e}$ becomes stable and the thin film with $l_{e}$ becomes metastable above the prewetting line  ($\phi\left(L_{e}\right)<\phi\left(l_{e}\right)$, curve (II) in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}). At and above the bulk coexistence $\mu\geq 0$ along the arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}, the thickness of the stable thick film diverges (curves (III) and (IV) in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}).  Finally, the  metastable thin film loses stability at the upper-spinodal  $\mu=\mu_{\rm sp}^{+}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3}.

\section*{3. Nucleation on a completely-wettable flat substrate}

\subsection*{3.1 $d=2$-dimensional nucleus}
Based on the phase diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3} and the morphology of the potential $\phi(l)$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}, we can discuss the morphology and the work of formation of the critical nucleus on a completely-wettable substrate where the apparent contact angle vanishes ($\theta_{a}=0$).

For a $d=2$-dimensional cylindrical droplet, the Euler-Lagrange equation for the free energy given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}) is simplified to~\cite{Bauer99,Yeh99,Dobbs99,Starov09}
\begin{equation}
\frac{\gamma l_{xx}}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{3/2}}=\frac{d\phi}{dl},
\label{Eq:14x}
\end{equation}
where $l_{xx}=d^{2}l/dx^{2}$.  Equation (\ref{Eq:14x}) could be considered as a kind of equation of motion for a classical particle moving in a potential $-\phi(l)$.

Equation (\ref{Eq:14x}) can be integrated once to give
\begin{equation}
\frac{-\gamma}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}}=-\gamma\cos\theta\left( l\right)=V\left(l\right)-\mu l+C,
\label{Eq:15x}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is the integration constant and $\cos\theta\left( l\right)$ is the cosine of the angle $\theta(l)$ made between the tangential line of the liquid-vapor surface at the height $l(x)$ and the substrate~\cite{Yeh99}.

Near the substrate, since the liquid-vapor interface will smoothly connect to the surrounding thin liquid film of thickness $l=l_{e}$ with $\theta\left(l_{e}\right)=0$, the integration constant $C$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:15x}) will be given by $C=-\gamma-V\left( l_{e}\right)+\mu l_{e}$, and the liquid-vapor interface will be determined from
\begin{equation}
\frac{-\gamma}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}}=\left(V\left(l\right)-V\left( l_{e}\right)\right)-\mu\left(l-l_{e}\right)-\gamma.
\label{Eq:16x}
\end{equation}
Similarly, at the top of the droplet with a height $l=L$, we have again $\theta\left(L\right)=0$ at $l=L$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:2}), and the liquid-vapor interface will be determined from an equation similar to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:16x}) with $l_{e}$ replaced by $L$:
\begin{equation}
\frac{-\gamma}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}}=\left(V\left(l\right)-V\left( L\right)\right)-\mu\left(l-L\right)-\gamma.
\label{Eq:17x}
\end{equation}
Since Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:16x}) and (\ref{Eq:17x}) must be identical, we have
\begin{equation}
V\left(l_{e}\right)-\mu l_{e} = V\left( L\right)-\mu L,\;\;\;\mbox{or}\;\;\;\phi\left(l_{e}\right)=\phi\left(L\right),
\label{Eq:18x}
\end{equation}
which is similar to the energy conservation law for a classical particle whose pseudo-equation of motion is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:14x}) moving in a potential $-\phi(l)$.  Then, the height $L$ of the $d=2$-dimensional cylindrical droplet can be determined from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:18x})~\cite{Dobbs93}.  Equations (\ref{Eq:17x}) and (\ref{Eq:18x}) can also be transformed into a single expression using the disjoining pressure~\cite{Derjaguin87,Boinovich2011}.

Therefore a cylindrical droplet can exist even on a completely-wettable substrate with $\theta_{a}=0$.  Also, it exists even in an {\it undersaturated} vapor below the bulk coexistence and above the prewetting line  ($0>\mu>\mu_{\rm p}$) in the thick film phase (Fig.~\ref{fig:3}). In this thick film phase, the droplet is not the critical nucleus of the bulk phase transition, but is in fact the {\it critical nucleus} of the thin-thick {\it surface phase transition}. This critical nucleus is expected to transform continuously into the {\it critical nucleus} of the {\it bulk phase transition} above the bulk coexistence ($\mu_{\rm sp}^{+}>\mu>0$) when the chemical potential crosses the coexistence $\mu=0$.  In contrast, it must be noted that the critical nucleus, and therefore, a spherical droplet, can exist on an incompletely-wettable substrate only in an {\it oversaturated} vapor~\cite{Boinovich2009}.

In order to study the film thickness $l_{e}$, $L_{e}$ and the droplet height $L$ more quantitatively, a model interface potential given by
\begin{equation}
V\left(l\right)=V_{0}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{l_{0}}{l}\right)^{2} - \frac{1+b}{3}\left(\frac{l_{0}}{l}\right)^{3} + \frac{b}{4}\left(\frac{l_{0}}{l}\right)^{4}\right)
\label{Eq:19x}
\end{equation}
is used, where $l_{0}$ is a typical thickness of the thin film, and $V_{0}>0$ plays the role of the so-called Hamaker constant~\cite{Israelachvili92,Iwamatsu98} $A_{\rm slv}$ of the substrate-liquid-vapor system through
\begin{equation}
\frac{V_{0}l_{0}^{2}}{2}=\frac{A_{\rm slv}}{12\pi}.
\label{Eq:20x}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{Eq:19x}) is derived from the long-ranged potential of the form $v\left(r\right)\sim 1/r^{n}, n=6, 7, 8$, but a more general form will be required to study real situation~\cite{Boinovich2011}.  Since, we are most interested in conceptual problem of the possibility of droplet on a completely-wettable substrate, we will use the simplest form in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:19x}).

The parameter $b$ plays the role of the temperature that controls the transition from incomplete- to complete-wetting.  Since the two minima of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:19x}) are located at $l/l_{0}=1$ and $l/l_{0}=\infty$, and the spreading coefficient $S$ is related to the parameter $b$ through
\begin{equation}
S=V\left(l_{e}\right)=V_{0}\frac{2-b}{12},
\label{Eq:21x}
\end{equation}
a complete wetting with $S>0$ is achieved when $b<2$.  We use the potential parameter $b=1.7$ in the completely-wetting regime, which has already been used in Fig.~\ref{fig:2}.

