Hubbry Logo
Computational lithographyComputational lithographyMain
Open search
Computational lithography
Community hub
Computational lithography
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Computational lithography
Computational lithography
Computational lithography
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Computational lithography (also known as computational scaling) is the set of mathematical and algorithmic approaches designed to improve the resolution attainable through photolithography. Computational lithography came to the forefront of photolithography technologies in 2008 when the semiconductor industry faced challenges associated with the transition to a 22 nanometer CMOS microfabrication process and has become instrumental in further shrinking the design nodes and topology of semiconductor transistor manufacturing.

History

[edit]

Computational lithography means the use of computers to simulate printing of micro-lithography structures. Pioneering work was done by Chris Mack at NSA in developing PROLITH, Rick Dill at IBM and Andy Neureuther at University of California, Berkeley from the early 1980s. These tools were limited to lithography process optimization as the algorithms were limited to a few square micrometres of resist. Commercial full-chip optical proximity correction (OPC), using model forms, was first implemented by TMA (now a subsidiary of Synopsys) and Numerical Technologies (also part of Synopsys) around 1997.[1]

Since then the market and complexity has grown significantly. With the move to sub-wavelength lithography at the 180 nm and 130 nm nodes, RET techniques such as Assist features, phase shift masks started to be used together with OPC. For the transition from 65 nm to 45 nm nodes customers were worrying that not only that design rules were insufficient to guarantee printing without yield limiting hotspots, but also that tape-out time may need thousands of CPUs or weeks of run time. This predicted exponential increase in computational complexity for mask synthesis on moving to the 45 nm process node spawned a significant venture capital investment in design for manufacturing start-up companies.[2]

A number of startup companies promoting their own disruptive solutions to this problem started to appear, techniques from custom hardware acceleration to radical new algorithms such as inverse lithography were touted to resolve the forthcoming bottlenecks. Despite this activity, incumbent OPC suppliers were able to adapt and keep their major customers, with RET and OPC being used together as for previous nodes, but now on more layers and with larger data files, and turn around time concerns were met by new algorithms and improvements in multi-core commodity processors. The term computational lithography was first used by Brion Technology (now a subsidiary of ASML) in 2005[3] to promote their hardware accelerated full chip lithography simulation platform. Since then the term has been used by the industry to describe full chip mask synthesis solutions. As 45 nm goes into full production and EUV lithography introduction is delayed, 32 nm and 22 nm are expected to run on existing 193 nm scanners technology.

Now, not only are throughput and capabilities concerns resurfacing, but also new computational lithography techniques such as Source Mask Optimization (SMO) is seen as a way to squeeze better resolution specific to a given design. Today, all the major mask synthesis vendors have settled on the term "computational lithography" to describe and promote the set of mask synthesis technologies required for 22 nm.

Techniques comprising computational lithography

[edit]

Computational lithography makes use of a number of numerical simulations to improve the performance (resolution and contrast) of cutting-edge photomasks. The combined techniques include Resolution Enhancement Technology (RET), Optical Proximity Correction (OPC), Source Mask Optimization (SMO), etc.[4] The techniques vary in terms of their technical feasibility and engineering sensible-ness, resulting in the adoption of some and the continual R&D of others.[5]

Resolution enhancement technology

[edit]

Resolution enhancement technologies, first used in the 90 nanometer generation, using the mathematics of diffraction optics to specify multi-layer phase-shift photomasks that use interference patterns in the photomask that enhance resolution on the printed wafer surface.

Optical proximity correction

[edit]

Optical proximity correction uses computational methods to counteract the effects of diffraction-related blurring and under-exposure by modifying on-mask geometries with means such as: adjusting linewidths depending on the density of surrounding geometries (a trace surrounded by a large open area will be over-exposed compared with the same trace surrounded by a dense pattern), adding "dog-bone" endcaps to the end of lines to prevent line shortening, correcting for electron beam proximity effects

OPC can be broadly divided into rule-based and model-based.[6] Inverse lithography technology, which treats the OPC as an inverse imaging problem, is also a useful technique because it can provide unintuitive mask patterns.[7]

Complex modeling of the lens system and photoresist

[edit]

Beyond the models used for RET and OPC, computational lithography attempts to improve chip manufacturability and yields such as by using the signature of the scanner to help improve accuracy of the OPC model:[8] polarization characteristics of the lens pupil, Jones matrix of the stepper lens, optical parameters of the photoresist stack, diffusion through the photoresist, stepper illumination control variables.

Computational effort

[edit]

The computational effort behind these methods is immense. According to one estimate, the calculations required to adjust OPC geometries to take into account variations to focus and exposure for a state-of-the-art integrated circuit will take approximately 100 CPU-years of computer time.[9] This does not include modeling the 3D polarization of the light source or any of the several other systems that need to be modeled in production computational photolithographic mask making flows. Brion Technologies, a subsidiary of ASML, markets a rack-mounted hardware accelerator dedicated for use in making computational lithographic calculations — a mask-making shop can purchase a large number of their systems to run in parallel. Others have claimed significant acceleration using re-purposed off-the-shelf graphics cards for their high parallel throughput.[10]

193 nm deep UV photolithography

[edit]

The periodic enhancement in the resolution achieved through photolithography has been a driving force behind Moore's Law. Resolution improvements enable printing of smaller geometries on an integrated circuit. The minimum feature size that a projection system typically used in photolithography can print is given approximately by:

where

  • is the minimum feature size (also called the critical dimension).
  • is the wavelength of light used.
  • is the numerical aperture of the lens as seen from the wafer.
  • (commonly called k1 factor) is a coefficient that encapsulates process-related factors.

Historically, resolution enhancements in photolithography have been achieved through the progression of stepper illumination sources to smaller and smaller wavelengths — from "g-line" (436 nm) and "i-line" (365 nm) sources based on mercury lamps, to the current systems based on deep ultraviolet excimer lasers sources at 193 nm. However the progression to yet finer wavelength sources has been stalled by the intractable problems associated with extreme ultraviolet lithography and x-ray lithography, forcing semiconductor manufacturers to extend the current 193 nm optical lithography systems until some form of next-generation lithography proves viable (although 157 nm steppers have also been marketed, they have proven cost-prohibitive at $50M each).[11] Efforts to improve resolution by increasing the numerical aperture have led to the use of immersion lithography. As further improvements in resolution through wavelength reduction or increases in numerical aperture have become either technically challenging or economically unfeasible, much attention has been paid to reducing the k1-factor. The k1 factor can be reduced through process improvements, such as phase-shift photomasks. These techniques have enabled photolithography at the 32 nanometer CMOS process technology node using a wavelength of 193 nm (deep ultraviolet). However, with the ITRS roadmap calling for the 22 nanometer node to be in use by 2011, photolithography researchers have had to develop an additional suite of improvements to make 22 nm technology manufacturable.[12] While the increase in mathematical modeling has been underway for some time, the degree and expense of those calculations has justified the use of a new term to cover the changing landscape: computational lithography.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Computational lithography

