Coherent EUV scatterometry of 2D periodic structure profiles with mathematically optimal experimental design

Clay Klein; Henry C. Kapteyn; Margaret M. Murnane; Nicholas W. Jenkins; Seungbeom Park; Wookrae Kim; Yunhao Li; Yunzhe Shao

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Coherent EUV scatterometry of 2D periodic structure profiles with mathematically optimal experimental design

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read EUV scatterometry measured a copper interconnect dishing depth of 1.60 +/- 0.05 nm, and Fisher information analysis predicts optimal sensitivity near 14 nm wavelength at specific incidence angles.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of EUV scatterometry for dishing metrology with a useful FIM design recipe; the reported uncertainty misses model-scale systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12133 v1 pith:JZDHN2NI submitted 2025-04-16 physics.optics

Clay Klein , Nicholas W. Jenkins , Yunzhe Shao , Yunhao Li , Seungbeom Park , Wookrae Kim , Henry C. Kapteyn , Margaret M. Murnane This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.optics

keywords scatterometrysensitivitywavelengthexperimentalincidencemeasurementperiodicsample

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) light has a short wavelength, so it can probe tiny nanometer-scale features. The authors sent 29 nm EUV light from a tabletop source onto a test chip with a periodic array of copper pads embedded in a silicon nitride layer. The copper pads were slightly recessed, and the question was how deep that recess, called the dishing depth, is. They recorded the brightness of the reflected diffraction orders at seven incidence angles and fit a computer model of the grating to the measured diffraction efficiencies. The best fit gave a dishing depth of 1.60 nanometers with an uncertainty of 0.05 nanometers. They repeated the fit 500 times with noise added to estimate the uncertainty. The measurement is sensitive to single-nanometer changes in the recess depth, which is what semiconductor process control needs.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central experimental claim is that EUV scatterometry can measure the average dishing depth of a 2D periodic Cu/SiCN interconnect structure with single-nanometer sensitivity, reporting a fitted value of 1.60 +/- 0.05 nm. If true, this supports fast, non-destructive metrology for semiconductor interconnect process control. The secondary computational claim is that the normalized Fisher information matrix predicts the most sensitive measurement conditions at a wavelength of 14.1 nm and incidence angles of 15.3 degrees and 17.3 degrees for this two-parameter problem.

Load-bearing premise

The optimized experimental design depends on assumed prior ranges for the two parameters (2 nm for dishing depth, 5 degrees for angle offset) and on the camera noise model, since the FIM is normalized with these ranges. If the true parameter ranges or noise statistics differ, the predicted optimal wavelength and angles change. The paper itself states in Section 5 that 'the prior knowledge of the sample as captured in the FIM formalism affects the value of the optimized wavelength.' Separately, the measured dishing depth assumes the RCWA forward model with tabulated optical constants and a uniform carbon contamination layer is an accurate representation of the real, debris-contaminated sample.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is worth a careful read. It does two things: measures copper dishing depth on a 2D interconnect structure using 29 nm HHG scatterometry, and applies Fisher information matrix optimization to choose wavelengths and incidence angles. The experimental result is plausible, and the FIM part is a clean, well-documented application of a standard method.

The measurement itself is new and industrially relevant. The noise model is thoughtfully built, and the authors are honest about limitations: they acknowledge the optimized wavelength depends on prior ranges, and they explicitly flag the carbon contamination layer as a processing artifact. The FIM derivation is standard Gaussian likelihood math, and the optimization criterion (maximizing the minimum eigenvalue of the normalized FIM) is appropriate for their reconstruction approach.

The main soft spot is the uncertainty on the headline number. The reported ±0.05 nm comes only from Monte Carlo over CCD noise. The RCWA model includes a fixed carbon layer, but the paper gives neither its thickness nor its optical constants, and no sensitivity study with respect to that layer. Since the dishing depth is only ~1.6 nm, a contamination layer of comparable thickness could easily shift the fitted value by more than statistical error. This is a load-bearing gap for the claim of single-nanometer accuracy, though it is addressable: a simple study varying carbon thickness and re-fitting would settle it. A second, somewhat weaker limitation is that the FIM-optimal conditions (14.1 nm, 15.3° and 17.3°) are predictions only; they are not validated by a measurement at those settings. The data are also not public, which makes independent checking harder.

