MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-Roughness UV Laser Drilling for Sub-10 μm Vias in Advanced Semiconductor Package Substrates

2025· article· W4417405039 on OpenAlexaff
N. H. Park, Tae Young Lee, D.W. Park, Moon‐Ho Jo, Sungyong Kim, Sehoon Yoo, Geonhee Lee, Kyoungmin Kim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsSemtech (Canada)
FundersNational Research Foundation
KeywordsLaser drillingLaserNanosecondUltravioletPolyethylene terephthalateLaser beam machiningPolyethylene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional CO<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</inf> laser drilling and wet desmearing processes have limitations in forming fine pitch microvias, particularly in advanced microcircuit applications. Although ultraviolet (UV) laser drilling can produce smaller via diameters, its use is limited for buildup films (BUF) protected by polyethylene terephthalate (PET). Direct plasma exposure of the BUF can cause filler protrusion and increase surface roughness. This, in turn, necessitates thicker seed layers in the semi-additive process (SAP) and ultimately hinders the realization of fine circuit patterns. To solve this problem, we evaluated the effect of material and thickness of SMBL (Sacrificial Metal Barrier Layer) on laser via hole formation before nanosecond UV laser drilling. Two SMBL materials, Cu and Ni-Cr, were coated on a 10 μm thick buildup film (BUF) surface at thicknesses of 50 nm, 100 nm, and 200 nm, then fine vias were processed with a nanosecond UV laser and their shapes were comparatively evaluated. As a result, using a nanosecond UV laser drilling system with a sputter-coated Cu SMBL, we were able to form microvias with diameters of less than 8 μm on a 10 μm thick BUF surface while maintaining the original surface roughness.

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)0.000
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207