From Eq.~(\ref{Eq:19x}), the full potential (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:6x})) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\phi\left(l\right) = V_{0} \tilde{\phi}\left(\tilde{l}\right)
\label{Eq:22x}
\end{equation}
using non-dimensional reduced potential $\tilde{\phi}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\phi}\left(\tilde{l}\right)=\frac{1}{2\tilde{l}^{2}}-\frac{1+b}{3\tilde{l}^{3}}+\frac{b}{4\tilde{l}^{4}}-\tilde{\mu}\tilde{l},
\label{Eq:23x}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mu}=\frac{\mu l_{0}}{V_{0}},\;\;\;\tilde{l} = \frac{l}{l_{0}}.
\label{Eq:24x}
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{fig:3-2} shows the typical shapes of surface potential $V$ (reduced potential $\tilde{\phi}$ at $\mu=0$) for various $b$ when $\mu=0$ (liquid-vapor coexistence) in complete and incomplete wetting regimes.  In Fig.~\ref{fig:2} we have already shown the reduced potential $\tilde{\phi}$ in the complete-wetting regime for various reduced chemical potentials $\tilde{\mu}$ below the bulk coexistence $\tilde{\mu}=0$ and above the prewetting $\tilde{\mu}_{\rm p}$.  We set $b=1.7$ for which the prewetting chemical potential is given by $\tilde{\mu}_{\rm p}=-0.00299$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig4bk.eps}
\caption{
The reduced surface potential $V(l)/V_{0}$ for various $b$ which corresponds to complete to incomplete wetting regimes. }
\label{fig:3-2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:4} shows the reduced stable thick film thickness $\tilde{L}_{e}=L_{e}/l_{0}$, the metastable thin film thickness $\tilde{l}_{e}=l_{e}/l_{0}$, and the droplet height $\tilde{L}=L/l_{0}$ of the $d=2$-dimensional cylindrical nucleus determined from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:18x}) in the complete wetting regime with $b=1.7$. The droplet height $L$ must be equal to the thick film thickness $L_{e}$ and remain finite at the prewetting line ($\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$).  We observe that all physical quantities change continuously at the bulk coexistence ($\mu=0$) when the chemical potential $\mu$ is increased from negative ($\mu<0$, undersaturation) to positive ($\mu>0$, oversaturation).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig5bk.eps}
\caption{
The stable thick film thickness $\tilde{L}_{e}=L/l_{0}$ and the metastable thin film thickness $\tilde{l}_{e}=l_{e}/l_{0}$ calculated from the model interface potential Eq.~(\ref{Eq:23x}).  The droplet height $\tilde{L}=L/l_{0}$ of the $d=2$-dimensional (2D) cylindrical nucleus determined from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:18x}) and that of the $d=3$-dimensional (3D) semi-spherical nucleus that will be determined from the boundary value problem of the Euler-Lagrange equation (\ref{Eq:47x}) in the next subsection are also shown.  }
\label{fig:4}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Using the expansion $V\left(l\right)-V\left( L\right)\simeq (l-L)\left.(dV/dl)\right|_{l=L}$, we have from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:17x})
\begin{equation}
\frac{-\gamma}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}}=\left(\left.\frac{dV}{dl}\right|_{l=L}-\mu\right)\left(l-L\right)-\gamma
\label{Eq:25x}
\end{equation}
near the top of the droplet $l\simeq L$.  If the effective chemical potential defined by
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\rm eff}=-\left.\frac{dV}{dl}\right|_{l=L}+\mu =-\left.\frac{d\phi}{dl}\right|_{l=L}
\label{Eq:26x}
\end{equation}
at the droplet top with height $L$ is positive, then the solution of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:17x}) near the top of the droplet is given by a semi-circular shape (Fig.~\ref{fig:1})
\begin{equation}
l=\sqrt{R_{\rm eff}^2-x^2}-\left(R_{\rm eff}-L\right)
\label{Eq:28x}
\end{equation}
where $R_{\rm eff}-L$ is the shift of the base of circular interface.  The effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$ is given by the Kelvin-Laplace formula~\cite{Joanny86}
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm eff}=\frac{\gamma}{\mu_{\rm eff}}.
\label{Eq:29x}
\end{equation}

At the prewetting $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$, the effective chemical potential $\mu_{\rm eff}$ vanishes
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\rm eff}=-\left.\frac{dV}{dl}\right|_{l=L}+\mu_{\rm p}=0
\label{Eq:30x}
\end{equation}
from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:12x}) since $L=L_{e}$.  Hence, the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$ acts as an effective or a shifted bulk coexistence with $\mu_{\rm eff}=0$ for the critical nucleus.  In fact, Blossey~\cite{Blossey95} has noted that the $d$-dimensional prewetting line corresponds to the $(d-1)$-dimensional bulk coexistence line.

From Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:26x}) and (\ref{Eq:30x}), the effective chemical potential $\mu_{\rm eff}$ is approximately written as
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\rm eff}\simeq \left(1-\left(\left.\frac{dL}{d\mu}\right|_{\mu=\mu_{\rm p}}\right)\left(\left.\frac{d^{2}V}{dl^{2}}\right|_{l=L}\right)\right)\left(\mu-\mu_{\rm p}\right)
\label{Eq:31x}
\end{equation}
near the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$, and the radius $R_{\rm eff}$ [Eq.~(\ref{Eq:29x})] of the curvature at the top of the droplets diverges as
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm eff}=\frac{\gamma}{\mu_{\rm eff}}\propto\frac{\gamma}{\mu-\mu_{\rm p}}
\label{Eq:32x}
\end{equation}
at the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$.  We note that the effective chemical potential $\mu_{\rm eff}$ and, hence, the effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$ (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:29x})) at the top of the droplet change continuously at the bulk coexistence ($\mu=0$).  Physically, the undersaturated vapor turns to an effectively oversaturated vapor due to the effective interface potential of the substrate which prefers to attract vapor to form a thick wetting film.

The lateral size and the liquid-vapor interface of the droplets can only be studied quantitatively by solving the Euler-Lagrange equation (\ref{Eq:14x}), which can be done using the standard numerical method such as the Runge-Kutta method. To this end, we have to fix the parameter $V_{0}/\gamma$ which can be expressed by using the Hamakar constant $A_{\rm slv}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:20x}) and $A_{\rm lvl}$ by
\begin{equation}
\frac{V_{0}}{\gamma}=-\frac{4D_{0}^{2}A_{\rm slv}}{l_{0}^{2}A_{\rm lvl}},
\label{Eq:33x}
\end{equation}
where an empirical formula~\cite{Israelachvili92}
\begin{equation}
\gamma = \frac{A_{\rm lvl}}{24\pi D_{0}^{2}}
\label{Eq:34x}
\end{equation}
with $D_{0}=0.165$nm is used. Suppose we tentatively set $l_{0}=2D_{0}$, and using the combining relationship~\cite{Israelachvili92,Iwamatsu98}
\begin{eqnarray}
A_{\rm slv} &=& -\sqrt{A_{\rm ll}}\left(\sqrt{A_{\rm ss}}-\sqrt{A_{\rm ll}}\right),
\nonumber \\
A_{\rm lvl} &=& A_{\rm ll},
\label{Eq:35x}
\end{eqnarray}
we have
\begin{equation}
\frac{V_{0}}{\gamma} \sim \frac{A_{\rm slv}}{A_{\rm \rm lvl}} \sim \frac{\sqrt{A_{\rm ss}}-\sqrt{A_{\rm ll}}}{\sqrt{A_{\rm ll}}},
\label{Eq:36x}
\end{equation}
which will be $V_{0}/\gamma\sim 0.1-10$ using typical values of $A_{\rm ss}$ and $A_{\rm ll}$~\cite{Iwamatsu98}. By using the scaled quantities $\tilde{\mu}_{\rm eff}=\mu_{\rm eff}l_{0}/V_{0}$ and $\tilde{R}_{\rm eff}=R_{\rm eff}/l_{0}$, Eq.~(\ref{Eq:29x}) can be written as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{R}_{\rm eff} = \frac{1}{\left(V_{0}/\gamma\right)\tilde{\mu}_{\rm eff}}.
\label{Eq:37x}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the lateral size of nucleus which is roughly determined from $R_{\rm eff}$ is in inverse proportion to $V_{0}/\gamma$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig6bk.eps}
\caption{
The droplet shape numerically determined from the simplified Euler-Lagrange equation Eq.~(\ref{Eq:14x}) using the Runge-Kutta method (solid curves) compared with the ideal semi-circular shape given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:28x}) (broken curves) (I') near the prewetting line ($\tilde{\mu}=-0.0029$), (II) below the bulk coexistence and above the prewetting line $0>\mu>\mu_{\rm p}$ ($\tilde{\mu}=-0.0015$), (III) at the bulk coexistence $\mu=0$ ($\tilde{\mu}=0.0000$), (IV) above the bulk coexistence $\mu>0$ ($\tilde{\mu}=+0.0015$).  Only a right half of the droplet is shown.  Note the very flat droplet shape suggested from the scale of the vertical and the horizontal axes.  }
\label{fig:6}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:6} compares numerically determined $d=2$-dimensional cylindrical droplet shapes with the ideal semi-circular shapes (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:28x})) with the height $L$ and the effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$ calculated from Eqs.~(\ref{Eq:18x}) and (\ref{Eq:29x}) when $V_{0}/\gamma=0.5$.  The droplet shape deviates significantly from an ideal circular shape and becomes very flat, in particular, below the bulk coexistence $\mu<0$.  This shape is called a pancake~\cite{Joanny86b} as the chemical potential is decreased down to the prewetting line $\mu_{\rm p}$.  The size of the critical pancake is finite even at the prewetting line (Fig.~\ref{fig:6}) even though the effective radius $R_{\rm eff}$ diverges (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:32x})).