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Computational lithography refers to a collection of physics-based and optimization techniques designed to improve the resolution and in optical processes, enabling the fabrication of increasingly smaller features on wafers. These methods compensate for optical distortions, effects, and process variations that arise as feature sizes approach or fall below the of the exposure , typically 193 nm for deep ultraviolet (DUV) or shorter for (EUV). By predicting and correcting imaging errors through computational models, it ensures accurate transfer from photomasks to substrates, which is essential for producing integrated circuits with billions of transistors. The field emerged in the early 2000s as optical lithography faced resolution limits dictated by the Rayleigh criterion—where minimum feature size is proportional to wavelength divided by (k₁ × λ / NA)—prompting the need for resolution enhancement technologies (RETs) to extend the viability of existing tools beyond initial projections. Initially focused on rule-based , computational lithography evolved with advances in computing power and algorithms, becoming indispensable for nodes below 45 nm, where traditional methods proved insufficient for maintaining yield and process windows. Over the past two decades, it has integrated inverse problem-solving approaches, drawing from and physics to iteratively refine designs, and has incorporated for faster simulations and optimizations. Key techniques in computational lithography include optical proximity correction (OPC), which modifies mask patterns to counteract diffraction-induced distortions; source-mask optimization (SMO), which jointly tunes the illumination source shape and mask layout for enhanced imaging; and inverse lithography technology (ILT), an optimization framework that generates curvilinear mask pixels to achieve near-ideal wafer images. These are supported by hierarchical models encompassing optical propagation (e.g., via ), resist behavior (e.g., reaction-diffusion simulations), and effects, calibrated against experimental data for accuracy. Recent advancements leverage deep neural networks (DNNs) for tasks like mask generation, reducing computation times from days to minutes while handling complex 2D patterns in metal and via layers. In manufacturing, the , which incorporates computational lithography, accounts for approximately 30% of production costs due to its computational intensity but is critical for enabling sub-7 nm nodes, EUV integration, and compliance with design-for-manufacturability (DfM) principles. It addresses challenges such as stochastic noise in EUV, inter-field stitching in high-NA systems, and the need for full-chip verification, ensuring defect-free yields amid aggressive scaling. As of 2025, advancements include the deployment of high-NA EUV systems for sub-2 nm nodes. Ongoing research focuses on AI-driven accelerations and open-source frameworks to democratize access and further push resolution limits.

Fundamentals

Principles of Photolithography

is a process that uses light to transfer geometric patterns from a onto a substrate coated with a light-sensitive , enabling the creation of intricate microstructures essential for integrated circuits and microdevices. This technique relies on the interaction of light with the to selectively expose areas, which are then developed to form the desired patterns. The process begins with mask exposure, where an illumination source directs light through the photomask—a transparent plate with opaque patterns—to generate diffracted light waves. These waves are then projected through a high-numerical-aperture lens system onto the photoresist-coated wafer, where diffraction and interference of the light create an aerial image that modulates the resist's exposure. Following exposure, the photoresist undergoes chemical development to dissolve either the exposed or unexposed regions, revealing the transferred pattern on the substrate. The fundamental limit of optical resolution in photolithography is described by the Rayleigh criterion, which states that the minimum resolvable feature size RR is given by R=k1λ[NA](/page/N/A)R = k_1 \frac{\lambda}{[NA](/page/N/A)}, where λ\lambda is the wavelength of the , [NA](/page/N/A)[NA](/page/N/A) is the of the imaging system, and k1k_1 is a process-dependent factor typically between 0.25 and 1. Diffraction imposes inherent limits on imaging, as passing through the mask scatters into discrete diffraction orders, with only those captured by the lens contributing to the . Partial coherence in the illumination source plays a critical role by modulating the diffraction orders' contributions, reducing unwanted sidelobes in the image and enhancing contrast for finer features, with coherence parameter σ\sigma values between 0 and 1 balancing resolution and image quality. Since Gordon Moore's 1965 observation that the number of transistors on a chip doubles approximately every 18 months—known as —photolithography has faced escalating challenges in scaling feature sizes below the of the exposure light, leading to sub-wavelength patterning that exacerbates effects. Computational lithography addresses these resolution limits by optimizing optical systems and masks to achieve viable sub-wavelength imaging.

Necessity of Computational Methods

As feature sizes in integrated circuits have shrunk below the of used in , traditional optical systems encounter fundamental physical limits imposed by , necessitating shorter wavelengths or higher numerical apertures (NA) to maintain resolution. However, reducing wavelengths from deep ultraviolet (DUV) to (EUV) introduces challenges such as increased sensitivity to optical aberrations in high-NA systems, where oblique illumination angles exacerbate vectorial effects and degrade image fidelity. Similarly, proximity effects arise from patterns interfering between nearby features on the mask, causing unintended variations in the printed pattern, while —scattered from surface imperfections or multilayer mirrors—reduces contrast and contributes to linewidth variations across the . These issues become pronounced at advanced nodes, where even minor deviations can lead to catastrophic defects. Computational lithography addresses these limitations by formulating the patterning process as an , where simulations predict the forward imaging from a proposed to the wafer plane, allowing iterative optimization to pre-distort the and compensate for distortions. This approach inverts the typically ill-posed forward model, enabling precise control over the aerial image and resist exposure to achieve sub-diffraction resolution. By modeling through the optical system and accounting for non-ideal effects, computational methods mitigate the need for purely empirical adjustments, providing a systematic way to handle the complexities of high-NA and short-wavelength regimes. The benefits of these computational approaches include enhanced (CD) control, with variations reduced to below 2 nm across wafers, directly improving pattern uniformity and device performance. Yield enhancement follows from minimized defects due to better latitude, particularly in schemes required for nodes below 10 nm. These methods have been essential for enabling production at 7 nm and sub-7 nm nodes, where traditional techniques alone would fail to meet density and precision requirements. At its core, computational lithography relies on predictive modeling of electromagnetic wave propagation, approximating solutions to to simulate light-mask interactions efficiently. The thin-mask approximation treats the mask as an infinitely thin phase and modulator, valid for features much larger than the and enabling rapid simulations in DUV systems. For more accurate modeling in EUV, where mask topography significantly affects transmission, (RCWA) decomposes fields into plane waves and solves boundary conditions layer by layer, capturing 3D effects without excessive computational cost. These approximations balance accuracy and speed, forming the foundation for inverse optimization in modern workflows.

