Focus characterization using end of line metrology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new method is introduced to measure relative focus using conventional optical overlay instruments. Optical end of line metrology (OELM), is based on patterning a wide frame in which adjacent sides are constructed of submicron sized lines that run perpendicular to the center opening. Because truncation is size dependent, line and space features exhibit significantly more line shortening effects than the solid sections. When measured with a conventional optical overlay tool, the difference in line shortening between the solid and line and space sections are measured as an alignment offset, which is a relative measure of actual line shortening. Reproducibility for measuring the apparent misalignment of these modified box-in-box structures was 3 nm (3/spl sigma//sup est/), which is similar to the repeatability for measuring conventional resist box in box alignment boxes. Truncation is sensitive to focus and the utility for using OELM toward characterizing focus-dependent lens parameters was investigated. Estimated 3/spl sigma/ for calculating best focus and astigmatism were 0.04 /spl mu/m and 0.01 /spl mu/m, respectively. Focus corrections were accurate to 0.05 /spl mu/m within /spl plusmn/0.3 /spl mu/m of best focus. Additionally, a general method is presented to estimate the error in the calculated best focus.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it