It is possible to define an effective contact angle $\theta_{\rm eff}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:6}) of a droplet on a completely-wettable substrate by extrapolating the semi-circular shape (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:28x})) down to the surface of the thin film with thickness $l_{e}$. From the geometrical consideration shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:1}, we find
\begin{equation}
\cos\theta_{\rm eff}=1-\frac{L}{R_{\rm eff}}=1-\frac{\mu_{\rm eff}L}{\gamma}.
\label{Eq:38x}
\end{equation}
from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:29x}).  Therefore, the effective contact angle is very small ($\theta_{\rm eff}\ll 1$) since $l\ll R_{\rm eff}$ and will vanish ($\theta_{\rm eff}\rightarrow 0$) at the prewetting line because $L\rightarrow L_{e}$ and $R_{\rm eff}\rightarrow \infty$ as $\mu\rightarrow \mu_{\rm p}$ from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:32x}).

The work of formation $W$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:1x}) can be calculated by inserting the droplet profile in Fig.~\ref{fig:6} obtained from the Euler-Lagrange equation (\ref{Eq:14x}) into Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}) with $d=2$ and subtracting the contribution from the wetting film with thickness $l_{e}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
W &=& \int\left[\gamma \left(\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}-1\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&+& \left. \left(V\left(l\right)-\mu l\right) - \left(V\left(l_{e}\right)-\mu l_{e}\right) \right]dx,
\label{Eq:39x}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be rewritten using Eq.~(\ref{Eq:16x}) as~\cite{Dobbs93}
\begin{eqnarray}
W &=& \int_{l=l_{e}}^{l=L} \frac{\gamma l_{x}}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}} dl,
\nonumber \\
&=& \int_{l=l_{e}}^{l=L} \left(2\gamma\Delta\phi\left(l\right)-\Delta\phi\left(l\right)^{2}\right)^{1/2} dl,
\label{Eq:40x}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta\phi\left(l\right)=\phi\left(l\right)-\phi\left(l_{e}\right)=\phi\left(l\right)-\phi\left(L\right).
\label{Eq:41x}
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{Eq:40x}) is also known as the {\it line tension}~\cite{Indekeu92,Dobbs93,Dobbs99}.  Here we interpret this energy as the work of formation of the critical nucleus on a completely-wettable substrate.  Intuitively, the critical nucleus in the complete-wetting regime is approximated by a thin flat disk (cf. Fig.~\ref{fig:6}) and its free energy is given only by the line tension of its perimeter.

The reduced work of formation $\tilde{W}=W/\gamma$ from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:40x}) as a function of the reduced chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:7}. In this complete-wetting regime, the work of formation $W$ does not vanish and, therefore, does not agree with the prediction of CNT which suggests $W=0$.  Furthermore, it changes continuously even at the bulk coexistence at $\mu=0$ though the character of the droplet changes from the critical nucleus of the prewetting surface phase transition below bulk coexistence $\mu_{\rm p}<\mu<0$ to the critical nucleus of the heterogeneous bulk phase transition above the bulk coexistence $\mu>0$.  A more detailed discussion on the continuity of the work of formation $W$ as well as that of the derivatives $d^{n}W/d\mu^{n}$ at $\mu=0$ was given in the previous paper~\cite{Iwamatsu2011}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig7bk.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The reduced work of formation $\tilde{W}=W/\gamma$ calculated from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:40x})  in the complete-wetting regime. }
\label{fig:7}
\end{figure}

This work of formation $W$ approaches a finite value at the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:7}) for the $d=2$-dimensional droplet as the integral (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:40x})) remains finite.  For such a flat nucleus (Fig.~\ref{fig:6}) with $l_{x}\ll 1$, we can approximate $\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}-1\simeq l_{x}^{2}/2$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:39x}), and Eq.~(\ref{Eq:40x}) can be approximated by~\cite{Indekeu92}
\begin{equation}
W \simeq \int_{l=l_{e}}^{l=L} \left(2\gamma\Delta\phi\left(l\right)\right)^{1/2} dl.
\label{Eq:42x}
\end{equation}
By using the scaled potential in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:23x}), we observe
\begin{equation}
W \propto \left(\gamma V_{0}\right)^{1/2}l_{0}.
\label{Eq:43x}
\end{equation}
Therefore, the reduced work of formation $\tilde{W}=W/\gamma$ is proportional to the parameter $\sqrt{V_{0}/\gamma}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:33x}).

\subsection*{3.2 $d=3$-dimensional nucleus}
For a $d=3$-dimensional hemispherical droplet, the Euler-Lagrange equation for the free energy functional Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}) is given by~\cite{Dobbs99}
\begin{equation}
\gamma \left(\frac{d}{dx}+\frac{1}{x}\right)\left(\frac{l_{x}}{\left(1+l_{x}^{2}\right)^{1/2}}\right)=\frac{dV}{dl}-\mu,
\label{Eq:47x}
\end{equation}
where $l_{x}=dl/dx$ and $x$ is the coordinate measured from the center of the base of the droplet (Fig.~\ref{fig:1}). This equation cannot be integrated as for the $d=2$-dimensional cylindrical droplet. As a result, it is not possible to calculate the height $L$ of the nucleus from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:18x}).  Instead, the height $L$ is determined from the solution of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:47x}) that satisfies the boundary condition $l_{x}=0$ at $x=0$ and $l=l_{e}$ at $x=\infty$.