Historical Development

Early Computational Approaches

The origins of lithography simulation trace back to the 1970s, with computational approaches to address proximity effects gaining prominence in the 1980s in fabrication, where simple rule-based corrections emerged to compensate for basic distortions in pattern transfer, such as linewidth variations due to and . These empirical rules, often derived from experimental observations, allowed engineers to adjust designs manually for isolated features and basic geometries, marking the initial shift toward computational aids in processes that were scaling toward sub-micron resolutions. By the mid-1980s, dedicated efforts had gained traction among a small group of researchers, focusing on predicting optical behavior through one-dimensional models run on early workstations, which were limited to calculating basic aerial images and resist exposure profiles without full two- or three-dimensional complexity. In the 1990s, these foundational efforts advanced significantly with the introduction of model-based simulation software, exemplified by PROLITH in 1990, developed by Chris Mack to enable accurate resist modeling and prediction of lithographic outcomes. PROLITH/2, the first commercial version released by FINLE Technologies, incorporated physics-based algorithms for effects and resist dissolution, allowing users to simulate exposure and development processes more reliably than prior empirical methods. Chris Mack's contributions, including the analytical Mack resist model published in 1985 and refined in subsequent works, were pivotal in establishing simulation as a standard tool for optimizing lithography at shrinking feature sizes. This period also saw simulations aiding the forecasting of pattern fidelity amid aggressive scaling demands in the late 1990s. The transition from empirical rules to physics-based models was accelerated by industry scaling pressures outlined in the National Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (NTRS) in the mid-1990s and later formalized in the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) starting in 1998, which emphasized the need for precise modeling to sustain beyond 1 μm features. Early computational efforts remained constrained, relying on workstation-based 1D simulations for aerial image calculations that could take hours per run, highlighting the computational limitations before the advent of more powerful hardware and algorithms in later decades.

Evolution of Key Techniques

In the 2000s, computational lithography advanced significantly with the transition to pixel-based (OPC) and resolution enhancement technologies (RET) to meet the demands of the 90 nm technology nodes, where traditional rule-based methods proved insufficient for maintaining pattern fidelity amid diffraction limits. These techniques enabled more accurate modeling of optical interactions, allowing for sub-wavelength feature printing through adjustments to mask patterns and illumination sources. For instance, model-based OPC strategies incorporated detailed process simulations to predict and compensate for proximity effects, marking a pivotal shift toward computationally intensive approaches that supported the scaling of integrated circuits. By around 2008, source- optimization (SMO) emerged as a key innovation for , integrating simultaneous adjustments to illumination sources and designs to maximize process windows and contrast at nodes below 45 nm. This method built on earlier OPC frameworks by treating source and as co-optimized variables, significantly improving resolution and robustness against aberrations in water-immersion systems. SMO's adoption reflected the growing sophistication of computational tools, enabling holistic resolution enhancement for advanced patterning challenges. The 2010s saw further integration of inverse lithography technology (ILT) and (ML) for optimization at 10 nm scales, where ILT's rigorous inversion of the model generated non-intuitive patterns to achieve target images with superior accuracy over conventional OPC. By 2010, full-chip ILT demonstrations by major vendors had transitioned the technique from to production viability, particularly for complex layouts requiring high-fidelity corrections. Concurrently, ML models, applied since around 2010, accelerated tasks like hotspot detection and resist modeling, providing predictive capabilities that reduced simulation times while enhancing precision for sub-20 nm features. Key milestones included collaborations between ASML and on updates to tools like Calibre, integrating GPU-accelerated libraries such as NVIDIA's cuLitho to streamline OPC and full-chip simulations. The 2015 International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) recognized computational lithography's critical role in sub-7 nm scaling, emphasizing its necessity for managing complexities and alternative patterning schemes like directed . Multi-patterning techniques, such as double and quadruple patterning, relied heavily on computational algorithms to partition layouts into conflict-free sets, minimizing stitches and overlaps while resolving coloring conflicts in graph-based models. Up to 2025, hybrid AI-physics models have driven further sophistication, combining data-driven neural networks with physics-informed constraints to optimize at 3 nm nodes, achieving substantial reductions in computation time—such as from weeks to days for full-chip runs—while preserving simulation accuracy. These models incorporate lithography-specific biases into architectures like convolutional neural networks, enabling scalable inverse design and process variation mitigation essential for high-NA EUV integration. As of 2025, benchmarks like LithoSim have further advanced AI for simulations. This evolution underscores computational 's ongoing integration of AI to handle the exponential complexity of sub-3 nm patterning.

Core Computational Techniques

Resolution Enhancement Technologies

Resolution Enhancement Technologies (RETs) encompass a suite of optical and mask-based methods designed to push the limits of resolution beyond the classical constraints, primarily by minimizing the process factor k1k_1 in the Rayleigh criterion, R=k1[λ](/page/Lambda)NAR = k_1 \frac{[\lambda](/page/Lambda)}{NA}, where RR is the minimum resolvable feature size, λ\lambda is the wavelength, and NANA is the . These techniques target k1k_1 values below 0.25 to enable sub-wavelength patterning in advanced nodes, enhancing image contrast through constructive and destructive interference of diffracted light orders. Grounded in Abbe's theory of partial coherence imaging, RETs optimize the selection and phase of orders to sharpen aerial image edges while maintaining manufacturability. Key types of RETs include phase-shift masks (PSMs), off-axis illumination (OAI), and sub-resolution assist features (SRAFs), with double patterning emerging as a critical extension for extreme scaling. Alternating PSMs apply 180° phase shifts to adjacent mask regions, creating destructive interference at edges to boost contrast and effectively double resolution for periodic lines, though they require careful handling of phase conflicts. Attenuated PSMs, conversely, use semi-transparent regions with 180° phase shifts (typically 6-10% transmission) to add weak secondary diffracted waves that enhance edge definition for isolated features like contacts. OAI tilts the illumination source to preferentially capture oblique diffraction orders, mimicking two-beam interference for improved focus on specific pitches, often using or shapes. SRAFs are non-printing auxiliary patterns added to the mask to scatter light and equalize the behavior of isolated lines with dense arrays, thereby stabilizing fidelity. The mechanisms of RETs center on refining interference patterns to counteract diffraction blurring, such as employing phase shifts to nullify zero-order light or angular illumination to align higher-order beams for sharper aerial images. Double patterning, a form of RET, achieves pitch splitting by decomposing layouts into multiple masks and exposures, effectively halving the minimum pitch without altering or NA. These approaches are evaluated through metrics like process window enhancement, including increased (DOF) and exposure latitude (EL), simulated via Abbe's partial coherence model to predict image log-slope and contrast. For instance, PSM and OAI can significantly expand DOF compared to conventional illumination, while EL improves due to higher image contrast. In practice, RETs, such as PSM combined with 193 nm , enabled the 45 nm node, supporting half-pitches of 45 nm as projected in International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) guidelines. Double patterning later became essential for sub-32 nm scaling, demonstrating a viable path to sub-50 nm features with adequate process margins. serves as a complementary software-based adjustment to fine-tune these hardware enhancements.

