Surrogate-assisted genetic algorithm for efficient resist calibration

Abstract

As semiconductor manufacturing moves toward fine feature sizes, precise and efficient resist model calibration has become crucial for optical proximity correction to ensure pattern fidelity. However, traditional calibration methods struggle with efficiency and scalability and are prone to becoming trapped in local optima. Herein, we propose a surrogate-assisted genetic algorithm (SAGA) that integrates Kriging interpolation-based surrogate models and dynamic adaptive mechanisms to optimize resist model coefficients, convolution kernel parameters, and aerial image settings jointly. By leveraging surrogate models to predict high-performance solutions and adaptively adjusting crossover/mutation rates, SAGA balances global exploration and local exploitation, achieving rapid convergence and superior model accuracy compared with other algorithms. Experimental validation across three resist cases demonstrates that SAGA outperforms conventional genetic algorithms and grid search. Compared with other algorithms, SAGA not only achieves higher accuracy but also converges faster, with its optimization trajectories stabilizing earlier in the iterative process. These results highlight SAGA’s potential for efficient and high-precision resist calibration in computational lithography.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

optical proximity correction / computational lithography / resist calibration / genetic algorithm / surrogate model / Kriging interpolation

References

[1] Ma X, Zhang S E, Pan Y H, Zhang J B, Yu C Z, Dong L S, Wei Y Y. Research and progress of computational lithography. Laser and Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59(9): 0922008 (in Chinese)

[2] Chen G D, Zhang Z N, Li S K, Wang X Z. Study on deep ultraviolet computational lithography techniques. Laser and Optoelectronics Progress, 2022, 59: 0922007 (in Chinese)

[3] Chen A, Foong Y M, Zhang D Q, Zhang H X, Chung A, Fryer D, Deng Y F, Medvedev D, Granik Y. Evaluation of compact models for negative-tone development layers at 20/14 nm nodes. In: Lai K F, Erdmann A (eds). Optical Microlithography XXVIII. San Jose: SPIE, 2015, 94261P

[4] Huang W C, Lin C H, Kuo C C, Huang C C, Lin J F, Chen J H, Liu R G, Ku Y C, Lin B J. Two threshold resist models for optical proximity correction. In: Smith B W (ed). Optical Microlithography XVII. Santa Clara: SPIE, 2004, 1536–1543

[5] Randall J, Ronse K G, Marschner T, Goethals A M, Ercken M. Variable-threshold resist models for lithography simulation. In: den Hove L V (ed). Optical Microlithography XII. Santa Clara: SPIE, 1999, 176–182

[6] Cobb N B, Zakhor A, Reihani M, Jahansooz F, Raghavan V N V. Experimental results on optical proximity correction with variable-threshold resist model. In: Fuller G E (ed). Optical Microlithography X. Santa Clara: SPIE, 1997, 458–468

[7] Biafore J J, Robertson S A, Smith M D, Sallee C. The accuracy of a calibrated PROLITH physical resist model across illumination conditions. In: Wong A K K, Singh V K (eds). Design for Manufacturability through Design-Process Integration. San Jose: SPIE, 2007, 65211I

[8] Granik Y . Transformational invariance in compact process modeling. Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 2020, 19(1): 013502

[9] Granik Y, Cobb N, Medvedev D. Application of CM0 resist model to OPC and verification. In: Flagello D G (ed). Optical Microlithography XIX. San Jose: SPIE, 2006, 61543E

[10] Granik Y, Medvedev D, Cobb N. Toward standard process models for OPC. In: Flagello D G (ed). Optical Microlithography XX. San Jose: SPIE, 2007, 652043

[11] Lafferty N, Adam K, Granik Y, Torres A, Maurer W. Physically based compact models for fast lithography simulation. In: Smith B W (ed). Optical Micro-lithography XVIII. San Jose: SPIE, 2005, 537–542

[12] Baluswamy P, Weatherly A, Kewley D, Brooker P, Pauzer M. Practical resist model calibration. In: Yen A (ed). Optical Microlithography XVI. Santa Clara: SPIE, 2003, 1556–1569