In Fig.~\ref{fig:8} we show numerically determined droplet shapes for various $\mu$ when $V_{0}/\gamma=2.0$ .  In Fig.~\ref{fig:4} we have shown the droplet height $L$ directly determined from the numerically determined droplet shape in Fig.~\ref{fig:8} as the function of the chemical potential $\mu$.  By repeating the argument from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:25x}) to (\ref{Eq:29x}), it is possible to approximate the droplet shape determined from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:47x}) near the top of the droplet by the semi-spherical shape given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:28x}).  However, the effective radius is now given by
\begin{equation}
R_{\rm eff} = \frac{2\gamma}{\mu_{\rm eff}}
\label{Eq:48x}
\end{equation}
instead of Eq.~(\ref{Eq:29x}).  Then, it is possible to define the effective contact angle $\theta_{\rm eff}$ for a $d=3$-dimensional droplet on a completely-wettable substrate shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:8}. This effective contact angle is also given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:38x}).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig8bk.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The droplet shape numerically determined from the Euler-Lagrange equation (\ref{Eq:47x}) using the Runge-Kutta method (solid curves) when $V_{0}/\gamma=2.0$ compared with the ideal semi-spherical shape given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:28x}) (broken curves) for (I') near the prewetting line ($\tilde{\mu}=-0.0027$), (II) below the bulk coexistence and above the prewetting line $0>\mu>\mu_{\rm p}$ ($\tilde{\mu}=-0.0025$), (III) $\tilde{\mu}=-0.0015$, (IV) at the bulk coexistence $\mu=0$ ($\tilde{\mu}=0.0000$), (V) above the bulk coexistence $\mu>0$ ($\tilde{\mu}=+0.0015$).  Only a right half of the droplet is shown.  Note the scales of the vertical and the horizontal axes.}
\label{fig:8}
\end{figure}

In contrast to the $d=2$-dimensional case, the lateral size of the $d=3$-dimensional droplet is larger and diverges at the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$. The critical nucleus of the $d=3$-dimensional droplet is more flat.  Using an analogy of classical mechanics, this divergence can be intuitively understandable~\cite{Iwamatsu2011}.

Since we cannot integrate Eq.~(\ref{Eq:47x}) analytically for a $d=3$-dimensional droplet, we cannot use Eq.~(\ref{Eq:40x}) to calculate the work of formation $W$.  Instead, we have to resort to a direct numerical integration using Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}).  Figure \ref{fig:9} shows the reduced work of formation $\tilde{W}=W/\gamma$ of a $d=3$-dimensional critical nucleus as a function of the reduced chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig9bk.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The reduced work of formation $\tilde{W}=W/\gamma$ calculated from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:5x}) using the droplet profile $l(x)$ numerically determined from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:47x}) when $V_{0}/\gamma=2.0$ as a function of the reduced chemical potential $\tilde{\mu}$.  In contrast to the $d=2$-dimensional nucleus, the work of formation $W$ of the $d=3$ dimensional nucleus diverges at the prewetting $\mu_{\rm p}$. }
\label{fig:9}
\end{figure}

Similar to the $d=2$-dimensional critical nucleus, the work of formation $W$ is a continuous function of the chemical potential $\mu$ at the bulk coexistence. However, in contrast to the $d=2$-dimensional nucleus in Fig.~\ref{fig:7}, the work of formation $W$ of the $d=3$-dimensional nucleus diverges at the prewetting line $\mu=\mu_{\rm p}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:9}.  Indeed the prewetting line acts as an effective bulk coexistence for a completely-wetting substrate.

\section*{\label{sec:sec5}4. Nucleation on a completely-wettable spherical substrate}
In the previous section, it was shown that the nucleation barrier may exist even when the liquid completely wets a flat substrate due to the surface potential which will achieve the prewetting transition.  On a spherical substrate, it is well known that the energy barrier exists even on a completely-wettable substrate since the nucleation is essentially homogeneous nucleation~\cite{Qian2007}.  Since the free energy of a spherical nucleus, which surrounds the spherical substrate with layer thickness $l$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\Omega_{0}\left(l;R_{0}\right)&=&4\pi\left(\gamma\left(R_0+l\right)^2-\frac{1}{3}\mu\left(R_0+l\right)^{3}\right)-4\pi\left(\gamma R_0^2-\frac{1}{3}\mu R_0^{3}\right) \nonumber \\
&=& 4\pi\gamma\left(\left(R^{2}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{R^{3}}{R_{\rm K}^{3}}\right)-\left(R_0^{2}-\frac{2}{3}\frac{R_0^{3}}{R_{\rm K}^{3}}\right)\right),
\label{Eq:49x}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{\rm K}$ is the critical radius of homogeneous nucleation known as the Kelvin radius which is in fact given by the effective radius $R_{\rm K}=R_{\rm eff}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:48x}).
The energy barrier similar to that of the homogeneous nucleation exists if the radius $R_{0}$ of the spherical substrate is smaller than the Kelvin radius $R_{\rm K}$.

This energy barrier disappears as soon as the radius of the spherical substrate becomes larger than that of the critical nucleus ($R_0>R_{\rm K}$).  Then the barrierless nucleation is achieved~\cite{Qian2007}, which is similar to the barrierless nucleation called athermal nucleation~\cite{Quested2005,Greer2000} on a flat substrate when the radius of the substrate is smaller than the critical radius..  The adsorbed wetting film that surrounds the spherical substrate will grow spontaneously without crossing the energy barrier.  Again the situation that occurred in completely-wettable flat substrate may be achieved.

Since the surface potential which brings about the first-order wetting transition on a flat substrate will turn barrierless zero-contact angle substrate into a finite-contact angle substrate with finite energy barrier of nucleation, it is expected that a similar behavior will be expected on a spherical substrate even when the radius of the substrate exceeds the critical radius of homogeneous nucleation.  In fact, the effect of surface potential or the disjoining potential on the heterogeneous nucleation on a spherical substrate has been considered by Russian group~\cite{Kuni1996,Kuni2001}.  Since these authors used short-range surface potential and did not pay much attention to the relationship to the surface phase transition, we will extend the work of previous section to explore the possibility of observing the apparent critical nucleus and energy barrier on a completely-wettable spherical substrate when the radius exceeds that of the critical nucleus.