Who is this for? People working in EUV metrology, scatterometry, or semiconductor process control. The FIM methodology is transferable, and the experimental dataset is a useful benchmark. The paper deserves a serious peer review; the carbon-layer robustness question should be raised with the authors, and the prior ranges in the FIM normalization deserve clearer reporting. I would not desk-reject it.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an EUV scatterometry experiment on a 2D periodic Cu/SiCN interconnect structure using 29 nm high-harmonic-generation light. The authors fit an RCWA forward model to seven measured diffraction-efficiency values and extract an average copper dishing depth of 1.60 ± 0.05 nm, where the quoted uncertainty comes from a Monte Carlo propagation of the CCD-noise statistics. They then construct a normalized Fisher information matrix using a Gaussian likelihood approximation and a two-parameter model (dishing depth and global angle offset) to predict optimal measurement conditions, finding a wavelength of 14.1 nm and incidence angles of 15.3° and 17.3°. The paper claims single-nanometer sensitivity to out-of-plane features and presents the FIM-based optimization as a generally applicable tool for EUV scatterometry experimental design.

Significance. If the dishing-depth measurement and the predicted optimal conditions are both quantitatively reliable, the work demonstrates a fast, non-destructive metrology relevant to semiconductor interconnect process control and provides a principled framework for selecting experimental parameters in coherent EUV scatterometry. The paper is commendable for explicitly deriving the Gaussian-likelihood FIM, including a camera-noise model, and for testing the approach on an industrially relevant sample. The experimental sensitivity curves in Fig. 2(a) usefully illustrate the single-nanometer response of the diffraction efficiency to the dishing depth. The supplemental derivation of the FIM from the log-likelihood is clear and standard.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 3] The RCWA model includes a 'thin carbon layer of fixed thickness' to account for debris from dicing, but the thickness is not reported and no sensitivity analysis of the fitted dishing depth to this layer is given. Because the reported dishing depth is only about 1.6 nm, a contamination layer of comparable or larger thickness could shift the fitted value by more than the quoted ±0.05 nm, which reflects only Monte Carlo sampling of CCD noise, not model-scale systematic error. The authors should state the carbon layer thickness and its optical constants, and they should either vary the thickness over a plausible range and re-fit or treat it as an additional free parameter to quantify the resulting systematic uncertainty.
[Eq. (1), Sec. 4, and Supplemental] Equation (1) and its Supplemental derivation appear to contain an incorrect error-propagation formula for the diffraction efficiency. For DE = 2N_±/(2N_± + N_0) with independent Poisson counts, the delta method gives σ²_DE = DE² [ (N_0²/N_±²) σ²_N±/(2N_± + N_0)² + σ²_N0/(2N_± + N_0)² ], but Eq. (1) instead contains σ²_N±/N_±² as the first term and an extra 4σ²_N± in the second term. Since this variance is used to compute the FIM elements in Section 4, the predicted optimal wavelength (14.1 nm) and incidence angles (15.3°, 17.3°) may be quantitatively incorrect. The authors should re-derive the noise model and recompute the optimization, or they should justify the approximation they used.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Sec. 2] The abstract states that the experiment used λ = 29 nm light, while Section 2 says the multilayer mirrors are designed for a peak reflectance at 29.4 nm and Fig. 2(b) gives a nominal wavelength of 29.5 nm; please make these values consistent throughout.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption says the uncertainty is 'only .5 Å'; please use '0.5 Å' or, equivalently, '0.05 nm' to avoid ambiguity and to match the notation used in the main text.
[Sec. 4] The optimized experimental design is computed for a two-parameter model (dishing depth and angle offset), whereas the experimental reconstruction in Section 3 used four free parameters (also including SiCN density and wavelength offset); the authors should state explicitly whether the optimal conditions remain near-optimal when the additional parameters are included, or note this as a limitation.
[Sec. 4] The global optimization of the FIM eigenvalue is not described in terms of the specific numerical algorithm used (e.g., genetic algorithm, multistart, or local optimization with random restarts); please provide this detail to clarify the robustness of the reported optimum.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on the RCWA forward model, tabulated refractive indices, and an ad hoc carbon contamination layer. The optimal-design claim rests on the chosen normalization ranges and noise model parameters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

