MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053026278 · doi:10.1117/12.876234

Bimetallic grayscale photomasks written using optical density feedback control

2011· article· en· W2053026278 on OpenAlexaff
James M. Dykes, Reza Qarehbaghi, Glenn H. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrayscaleLaserComputer sciencePhotomaskPixelOpticsRaster graphicsLaser power scalingBrightnessMaterials scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When bimetallic thin films of Bi/In and Sn/In are laser exposed, they oxidize and become variably transparent. By controlling the writing laser power, binary and grayscale photomasks can be produced with the mask's transparency (optical density, OD), ranging between ~3.0 (unexposed) to <0.22 OD (fully exposed). Targeting the production of grayscale masks with 256 levels, the mask-writing system when combined with photodiode sensors obtains real-time OD and laser power measurements and uses them to adjust the laser's writing power during the patterning process. For a single-line stepped pattern, laser writing without OD feedback control demonstrates an average absolute error of 4.2 gray levels, while with OD feedback control and the appropriate parameters, the same pattern is produced with an average absolute error of 0.3 gray levels. The control parameters are shown to influence the characteristics of the resulting mask pattern, particularly the overshoot and rise-time of the pixel transitions. With multi-line mask patterns being rasterscanned written, the overlap of the lines combined with the laser's Gaussian profile creates variations in the mask, and measurement problems for the OD feedback control. An interlaced raster-scan approach is proposed where a first pass patterns non-overlapping lines using an ideal set of control parameters. A second and third pass then patterns the lines inbetween and at the pixel boundaries using another set parameters designed to account for the overlap. The technique allows feedback to be used for the entire mask writing process.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207