In order to study the effect of surface potential, we must set up the surface potential created by the spherical substrate.  Using the same long-range potential that leads to the model surface potential in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:19x}), we obtain
\begin{equation}
V_{\rm sp}\left(l;R_{0}\right)=V_{0}\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{l_{0}}{l}\right)^{2}S_{6}\left(z\right) - \frac{1+b}{3}\left(\frac{l_{0}}{l}\right)^{3}S_{7}\left(z\right) + \frac{b}{4}\left(\frac{l_{0}}{l}\right)^{4}S_{8}\left(z\right)\right)
\label{Eq:50x}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
S_{6}\left(z\right)&=&\frac{2\left(2+4z+3z^2+z^3\right)-z^{2}\left(2+z\right)^{2}\ln\left(\frac{2+z}{z}\right)}{\left(2+z\right)^{2}}, \nonumber \\
S_{7}\left(z\right)&=&\frac{2\left(4+10z+5z^{2}\right)}{\left(2+z\right)^{3}},
\label{Eq:51x} \\
S_{8}\left(z\right)&=&\frac{16\left(1+z\right)^{3}}{\left(2+z\right)^{4}}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
are the correction terms due to the finite curvature
\begin{equation}
z = l / R_{0},
\label{Eq:52x}
\end{equation}
of the substrate, where $l$ is the thickness on the wetting film on the spherical substrate with radius $R_{0}$.  In contrast to the previous study~\cite{Bieker1998}, we have used the parameter $z$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:52x}).  Equation (\ref{Eq:50x}) reduces to Eq.~(\ref{Eq:19x}) since $S_{6}\left(z\right)\rightarrow 1$, $S_{7}\left(z\right)\rightarrow 1$, and $S_{8}\left(z\right)\rightarrow 1$ as $z\rightarrow 0$ ($R_{0}\rightarrow \infty$).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig10bk.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The reduced surface potential Eq.~(\ref{Eq:50x}) when $b=2.0$ that corresponds to the wetting transition point for a flat substrate.  The complete-wetting flat substrate with $R_0\rightarrow\infty$ turns to the incompletely-wetting spherical substrate when the radius $R_{0}$ becomes finite.
 }
\label{fig:10}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:10} shows the surface potential of a spherical substrate when $b=2$ that corresponds to the surface potential of a flat substrate at the wetting transition point (Fig.~\ref{fig:3-2}).  It can be seen that the substrate turns from complete-incomplete equilibrium (wetting transition point) to incomplete wetting due to the increase of the volume of the spherical interface as the thickness $l$ of the wetting layer increases.  Therefore, a completely-wettable flat substrate may turn to the incompletely-wettable spherical substrate.  The effect of the curvature of the spherical substrate is more pronounced as the radius of the substrate decreases since the incompletely-wetting thin film is more stable.  A similar result was obtained from numerical work using density functional theory~\cite{Napari2003}.  It can be seen from Figs.~\ref{fig:3-2} and \ref{fig:10} that the surface potential created by a spherical substrate is approximated by that created by a flat substrate by renormalizing the parameter $b$ which describes the proximity to wetting transition point.

Now it is possible to study the effect of surface potential on the free energy of spherical nucleus on a spherical substrate.  The total free energy $\Omega\left(l\right)$ of the nucleus is approximated by
\begin{equation}
\Omega\left(l;R_{0}\right) = \Omega_{0}\left(l;R_0\right) + V\left(l\right),
\label{Eq:53x}
\end{equation}
where $\Omega_{0}\left(l\right)$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:49x}) and the surface potential $V_{\rm sp}\left(l;R_0\right)$ is approximated by that for the flat substrate in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:19x}) since we are interested in the qualitative effect of the surface potential.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig11bk.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The total free energy given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:53x}) when $\tilde{R}_{0}=R_{0}/l_{0}=10.0$, $V_{0}/\gamma=60.0$ and $R_{\rm K}=R_{0}$.  In this case with strong surface potential $V_0$, the energy barrier appears due to the strong surface potential which can realize prewetting transitions.
 }
\label{fig:11}
\end{figure}

Figure \ref{fig:11} shows the full form of the total free energy $\Omega\left(l;R_0\right)$ given by Eq.~(\ref{Eq:53x}) when $\tilde{R}_{0}=R_{0}/l_{0}=10.0$ and the strength of the surface potential is $V_{0}/\gamma=60.0$.  The chemical potential $\mu$ or the Kelvin radius $R_{\rm K}$ is set to $R_{0}=R_{K}$, which is the most favorable condition for the appearance of the energy barrier. The energy barrier appears in Fig.~\ref{fig:11} and, therefore, the critical nucleus with finite contact angle may appear on the completely-wettable spherical surface.  However, the surface potential required to produce energy barrier is fairly-strong.  Also, even if the energy barrier appears, it will not be detectable as long as the energy barrier is lower than the thermal energy $<\sim 30-50kT$.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.0\linewidth]{fig12bk.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
The boundary between barrierless and with barrier nucleation as a function of the radius $R_0$ of the spherical substrate for various surface potentials from incomplete to complete wetting.  Above this boundary with strong surface potential $V_0$, the energy barrier appears in the free energy in Fig.~\ref{fig:11}.
 }
\label{fig:12}
\end{figure}

The boundary for the appearance of the energy barrier is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:12}.  If the surface potential is larger than this boundary, the energy barrier similar to that in Fig.~\ref{fig:11} will appear.  The potential must be stronger in the completely-wetting regime when $b=1.5$ (see Eq.~\ref{Eq:21x}) than the incompletely-wetting regime ($b=2.0, 2.5$).  Also, the potential must be stronger when the radius $R_{0}$ of the spherical substrate is smaller.  In order to observe the nucleation barrier and critical nucleus on a completely-wettable spherical surface, the surface potential must be much stronger than the typical value of non-polar liquid:
\begin{equation}
\frac{V_{0}}{\gamma}\sim50 \gg 0.1-10,
\label{Eq:54x}
\end{equation}
from Eq.~(\ref{Eq:36x}).  Therefore, the appearance of energy barrier and that of the critical nucleus is less probable on a completely-wettable spherical substrate than on a flat substrate.

\section*{\label{sec:sec4}5. Conclusion}
In this study, we have reviewed our previous work~\cite{Iwamatsu2011} where we used the interface displacement model to study the heterogeneous nucleation on a completely-wettable flat substrate where the surface potential induces the first-order incomplete to complete wetting surface phase transition.  It is pointed out that the classical picture breaks down on a completely-wettable substrate, where CNT predicts that the critical nucleus does not exist and the nucleation barrier is expected to vanish since the apparent contact angle vanishes.  In fact, both the critical nucleus of the heterogeneous bulk phase transition in the oversaturated vapor and the critical nucleus of the surface thin-thick prewetting transition in the undersaturation vapor can exist and transform continuously at the bulk coexistence on a completely-wettable substrate.

Therefore, the critical nucleus as well as the free-energy barrier of nucleation exist on a completely-wettable flat substrate.  Furthermore, the nucleus exists even under the undersaturated vapor.  The undersaturated vapor turns to an effectively oversaturated vapor due to the effective interface potential of the substrate which prefers infinitely thick wetting films.  The Laplace pressure  (or the effective chemical potential $\mu_{\rm eff}$ in Eq.~(\ref{Eq:29x})) that is necessary to produce semi-circular liquid-vapor interface of the droplet becomes positive by the interface potential {even under the undersaturated vapor}.  Then, the bulk coexistence does not play any role in the critical droplet in the complete-wetting regime.  Instead, the prewetting line plays the role of the coexistence in the complete-wetting regime.  Various properties of the critical nucleus change continuously as functions of the chemical potential.  Therefore, the nucleation rate (Eq.~(\ref{Eq:1x})) is expected to change continuously at the bulk coexistence.  Our results support the conclusion reached from a numerical simulations in Ising system by Sear~\cite{Sear08}. He simply stated that this small nucleus does not "know" whether it will grow to form a wetting layer of finite thickness or a bulk phase of infinite thickness.