Copper dishing depth (fitted target) = 1.60 nm (from genetic algorithm fit)
This is the primary measured quantity, not a nuisance parameter; it is one of four free parameters in the RCWA fit to seven diffraction efficiency points.
SiCN density = not stated in text
Fit as a free parameter because of uncertainty; correlated with angle and wavelength offsets in Fig. 3, so its uncertainty propagates into the dishing depth estimate.
Global incidence angle offset = not stated in text
Fit as a calibration parameter; the FIM optimization treats angle offset as the second unknown parameter to be measured.
EUV wavelength offset = not stated in text
Fit as a calibration parameter; accounts for uncertainty in the multilayer mirror peak reflectance.
Carbon contamination layer thickness = fixed thickness, value not stated
Ad hoc addition to the model to account for debris from sample dicing that could not be cleaned; its fixed value is not reported and is not varied in the uncertainty analysis.
FIM prior range for dishing depth = 2 nm
Used to normalize the Fisher information matrix; changing this range would rescale the matrix and shift the optimized wavelength and angles.
FIM prior range for angle offset = 5 degrees
Used to normalize the Fisher information matrix; the paper acknowledges the optimized wavelength depends on this prior knowledge.
CCD noise and camera parameters (alpha, Qe, C, N, D, Nr) = alpha=0.9, Qe=0.9, C=150000, N=502, D=0.0015, Nr=6.5
Inputs to the noise model from the Supplement (Table S1); they affect predicted variances and therefore the optimal design, but they are assumed rather than measured on this setup.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption RCWA provides an accurate forward model of the diffraction efficiency of the 2D periodic interconnect structure.
The entire fit and FIM optimization use RCWA as the forward model; any systematic error in the electromagnetic simulation directly biases the reconstructed dishing depth and the predicted optimal design. Invoked in Section 3.
domain assumption Tabulated atomic scattering factors (CXRO) give correct optical constants for Cu, SiCN, and carbon at EUV wavelengths.
The model uses precomputed refractive indices; incorrect constants would change diffraction efficiencies. Invoked in Section 1 and Fig. 6.
domain assumption The noise model in the Supplement accurately describes CCD statistics, including the Gaussian approximation for high flux.
The FIM depends on predicted measurement variances; if the noise model is wrong, the optimized angles and wavelength change. Invoked in Section 4 and Supplement 1.
ad hoc to paper The true sample parameters lie within the chosen normalization ranges (dishing depth 2 nm, angle offset 5 degrees).
The normalized FIM and its eigenvalues depend on these ranges; the paper states the prior knowledge affects the optimized wavelength. Invoked in Section 4 and Supplement 2.
ad hoc to paper A uniform carbon contamination layer of fixed (unstated) thickness represents the debris on the sample.
This layer is added to make the fit work; its thickness is not varied in the uncertainty analysis, so any error in this assumption is unquantified. Invoked in Section 3.
standard math Each diffraction efficiency measurement is independent and Gaussian distributed with variance given by Eq. 1.
This is the basis for the FIM form; the Gaussian approximation is standard for high flux but not exact. Invoked in Section 4 and Supplement 1.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherent EUV scatterometry of 2D periodic structure profiles with mathematically optimal experimental design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZDHN2NI