Optical Proximity Correction

Optical proximity correction (OPC) is a resolution enhancement technique in computational lithography that pre-compensates for diffraction-induced distortions in the printed patterns by modifying the layout. The process begins with simulating the aerial image formed by the lithographic projection system to identify (CD) errors arising from optical proximity effects, such as line-end or corner rounding in dense patterns. To counteract these distortions, OPC adds sub-resolution features to the mask, including serifs at corners to sharpen edges or hammerheads at line ends to extend printed lengths, ensuring the final features more closely match the intended design. Early OPC implementations relied on rule-based methods, which applied predefined geometric adjustments based on empirical rules derived from simple one-dimensional proximity effects, but these proved inadequate for complex two-dimensional interactions at advanced nodes. The transition to model-based OPC addressed this by employing rigorous physical simulations grounded in Hopkins' diffraction equations, which model partially coherent imaging through the coherent transfer function and source integration to predict aerial images accurately for arbitrary mask shapes. This approach enables precise correction of 2D effects by iteratively adjusting mask edges until the simulated image aligns with target contours. Core algorithms in model-based OPC formulate the correction as an to minimize edge placement error (EPE), the perpendicular distance between simulated and target contours, using iterative solvers such as or conjugate gradient methods for efficient convergence. These solvers evaluate EPE at numerous evaluation points along the design edges and update mask perturbations in a feedback loop, often requiring multiple aerial image simulations per iteration. For full-chip applications covering designs with around 100 million transistors, such computations can take several hours on clusters, balancing accuracy with runtime constraints. Despite its effectiveness, OPC introduces significant limitations, including increased mask complexity from the proliferation of fine fragments and jogs, which can inflate mask data volume by up to four times compared to the original layout, complicating writing and . Verification of post-OPC s poses additional challenges, as exhaustive of the fragmented patterns demands substantial computational resources to detect manufacturing defects or unintended printability issues. In practice, these trade-offs necessitate careful regularization in algorithms to maintain manufacturability. A representative example of OPC application is in 28 nm node dense metal arrays, where uncorrected proximity effects can cause up to 10% CD variation across pitches, leading to yield loss; model-based OPC reduces this to under 2% by targeted and additions, as demonstrated in back-end-of-line processes using positive tone resists.

Source and Mask Optimization

Source and mask optimization (SMO) represents a holistic approach in computational lithography that simultaneously optimizes the illumination source shape and the pattern to enhance imaging performance beyond the limitations of traditional resolution enhancement techniques. This method treats both the source and mask as pixelated entities, allowing for free-form designs that maximize the image log-slope (ILS), a critical metric for edge sharpness and printability in the aerial . By addressing the coupled nature of source illumination and mask transmission, SMO achieves superior pattern fidelity in low-k1 regimes, where k1 values approach 0.25, enabling sub-40 nm half-pitches with 193 nm wavelength . The core algorithms in SMO rely on gradient-based optimization frameworks for inverse design, where the objective function typically balances nominal exposure conditions with variations in defocus and dose to expand the process window. Techniques such as adjoint sensitivity methods compute efficient gradients for large-scale pixelated optimizations, while level-set approaches represent mask contours as evolving interfaces to handle complex topologies without artifacts. These methods iteratively adjust source points and mask pixels to minimize edge placement error (EPE) or maximize the minimum ILS across critical features, often using for convergence. As a precursor to SMO, basic (OPC) focused solely on mask adjustments, but SMO extends this by co-optimizing the source for global improvements. SMO delivers significant benefits, including a 20-30% expansion in the process window—encompassing and exposure latitude—compared to standalone OPC or source-only optimizations, making it essential for low-k1 imaging in advanced nodes. For instance, in 22 nm logic patterns, aberration-aware SMO reduces EPE to approximately 1 nm while mitigating defocus asymmetry. This holistic tuning enhances overall yield and robustness against process variations. In practice, commercial tools like implement SMO through inverse lithography technology (ILT) engines, supporting full-chip synthesis for ArF immersion lithography at 20 nm half-pitch features. These tools integrate customizable recipes for source-mask co-optimization, enabling rapid iteration on critical layers such as contacts and metals. However, SMO's drawbacks include high computational demands, often requiring hours per layer due to the iterative nature of pixel-level simulations, and manufacturability constraints that limit irregular source shapes to those producible by scanner hardware.