[13] Byers J D, Petersen J S, Sturtevant J L. Calibration of chemically amplified resist models. In: Kunz R R (ed). Advances in Resist Technology and Processing XIII. Santa Clara: SPIE, 1996, 156–162

[14] Klostermann U K , Mülders T , Ponomarenco D , Schmöller T , Van de Kerkhove J , De Bisschop P . Calibration of physical resist models: methods, usability, and predictive power. Journal of Micro/Nano-lithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 2009, 8(3): 033005

[15] Kim C, Lee S, Park S, Chung N Y, Kim J, Bang N, Lee S, Lee S, Boone R, Li P C, Chang J, Zhou X X, Kim Y, Oh M, Kim M, Gupta R, Ye J, Baron S. Machine learning techniques for OPC improvement at the sub-5 nm node. In: Felix N M, Lio A (eds). Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Lithography XI. San Jose: SPIE, 2020, 1132317

[16] Pan Y N, Wang Y F, Chen N, Kim K, Parent E. Co-optimization of optical and resist models in the OPC modeling process using in-house genetic algorithm. In: Kim R H, Lafferty N V (eds). DTCO and Computational Patterning II. San Jose: SPIE, 2023, 124951Q

[17] Huang W C, Lai C M, Luo B, Tsai C K, Tsay C S, Lai C W, Kuo C C, Liu R G, Lin H T, Lin B J. OPC modeling by genetic algorithm. In: Smith B W (ed). Optical Microlithography XVIII. San Jose: SPIE, 2005, 1229–1240

[18] Wu R X , Dong L S , Ma X , Wei Y Y . Compensation of EUV lithography mask blank defect based on an advanced genetic algorithm. Optics Express, 2021, 29(18): 28872–28885

[19] Mu C X , Cheng L , Zhang S , Jiang H , Wei D H , Sun Y L , Zhu J L , Liu S Y . Efficient nonlinear resist modeling by combining and cascading quadratic Wiener systems. Optics & Laser Technology, 2025, 183: 112315

[20] Kwon Y , Shin Y . Calibration of compact resist model through CNN training. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, 2023, 36(2): 180–187

[21] Feng Y B , Liu J M , Song Z Y , Jiang H , Liu S Y . Efficient measurement and optical proximity correction modeling to catch lithography pattern shift issues of arbitrarily distributed hole layer. Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering, 2024, 19(4): 24

[22] He C L , Zhang Y , Gong D W , Ji X F . A review of surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithms for expensive optimization problems. Expert Systems with Applications, 2023, 217: 119495

[23] Jin Y C . Surrogate-assisted evolutionary computation: Recent advances and future challenges. Swarm and Evolutionary Computation, 2011, 1(2): 61–70

[24] Pan L Q , He C , Tian Y , Wang H D , Zhang X Y , Jin Y C . A classification-based surrogate-assisted evolutionary algorithm for expensive many-objective optimization. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 2019, 23(1): 74–88

[25] Lambora A, Gupta K, Chopra K. Genetic algorithm––A literature review. In: 2019 International Conference on Machine Learning, Big Data, Cloud and Parallel Computing. Faridabad: IEEE, 2019, 380–384

[26] Cressie N . The origins of kriging. Mathematical Geology, 1990, 22(3): 239–252

[27] Oliver M A , Webster R . Kriging: a method of interpolation for geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, 1990, 4(3): 313–332

[28] van Beers W C M , Kleijnen J P C . Kriging for interpolation in random simulation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 2003, 54(3): 255–262

[29] Shukla A, Pandey H M, Mehrotra D. Comparative review of selection techniques in genetic algorithm. In: 2015 International Conference on Futuristic Trends On Computational Analysis and Knowledge Management (ABLAZE). Greater Noida: IEEE, 2015, 515–519

[30] Alhijawi B , Awajan A . Genetic algorithms: theory, genetic operators, solutions, and applications. Evolutionary Intelligence, 2024, 17(3): 1245–1256

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Higher Education Press