Two matrix approaches for aerial image formation obtained by extending and modifying the transmission cross coefficients.

This paper physically compares two different matrix representations of partially coherent imaging with the introduction of matrices E and Z, containing the source, object, and pupil. The matrix E is obtained by extending the Hopkins transmission cross coefficient (TCC) approach such that the pupil function is shifted while the matrix Z is obtained by shifting the object spectrum. The aerial image I can be written as a convex quadratic form I = = , where |phi> is a column vector representing plane waves. It is shown that rank(Z) < or = rank(E) = rank(T) = N, where T is the TCC matrix and N is the number of the point sources for a given unpolarized illumination. Therefore, the matrix Z requires fewer than N eigenfunctions for a complete aerial image formation, while the matrix E or T always requires N eigenfunctions. More importantly, rank(Z) varies depending on the degree of coherence determined by the von Neumann entropy, which is shown to relate to the mutual intensity. For an ideal pinhole as an object, emitting spatially coherent light, only one eigenfunction--i.e., the pupil function--is enough to describe the coherent imaging. In this case, we obtain rank(Z) = 1 and the pupil function as the only eigenfunction regardless of the illumination. However, rank(E) = rank(T) = N even when the object is an ideal pinhole. In this sense, aerial image formation with the matrix Z is physically more meaningful than with the matrix E. The matrix Z is decomposed as B(dagger)B, where B is a singular matrix, suggesting that the matrix B as well as Z is a principal operator characterizing the degree of coherence of the partially coherent imaging.

[1]  A. R. Neureuther,et al.  Propagation effects of partial coherence in optical lithography , 1996 .

[2]  Mj Martin Bastiaans Applications of the Wigner distribution to partially coherent light beams , 2008 .

[3]  Serdar Yüksel,et al.  Linear algebraic theory of partial coherence: discrete fields and measures of partial coherence. , 2002 .

[4]  Michael Totzeck,et al.  Physical image formation , 2005 .

[5]  K. Yamazoe Computation theory of partially coherent imaging by stacked pupil shift matrix. , 2008, Journal of The Optical Society of America A-optics Image Science and Vision.

[6]  H. Gamo,et al.  III Matrix Treatment of Partial Coherence , 1964 .

[7]  E. Wolf New spectral representation of random sources and of the partially coherent fields that they generate , 1981 .

[8]  Thomas Kailath,et al.  Phase-shifting masks for microlithography: automated design and mask requirements , 1994 .

[9]  Mj Martin Bastiaans Uncertainty principle for partially coherent light , 1983 .

[10]  F. Zernike The concept of degree of coherence and its application to optical problems , 1938 .

[11]  Steven A. Orszag,et al.  Extending scalar aerial image calculations to higher numerical apertures , 1992 .

[12]  Stephen D. Hsu,et al.  Contact hole reticle optimization by using interference mapping lithography (IML) , 2004, Photomask Japan.

[13]  H. Gamo Intensity Matrix and Degree of Coherence , 1957 .

[14]  Avideh Zakhor,et al.  Fast optical and process proximity correction algorithms for integrated circuit manufacturing , 1998 .

[15]  H. Hopkins On the diffraction theory of optical images , 1953, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[16]  Andrew R. Neureuther,et al.  Aerial image calculation by eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of a matrix that includes source, pupil, and mask , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[17]  Roger Fabian W. Pease,et al.  Optimal coherent decompositions for radially symmetric optical systems , 1997 .

[18]  E. Wolf A macroscopic theory of interference and diffraction of light from finite sources, I. Fields with a narrow spectral range , 1954, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

[19]  Avideh Zakhor,et al.  Iterative procedure for in situ extreme ultraviolet optical testing with an incoherent source , 2009 .

[20]  A. Starikov,et al.  Effective number of degrees of freedom of partially coherent sources , 1982 .

[21]  Shalin B Mehta,et al.  Phase-space representation of partially coherent imaging systems using the Cohen class distribution. , 2010, Optics letters.

[22]  B E Saleh,et al.  Simulation of partially coherent imagery in the space and frequency domains and by modal expansion. , 1982, Applied optics.