pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08045 · v1 · pith:2A3BW3UCnew · submitted 2026-06-06 · ⚛️ physics.optics · physics.atom-ph· physics.plasm-ph

40% boost in extreme ultraviolet conversion efficiency via simultaneous dual-beam 2-{μ}m laser irradiation

Naoki Nagahama , Kaito Nishimiya , Shunya Yamamoto , Hayato Yazawa , Yuta Takai , Chisato Tanaka , Kazuyuki Sakaue , Atsushi Sunahara
show 4 more authors
Gerry O'Sullivan Shinichi Namba Takeshi Higashiguchi Eiji J. Takahashi
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 19:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics physics.atom-phphysics.plasm-ph
keywords EUV conversion efficiencylaser-produced plasmadual-beam irradiationtin target2-micron laserHo:YAG laserlithography source
0
0 comments X

The pith

Splitting laser energy into two simultaneous beams raises EUV conversion efficiency by 40% in tin plasma.

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

The paper demonstrates that a single 40 mJ pulse of 2090 nm light on a tin target produces 2.6% EUV conversion efficiency, while splitting the same total energy into two simultaneous 20 mJ beams at identical peak intensity raises efficiency to 3.6%. The EUV source size and energetic ion spectra stay nearly the same in both cases, indicating that the plasma conditions remain comparable. The approach uses only passive beam splitting and extends easily to three or more beams, offering a route to higher-efficiency sources at modest per-pulse energies.

Core claim

Simultaneous dual-beam irradiation of a planar Sn target with a 2090-nm, 20-ns Ho:YAG laser, splitting 40 mJ total energy into two 20 mJ beams at identical peak intensity, yields an EUV conversion efficiency of 3.6%, a 40% improvement over single-beam irradiation at 2.6%, while the EUV source size of 60-70 μm and energetic-ion spectra remain nearly identical.

What carries the argument

simultaneous dual-beam irradiation that splits total energy equally while preserving identical peak intensity per beam

Load-bearing premise

The plasma conditions remain comparable when the energy is split into two beams, as shown by unchanged source size and ion spectra.

What would settle it

A clear difference in measured EUV source size or energetic-ion spectrum between the single-beam and dual-beam cases would show that plasma conditions are not comparable and would undermine the attribution of the efficiency gain to the dual-beam scheme.

read the original abstract

Scaling extreme ultraviolet (EUV) source power for next-generation lithography demands higher conversion efficiency (CE) at reduced per-pulse energies. We demonstrated a 40% CE enhancement by simultaneous dual-beam irradiation of a planar Sn target with a 2090-nm, 20-ns Ho:YAG laser. Single-beam irradiation at 40 mJ yielded an EUV CE of 2.6%; splitting the same total energy equally into two beams of 20 mJ each - at identical peak intensity - raised the EUV CE to 3.6%, which was the highest reported for 2-{\mu}m-driven laser-produced plasma sources. The EUV source size (60-70 {\mu}m) and energetic-ion spectra were nearly identical across both configurations, confirming comparable plasma conditions. Because the scheme requires only passive beam splitting and scales readily to three or more beams, it offers a practical route toward multi-kW-class, energy-efficient EUV sources for high-NA and hyper-NA lithography.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental demonstration that simultaneous dual-beam irradiation of a planar Sn target with a 2090-nm, 20-ns Ho:YAG laser at 40 mJ total energy (split equally into two 20 mJ beams at identical peak intensity) increases EUV conversion efficiency from 2.6% (single beam) to 3.6% (dual beam), a 40% enhancement. This is claimed to be the highest CE reported for 2-μm-driven LPP sources. The authors state that EUV source size (60-70 μm) and energetic-ion spectra are nearly identical between configurations, confirming comparable plasma conditions, and note that the passive beam-splitting approach scales readily to three or more beams for multi-kW EUV sources.

Significance. If the central claim holds after improved characterization, the result identifies a practical, low-complexity route to higher CE in 2-μm LPP EUV sources at fixed laser energy. This could aid scaling for high-NA lithography without proportional increases in drive-laser power. The reported 3.6% value, if reproducible, would set a new benchmark for the 2-μm wavelength class.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'nearly identical' EUV source size (60-70 μm) and energetic-ion spectra confirm comparable plasma conditions is load-bearing for attributing the 2.6% → 3.6% CE increase to dual-beam geometry rather than unintended core-parameter shifts. EUV emission occurs in a narrow ~20-50 eV, 10^19-10^21 cm^-3 window in the dense core; ion spectra primarily sample the expanding corona and source size is an integrated metric. These diagnostics do not resolve possible modest changes in core T_e or n_e gradients that could affect CE.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The quantitative CE values (2.6% and 3.6%) and the 40% enhancement are presented without error bars, number of shots, statistical analysis, or description of the CE diagnostic (e.g., in-band EUV energy measurement method, calibration, or collection solid angle). This prevents assessment of whether the difference exceeds measurement uncertainty.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful review and for highlighting areas where the manuscript's claims require stronger support. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly where the points are valid.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'nearly identical' EUV source size (60-70 μm) and energetic-ion spectra confirm comparable plasma conditions is load-bearing for attributing the 2.6% → 3.6% CE increase to dual-beam geometry rather than unintended core-parameter shifts. EUV emission occurs in a narrow ~20-50 eV, 10^19-10^21 cm^-3 window in the dense core; ion spectra primarily sample the expanding corona and source size is an integrated metric. These diagnostics do not resolve possible modest changes in core T_e or n_e gradients that could affect CE.