Advanced Modeling Approaches

Optical System and Lens Modeling

Computational models of the optical system in lithography projection tools are essential for predicting the aerial image formed at the wafer plane, accounting for the complex interactions of light through lenses, masks, and illumination sources. These models simulate the propagation of electromagnetic waves from the mask to the wafer, incorporating effects such as , interference, and partial coherence to ensure accurate representation of imaging fidelity. Lens modeling focuses on the projection , typically high-numerical-aperture (NA) systems with aspheric elements, to capture wavefront distortions and their impact on resolution. Scalar models treat light as a , simplifying diffraction calculations under the paraxial approximation, and are sufficient for low-NA systems (NA < 0.6) where polarization effects are negligible. Vectorial models, in contrast, fully account for the electromagnetic vector nature of , including polarization dependencies, and become necessary for high-NA immersion lithography (NA > 0.7) to accurately predict , as scalar approximations introduce significant errors in oblique incidence scenarios. For thin masks, the Kirchhoff approximation assumes the mask as an infinitely thin phase and amplitude object, enabling efficient scalar computations but failing to capture 3D topography effects in advanced nodes below 45 nm. Transitioning to (RCWA) for thick masks resolves these limitations by solving in layered media, modeling edge and polarization scattering with high fidelity, though at increased computational cost. Lens aberrations, arising from manufacturing imperfections or environmental factors, degrade imaging symmetry and are quantified using , an set representing errors across the pupil plane. Coma, a third-order aberration, causes asymmetric blurring of off-axis features, while astigmatism introduces focus anisotropy between horizontal and vertical orientations, both manifesting in Bossung plots as tilted or bowed (CD) versus defocus curves. These polynomials expand the wavefront phase as ϕ(ρ,θ)=∑j=1NajZj(ρ,θ)\phi(\rho, \theta) = \sum_{j=1}^{N} a_j Z_j(\rho, \theta), where aja_j are coefficients fitted to data, enabling precise aberration budgeting to sub-wavelength scales. Advanced simulations employ finite-difference time-domain (FDTD) methods to handle high-NA effects, discretizing in space and time to model full 3D electromagnetic propagation through the mask and , particularly for hyper-NA immersion systems (NA > 1.2). FDTD captures subwavelength scattering and vectorial near-field effects in large layouts (e.g., 100 μm × 100 μm at the mask scale) with grid resolutions down to 10 nm, correlating simulated intensities with experimental aerial measurements. Partial coherence, arising from extended illumination sources, is incorporated via integration over the source shape, where each source point's chief ray defines the propagation direction, using Hopkins' formalism to compute the mutual intensity at the . Model calibration involves exposing dedicated test patterns, such as dense lines, isolated features, and scatterometers, on production tools to measure and overlay, then fitting parameters like aberration coefficients and efficiencies via least-squares optimization. For 193 nm deep-ultraviolet systems, calibrated models achieve aerial image prediction accuracy within 1 nm across the process window, enabling reliable verification of resolution enhancement techniques. The of these models traces from early paraxial ray-tracing in the (NA ≈ 0.2) for basic contact printing, to vectorial in the for deep-UV steppers (NA ≈ 0.6), and culminating in full 3D Maxwell solvers like FDTD and RCWA by the 2000s for sub-45 nm nodes and EUV, driven by shrinking wavelengths and rising NA to resolve features approaching λ/2. These optical models feed into downstream simulations to predict final transfer.

Photoresist and Process Modeling

Photoresist modeling in computational lithography simulates the chemical and physical transformations that occur after optical exposure, enabling prediction of the final patterned structure on the . Chemically amplified resists (CARs) are the predominant type used in deep ultraviolet (DUV) at 193 nm wavelengths, offering high sensitivity through catalytic amplification. In CARs, exposure to generates photoacid from a photoacid generator (PAG), which during post-exposure bake (PEB) diffuses and catalyzes the deprotection of acid-labile groups on the backbone, converting the resist from insoluble to soluble in the developer. This deprotection mechanism alters the resist's polarity, facilitating selective dissolution, but acid length must be controlled (typically 10-20 nm) to maintain resolution. Dissolution during development is modeled using the seminal Mack kinetic model, which relates the dissolution rate to the fraction of protected (undeprotected) material in the resist. The model expresses the rate RR as R=Rmax⁡(1−m)nα+(1−m)n+Rmin⁡R = R_{\max} \frac{(1 - m)^n}{\alpha + (1 - m)^n} + R_{\min} where Rmax⁡R_{\max} is the maximum dissolution rate of fully deprotected resist, Rmin⁡R_{\min} is the minimum rate of unexposed resist, mm is the normalized protected fraction (ranging from 1 for unexposed to 0 for fully deprotected), nn is a selectivity parameter typically between 5 and 20 that controls the sharpness of the transition, and α\alpha is a fitting parameter related to the dissolution threshold. This empirical yet physically grounded equation captures inhibition by protected polymer and enhancement by deprotected sites, calibrated against experimental data for accurate profile prediction. In (EUV) lithography at 13.5 nm, stochastic effects introduce variability; from low photon counts (e.g., ~2000 photons per 26 nm feature at 30 mJ/cm² dose) causes fluctuations in acid generation, leading to line-edge roughness (LER) that scales inversely with the of absorbed photons. The full lithographic process simulation integrates the aerial image—computed from optical —as input to the resist stack, where local intensity determines PAG activation and initial deprotection probability, often blurred by effects and . PEB is simulated via reaction-diffusion equations, solving for acid concentration [H+][H^+] evolution as ∂[H+]∂t=D∇2[H+]−k[H+][M]\frac{\partial [H^+]}{\partial t} = D \nabla^2 [H^+] - k [H^+] [M], where DD is the diffusion coefficient, kk the , and [M][M] the protected concentration, using numerical methods like alternating direction implicit for 3D profiles. Development then applies the Mack model cell-by-cell to erode the , yielding the final resist contour. For EUV, stochastic models incorporate Poisson statistics for photon absorption and binomial sampling for chemical events to predict LER contributions. Model relies on dose-to-clear (E₀) curves, which measure the minimum exposure dose required to fully dissolve a resist of varying thickness, revealing sensitivity and contrast (γ=1log⁡(E50/E0)\gamma = \frac{1}{\log(E_{50}/E_0)}, where E50E_{50} is the dose for 50% dissolution). Swing curves extend this by plotting E₀ versus thickness, showing sinusoidal oscillations (period ~λ/(2n), λ , n ) due to interference between incident and reflected light, guiding optimization and thickness selection to minimize dose variation (e.g., <10% swing amplitude). At 3 nm nodes, challenges intensify as amplifies LER to 2-3 nm (3σ), exceeding 10% of and degrading performance; advanced models must couple photon statistics with molecular-scale deprotection to mitigate via higher doses or metal-oxide resists, though computational demands rise exponentially.

Computational Complexity and Optimization

Computational lithography simulations for modern devices involve enormous scales, often requiring full-chip across more than 100 layers with billions of pixels to model intricate patterns at nanometer resolutions. These computations traditionally demand days or even weeks of runtime on conventional CPU clusters due to the high dimensionality and iterative nature of solving and resist models for entire wafers. However, GPU acceleration has dramatically reduced these times to hours, enabling practical full-chip processing by parallelizing pixel-based operations and matrix inversions. To manage this complexity, key algorithmic techniques include , which partition the mask layout into smaller subdomains for parallel electromagnetic simulations, achieving near-linear while maintaining accuracy in predicting effects. solvers further optimize by exploiting the sparsity in system matrices arising from localized interactions in optical proximity effects, reducing memory usage and iteration counts in inverse problems. Surrogate models, particularly those based on neural networks, serve as fast approximations to rigorous simulations like (RCWA), predicting aerial images with minimal loss in fidelity for iterative optimizations. Optimization efforts prioritize metrics such as edge placement error (EPE), which quantifies deviations in printed feature edges from target designs, aiming to minimize it below 1 nm for sub-5 nm nodes while balancing accuracy and speed trade-offs. Techniques like these surrogate approaches allow for 10x or greater reductions in compute time without exceeding EPE thresholds that impact yield. Hardware advancements, including for elastic resource scaling and FPGAs for custom acceleration of aerial image computations, further address bottlenecks in high-volume . In 2025, AI-driven reduced-order modeling has emerged as a transformative trend, using to approximate high-fidelity simulations with orders-of-magnitude efficiency gains, cutting overall compute demands by up to 10x in full-chip workflows. This integration enables real-time adjustments in multi-layer alignments, supporting advanced nodes beyond 2 nm.

