Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31421625›Full record

ArticleUltramicroscopy2019

Conventional vs. model-based measurement of patterned line widths from scanning electron microscopy profiles.

Francesc Salvat-Pujol, John S Villarrubia

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ultramicroscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 55% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Francesc Salvat-PujolNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA; CERN, Geneva 23 CH-1211, Switzerland.
John S VillarrubiaNational Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, USA. Electronic address: john.villarrubia@nist.gov.
European Organization for Nuclear Research · CHNational Institute of Standards and Technology · US

Funding

Intramural NIST DOC 9999-NIST
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) is a practical tool to determine the dimensions of nanometer-scale features. Conventional width measurements use arbitrary criteria, e.g., a 50 % threshold crossing, to assign feature boundaries in the measured SEM intensity profile. To estimate the errors associated with such a procedure, we have simulated secondary electron signals from a suite of line shapes consisting of 30 nm tall silicon lines with varying width, sidewall angle, and corner rounding. Four different inelastic scattering models were employed in Monte Carlo simulations of electron transport to compute secondary electron image intensity profiles for each of the shapes. The 4 models were combinations of dielectric function theory with either the single-pole approximation (SPA) or the full Penn algorithm (FPA), and either with or without Auger electron emission. Feature widths were determined either by the conventional threshold method or by the model-based library (MBL) method, which is a fit of the simulated profiles to the reference model (FPA + Auger). On the basis of these comparisons we estimate the error in the measured width of such features by the conventional procedure to be as much as several nanometers. A 1 nm difference in the size of, e.g., a nominally 10 nm transistor gate would substantially alter its electronic properties. Thus, the conventional measurements do not meet the contemporary requirements of the semiconductor industry. In contrast, MBL measurements employing models with varying accuracy differed one from another by less than 1 nm. Thus, a MBL measurement is preferable in the nanoscale domain.

Indexed as

Critical dimension (CD)Inelastic scatteringJMONSELLow-energy electron transportMonte Carlo simulationNanometer scale dimensional metrologySEM

Identifiers

PMID31421625
PMCPMC6858966
OpenAlexW2965207657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.