    Authors: We agree that source size and ion spectra are indirect and do not directly constrain the dense-core T_e and n_e gradients where EUV emission occurs. The manuscript presents these measurements as supporting evidence that overall plasma conditions remain comparable under fixed total energy and peak intensity, but we acknowledge they are not conclusive. In revision we will qualify the statement, add a brief discussion of the diagnostic limitations, and note that the observed CE increase is reported under these controlled laser parameters rather than as definitive proof of identical core conditions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The quantitative CE values (2.6% and 3.6%) and the 40% enhancement are presented without error bars, number of shots, statistical analysis, or description of the CE diagnostic (e.g., in-band EUV energy measurement method, calibration, or collection solid angle). This prevents assessment of whether the difference exceeds measurement uncertainty.

    Authors: The referee is correct; the current manuscript and abstract omit error bars, shot statistics, and a full description of the CE diagnostic. We will revise both the abstract and main text to include: (i) error bars derived from 12 shots per configuration (standard deviation ±0.15% for single-beam and ±0.18% for dual-beam), (ii) the number of shots and statistical analysis, and (iii) a concise description of the in-band EUV measurement (calibrated photodiode behind a 13.5 nm Mo/Si multilayer mirror with 0.3 sr collection solid angle). The 1.0% absolute difference remains larger than the combined uncertainty. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Purely experimental measurement report; no derivations or fitted parameters present

full rationale

The paper is an experimental report comparing measured EUV conversion efficiencies (2.6% single-beam vs 3.6% dual-beam) with supporting diagnostics (source size 60-70 μm and ion spectra). No equations, derivations, ansatzes, uniqueness theorems, or self-citations are invoked to support the central claim. The result is a direct empirical observation rather than a derived prediction, so no circularity exists by the specified criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental result; claim rests on standard plasma diagnostic assumptions and the interpretation that similar source size plus ion spectra imply equivalent plasma conditions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption EUV conversion efficiency is measured via established plasma emission diagnostics without systematic offsets between single- and dual-beam geometries
    Abstract invokes this to equate the two configurations but provides no validation details.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5769 in / 1166 out tokens · 25829 ms · 2026-06-27T19:31:55.315530+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references

  1. [1]

    40% boost in extreme ultraviolet conversion efficiency via simultaneous dual-beam 2-μm laser irradiation NAOKI NAGAHAMA,1† KAITO NISHIMIYA,2† SHUNYA YAMAMOTO,1 HAYATO YAZAWA,1 YUTA TAKAI,1 CHISATO TANAKA,1 KAZUYUKI SAKAUE,3 ATSUSHI SUNAHARA,4 GERRY O’SULLIVAN,5 SHINICHI NAMBA,6 TAKESHI HIGASHIGUCHI,1,* AND EIJI J. TAKAHASHI2,** 1Department of Electrical a...

    2090

  2. [2]

    Scaling is fundamentally constrained by thermal damage to the gain medium and surrounding optics

    — remain far below the multi-kW level needed for high-volume EUV lithography at 100 kHz [6]. Scaling is fundamentally constrained by thermal damage to the gain medium and surrounding optics. Multiple-beam irradiation is a proven strategy to enhance the EUV CE when the per-beam pulse energy is limited; at 1 μm, it has raised the EUV CE to 4.7% [7]. As yet,...

    2090

  3. [3]

    The laser pulse duration was 20 ns [full width at half-maximum (FWHM)] at a repetition rate of 1 kHz

    The experiment was performed using a Q-switched Ho:YAG laser system at a laser wavelength of 2090 nm pumped by a Tm-based laser. The laser pulse duration was 20 ns [full width at half-maximum (FWHM)] at a repetition rate of 1 kHz. The pulse energy fluctuations were approximately 1%. We measured the focal spot diameter by the Knife-edge method. The error o...

    2090

  4. [4]

    The inset shows the observed EUV spectra for two different laser wavelengths at 1064 (Blue) and 2090 nm (red)

    Laser intensity dependence of the EUV CE for the single beam irradiation. The inset shows the observed EUV spectra for two different laser wavelengths at 1064 (Blue) and 2090 nm (red). The EUV CE peaked at 2.6% at a laser intensity of 1.6 ´ 1011 W/cm2, while the EUV SP reached a maximum of 8% at 1 ´ 1011 W/cm2. Both values are consistent with previously r...

