2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.vacuum.2022.111351
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of deposition precursors of hydrogenated amorphous carbon films on the plasma etching resistance based on mass spectrometer measurements and machine learning analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Following this improvement, the second requirement is fast calculation that can keep pace with real process times. Currently, approaches such as machine learning, [212][213][214][215][216][217] the fusion of physical models with machine learning, 218,219), and surrogate models 220,221) are being adopted to solve this issue. Figure 45 218) presents an example of a fusion model, which uses incident gas fluxes derived from machine learning with real-time plasma monitoring, EES, and PQC data as inputs, while process properties such as feature-scale profiles, damage distributions, and film properties are simulated by a physical model.…”
Section: Future Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Following this improvement, the second requirement is fast calculation that can keep pace with real process times. Currently, approaches such as machine learning, [212][213][214][215][216][217] the fusion of physical models with machine learning, 218,219), and surrogate models 220,221) are being adopted to solve this issue. Figure 45 218) presents an example of a fusion model, which uses incident gas fluxes derived from machine learning with real-time plasma monitoring, EES, and PQC data as inputs, while process properties such as feature-scale profiles, damage distributions, and film properties are simulated by a physical model.…”
Section: Future Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After this improvement, fast calculation comparable to process time is the next issue as the second factor. Currently, machine learning, 100 104 fusion physical model with machine learning, 105 , 106 and surrogate models 107 , 108 are adopted to solve this issue. Figure 48 shows an example of a fusion model (or hybrid model) in which incident gas fluxes derived from machine learning using real-time monitoring of plasma and EES were used as an input and feature scale profiles, and damage distributions were simulated by a physical model.…”
Section: Future Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The prediction accuracy was improved by the use of Shapley additive explanation value (SHAP) in ML. 306)…”
Section: Advanced Process Control Of Chemical Vapor and Atomic Layer ...mentioning
confidence: 99%