Optimizing extreme ultraviolet lithography imaging metrics as a function of absorber thickness and illumination source: a simulation case study of Ta-Co alloy
Open accessAbstract
BackgroundThe optical properties of the absorber material and its thickness, along with the choice of illumination, govern the imaging performance of an EUV photomask. Consequently, the imaging metrics, viz., normalized image log slope (NILS), telecentricity error (TCE), and best focus variation (BFV) through pitch, exhibit a trade-off. Previous studies have focused on either reflectivity or phase shift induced by the absorber to determine the optimum absorber thickness, which ignores the structure of the patterns on the mask.AimThis simulation study intends to facilitate the optimum absorber thickness selection with an emphasis on diffraction order analysis of the line and space (LnS) pattern and investigates the impact of illumination source shapes for a Ta-Co alloy absorber mask.ApproachWe investigate the behavior of imaging metrics as a function of the absorber thickness using literature-recommended illumination source shapes. NILS, TCE, throughput criterion, diffraction order’s amplitude ratio, and phase difference are the critical parameters when selecting the optimum absorber thickness. A through-pitch imaging performance of the Ta-Co alloy absorber with recommended thicknesses is compared with the reference 60 nm Ta-based absorber using leaf dipole (LDP), inner half leaf dipole (IHLDP), and outer half leaf dipole (OHLDP) for LnS patterns with a target trench of 10 nm and pitch ranging from 20 to 40 nm.ResultsThe proposed absorber thickness optimization methodology validates the reference Ta-based absorber thickness and recommends 52 nm of Ta-Co alloy absorber thickness. IHLDP and OHLDP demonstrate enhanced NILS for the smallest pitch. However, this behavior is inconsistent throughout the pitch. IHLDP exhibits low TCE. However, because of higher BFV, the advantages are not exceptionally beneficial.ConclusionsA holistic approach makes the proposed absorber thickness optimization methodology reliable and generally applicable. The through-pitch simulation outcomes at selected absorber thickness favor a conventional full-leaf dipole for the studied imaging metrics.
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
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?
To overcome the 3D mask effect, both low refractive index (low-n) and high extinction coefficient (high-k) masks have been proposed.
“To overcome the 3D mask effect, both low refractive index (low -n ) and high extinction coefficient (high -k ) masks have been proposed 10 9 -112 .”
From Extreme ultraviolet lithography (2024) · cites this paper as [110]
The Introduction (page not provided) discusses high-k absorbers and identifies Ta-Co as a prospective high-k mask absorber; the Results also describe Ta-Co as having a lower refractive index than the reference absorber. Our copy does not say that low-n and high-k masks were both proposed specifically to overcome 3D mask effects. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- 10.1117/12.2614296 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2660823 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2501799 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2536415 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2299648 · DOI
- 10.3390/app8040521 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2515678 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2258266 · DOI
- 10.1117/1.JMM.22.2.024403 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2280624 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2572878 · DOI
- 10.1364/JOSAA.416235 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.681872 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2537104 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2573161 · DOI
- 10.1515/aot-2017-0019 · DOI
- 10.1116/1.4994908 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2536329 · DOI
- 10.1117/12.2536469 · DOI
- 10.2494/photopolymer.32.195 · DOI
- 10.1117/1.JMM.16.4.041010 · DOI · Paper page
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 · see citing works
Ronse, K. (2024) · IEEE Electron Devices Magazine · doi:10.1109/med.2023.3336276 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Thakare, D., Delabie, A., & Philipsen, V.
- Affiliations
- IMEC (BE)
- Venue
- Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning, Materials, and Metrology
- Publisher
- SPIE-Intl Soc Optical Eng
- Published
- 2023-08-07
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 1-18
- ISSN
- 2708-8340 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4385636223
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5
- FWCI
- 0.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- lirias.kuleuven.be
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning Materials and Metrology (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advancements in Photolithography Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced X-ray Imaging Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced optical system design
- Keywords
- EUV lithography, EUV masks, absorber thickness optimization, normalized image log slope, line/space patterning
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