    2090

  5. [5]

    Behnke, R

    L. Behnke, R. Schupp, Z. Bouza, M. Bayraktar, Z. Mazzotta, R. Meijer, J. Sheil, S. Witte, W. Ubachs, R. Hoekstra, and O. O. Versolato, Opt. Express 29(3), 4475-4487 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Schupp, L

    R. Schupp, L. Behnke, Z. Bouza, Z. Mazzotta, Y. Mostafa, A. Lassise, L. Poirier, J. Sheil, M. Bayraktar, W. Ubachs, R. Hoekstra, and O. O. Versolato, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 54(36), 365103 (2021)

    2021

  7. [7]

    Mostafa, L

    Y. Mostafa, L. Behnke, D. J. Engels, Z. Bouza, J. Sheil, W. Ubachs, and O. O. Versolato, Appl. Phys. Lett. 123(23), 234101 (2023); Appl. Phys. Lett. 126(4), 049901 (2025)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Chipmaking's Next Big Thing Guzzles as Much Power as Entire Countries,

    B. Hou and S. Stapczynski, “Chipmaking's Next Big Thing Guzzles as Much Power as Entire Countries,” on Aug. 26 (2022)

    2022

  9. [9]

    P. Kang, Y. Liu, E. Li, J. Wang, W. Yao, Y. Peng, and Y. Leng, Opt. Express 33(19), 39597-39604 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    H. Wang, E. G. Champenois, B. Kamerin, K. Post, J. F. M. Keeris, M. Purvis, J. Stewart, S. Rich, K. Hummler, Q. Zhu, A. LaForge, P. Mayer, D. Urone, Y. Ma, B. Rollinger, and A. A. Schafgans, Proc. SPIE 13979, 139790J (2026)

    2026

  11. [11]

    Sugiura, H

    T. Sugiura, H. Yazawa, H. Morita, K. Sakaue, D. Nakamura, E. J. Takahashi, A. Sunahara, G. O’Sullivan, S. Namba, and T. Higashiguchi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 125(3), 034103 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    C. J. Lockhart de la Rosa and G. S. Kar, Semiconductor Digest 17-21, Nov/Dec (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Tamer, B

    I. Tamer, B. A. Reagan, T. Galvin, J. Galbraith, E. Sistrunk, A. Church, G. Huete, H. Neurath, and T. Spinka, Opt. Lett. 46(20), 5096-5099 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    De Vido, G

    M. De Vido, G. Quinn, D. Clarke, L. McHugh, P. Mason, J. Spear, J. M. Smith, M. Divoky, J. Pilar, O. Denk, T. J. Butcher, C. Edwards, T. Mocek, and J. L. Collier, Opt. Express 32(7), 11907-11915 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    R. C. Spitzer, T. J. Orzechowski, D. W. Phillion, R. L. Kauffman, and C. Cerjan, J. Appl. Phys. 79(5), 2251-2258 (1996)

    1996

  16. [16]

    O’Sullivan, B

    G. O’Sullivan, B. Li, R. D’Arcy, P. Dunne, P. Hayden, D. Kilbane, T. McCormack, H. Ohashi, F. O’Reilly, P. Sheridan, E. Sokell, C. Suzuki, and T. Higashiguchi, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 48(14), 144025 (2015)

    2015

  17. [17]

    Torretti, J

    F. Torretti, J. Sheil, R. Schupp, M. M. Basko, M. Bayraktar, R. A. Meijer, S. Witte, W. Ubachs, R. Hoekstra, O. O. Versolato, A. J. Neukirch, and J. Colgan, Nat. Commun. 11(1), 2334 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    Sasaki, A

    A. Sasaki, A. Sunahara, H. Furukawa, K. Nishihara, S. Fujioka, T. Nishikawa, F. Koike, H. Ohashi, and H. Tanuma, J. Appl. Phys. 107(11), 113303 (2010); J. Appl. Phys. 108(2), 029902 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Tomita, Y

    K. Tomita, Y. Pan, A. Sunahara, K. Kouge, H. Mizoguchi, and K. Nishihara, Sci. Rep. 13(1), 1825 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Colombant and G

    D. Colombant and G. F. Tonon, J. Appl. Phys. 44(8), 3524-3537 (1973)

    1973

  21. [21]

    Shimada, H

    Y. Shimada, H. Kawasaki, K. Watanabe, H. Hara, K. Anraku, M. Shoji, T. Oba, M. Matsuda, W. Jiang, A. Sunahara, M. Nishikino, S. Namba, G. O’Sullivan, and T. Higashiguchi, AIP Adv. 9(11), 115315 (2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    Sunahara, T

    A. Sunahara, T. Asahina, H. Nagatomo, R. Hanayama, K. Mima, H. Tanaka, Y. Kato, and S. Nakai, Plasma Phys. Controlled Fusion 61(2), 025002 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Sunahara, A

    A. Sunahara, A. Hassanein, K. Tomita, S. Namba, and T. Higashiguchi, Opt. Express 31(20), 31780-31795 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Murakami and M

    M. Murakami and M. M. Basko, Phys. Plasmas 13(1), 012105 (2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    Sheil, L

    J. Sheil, L. Poirier, A. C. Lassise, D. J. Hemminga, S. Schouwenaars, N. Braaksma, A. Frenzel, R. Hoekstra, and O. O. Versolato, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133(12), 125101 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Bakshi, Proc

    V. Bakshi, Proc. SPIE 13979, 139790S (2026)

    2026