Direct comparison of line edge roughness measurements by SEM and a metrological tilting-atomic force microscopy for reference metrology

Abstract

Background: Conventional scanning electron microscopy (SEM) that is used for 2D top-view metrology, a classical line edge roughness (LER) measurement technique, is incapable of measuring 3D structures of a nanoscale line pattern. For LER measurements, SEM measurement generates a single line-edge profile for the 3D sidewall roughness, although the line-edge profile differs at each height in the 3D sidewall. Aim: To develop an evaluation method of SEM-based LER measurement techniques and to verify how the 3D sidewall shape is reflected in the SEM's 2D result. Approach: Direct comparison by measuring an identical location of a line pattern by SEM and an atomic force microscopy (AFM) with the tip-tilting technique that is capable of measuring the 3D sidewall. The line pattern has vertical stripes on the sidewall due to its fabrication process. Measured line edge profiles were analyzed using power spectral density, height-height correlation function, and autocorrelation function. Results: Line edge profiles measured by SEM and AFM were well matched except for noise level. Frequency and scaling analyses showed that SEM profile contained high noise and had lost a property of self-affine fractals in contrast to AFM. Conclusions: In the case of the line pattern with vertical stripes on the sidewall, SEM profile is generally consistent with 3D sidewall shape. The AFM-based LER measurement technique is useful as LER reference metrology to evaluate other LER measurement techniques.

Evaluation of the change in photoresist sidewall roughness due to electron beam-induced shrinkage using atomic force microscopy

“…The method of LER measurement by AFM was the same as that employed in previous studies, [18][19][20] and the main measurement conditions were as follows: the tilting angles of the tip and the two control axes were 14 deg and 30 deg, respectively; the number of measurement points (3D point cloud) was 2000 points × 250 lines. The measurement range was 2000 × 160 nm 2 .…”

“…This device enables the sidewall measurement with higher accuracy than the conventional tilting-AFMs. [18][19][20] In this study, AFM measurements were performed before and after EB exposure (during SEM observation) on the same photoresist pattern. The aim was to precisely evaluate the EB-induced shrinkage.…”