Applications in Modern Lithography

193 nm Deep Ultraviolet Lithography

193 nm deep ultraviolet (DUV) , utilizing argon fluoride (ArF) lasers, employs immersion systems with high numerical apertures (NA) exceeding 1.35, where deionized water serves as the immersion medium to enhance resolution beyond dry limits. These systems enable patterning at sub-40 nm half-pitches through techniques, such as litho-etch-litho-etch (LELE) and self-aligned double patterning (SADP), which require sophisticated computational decomposition to split layouts into multiple masks while minimizing conflicts and stitches. Computational algorithms, including rule-based and model-based iterative simulations incorporating (OPC), optimize this decomposition to ensure manufacturability and reduce overlay sensitivity. Key computations in these systems include enhancement techniques (RETs) to improve transmission and contrast, such as attenuated phase-shift and chromeless phase , which are simulated to counteract effects at 193 nm. Additionally, compensation addresses in catadioptric lens designs, where computational models quantify local variations and adjust dose or biases to maintain (CD) uniformity across the field. These optimizations, often integrated with source-mask optimization (SMO) for illumination shaping, extend the technology's viability for dense patterns. A significant milestone occurred at the 32 nm node around 2010, when double patterning with 193 nm immersion became production-ready for logic devices, relying on computational tools to achieve overlay errors below 2 nm through advanced feedback and algorithms. Techniques like combinatorial overlay control further refined alignment by modeling error sources such as grid distortions, enabling precise registration between exposures. As of November 2025, 193 nm DUV remains in hybrid use with (EUV) lithography for cost-effective patterning in advanced nodes such as 3 nm and 2 nm, where DUV handles non-critical layers to reduce mask counts and expenses compared to full EUV multi-patterning. Simulations of defects, including line-edge roughness and bridging, employ methods to predict defect densities from photon shot noise and resist chemistry, guiding process windows for reliable yields. The inherent 193 nm imposes a resolution cap around 38 nm for single exposure at NA=1.35, necessitating escalating multi-patterning complexity—up to quadruple patterning for sub-20 nm features—which amplifies computational demands for , OPC runtime, and budgeting. This drives innovations in inverse lithography technology to streamline designs but highlights the technology's approaching limits before full EUV adoption.

Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography

Extreme ultraviolet (EUV) operates at a of 13.5 nm, necessitating reflective due to the strong absorption of EUV by conventional lens materials. Unlike traditional refractive systems, EUV employs multilayer mirrors composed of alternating and layers to achieve high reflectivity, typically around 70% per mirror, with systems using up to 10-12 mirrors to project patterns. Computational modeling is essential for simulating these multilayer structures, accounting for phase shifts, polarization effects, and reflectivity variations across the illumination spectrum to predict fidelity. EUV systems also incorporate protective pellicles—thin membranes that shield the mask from contamination—introducing additional computational challenges such as modeling transmission losses, wavefront distortions, and particle-induced scattering. Rigorous simulations of pellicle deformations and stack configurations are required to optimize their impact on overlay and critical dimension uniformity, often using far-field approximations for efficiency in full-chip computations. Key techniques in EUV computational lithography include dose optimization to mitigate Poisson (shot) noise, which arises from the low photon flux and leads to stochastic variations in pattern edges. These optimizations employ probabilistic models to balance exposure doses, reducing line edge roughness (LER) while maintaining throughput, particularly for high-volume manufacturing. Inverse lithography technology (ILT) has been adapted for EUV to generate non-periodic patterns at nodes of 3 nm and below, using model-based optimization to create curvilinear features that compensate for and proximity effects in irregular layouts. ILT algorithms solve inverse problems via gradient-based methods, enabling single-exposure patterning for complex metal layers without excessive multi-patterning. Advancements include simulations for high-numerical-aperture (NA) EUV systems at 0.55 NA, introduced in 2023, which demand enhanced computational models for increased resolution and tighter process windows, achieving half-pitch features down to 8 nm. Computational predictions of secondary blur—arising from photoelectron interactions in the resist—further refine models, quantifying blur radii of 1-2 nm to forecast defect densities and guide material selection. As of November 2025, EUV (primarily low-NA) has seen widespread adoption for 2 nm-class nodes, with TSMC's N2 process ramping using low-NA EUV and Intel's 18A process in risk production leveraging high-NA EUV tools, with expected later in 2025 or 2026. Artificial intelligence-driven modeling has emerged as a breakthrough, using to predict and mitigate LER in EUV resists through optimized dose maps and feature-aware simulations. These AI approaches integrate and statistics into full-chip flows, enhancing yield for sub-2 nm scaling.

Scalability and Performance Issues

As feature sizes have shrunk below 10 nm, computational lithography workflows have encountered severe data explosion challenges, with full sets often exceeding 10 TB in size due to the intricate, curvilinear patterns required for high-resolution . This surge stems from the need for dense pixel-based representations in inverse lithography techniques and multi-patterning strategies, where flat, non-hierarchical data formats amplify file sizes; for instance, a complete EUV can generate up to 272 TB in multi-beam direct-write preparations. These massive datasets create significant bottlenecks in verification and cycles, where design rule checks (DRC) and (OPC) iterations can consume substantial computational resources, often requiring multiple cycles to resolve issues before final production. Traditionally spanning weeks, these processes delay chip fabrication timelines, as data transfer, storage, and overheads strain existing infrastructure. GPU-accelerated tools like NVIDIA's cuLitho have mitigated this for leading foundries, reducing cycles from weeks to days by parallelizing simulations. Performance metrics in computational lithography highlight inherent trade-offs between simulation accuracy and throughput, where high-fidelity models—essential for predicting sub-5 nm pattern fidelity—can extend computation times to minutes per layer during design and optimization, thereby prolonging development cycles. Accuracy is quantified via metrics like (MSE) in aerial image simulations and over union (IoU) for edge placement, but increasing model reduces runtime by orders of magnitude on standard hardware. These tensions have intensified post-2010, as pattern densities outpaced scaling in compute power, exacerbating verification delays. Industry-wide, these scalability constraints pose challenges for advanced node transitions, including EUV integration, prompting hardware-software co-design with (EDA) tools to embed lithography-aware optimizations early. AI integrations—such as physics-inspired neural networks—boost simulation speeds by 10-100x on GPUs, enabling near-real-time OPC without fidelity loss. Emerging exascale systems further promise to handle petabyte-scale datasets for advanced nodes. For high-NA EUV systems, additional computational demands arise from stitching inter-field patterns and correcting aberrations, requiring enhanced modeling for sub-2 nm features.

