Comparative study of line roughness metrics of chemically amplified and inorganic resists for extreme ultraviolet

Abstract. We present a comprehensive comparative study of the roughness metrics of different resists. Dense line/space of polymethyl methacrylate, hydrogen silsesquioxane, a metal oxide-based resist, and different chemically amplified resists (CARs) have been patterned by extreme ultraviolet interference lithography. All three line width roughness (LWR) metrics: the root-mean-square (r.m.s.) roughness value σLWR, the correlation length ξ, and the roughness exponent α, were extracted by metrological analysis of top-down SEM images. We found that all metrics are required to fully describe the overall roughness of each resist. Our measurements indicate that in fact, a few of the state-of-the-art resists tested here can meet the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors requirements for σLWR. The correlation length ξ was also found to be considerably higher in polymer-based materials in comparison to nonpolymers. Finally, the roughness exponent α, interpreted using the concept of fractal geometry, was found to be mainly affected by acid diffusion in CARs, where it produces line edges with a higher complexity than in non-CAR resists. These results indicate that the different resists platforms show very different LWR metrics and roughness is not manifested only in the σLWR but in all parameters. Therefore, all roughness metrics should be taken into account when comparing the performance among different resists since they ultimately have a substantial impact on device performance.

[1]  Evangelos Gogolides,et al.  Evolution of resist roughness during development: stochastic simulation and dynamic scaling analysis , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[2]  Gian Francesco Lorusso,et al.  Line width roughness accuracy analysis during pattern transfer in self-aligned quadruple patterning process , 2016, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[3]  Shimon Levi,et al.  Edge roughness characterization of advanced patterning processes using power spectral density analysis (PSD) , 2016, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[4]  Angeliki Tserepi,et al.  Quantification of line-edge roughness of photoresists. II. Scaling and fractal analysis and the best roughness descriptors , 2003 .

[5]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Fractal concepts in surface growth , 1995 .

[6]  P. Gupta,et al.  Device- and Circuit-Level Variability Caused by Line Edge Roughness for Sub-32-nm FinFET Technologies , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices.

[7]  Shigeru Moriya,et al.  Edge roughness evaluation method for quantifying at-size beam blur in electron-beam lithography , 2000, Advanced Lithography.

[8]  M. O. Lai,et al.  Image-Based Fractal Description of Microstructures , 2003 .

[9]  Yasin Ekinci,et al.  SnOx high-efficiency EUV interference lithography gratings towards the ultimate resolution in photolithography , 2016 .

[10]  George P. Patsis,et al.  Integrated simulation of line-edge roughness (LER) effects on sub-65nm transistor operation: From lithography simulation, to LER metrology, to device operation , 2006, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[11]  V. Constantoudis,et al.  Evolution of resist roughness during development: Stochastic simulation and dynamic scaling analysis , 2010, 2010 27th International Conference on Microelectronics Proceedings.

[12]  Takenao Yoshizaki,et al.  Mean-Square Radius of Gyration of Isotactic Oligo- and Poly(methyl methacrylate)s in Dilute Solution , 1994 .