These findings on a flat substrate change drastically on a spherical substrate.  The free energy decreases more rapidly as the thickness of the wetting film increases on a spherical substrate compared to that on a flat substrate because the volume of the film increases more rapidly on a spherical substrate than on a flat substrate. Then, the energy barrier which is necessary to form a critical nucleus of the droplet may disappear.   Therefore, the possibility of observing the activation process of heterogeneous nucleation on a completely-wettable real substrate will depend strongly on the morphology of the substrate.

\section*{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research [Contract No.(C)22540422] from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and the MEXT supported program for the Strategic Research Foundation at Private Universities, 2009-2013.   The author is particularly grateful to Dr. K. L. Mittal for his effort to make the Eighth International Symposium on Contact Angle, Wettability and Adhesion successful and for his hospitality extended to participants during the symposium in Quebec City.  He is also indebted to Professor Ludmila Boinovich for calling his attention to the works conducted by Derjaguin school in Russia.


\section{Error classes}
\label{ec}

When using circuits of the form shown in Fig.~\ref{syn_circs}, currently the only available algorithm to correct errors is based on minimum weight perfect matching \cite{Edmo65a,Edmo65b,Fowl12c}. This algorithm currently does not take into account correlations between $X$ and $Z$ errors. For example, if after a given quantum gate there is a probability $p$ of $X$, $Y$, or $Z$ error, each with probability $p/3$, then if we believe with high confidence that we have detected an $X$ error after this gate we should also believe there to be a $Z$ error with 50\% probability since $Y=iXZ$.

From the point of view of building Polyestimate, the independent treatment of $X$ and $Z$ errors is, however, enormously useful. An arbitrary single-qubit error model with probabilities $p_X$, $p_Y$, $p_Z$ of errors $X$, $Y$, $Z$ can simply be treated as two independent error models implying an $X$ error with probability $p'_X=p_X+p_Y$ and a $Z$ error with probability $p'_Z=p_Y+p_Z$. No inaccuracy is introduced from the point of view of matching the detailed simulated logical error rate with a simple calculated logical error rate.

CNOT gate error models are not so straightforward. Given 15 error probabilities $p_{IX}$, $p_{IY}$, \ldots, $p_{ZZ}$ one can certainly make a similar identification $p'_{IX}=p_{IX}+p_{IY}+p_{ZX}+p_{ZY}$, $p'_{XX}=p_{XX}+p_{XY}+p_{YX}+p_{YY}$, etc, however if $p'_{XX}\neq p'_{IX}$ or $p'_{XX}\neq p'_{XI}$ we first artificially increase one or two of these derived error rates to obtain a balanced $p'_{IX} = p'_{XI} = p'_{XX}$ error model then define $p_{2X}=5(p'_{IX}+p'_{XI}+p'_{XX})/4$. The multiplicative factor of $5/4$ scales the 12 fundamental error rates making up $p'_{IX}$, $p'_{XI}$, $p'_{XX}$ to a 15 component depolarizing error rate with the correct probability of each of the derived $X$ terms. If the CNOT error model is very asymmetric within a single type of error, the process of raising one or two of $p'_{IX}$, $p'_{XI}$, $p'_{XX}$ can make the logical error rate estimates excessively high. We shall give a concrete example of this in Section~\ref{interpolation}. Repeating the above process for $Z$ errors gives a second value $p_{2Z}$.

Referring to Fig.~\ref{syn_circs}, data qubit identity errors can be lumped into a single variable $p_{1X}=3(p'_X({\rm IdInit})+2p'_X({\rm IdHad})+p'_X({\rm IdMeas}))/8$, and similarly for $Z$ errors, giving $p_{1Z}$. The abbreviations stand for identity of duration initialization, identity of duration Hadamard, and identity of duration measurement, respectively. Identity of duration CNOT does not appear in the equation as in even a small distance surface code only a few such identity gates are required around the boundary of the qubit lattice and their influence is negligible --- the vast majority of data qubits are busy performing CNOTs when any data qubit is involved in a CNOT. While this may not be immediately apparent from Fig.~\ref{syn_circs}, it should be remembered that all stabilizers are measured simultaneously and each data qubit not on the boundary of the surface code interacts with each of its four neighboring syndrome qubits. The factor of $3/8$ in the definition of $p_{1X}$ consists of a factor of $3/2$ to scale the individual error type error rate to a depolarizing error rate, and a factor of $1/4$ to reduce the result to an error rate per gate rather than per stabilizer measurement cycle.

Syndrome qubits associated with $Z$ stabilizer measurements, meaning $X$ error detection, only suffer initialization and measurement errors in addition to CNOT errors. Initialization and measurement errors cannot propagate off the syndrome qubit. We can therefore define $p_{0X}=p_X({\rm Init})+p_X({\rm Meas})$. Note that for initialization and measurement $p_Y=p_Z=0$. For syndrome qubits associated with $X$ stabilizer measurements, meaning $Z$ error detection, we have two additional Hadamard gates, the first of which is only dangerous if it introduces $Z$ errors, the second of which is only dangerous if it introduces $X$ errors. We therefore get a second definition $p_{0Z}=p_X({\rm Init})+p'_X({\rm Had})+p'_Z({\rm Had})+p_X({\rm Meas})$. We choose to leave $p_{0A}$ as an error rate per error detection cycle as the number of gates for $A=X$ and $A=Z$ differs.

Given arbitrary error models, we have described how to obtain two sets of error rates $p_{0A}$, $p_{1A}$, $p_{2A}$ focusing on either $A=X$ or $A=Z$ errors. These simple error rates well characterize the behavior of the detailed error models provided the CNOT error model does not deviate very far from balanced depolarizing within a single type of error.

\section{Simulations}
\label{data}

It is straightforward to use Autotune to simulate the performance of a given surface code of distance $d$ making use of gate error rates $p_{0A}$, $p_{1A}$, $p_{2A}$. Autotune will set up the appropriate array of qubits, execute the appropriate sequence of gates, insert stochastic errors and use minimum weight perfect matching to insert corrections. When too many errors occur in the wrong places, logical errors will occur. Autotune simulates many continuous cycles of error detection and calculates the probability of logical error per round.

Our goal is to obtain the logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates corresponding to a sufficiently broad range of $d$, $p_{0A}$, $p_{1A}$, $p_{2A}$ to enable the logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates at any other combination of values of $d$, $p_{0A}$, $p_{1A}$, $p_{2A}$ to be accurately determined.

Note that below threshold the logical error rate is provably exponentially suppressed with increasing $d$ \cite{Fowl12e}, or, to be more precise, exponentially suppressed with increasing $d_e=\lfloor (d+1)/2\rfloor$. This means that we only need to simulate distances $d=3,4,5,6$ as the logical error rate at all higher distances can be obtained by taking the ratio of odd or even distance data to the appropriate power with the appropriate pre-factor. Details are given in Section~\ref{interpolation}.

