{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019742489270386267, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006008583690987125, 'mean_word_length': 5.5875706214689265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Mitigating mask roughness via pupil filtering

The roughness present on the sidewalls of lithographically defined patterns imposes a very important challenge for advanced technology nodes. It can originate from the aerial image or the photoresist chemistry/processing [1]. The latter remains to be the dominant group in ArF and KrF lithography; however, the roughness originating from the mask transferred to the aerial image is gaining more attention [2-9], especially for the imaging conditions with large mask error enhancement factor (MEEF) values. The mask roughness contribution is usually in the low frequency range, which is particularly detrimental to the device performance by causing variations in electrical device parameters on the same chip [10-12]. This paper explains characteristic differences between pupil plane filtering in amplitude and in phase for the purpose of mitigating mask roughness transfer under interference-like lithography imaging conditions, where onedirectional periodic features are to be printed by partially coherent sources. A white noise edge roughness was used to perturbate the mask features for validating the mitigation.