@misc{pith2026250412133,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherent EUV scatterometry of 2D periodic structure profiles with mathematically optimal experimental design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZDHN2NI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12133}
}

abstract

Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) scatterometry is an increasingly important metrology that can measure critical parameters of periodic nanostructured materials in a fast, accurate, and repeatable manner and with high sensitivity to nanoscale structure and material composition. Because of this, EUV scatterometry could support manufacturing of semiconductor devices or polymer metamaterials, addressing the limitations of traditional imaging methods such as resolution and field of view, sample damage, throughput, or low sensitivity. Here we use EUV scatterometry to measure the profile of an industrially relevant 2D periodic interconnect structure, using $\lambda = 29$ nm light from a table-top high harmonic generation source. We show that EUV scatterometry is sensitive to out-of-plane features with single-nanometer sensitivity. Furthermore, we also apply a methodology based on the Fisher information matrix to optimize experimental design parameters, such as incidence angles and wavelength, to show how measurement sensitivity can be maximized. This methodology reveals the strong dependence of measurement sensitivity on both incidence angle and wavelength $-$ even in a simple two-parameter case. Through a simultaneous optimization of incidence angles and wavelength, we determine that the most sensitive measurement of the quantities of interest can be made at a wavelength of $\sim$14 nm. In the future, by reducing sample contamination due to sample preparation, deep sub-nanometer sensitivity to axial profiles and 2D structures will be possible. Our results are an important step in guiding EUV scatterometry towards increased accuracy and throughput with a priori computations and by leveraging new experimental capabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12133 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** (a) Experimental data shown as error bars indicating the standard deviation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Corner plot of the Monte Carlo results. Red lines indicate the priors that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: A conceptual overview of the experimental optimization methodology. A [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: (a) The minimum eigenvalue of the Fisher information matrix as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: (a) The higher penetration depth of 14 nm EUV light and the thin SiCN layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[1]

Esashi, N

Y. Esashi, N. W. Jenkins, Y. Shao, et al., Tabletop extreme ultraviolet reflectometer for quantitative nanoscale reflectometry, scatterometry, and imaging, Review of Scientific Instruments 94 (2023)

work page 2023
[2]

B. Wang, N. J. Brooks, P. Johnsen, et al., High-fidelity ptychographic imaging of highly periodic structures enabled by vortex high harmonic beams, Optica 10, 1245--1252 (2023)

work page 2023
[3]

Klein, N

C. Klein, N. Jenkins, Y. Shao, et al., Extreme ultraviolet scatterometry for characterizing nanometer scale features in a damascene sample, in Frontiers in Optics, (Optica Publishing Group, 2024), pp. FTu1B--2

work page 2024
[4]

N. W. Jenkins, Y. Esashi, Y. Shao, et al., EUV scatterometry: low-dose characterization of polymer-based metamaterials, in Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control XXXVIII, vol. 12955 (SPIE, 2024), pp. 250--252

work page 2024
[5]

Soltwisch, A

V. Soltwisch, A. Fern \'a ndez Herrero, M. Pfl \"u ger, et al., Reconstructing detailed line profiles of lamellar gratings from GISAXS patterns with a M axwell solver, Applied Crystallography 50, 1524--1532 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Porter, T

C. Porter, T. Coenen, N. Geypen, et al., Soft x-ray: novel metrology for 3 D profilometry and device pitch overlay, in Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control XXXVII, vol. 12496 (SPIE, 2023), pp. 412--420

work page 2023
[7]

Raymond, Overview of scatterometry applications in high volume silicon manufacturing, AIP Conference Proceedings 788, 394--402 (2005)

C. Raymond, Overview of scatterometry applications in high volume silicon manufacturing, AIP Conference Proceedings 788, 394--402 (2005)

work page 2005
[8]

D. F. Gardner, M. Tanksalvala, E. R. Shanblatt, et al., Subwavelength coherent imaging of periodic samples using a 13.5 nm tabletop high-harmonic light source, Nature Photonics 11, 259--263 (2017)

work page 2017

Show all 56 references

[9]

E. E. Nelson, B. McBennett, T. H. Culman, et al., Tabletop deep-ultraviolet transient grating for ultrafast nanoscale carrier-transport measurements in ultrawide-band-gap materials, Physical Review Applied 22, 054007 (2024)

2024
[10]

J. L. Knobloch, B. McBennett, C. S. Bevis, et al., Structural and elastic properties of empty-pore metalattices extracted via nondestructive coherent extreme UV scatterometry and electron tomography, ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 14, 41316--41327 (2022)