Note that the threshold error rate when the surface code is subjected to only CNOT gate errors is approximately 1.25\% \cite{Fowl12f}. We therefore do not simulate values of $p_{2A}$ above 2\%, as this is sufficiently high to be above threshold for all values of $p_{0A}$ and $p_{1A}$.

Let $r_{0A}=p_{0A}/p_{2A}$ and $r_{1A}=p_{1A}/p_{2A}$. We have initially considered only syndrome errors in the range $r_{0A}\in [0.01,200]$ and data qubit errors in the range $r_{1A}\in [0.01,1]$. This is essentially a statement that we consider it possible that initialization and measurement error rates could be significantly less, comparable, or significantly greater than the CNOT error rate, whereas we expect the single-qubit identity error rates to be less than or equal to the CNOT error rate. It would be straightforward to simulate a broader range if a quantum technology called for it. We have restricted ourselves to $p_{2A}\geq 10^{-4}$ as no scalable quantum technology has even achieved a CNOT gate with error rate $10^{-2}$, and hence the range $p_{2A}\in [10^{-4},0.02]$ covers all existing technology, and technology likely to be available in the short to medium term. To keep the size of the simulation task under control, we have initially restricted ourselves to three points per decade, so for example $r_{1A}\in \{0.01,0.02,0.05,0.1,0.2,0.5,1\}$.

Samples of the data collected can be found in Figs.~\ref{logx_100_1}--\ref{logx_0.01_0.01}. These two graphs contain data for the highest and lowest error ratios, respectively. Error bars corresponding to $2\sigma$ confidence have been included. At the very lowest error rates $p_{2A}$ it is computationally challenging to observe a sufficiently large number of logical errors to obtain an accurate logical error rate. Nevertheless, the data presented is sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. This data is available as part of the Polyestimate library, available online at \cite{Fowl12d}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{85mm}{!}{\includegraphics[viewport=60 60 545 430, clip=true]{logicalx_100_1}}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) probability of logical $X$ error as a function of the depolarizing error rate $p=p_{2A}$ for distances $d=3,4,5,6$ and $r_{0A}=100$, $r_{1A}=1$. Referring to the left of the figure, the distance $d=3,4,5,6$ curves are ordered top to bottom. Quadratic curves have been fit through the lowest $d=3,4$ data points, and cubic curves through the lowest $d=5,6$ data points.}\label{logx_100_1}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{85mm}{!}{\includegraphics[viewport=55 60 545 430, clip=true]{logicalx_0d01_0d01}}
\end{center}
\caption{(Color online) probability of logical $X$ error as a function of the depolarizing error rate $p=p_{2A}$ for distances $d=3,4,5,6$ and $r_{0A}=0.01$, $r_{1A}=0.01$. Referring to the left of the figure, the distance $d=3,4,5,6$ curves are ordered top to bottom. Quadratic curves have been fit through the lowest $d=3,4$ data points, and cubic curves through the lowest $d=5,6$ data points.}\label{logx_0.01_0.01}
\end{figure}

\section{Interpolation and extrapolation}
\label{interpolation}

Given detailed error models for each gate or simple error rates for each gate, in Section~\ref{ec} we described how to define two sets of three values $r_{0A}=p_{0A}/p_{2A}$, $r_{1A}=p_{1A}/p_{2A}$, $p_{2A}$, where $A=X,Z$, that can be used to estimate the failure behavior of the surface code. In Section~\ref{data}, we described the construction of a database of logical error rates for a range of code distances and values of $r_{0A}$, $r_{1A}$, $p_{2A}$. Note that a single database suffices for both $A=X$ and $A=Z$ as the database is for balanced depolarizing noise. We now describe how to obtain functions of $d$ giving estimates of the logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates.

If $r_{0A}, r_{1A},p_{2A}\neq 1,2,5\times 10^{i}$ for some integer i, interpolation will be required. Define superscripts $H$ and $L$ to mean the first variable value in the database higher or lower than the given value. For example, if $r_{0A}=0.3$, then $r^L_{0A}=0.2$ and $r^H_{0A}=0.5$. Note that the logical error rates are strictly increasing smooth functions of $r_{0A}$, $r_{1A}$, $p_{2A}$. For a sufficiently fine-grained database, linear interpolation is therefore appropriate.

For each distance $d=3,4,5,6$ in the database and each type of logical error $A$, find the up to eight different values of logical $A$ error for the up to eight different combinations of $r^B_{0A}$, $r^B_{1A}$, $p^B_{2A}$, where $B=H,L$. Linearly interpolate and define this to be the logical error rate $p_{A_L}(d,r_{0A},r_{1A},p_{2A})$. For brevity, we shall refer to this as simply $p_{A_L}(d)$.

For $d>6$, we extrapolate. Define $x=p_{A_L}(5)/p_{A_L}(3)$, $C=p_{A_L}(3)/x^2$, $y=p_{A_L}(6)/p_{A_L}(4)$, $D=p_{A_L}(4)/y^2$. This gives us four expressions
\begin{eqnarray}
p_{A_L}(d) & = & Cx^{\lfloor \frac{d+1}{2} \rfloor}, \label{odd} \\
p_{A_L}(d) & = & Dy^{\lfloor \frac{d+1}{2} \rfloor}, \label{even}
\end{eqnarray}
valid for $d$ odd and even, respectively, and $A=X,Z$.

\section{Verification}
\label{verify}

The simplicity of derivation and form of Eqs.~\ref{odd}--\ref{even} is appealing, however verification of the accuracy of logical error rates obtained by Polyestimate is required. In this Section, we shall compare the output of Polyestimate with data generated in a number of situations by direct simulation with Autotune.

The first situation we shall consider is balanced depolarizing noise of equal strength on all gates. When all gates have probability $p=10^{-3}$ of failure, Table~\ref{comp} shows in columns 3 and 4 the Autotune determined probability of logical $X$ and $Z$ error for distances $d=3,\ldots,8$. This should be compared with the Polyestimate data in columns 5 and 6. As the distance increases, the computational cost of using Autotune rapidly becomes prohibitive, whereas Polyestimate can be used for arbitrary distances, and generated the data in Table~\ref{comp} in approximately one hundredth of one second, including loading the database from disk and calculating the appropriate values in Eqs.~\ref{odd}--\ref{even}. The computational cost of evaluating Eqs.~\ref{odd}--\ref{even} for additional values of $d$ is negligible after loading the database.

