Contrasting conventional and machine learning approaches to optical critical dimension measurements

Accurate, optics-based measurement of feature sizes at deep sub-wavelength dimensions has been conventionally challenged by improved manufacturing, including smaller linewidths, denser layouts, and greater materials complexity at near-atomic scales. Electromagnetic modeling is relied upon heavily for forward maps used to solve the inverse problem of optical measurements for parametric estimation. Machine learning (ML) approaches are continually under consideration, either as a means to bypass direct comparison to simulation or as a method to augment nonlinear regression. In this work, ML approaches are investigated using a well-characterized experimental data set and its simulation library that assumes a 2-D geometry. The benefits and limitations of ML for optical critical dimension (OCD) metrology are illustrated by comparing a straightforward library lookup method and two ML approaches, a data-driven surrogate model for nonlinear regression using radial basis functions (RBF) and multiple-output Gaussian process regression (GPR) that indirectly applies the simulated intensity data. Both RBF and GPR generally improve accuracy over the conventional method with as few as 32 training points. However, as measurement noise is decreased the uncertainties from RBF and GPR differ greatly as the GPR posterior estimate of the variance appears to overestimate parametric uncertainties. Both accuracy and uncertainty must be addressed in OCD while balancing simulation versus ML computational requirements.

[1]  Hui Zhou,et al.  Improving optical measurement uncertainty with combined multitool metrology using a Bayesian approach. , 2012, Applied optics.

[2]  Timothy F. Crimmins Defect metrology challenges at the 11-nm node and beyond , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[3]  Egon Marx,et al.  The limits of image-based optical metrology , 2006, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[4]  Hermann Gross,et al.  Bayesian approach to determine critical dimensions from scatterometric measurements , 2018, Metrologia.

[5]  Hui Zhou,et al.  Appraising the extensibility of optics-based metrology for emerging materials , 2019 .

[6]  Chas Archie,et al.  Hybrid reference metrology exploiting patterning simulation , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[7]  M. Mongillo Choosing Basis Functions and Shape Parameters for Radial Basis Function Methods , 2011 .

[8]  N. Zhang,et al.  Model-Based Optical Metrology in R M.o.R , 2018 .

[9]  Bryan M. Barnes,et al.  Zero-order imaging of device-sized overlay targets using scatterfield microscopy , 2007, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[10]  Hui Zhou,et al.  Optimizing hybrid metrology: rigorous implementation of Bayesian and combined regression , 2015, Journal of micro/nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS : JM3.

[11]  Russell C. Eberhart,et al.  A new optimizer using particle swarm theory , 1995, MHS'95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science.

[12]  A. Boef,et al.  Optical wafer metrology sensors for process-robust CD and overlay control in semiconductor device manufacturing , 2016 .

[13]  Bernd Bodermann,et al.  Quantifying parameter uncertainties in optical scatterometry using Bayesian inversion , 2017, Optical Metrology.

[14]  Bryan M. Barnes,et al.  Scatterfield microscopy of 22-nm node patterned defects using visible and DUV light , 2012, Advanced Lithography.

[15]  Bryan M. Barnes,et al.  193 nm angle-resolved scatterfield microscope for semiconductor metrology , 2009, NanoScience + Engineering.

[16]  Haitao Liu,et al.  Remarks on multi-output Gaussian process regression , 2018, Knowl. Based Syst..

[17]  Todd C. Bailey,et al.  Leveraging advanced data analytics, machine learning, and metrology models to enable critical dimension metrology solutions for advanced integrated circuit nodes , 2014 .

[18]  Frank Schmidt,et al.  Adaptive finite element method for simulation of optical nano structures , 2007, 0711.2149.

[19]  Hui Zhou,et al.  Improving optical measurement accuracy using multi-technique nested uncertainties , 2009, Advanced Lithography.

[20]  Egon Marx,et al.  Scatterfield microscopy for extending the limits of image-based optical metrology. , 2007, Applied optics.

[21]  S. Kinoshita,et al.  Mechanism of variable structural colour in the neon tetra: quantitative evaluation of the Venetian blind model , 2011, Journal of The Royal Society Interface.

[22]  Bernd Bodermann,et al.  A new high-aperture 193 nm microscope for the traceable dimensional characterization of micro- and nanostructures , 2009 .

[23]  Sven Burger,et al.  Solving inverse problems appearing in design and metrology of diffractive optical elements by using Bayesian optimization , 2018, Optical Systems Design.

[24]  Sven Burger,et al.  Using Gaussian process regression for efficient parameter reconstruction , 2019, Advanced Lithography.

[25]  B. M. Barnes,et al.  Angle resolved optical metrology , 2008, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[26]  R. Silver,et al.  Design of angle-resolved illumination optics using nonimaging bi-telecentricity for 193 nm scatterfield microscopy. , 2018, Optik.

[27]  Hui Zhou,et al.  Nested uncertainties and hybrid metrology to improve measurement accuracy , 2011, Advanced Lithography.

[28]  Joerg Bischoff,et al.  Optical scatterometry of quarter-micron patterns using neural regression , 1998, Advanced Lithography.

[29]  Bryan M. Barnes,et al.  Combining model-based measurement results of critical dimensions from multiple tools , 2017 .