2022
[11]

Nakasuji, A

M. Nakasuji, A. Tokimasa, T. Harada, et al., Development of coherent extreme-ultraviolet scatterometry microscope with high-order harmonic generation source for extreme-ultraviolet mask inspection and metrology, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 51, 06FB09 (2012)

2012
[12]

Sabbagh, A

R. Sabbagh, A. Stothert, S. Sreenivasan, and D. Djurdjanovic, Optical metrology of critical dimensions in large-area nanostructure arrays with complex patterns, Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering 145, 061010 (2023)

2023
[13]

Sherwin, M

S. Sherwin, M. Hettermann, D. Houser, et al., Sub-angstrom critical dimension metrology with EUV scatterometry, in Photomask Technology 2024, vol. 13216 (SPIE, 2024), p. 132160V

2024
[14]

T. Shen, I. Mochi, D. Jeong, et al., Spectral reflectometry characterization of an extreme ultraviolet attenuated phase-shifting mask blank, Journal of Micro/Nanopatterning, Materials, and Metrology 23, 041402--041402 (2024)

2024
[15]

T. Shen, I. Mochi, P. Ansuinelli, et al., EUV reflectometry and scatterometry for thin layer and periodic structure characterization, in Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control XXXVIII, vol. 12955 (SPIE, 2024), pp. 50--58

2024
[16]

Ku, C.-L

Y.-S. Ku, C.-L. Yeh, Y.-C. Chen, et al., EUV scatterometer with a high-harmonic-generation EUV source, Optics Express 24, 28014--28025 (2016)

2016
[17]

Rundquist, C

A. Rundquist, C. G. Durfee III, Z. Chang, et al., Phase-matched generation of coherent soft X -rays, Science 280, 1412--1415 (1998)

1998
[18]

R. A. Bartels, A. Paul, H. Green, et al., Generation of spatially coherent light at extreme ultraviolet wavelengths, Science 297, 376--378 (2002)

2002
[19]

E. R. Shanblatt, C. L. Porter, D. F. Gardner, et al., Quantitative chemically specific coherent diffractive imaging of reactions at buried interfaces with few nanometer precision, Nano letters 16, 5444--5450 (2016)

2016
[20]

Jansen, X

G. Jansen, X. Liu, K. Eikema, and S. Witte, Broadband extreme ultraviolet dispersion measurements using a high-harmonic source, Optics Letters 44, 3625--3628 (2019)

2019
[21]

J. Miao, T. Ishikawa, I. K. Robinson, and M. M. Murnane, Beyond crystallography: Diffractive imaging using coherent x-ray light sources, Science 348, 530--535 (2015)

2015
[22]

Loetgering, S

L. Loetgering, S. Witte, and J. Rothhardt, Advances in laboratory-scale ptychography using high harmonic sources, Optics Express 30, 4133--4164 (2022)

2022
[23]

Tanksalvala, C

M. Tanksalvala, C. L. Porter, Y. Esashi, et al., Nondestructive, high-resolution, chemically specific 3 D nanostructure characterization using phase-sensitive EUV imaging reflectometry, Science Advances 7, eabd9667 (2021)

2021
[24]

Doering, F

S. Doering, F. Hertlein, A. Bayer, and K. Mann, EUV reflectometry for thickness and density determination of thin film coatings, Applied Physics A 107, 795--800 (2012)

2012
[25]

Eschen, C

W. Eschen, C. Liu, M. Steinert, et al., Structured illumination ptychography and at-wavelength characterization with an euv diffuser at 13.5 nm wavelength, Optics Express 32, 3480--3491 (2024)

2024
[26]

B. L. Henke, E. M. Gullikson, and J. C. Davis, X-ray interactions: photoabsorption, scattering, transmission, and reflection at E = 50-30,000 e V , Z = 1-92, Atomic data and nuclear data tables 54, 181--342 (1993)

1993
[27]

A. F. Herrero, M. Pfl \"u ger, J. Puls, et al., Uncertainties in the reconstruction of nanostructures in EUV scatterometry and grazing incidence small-angle x-ray scattering, Optics Express 29, 35580--35591 (2021)

