2022
DOI: 10.1117/1.jmm.22.2.021006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Unbiased roughness measurements from low signal-to-noise ratio scanning electron microscope images

Abstract: Background: Measuring and subtracting scanning electron microscope (SEM) noise from a biased measurement of roughness leads to an unbiased roughness measurement. This unbiasing procedure becomes harder as the noise in the image increases. For low image signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (below about 2), unbiased roughness measurement becomes less reliable.Aim: It is important to understand the mechanism for the sensitivity of unbiased roughness accuracy to linescan SNR to look for ways to improve unbiased roughness m… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6 shows that the SNR values are above 2, which is the threshold defined for reliable metrology. 12,14 Moreover, the SNR decreases with reducing the film thickness as expected and reported for other types of resists. 3,12…”
Section: Sem Image Visibility Using Imec Bkm Conditionssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…6 shows that the SNR values are above 2, which is the threshold defined for reliable metrology. 12,14 Moreover, the SNR decreases with reducing the film thickness as expected and reported for other types of resists. 3,12…”
Section: Sem Image Visibility Using Imec Bkm Conditionssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…For instance, they assume that 'in situations where white noise (that is, frequencyindependent noise) is added to the roughness profile, the error component due to that noise also appears in the PSD/HHCF as a frequency-independent plot called the flat noise floor'. This assumption ignores the correlation component [14][15][16] because the true roughness profile and noise are presumably independent. However, the validity of this assumption has not been checked, and the influence of the correlated component must be clarified for reliable assessment of noise errors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%