Titanic overconfidence -- dark uncertainty can sink hybrid metrology for semiconductor manufacturing
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866914353980112896 |
|---|---|
| author | Dixson, Ronald G. Pintar, Adam L. Kline, R. Joseph. Germer, Thomas A. Liddle, J. Alexander Villarrubia, John S. Stavis, Samuel M. |
| author_facet | Dixson, Ronald G. Pintar, Adam L. Kline, R. Joseph. Germer, Thomas A. Liddle, J. Alexander Villarrubia, John S. Stavis, Samuel M. |
| contents | Hybrid metrology for semiconductor manufacturing is on a collision course with dark uncertainty. An IEEE technology roadmap for this venture has targeted a linewidth uncertainty of +/- 0.17 nm at 95 % coverage and advised the hybridization of results from different measurement methods to hit this target. Related studies have applied statistical models that require consistent results to compel a lower uncertainty, whereas inconsistent results are prevalent. We illuminate this lurking issue, studying how standard methods of uncertainty evaluation fail to account for the causes and effects of dark uncertainty. We revisit a comparison of imaging and scattering methods to measure linewidths of approximately 13 nm, applying contrasting statistical models to highlight the potential effect of dark uncertainty on hybrid metrology. A random effects model allows the combination of inconsistent results, accounting for dark uncertainty and estimating a total uncertainty of +/- 0.8 nm at 95 % coverage. In contrast, a common mean model requires consistent results for combination, ignoring dark uncertainty and underestimating the total uncertainty by as much as a factor of five. To avoid such titanic overconfidence, which can sink a venture, we outline good practices to reduce dark uncertainty and guide the combination of indeterminately consistent results. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2602_23131 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Titanic overconfidence -- dark uncertainty can sink hybrid metrology for semiconductor manufacturing Dixson, Ronald G. Pintar, Adam L. Kline, R. Joseph. Germer, Thomas A. Liddle, J. Alexander Villarrubia, John S. Stavis, Samuel M. Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability Applications Hybrid metrology for semiconductor manufacturing is on a collision course with dark uncertainty. An IEEE technology roadmap for this venture has targeted a linewidth uncertainty of +/- 0.17 nm at 95 % coverage and advised the hybridization of results from different measurement methods to hit this target. Related studies have applied statistical models that require consistent results to compel a lower uncertainty, whereas inconsistent results are prevalent. We illuminate this lurking issue, studying how standard methods of uncertainty evaluation fail to account for the causes and effects of dark uncertainty. We revisit a comparison of imaging and scattering methods to measure linewidths of approximately 13 nm, applying contrasting statistical models to highlight the potential effect of dark uncertainty on hybrid metrology. A random effects model allows the combination of inconsistent results, accounting for dark uncertainty and estimating a total uncertainty of +/- 0.8 nm at 95 % coverage. In contrast, a common mean model requires consistent results for combination, ignoring dark uncertainty and underestimating the total uncertainty by as much as a factor of five. To avoid such titanic overconfidence, which can sink a venture, we outline good practices to reduce dark uncertainty and guide the combination of indeterminately consistent results. |
| title | Titanic overconfidence -- dark uncertainty can sink hybrid metrology for semiconductor manufacturing |
| topic | Data Analysis, Statistics and Probability Applications |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23131 |