Emerging Computational Innovations

Recent advancements in computational lithography have increasingly incorporated (AI) and (ML) techniques to enhance mask synthesis and process control. Generative models, such as generative adversarial networks (GANs), have been employed to directly map target patterns to optimized mask designs, bypassing traditional iterative optimizations in inverse lithography technology (ILT). For instance, LithoGAN uses GANs for end-to-end lithography modeling, producing resist patterns from mask inputs with high fidelity and reducing computational overhead compared to conventional simulators. Similarly, TSMC and have integrated generative AI into NVIDIA's cuLitho platform, enabling near-perfect inverse mask generation that accounts for diffraction, achieving up to 2x additional speedup on top of the platform's 40-60x acceleration over CPU-based methods. (RL) has also emerged for process control, where agents learn optimal parameter adjustments to minimize defects and variations in fabrication. In OPC model calibration, deep RL trains agents to predict model parameters, improving accuracy while accelerating convergence; one framework demonstrates significant efficiency gains in mask optimization by directly optimizing objectives without proxy models. These AI/ML integrations have reported up to 40-60x faster workflows in production settings, facilitating quicker iterations for advanced nodes. Hybrid approaches combining physics-based models with neural networks address the limitations of data-intensive ML in low-data regimes typical of lithography simulations. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) incorporate governing equations, such as for light , directly into the loss function, enabling accurate predictions with minimal training data. For lithographic imaging, PINNs have shown superior accuracy in simulating aerial images and resist contours, outperforming purely data-driven models by enforcing physical constraints and reducing simulation times for 3D mask effects. In EUV contexts, PINNs model near- and far-field from absorbers, achieving efficient computations for complex geometries while maintaining physical consistency. This hybrid paradigm is particularly valuable for scenarios with sparse experimental data, where traditional empirical tuning is resource-intensive. Beyond EUV lithography, computational methods are extending to alternative patterning techniques like (NIL) and directed self-assembly (DSA) to reach sub-1 nm scales. For NIL, simulations optimize mold designs and imprint processes to achieve sub-10 nm features with high fidelity, using finite element modeling to predict stress and pattern fidelity during demolding. In DSA, computational platforms simulate block copolymer guided by lithographic pre-patterns, unraveling mechanisms for precise placement at 11-15 nm pitches and enabling hybrid top-down/bottom-up fabrication. These approaches support 1 nm-scale patterning by integrating with guiding pattern optimization, reducing defects in non-periodic IC layouts. As of 2025, emerging trends include quantum algorithms for solving inverse problems in lithography and open-source tools fostering collaborative research. and hybrid solvers optimize pixelated reticles for ILT, outperforming classical methods on binary mask problems by exploring vast solution spaces efficiently. Collaborations like Xanadu and Mitsubishi Chemical are developing quantum algorithms for EUV simulation, targeting faster diffraction computations. Open-source platforms such as OpenILT provide GPU-accelerated frameworks for ILT development, enabling AI-driven methods and community contributions to standardize and innovate in mask optimization. These innovations hold potential to enable angstrom-era nodes (sub-1 nm features) by 2030, with AI/ML hybrids reducing reliance on empirical tuning through physics-guided predictions and scalable simulations. By co-optimizing with novel architectures like CFETs, computational advancements are poised to extend , supporting AI and demands while minimizing process variability.