2021
[28]

Kapteyn, M

H. Kapteyn, M. Murnane, Y. Esashi, et al., Photon Sources for Lithography and Metrology (SPIE, 2023), chap. Coherent EUV Light Sources Based on High-Order Harmonic Generation: Principles and Applications in Nanotechnology

2023
[29]

Bartels, S

R. Bartels, S. Backus, E. Zeek, et al., Shaped-pulse optimization of coherent emission of high-harmonic soft x-rays, Nature 406, 164--166 (2000)

2000
[30]

S. A. Ryan, P. C. Johnsen, M. F. Elhanoty, et al., Optically controlling the competition between spin flips and intersite spin transfer in a H eusler half-metal on sub--100-fs time scales, Science Advances 9, eadi1428 (2023)

2023
[31]

Klein, N

C. Klein, N. W. Jenkins, Y. Shao, et al., Optimized EUV scatterometry measurements with tunable high harmonic generation and the F isher information matrix, SPIE Advanced Lithography + Patterning (2025)

2025
[32]

J. H. Durant, L. Wilkins, and J. F. Cooper, Optimizing experimental design in neutron reflectometry, Applied Crystallography 55, 769--781 (2022)

2022
[33]

Mikhalychev, K

A. Mikhalychev, K. Zhevno, S. Vlasenko, et al., Fisher information for optimal planning of x-ray diffraction experiments, Applied Crystallography 54, 1676--1697 (2021)

2021
[34]

Yang, Decision-oriented two-parameter F isher information sensitivity using symplectic decomposition, Technometrics 66, 28--39 (2024)

J. Yang, Decision-oriented two-parameter F isher information sensitivity using symplectic decomposition, Technometrics 66, 28--39 (2024)

2024
[35]

Weedon, S

W. Weedon, S. McKnight, and A. Devaney, Selection of optimal angles for inversion of multiple-angle ellipsometry and reflectometry equations, Journal of the Optical Society of America A 8, 1881--1891 (1991)

1991
[36]

J. H. Durant, L. Wilkins, K. Butler, and J. F. Cooper, Determining the maximum information gain and optimizing experimental design in neutron reflectometry using the F isher information, Applied Crystallography 54, 1100--1110 (2021)

2021
[37]

Z. Dong, S. Liu, X. Chen, and C. Zhang, Determination of an optimal measurement configuration in optical scatterometry using global sensitivity analysis, Thin Solid Films 562, 16--23 (2014)

2014
[38]

N. G. Orji, M. Badaroglu, B. M. Barnes, et al., Metrology for the next generation of semiconductor devices, Nature electronics 1, 532--547 (2018)

2018
[39]

Ansuinelli, W

P. Ansuinelli, W. M. Coene, and H. Urbach, Automatic feature selection in EUV scatterometry, Applied Optics 58, 5916--5923 (2019)

2019
[40]

J. P. Hugonin and P. Lalanne, Reticolo software for grating analysis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00901 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[41]

Ulyanenkov, K

A. Ulyanenkov, K. Omote, and J. Harada, The genetic algorithm: refinement of x-ray reflectivity data from multilayers and thin films, Physica B: Condensed Matter 283, 237--241 (2000)

2000
[42]

Gross, A

H. Gross, A. Rathsfeld, F. Scholze, et al., Computational methods estimating uncertainties for profile reconstruction in scatterometry, in Optical Micro-and Nanometrology in Microsystems Technology II, vol. 6995 (SPIE, 2008), pp. 235--243

2008
[43]

Heidenreich, M.-A

S. Heidenreich, M.-A. Henn, H. Gross, et al., Alternative methods for uncertainty evaluation in EUV scatterometry, in Modeling Aspects in Optical Metrology IV, vol. 8789 (SPIE, 2013), pp. 247--254

2013
[44]

L. Fan, Z. Wang, C. Liao, and J. Wang, Efficient optimization of plasma surface high harmonic generation by an improved B ayesian strategy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.24051 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[45]