\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
$d$ & $T$ & $p_{X_L}$ & $p_{Z_L}$ & $p_{X_L}(d)$ & $p_{Z_L}(d)$ \\
\hline
3 & 10min & $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ \\
4 & 90min & $4.5\times 10^{-4}$ & $5.8\times 10^{-4}$ & $4.5\times 10^{-4}$ & $5.8\times 10^{-4}$ \\
5 & 7.7hr & $1.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-4}$ & $9.9\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-4}$ \\
6 & 48hr & $3.2\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.7\times 10^{-5}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.7\times 10^{-5}$ \\
7 & 250hr & $8.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-5}$ & $9.0\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-6}$ \\
8 & 500hr & $2.5\times 10^{-6}$ & $4.2\times 10^{-6}$ & $2.2\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.8\times 10^{-6}$ \\
9 & - & - & - & $8.2\times 10^{-7}$ & $1.6\times 10^{-6}$ \\
10 & - & - & - & $1.6\times 10^{-7}$ & $3.0\times 10^{-7}$ \\
36 & - & - & - & $1.5\times 10^{-22}$ & $1.7\times 10^{-21}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of Autotune and Polyestimate for depolarizing noise of rate $p=10^{-3}$. Column 1 contains the code distance $d$. Column 2 contains the total CPU time required by Autotune to generate the logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates shown in columns 3 and 4. Columns 5 and 6 contain Polyestimate generated logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates. Agreement is in all cases within 10\%, sufficient for practical purposes.}
\label{comp}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c|c}
$d$ & $T$ & $p_{X_L}$ & $p_{Z_L}$ & $p_{X_L}(d)$ & $p_{Z_L}(d)$ \\
\hline
3 & 11min & $2.8\times 10^{-3}$ & $3.4\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.8\times 10^{-3}$ & $3.4\times 10^{-3}$ \\
4 & 40min & $1.8\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.2\times 10^{-3}$ & $1.7\times 10^{-3}$ & $2.3\times 10^{-3}$ \\
5 & 2hr & $9.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ & $9.9\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.3\times 10^{-3}$ \\
6 & 6.3hr & $5.7\times 10^{-4}$ & $7.9\times 10^{-4}$ & $5.9\times 10^{-4}$ & $8.6\times 10^{-4}$ \\
7 & 16hr & $3.4\times 10^{-4}$ & $4.9\times 10^{-4}$ & $3.5\times 10^{-4}$ & $5.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\
8 & 47hr & $2.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $3.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $2.0\times 10^{-4}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-4}$ \\
9 & 86hr & $1.2\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.9\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.2\times 10^{-4}$ & $1.9\times 10^{-4}$ \\
10 & 199hr & $7.6\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.2\times 10^{-4}$ & $6.6\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.2\times 10^{-4}$ \\
11 & 422hr & $4.6\times 10^{-5}$ & $7.8\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.3\times 10^{-5}$ & $7.5\times 10^{-5}$ \\
12 & 960hr & $2.8\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.8\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.2\times 10^{-5}$ & $4.6\times 10^{-5}$ \\
13 & 1590hr & $1.7\times 10^{-5}$ & $3.2\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.5\times 10^{-5}$ & $2.9\times 10^{-5}$ \\
14 & - & - & - & $7.4\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.7\times 10^{-5}$ \\
15 & - & - & - & $5.2\times 10^{-6}$ & $1.1\times 10^{-5}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of Autotune and Polyestimate for 10\% measurement error and depolarizing noise of rate $p=10^{-3}$ on all other gates. Column 1 contains the code distance $d$. Column 2 contains the total CPU time required by Autotune to generate the logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates shown in columns 3 and 4. Columns 5 and 6 contain Polyestimate generated logical $X$ and $Z$ error rates. Agreement is in all cases within 15\%, sufficient for practical purposes.}
\label{comp}
\end{table}

\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
$d$ & $T$ & $p_{X_L}$ & $p_{X_L}(d)$ \\
\hline
3 & 10min & $1.1\times 10^{-3}$ & $4.0\times 10^{-3}$ \\
4 & 47min & $4.6\times 10^{-4}$ & $2.5\times 10^{-3}$ \\
5 & 6.8hr & $9.7\times 10^{-5}$ & $1.4\times 10^{-3}$ \\
6 & 33hr & $3.1\times 10^{-5}$ & $8.7\times 10^{-4}$ \\
7 & 199hr & $7.9\times 10^{-6}$ & $4.7\times 10^{-4}$ \\
8 & 986hr & $2.3\times 10^{-6}$ & $3.0\times 10^{-4}$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of Autotune and Polyestimate for the case of all gates having total probability of error $p=10^{-3}$, however the CNOT gate having an asymmetric error model satisfying $p'_{IX}=10p'_{XI}=100p'_{XX}$. Column 1 contains the code distance $d$. Column 2 contains the total CPU time required by Autotune to generate the logical $X$ error rates shown in column 3. Column 4 contains Polyestimate generated logical $X$ error rates. Agreement is poor, with Polyestimate significantly overestimating the logical error rate due to its need to raise the probability of $XI$ and $XX$ errors.}
\label{comp}
\end{table}

The agreement between Autotune and Polyestimate is within 10\% for the data shown in Table~\ref{comp}. It should be noted, however, that since Polyestimate uses a simple exponential expression (Eqs.~\ref{odd}--\ref{even}), any small inaccuracy will grow with code distance, so absolute values of logical error rates for large distances will only be approximate. A user can still, however, quite accurately determine the code distance $d$ required to suppress logical errors below some desired rate. For example, if a logical error rate below $10^{-20}$ is desired, Polyestimate can be used to predict that a code distance of approximately 36 is sufficient.

The next case we shall consider is depolarizing noise of rate $p=10^{-3}$ for every gate except the measurement gate which shall have an error rate of 10\%. It is possible that superconducting qubits may possess such a distribution of error rates as fast, low error measurement is especially challenging \cite{Chen12}. Agreement between Autotune and Polyestimate is again very good, within 15\% in all cases, frequently significantly better, and this agreement is exhibited over logical error rates varying by over two orders of magnitude. Similar levels of agreement have been observed for other ratios of simple depolarizing error rates on each gate.

Finally, we shall consider the case of all gates having total probability of error $p=10^{-3}$, however the CNOT gate having an asymmetric error model satisfying $p'_{IX}=10p'_{XI}=100p'_{XX}$. We shall focus only on logical $X$ errors. In this instance, since Polyestimate must raise the probability of $XI$ and $XX$ errors significantly in order to use its pre-generated database, the logical $X$ error estimates are excessively high. When the CNOT error model is very asymmetric within a single type of error, direct simulation using Autotune is currently the only option unless all error rates are quite low and asymptotic techniques can be used \cite{Fowl12g}.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conc}

We have described an open source tool, Polyestimate, that is shipped with a database of Autotune simulation results sufficiently broad and detailed to provide, through interpolation and extrapolation, instantaneous surface code logical error rates for a very broad range of practical depolarizing error rates and arbitrary code distances $d$. Individual depolarizing error rates for initialization, measurement, Hadamard, CNOT, and identity gates of duration each of these gates, respectively, can be specified and handled accurately. The primary limitation of Polyestimate is its inability to cope with very asymmetric error models on the CNOT within a single type of error. In future work, we plan address this limitation with slower analytic techniques for such error models that will still be orders of magnitude faster than running Autotune.

\section{Acknowledgements}
\label{ack}

This research was conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Quantum Computation and Communication Technology (project number CE110001027), with support from the US National Security Agency and the US Army Research Office under contract number W911NF-13-1-0024. Supported by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) via Department of Interior National Business Center contract number D11PC20166.  The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Governmental purposes notwithstanding any copyright annotation thereon.  Disclaimer: The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of IARPA, DoI/NBC, or the U.S. Government.