References

  1. https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-33-8-17280
  2. https://www.iitr.ac.in/vdat2017/Files/tut2.pdf
  3. http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~byu/papers/C190-NeurIPS2023-LithoBench.pdf
  4. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/samples/PM380.pdf
  5. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/PC13215.toc
  6. https://spie.org/advanced-lithography/presentation/Computational-Lithography-Solutions-to-enable-robust-EUV-High-NA-Stitching/13979-85
  7. https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2025/asml-ships-first-high-na-euv-systems
  8. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10396314
  9. https://spectrum.ieee.org/high-na-euv
  10. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10809/1080903/Current-challenges-and-opportunities-for-EUV-lithography/10.1117/12.2502791.pdf
  11. https://semiengineering.com/unsolved-litho-issues-at-7nm/
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253770677_Challenges_with_Hyper-NA_NA_10_polarized_light_lithography_for_sub_lambda4_resolution
  13. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-micro-nanopatterning-materials-and-metrology/volume-20/issue-03/030901/Inverse-lithography-technology--30-years-from-concept-to-practical/10.1117/1.JMM.20.3.030901.full
  14. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acsphotonics.2c01026
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959152408000619
  16. https://www.cymer.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Cymer_SPIE_AdvancedLithography_2015.pdf
  17. https://semiengineering.com/7nm-lithography-choices/
  18. https://opg.optica.org/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-30-11-17680
  19. http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/litho_papers/2005_Thirty_Years_of_Lithography_Simulation.pdf
  20. https://lithoguru.com/scientist/litho_papers/Inside_PROLITH.pdf
  21. https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2003Overall-Roadmap-Technology-Characteristics.pdf
  22. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/5040/0000/New-process-models-for-OPC-at-sub-90-nm-nodes/10.1117/12.504054.short
  23. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/7140/1/An-innovative-Source-Mask-co-Optimization-SMO-method-for-extending/10.1117/12.806657.full
  24. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-micro-nanolithography-mems-and-moems/volume-13/issue-1/011005/Impact-of-realistic-source-shape-and-flexibility-on-source-mask/10.1117/1.JMM.13.1.011005.full
  25. https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-asml-tsmc-and-synopsys-set-foundation-for-next-generation-chip-manufacturing
  26. https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/1_2015-ITRS-2.0-Lithography-.pdf
  27. https://www.cerc.utexas.edu/utda/publications/C162.pdf
  28. https://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~byu/papers/C300-NeurIPS2025-LithoSim.pdf
  29. https://research.nvidia.com/publication/2023-02_enabling-scalable-ai-computational-lithography-physics-inspired-models
  30. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Resolution-enhancement-techniques-in-optical-Wong/5cd810f9a9628fd885e4fee8d995697b09eff3ce
  31. https://lithoguru.com/scientist/litho_tutor/TUTOR41%20(May%2003).pdf
  32. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5770754
  33. https://www.semiconductors.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Litho2003.pdf
  34. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/6724/67240G/Option-of-resolution-enhancement-technology-in-advanced-lithography/10.1117/12.782511.full
  35. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/ebooks/FG/Field-Guide-to-Optical-Lithography/Optical-Proximity-Correction-OPC/Optical-Proximity-Correction-OPC/10.1117/3.665802.p82
  36. http://www-video.eecs.berkeley.edu/papers/ncobb/cobb_phd_thesis.pdf
  37. http://www-video.eecs.berkeley.edu/papers/gao/SPIE-2008.pdf
  38. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1953.0071
  39. https://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~byu/papers/C209-ISEDA2024-ModelOPC.pdf
  40. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2408.08969
  41. https://cecs.uci.edu/~papers/compendium94-03/papers/2001/ispd01/pdffiles/p045.pdf
  42. https://scispace.com/pdf/advanced-physical-models-for-mask-data-verification-and-l7d43embim.pdf
  43. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/13425/134250J/Enhancing-OPC-accuracy-in-28nm-class-analog-devices--addressing/10.1117/12.3048585.full
  44. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-26-11-14479
  45. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.848257
  46. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.879441
  47. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5738339
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238525563_Source-mask_optimization_SMO_from_theory_to_practice
  49. https://www.synopsys.com/manufacturing/mask-solutions/proteus.html
  50. https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2902
  51. https://spie.org/Publications/Book/2576902
  52. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/2440/1/Comparison-of-scalar-and-vector-modeling-of-image-formation-in/10.1117/12.209270.full
  53. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-025-01923-w
  54. https://opg.optica.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-30-11-17680&id=477629
  55. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-MicroNanolithography-MEMS-and-MOEMS/volume-12/issue-4/043001/Extreme-ultraviolet-lithography-resist-based-aberration-metrology/10.1117/1.JMM.12.4.043001.full
  56. https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2018/EECS-2018-160.pdf
  57. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/6924/1/Massively-parallel-FDTD-simulations-to-address-mask-electromagnetic-effects-in/10.1117/12.774443.full
  58. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/11613/116130Y/Enhancing-model-accuracy-and-calibration-efficiency-with-image-based-pattern/10.1117/12.2584692.short
  59. https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10411553
  60. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/api-gateway/chemrxiv/assets/orp/resource/item/6682ad62c9c6a5c07ae5d95c/original/microscopic-deprotection-mechanisms-and-acid-loss-pathways-of-chemically-amplified-photoresists-for-deep-extreme-ultraviolet-photolithography.pdf
  61. http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/litho_papers/1992_29_New%20Kinetic%20Model%20for%20Resist%20Dissolution.pdf
  62. https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article/35/6/061602/591639/Study-of-shot-noise-in-photoresists-for-extreme
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021999101968810
  64. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323861495_Stochastic_effects_in_EUV_lithography
  65. https://eu.36kr.com/en/p/3532924542983296
  66. https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/accelerating-high-volume-manufacturing-for-inverse-lithography-technology/
  67. https://semiengineering.com/speeding-up-computational-lithography-with-the-power-and-parallelism-of-gpus/
  68. https://www.synopsys.com/blogs/chip-design/computational-lithography-chip-design-with-nvidia.html
  69. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/Journal-of-MicroNanolithography-MEMS-and-MOEMS/volume-1/issue-3/0000/Domain-decomposition-methods-for-the-rapid-electromagnetic-simulation-of-photomask/10.1117/1.1506178.full
  70. https://jzus.zju.edu.cn/opentxt.php?doi=10.1631/jzus.C1000219
  71. https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE9/IJRPR52523.pdf
  72. https://semiengineering.com/knowledge_centers/manufacturing/process/issues/edge-placement-error/
  73. https://opg.optica.org/oe/abstract.cfm?uri=oe-23-21-26919
  74. https://blogs.sw.siemens.com/calibre/2025/01/08/unlocking-post-tapeout-flow-scalability-and-performance-with-cloud-computing/
  75. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1575774.1575776
  76. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/on-demand/session/gtc25-S74636/
  77. https://www.cerc.utexas.edu/utda/publications/ASICON09_August11_1PM.pdf
  78. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/8166/81662Y/Nanomachining-repair-for-the-latest-reticle-enhancement-technologies/10.1117/12.898504.full
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253057331_Aberration_evaluation_and_tolerancing_of_193-nm_lithographic_objective_lenses
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252977494_Double_patterning_overlay_and_CD_budget_for_32_nm_technology_node
  81. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Combinatorial-overlay-control-for-double-patterning-Ausschnitt-Halle/861f3e7556102892053b50a52b3ef19fc39fab5c
  82. https://semiengineering.com/euvs-future-looks-even-brighter/
  83. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/journals/journal-of-micro-nanopatterning-materials-and-metrology/volume-20/issue-1/014603/Contribution-of-EUV-resist-counting-statistics-to-stochastic-printing-failures/10.1117/1.JMM.20.1.014603.full
  84. https://pubs.aip.org/avs/jvb/article/29/6/06FH04/104495/Computational-lithography-Exhausting-the
  85. https://www.asml.com/technology/lithography-principles/lenses-and-mirrors
  86. https://optoelectronics.eecs.berkeley.edu/ey2014oe2221.pdf
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266976011_Optical_and_EUV_projection_lithography_A_computational_view
  88. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/10450/104500B/Efficient-simulation-of-EUV-pellicles/10.1117/12.2280535.short
  89. https://www2.eecs.berkeley.edu/Pubs/TechRpts/2017/EECS-2017-125.pdf
  90. https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/13424/134240A/Optimization-of-EUV-patterning-using-computational-lithography-for-large-area/10.1117/12.3051180.full
  91. https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/tsmc/313540-inverse-lithography-technology-a-status-update/
  92. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-666X/16/10/1166
  93. https://irds.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/2023/2023IRDS_Litho.pdf
  94. https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/29/tsmc_2nm_mass_production/
  95. https://semiwiki.com/forum/threads/intel-announces-18a-process-node-has-entered-risk-production.22454/
  96. https://eureka.patsnap.com/report-line-edge-roughness-reduction-techniques-in-euv-lithography
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258548613_Bottlenecks_in_Data_Preparation_Flow_for_Multi-beam_Direct_Write
  98. https://design2silicon.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/JM3-23048SS_pixel_based_computing.pdf
  99. https://semiengineering.com/how-to-transform-verification-time-to-results/
  100. https://www.imec-int.com/en/articles/entering-high-na-euv-lithography-era
  101. https://www.xanadu.ai/press/xanadu-and-mitsubishi-chemical-to-collaborate-on-developing-quantum-algorithms-for-euv-lithography
  102. https://github.com/OpenOPC/OpenILT
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.