Klein and C

C. Klein and C. Li, Computer vision applied to in-situ specimen orientation adjustment for quantitative SEM analysis, Microscopy and Microanalysis 29, 196--201 (2023)

2023
[46]

T. Park, V. L. Kashyap, A. Siemiginowska, et al., Bayesian estimation of hardness ratios: Modeling and computations, The Astrophysical Journal 652, 610 (2006)

2006
[47]

Morrill, W

D. Morrill, W. Hettel, D. Carlson, et al., Soft x-ray high-harmonic generation in an anti-resonant hollow core fiber driven by a 3 m ultrafast laser, Optica (2025)

2025
[48]

Jacobsen, X-Ray Microscopy (Cambridge University Press, 2019), chap

C. Jacobsen, X-Ray Microscopy (Cambridge University Press, 2019), chap. Radiation Damage and Cryo Microscopy

2019
[49]

Du and C

M. Du and C. Jacobsen, Relative merits and limiting factors for x-ray and electron microscopy of thick, hydrated organic materials, Ultramicroscopy 184, 293--309 (2018)

2018
[50]

Y. H. Lo, L. Zhao, M. Gallagher-Jones, et al., In situ coherent diffractive imaging, Nature communications 9, 1826 (2018)

2018
[51]

X. Lu, M. Pham, E. Negrini, et al., Computational microscopy beyond perfect lenses, Physical Review E 110, 054407 (2024)

2024
[52]

, " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

ENTRY address author booktitle chapter edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state...
[53]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
[54]

write newline

" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
[55]

J. H. Durant, L. Wilkins, and J. F. Cooper, Optimizing experimental design in neutron reflectometry, Journal of Applied Crystallography 55, 769--781 (2022)

2022
[56]

Yang, Decision-oriented two-parameter fisher information sensitivity using symplectic decomposition, Technometrics 66, 28--39 (2024)

J. Yang, Decision-oriented two-parameter fisher information sensitivity using symplectic decomposition, Technometrics 66, 28--39 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Esashi, N

Y. Esashi, N. W. Jenkins, Y. Shao, et al., Tabletop extreme ultraviolet reflectometer for quantitative nanoscale reflectometry, scatterometry, and imaging, Review of Scientific Instruments 94 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [2]

B. Wang, N. J. Brooks, P. Johnsen, et al., High-fidelity ptychographic imaging of highly periodic structures enabled by vortex high harmonic beams, Optica 10, 1245--1252 (2023)

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Klein, N

C. Klein, N. Jenkins, Y. Shao, et al., Extreme ultraviolet scatterometry for characterizing nanometer scale features in a damascene sample, in Frontiers in Optics, (Optica Publishing Group, 2024), pp. FTu1B--2

work page 2024

[4] [4]

N. W. Jenkins, Y. Esashi, Y. Shao, et al., EUV scatterometry: low-dose characterization of polymer-based metamaterials, in Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control XXXVIII, vol. 12955 (SPIE, 2024), pp. 250--252

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Soltwisch, A

V. Soltwisch, A. Fern \'a ndez Herrero, M. Pfl \"u ger, et al., Reconstructing detailed line profiles of lamellar gratings from GISAXS patterns with a M axwell solver, Applied Crystallography 50, 1524--1532 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Porter, T

C. Porter, T. Coenen, N. Geypen, et al., Soft x-ray: novel metrology for 3 D profilometry and device pitch overlay, in Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control XXXVII, vol. 12496 (SPIE, 2023), pp. 412--420

work page 2023

[7] [7]

Raymond, Overview of scatterometry applications in high volume silicon manufacturing, AIP Conference Proceedings 788, 394--402 (2005)

C. Raymond, Overview of scatterometry applications in high volume silicon manufacturing, AIP Conference Proceedings 788, 394--402 (2005)

work page 2005

[8] [8]

D. F. Gardner, M. Tanksalvala, E. R. Shanblatt, et al., Subwavelength coherent imaging of periodic samples using a 13.5 nm tabletop high-harmonic light source, Nature Photonics 11, 259--263 (2017)

work page 2017