The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Need for LWR metrology standardization: the imec roughness protocol
Open accessAbstract
As semiconductor technology keeps moving forward, undeterred by the many challenges ahead, one specific deliverable is capturing the attention of many experts in the field: line width roughness (LWR) specifications are expected to be <2 nm in the near term, and to drop below 1 nm in just a few years. This is a daunting challenge and engineers throughout the industry are trying to meet these targets using every means at their disposal. However, although current efforts are surely admirable, we believe they are not enough. The fact is that a specification has a meaning only if there is an agreed methodology to verify if the criterion is met or not. Such standardization is critical in any field of science and technology and the question that we need to ask ourselves today is whether we have a standardized LWR metrology or not. In other words, if a single reference sample were provided, would everyone measuring it get reasonably comparable results? We came to realize that this is not the case and that the observed spread in the results throughout the industry is quite large. In our opinion, this makes the comparison of LWR data among institutions, or to a specification, very difficult. We report the spread of measured LWR data across the semiconductor industry. We investigate the impact of image acquisition, measurement algorithm, and frequency analysis parameters on LWR metrology. We review critically some of the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) metrology guidelines [such as measurement box length >2 μm and the need to correct for scanning electron microscope (SEM) noise]. We compare the SEM roughness results to AFM measurements. Finally, we propose a standardized LWR measurement protocol—the imec roughness protocol—intended to ensure that every time LWR measurements are compared (from various sources or to specifications), the comparison is sensible and sound. We deeply believe that the industry is at a point where it is imperative to guarantee that when talking about a critical parameter such as LWR, everyone speaks the same language, which is not currently the case.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Standardized SEM collection parameters aim to minimize the impact of the electron beam on photoresist samples and enable results to be compared between different systems.
“Efforts have led to standardized SEM collection parameters, which aim to minimize the impact of the electron beam on photoresist samples and enable results to be compared between different systems 83 .”
From Extreme ultraviolet lithography (2024) · cites this paper as [83]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Determination of optimal parameters for CD-SEM measurement of line-edge roughness
Bunday, B. D., Bishop, M., McCormack, D. W., et al. (2004) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.535926 · Cited by 88
Unbiased estimation of linewidth roughness
Villarrubia, J. S., & Bunday, B. D. (2005) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.599981 · Cited by 69
Unbiased roughness measurements: Subtracting out SEM effects
Lorusso, G. F., Rutigliani, V. D., Roey, F. V., et al. (2018) · Microelectronic Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.mee.2018.01.010 · Cited by 51
Self-citationUsing the analytical linescan model for SEM metrology
Mack, C. A., & Bunday, B. D. (2017) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.2258631 · Cited by 30
Self-citationNaulleau, P. P., & Cain, J. P. (2007) · Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing Measurement and Phenomena · doi:10.1116/1.2778697 · Cited by 28
Self-citationComments On The Correlation Length
Church, E. L. (1987) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.939599 · Cited by 19
Schneir, J., Villarrubia, J. S., McWaid, T. H., et al. (1996) · Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B Microelectronics and Nanometer Structures Processing Measurement and Phenomena · doi:10.1116/1.589135 · Cited by 16
Spectral analysis of line width roughness and its application to immersion lithography
Lorusso, G. F., Leunissen, L. H., Ercken, M., et al. (2006) · Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning Materials and Metrology · doi:10.1117/1.2242982 · Cited by 16
Self-citationRutigliani, V. D., Lorusso, G. F., Simone, D. D., et al. (2018) · doi:10.1117/12.2297264 · Cited by 9
Self-citationCD-SEM algorithm optimization for line roughness metrology (Conference Presentation)
Mack, C. A., & Bunday, B. D. (2018) · doi:10.1117/12.2297426 · Cited by 6
Self-citationSchneir, J., McWaid, T. H., Dixson, R. G., et al. (1995) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.209224 · Cited by 5
Comparison Of Profiler Measurements Using Different Magnification Objectives
Takacs, P. Z., & Church, E. L. (1987) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.939603 · Cited by 5
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Extreme ultraviolet lithography
Kazazis, D., Santaclara, J. G., van Schoot, J., Mochi, I., & Ekinci, Y. (2024) · Nature Reviews Methods Primers · doi:10.1038/s43586-024-00361-z · Cited by 149
Mixed-ligand zinc-oxoclusters: Efficient chemistry for high resolution nanolithography
Thakur, N., Bliem, R., Mochi, I., Vockenhuber, M., Ekinci, Y., & Castellanos, S. (2020) · Journal of Materials Chemistry C · doi:10.1039/d0tc03597a · Cited by 52
Metadata
- Authors
- Lorusso, G. F., Sutani, T., Rutigliani, V., van Roey, F., Moussa, A., Charley, A.-L., Mack, C., Naulleau, P., Perera, C., Constantoudis, V., Ikota, M., Ishimoto, T., & Koshihara, S.
- Affiliations
- IMEC (BE)
- Hitachi High-Tech (Japan) (JP)
- IMEC
- Fractilia, LLC
- Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
- EUV Labs (Russia) (RU)
- Institute of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology
- Hitachi (Japan) (JP)
- Venue
- Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning, Materials, and Metrology
- Publisher
- SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
- Published
- 2018-09-12
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 04
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 2708-8340 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2891757578
- Cited by
- 59
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- escholarship.org
- Locations
- Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning Materials and Metrology (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advancements in Photolithography Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Instrumentation › Surface Roughness and Optical Measurements
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Advanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
- Keywords
- line width roughness, repeatability, image acquisition parameters, measurement algorithm, frequency analysis, semiconductor lithography
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
