• Acta Optica Sinica
  • Vol. 40, Issue 10, 1005001 (2020)
Wei Cheng1、2, Sikun Li1、2、*, Xiangzhao Wang1、2、**, and Zinan Zhang1、2
Author Affiliations
  • 1Laboratory of Information Optics and Opt-electronic Technology, Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China
  • 2Center of Materials Science and Optoelectronics Engineering, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • show less
    DOI: 10.3788/AOS202040.1005001 Cite this Article Set citation alerts
    Wei Cheng, Sikun Li, Xiangzhao Wang, Zinan Zhang. Method for Profile Reconstruction of Phase Defects in Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography Mask[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2020, 40(10): 1005001 Copy Citation Text show less
    Schematic of defected multilayer film in EUV lithography. (a) Bump defect; (b) pit defect
    Fig. 1. Schematic of defected multilayer film in EUV lithography. (a) Bump defect; (b) pit defect
    Schematic of illumination angle
    Fig. 2. Schematic of illumination angle
    Flowchart of FP reconstructing complex amplitude
    Fig. 3. Flowchart of FP reconstructing complex amplitude
    Schematic of CNN
    Fig. 4. Schematic of CNN
    Schematic of MLP
    Fig. 5. Schematic of MLP
    Flowchart of bottom profile parameter reconstruction of defects
    Fig. 6. Flowchart of bottom profile parameter reconstruction of defects
    Schematic of FP reconstructing complex amplitude
    Fig. 7. Schematic of FP reconstructing complex amplitude
    Reconstruction results of complex amplitude of aerial image. (a) Reconstructed amplitude; (b) reconstructed phase
    Fig. 8. Reconstruction results of complex amplitude of aerial image. (a) Reconstructed amplitude; (b) reconstructed phase
    Comparison of amplitudes of aerial images. (a) Reconstructed amplitude of aerial image; (b) simulated amplitude of aerial image (NAobj=0.0825); (c) simulated amplitude of aerial image (NAobj=0.1320); (d) difference between those in Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(c)
    Fig. 9. Comparison of amplitudes of aerial images. (a) Reconstructed amplitude of aerial image; (b) simulated amplitude of aerial image (NAobj=0.0825); (c) simulated amplitude of aerial image (NAobj=0.1320); (d) difference between those in Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(c)
    Central longitudinal sections of amplitude and phase of aerial images of mask blanks with bump defect. (a)(c) ωbot=20 nm; (b)(d) hbot=20 nm
    Fig. 10. Central longitudinal sections of amplitude and phase of aerial images of mask blanks with bump defect. (a)(c) ωbot=20 nm; (b)(d) hbot=20 nm
    Central longitudinal sections of amplitude and phase of aerial images of mask blanks with pit defect. (a)(c) ωbot=20 nm; (b)(d) hbot=-20 nm
    Fig. 11. Central longitudinal sections of amplitude and phase of aerial images of mask blanks with pit defect. (a)(c) ωbot=20 nm; (b)(d) hbot=-20 nm
    Central values of aerial images of mask blanks with bump defects. (a) Amplitude; (b) phase
    Fig. 12. Central values of aerial images of mask blanks with bump defects. (a) Amplitude; (b) phase
    Central values of aerial images of mask blanks with pit defects. (a) Amplitude; (b) phase
    Fig. 13. Central values of aerial images of mask blanks with pit defects. (a) Amplitude; (b) phase
    Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of bump defects. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP; (c) reconstructed hbot using MLP when input ωbot is real; (d) reconstructed hbot using CNN
    Fig. 14. Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of bump defects. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP; (c) reconstructed hbot using MLP when input ωbot is real; (d) reconstructed hbot using CNN
    Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of pit defects. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP; (c) reconstructed hbot using MLP when input ωbot is real; (d) reconstructed hbot using CNN
    Fig. 15. Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of pit defects. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP; (c) reconstructed hbot using MLP when input ωbot is real; (d) reconstructed hbot using CNN
    Comparison of aerial images without and with noise. (a) Aerial image without noise; (b) aerial image with noise; (c) noise
    Fig. 16. Comparison of aerial images without and with noise. (a) Aerial image without noise; (b) aerial image with noise; (c) noise
    Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of bump defects when measured aerial images are with noise. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP
    Fig. 17. Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of bump defects when measured aerial images are with noise. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP
    Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of pit defects when measured aerial images are with noise. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP
    Fig. 18. Reconstruction results of bottom profile parameters of pit defects when measured aerial images are with noise. (a) Reconstructed ωbot using CNN; (b) reconstructed hbot using MLP
    Simulation objectSubmoduleParameter
    MaskMultilayer40 pairs of Mo/Si bilayerMo/Si thickness: 4.17 nm/2.78 nmRefractive index: Mo: 0.923800-0.006435j, Si: 0.9990000-0.0018265j
    SubstrateSiO2 thickness: 20 nm
    OpticsIlluminationWavelength: 13.5 nm Chief ray angle: 6°
    Projection900× magnification, NAobj=0.0825
    Table 1. Parameter setting for simulation
    Anglel1l2l3l4l5l6l7l8l9
    θr/(°)02.032.032.032.032.842.842.842.84
    φ /(°)0090180-9045135-135-45
    Table 2. Illumination angle of coherent light
    htop/nmωtop/nmhbot/nmωbot/nmRMSE of hbot/nmRMSE of ωbot/nm
    140Rand (5, 50)Rand (5, 50)3.86700.4491
    Rand (15, 50)1.11090.2935
    150Rand (5, 50)Rand (5, 50)3.70500.5495
    Rand (15, 50)0.74700.2768
    240Rand (5, 50)Rand (5, 50)2.85430.5905
    Rand (15, 50)0.95980.3599
    250Rand (5, 50)Rand (5, 50)3.75030.5176
    Rand (15, 50)1.18890.3732
    330Rand (5, 50)Rand (5, 50)2.31040.4316
    Rand (15, 50)1.36970.3489
    -140Rand (-5, -50)Rand (5, 50)2.05510.4495
    Rand (15, 50)1.32010.4318
    -150Rand (-5, -50)Rand (5, 50)0.90770.4087
    Rand (15, 50)0.79790.4170
    -240Rand (-5, -50)Rand (5, 50)1.87400.4321
    Rand (15, 50)1.30260.4324
    -250Rand (-5, -50)Rand (5, 50)1.53300.4564
    Rand (15, 50)0.95270.3922
    -330Rand (-5, -50)Rand (5, 50)2.00170.3925
    Rand (15, 50)1.00760.4260
    Table 3. Reconstruction results of defects
    Wei Cheng, Sikun Li, Xiangzhao Wang, Zinan Zhang. Method for Profile Reconstruction of Phase Defects in Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography Mask[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2020, 40(10): 1005001
    Download Citation