1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a shape calculation apparatus and method for calculating the shape of a surface to be measured, a measurement apparatus, a method of manufacturing an article, and a storage medium.
2. Description of the Related Art
In astronomy/space observation, the semiconductor industry, or the like, it is increasingly required to upsize an optical element to be used to the order of one to several meters. Upsizing a measurement apparatus to measure the shape of the element increases the measurement dynamic range, thereby decreasing the accuracy resolution and increasing the cost of the apparatus. To solve this problem, so-called stitch measurement is generally performed to obtain the overall shape by measuring the shapes of a plurality of partial regions of an object to be measured, and combining the shape data of the plurality of partial regions.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-125768 discloses one stitch measurement technique. In this literature, the shape data of partial regions are obtained, the orientation error of each partial region and a system error common to all the partial regions are set as variable parameters, and an evaluation function that minimizes the difference in overlapping regions of the respective partial regions is set. Linear least squares are used as a minimization method. In this example, if six degrees of freedom of the orientation error are provided to n partial regions, degrees of freedom, the number of which is equal to nth power of 6, are calculated. In general, in interference measurement or the like, since it is impossible to perform measurement if data itself includes an inclination, the inclination error is very small, and the orientation error can be approximated by linear calculation.
The technique described in Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-125768 is applicable to such interference measurement data and the like. On the other hand, as for measurement data such as measurement data of a three-dimensional shape measurement apparatus for which it is necessary to perform nonlinear calculation such as coordinate rotation to correct the orientation error, if six degrees of freedom of the orientation error are provided to the n partial regions, the number of degrees of freedom to be calculated is sixth power of n. In this case, the calculation amount is enormous, and thus it is difficult to apply the technique to practical measurement.
Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2009-294134 discloses another stitch technique. In this literature, the difference between the shape data of a partial region and its designed shape is represented by an evaluation function, and parameters are determined so that the evaluation function is minimized. In this example, even if six degrees of freedom of an orientation error are provided to n partial regions, 6n degrees of freedom are calculated. Even if nonlinear calculation such as coordinate rotation is performed as described above, it is possible to suppress the stitch calculation load.
In each of the above-described literatures, errors included in the result of measuring a partial region are only an orientation error and system error. That is, the orientation error includes translation/rotation components of the measurement result, and the system error is common to all the measurement results. In other words, in measurement of the partial regions, data are combined on the premise that only the orientation of an optical element changes for each measurement operation and the system error caused by an apparatus calibration value or the like is always constant for all the measurement operations.
However, in actual measurement, the measurement result of each partial region includes various measurement errors in addition to a change in orientation. For example, if measurement using interference light is performed, the optical path of the interference light changes according to a change in temperature or pressure in a measurement environment, resulting in an error in measurement value. Also, if the relative distance between the measurement reference and an object to be measured changes due to the temperature deformation of the apparatus structure or the like, an error occurs in measurement value. Alternatively, when an object to be measured is held on a measurement apparatus, a change in friction force at the holding position or holding point deforms the object to be measured, resulting in an error in measurement value.
These errors indicate the difference between respective measurement results when the same partial region is measured a plurality of times, and are expressed as so-called measurement reproducibility.
As described above, when performing stitch calculation using the shape data of a partial region whose shape measurement reproducibility is unsatisfactory, the conventional techniques set only the orientation error and system error as calculation parameters. If the measurement reproducibility is low, the shape data of overlapping regions do not coincide with each other. As a result, when combining the shape data, the discontinuity of the respective shape data in the vicinity of the overlapping regions particularly becomes large. Along with this, especially at the connection position of the partial regions, a higher-order spatial frequency error such as a step shape or edge shape becomes large.
The present invention solves the above problem, and can obtain the overall shape at higher accuracy by connecting respective partial regions in consideration of measurement errors in addition to an orientation error and system error.
According to one aspect of the present invention, a shape calculation apparatus comprises an obtaining unit configured to obtain measurement data of a first shape of a first partial region on a surface to be measured, and obtain measurement data of a second shape of a second partial region partially overlapping the first partial region on the surface to be measured, a determination unit configured to determine a value of a first shape correction parameter for changing the first shape to compensate a measurement error included in the measurement data of the first shape and a value of a second correction parameter for compensating a measurement error included in the measurement data of the second shape so that a value of an evaluation function which has as variables the first shape correction parameter and the second correction parameter and evaluates shape data obtained by correcting the measurement data of the first shape by the first shape correction parameter and shape data obtained by correcting the measurement data of the second shape by the second correction parameter falls within a tolerance range, and a combining unit configured to generate shape data of an entire region including the first partial region and the second partial region by respectively correcting the measurement data of the first shape and the second shape using the determined values of the first shape correction parameter and the second correction parameter, and combining the corrected shape data.
Further features of the present invention will become apparent from the following description of exemplary embodiments (with reference to the attached drawings).
Various exemplary embodiments, features, and aspects of the invention will be described in detail below with reference to the drawings.
Preferred embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Note that the following embodiments are not intended to limit the present invention, and only show detailed examples advantageous for implementing the present invention. In addition, not all the combinations of features described in the following embodiments are essential to the solving means of the present invention.
Referring to
A
1
=[a
11
,a
12
, . . . ,a
1i
, . . . ,a
1n] (1)
A
2
=[a
21
,a
22
, . . . ,a
2i
, . . . ,a
2m] (2)
a
1i
└x
1i
,y
1i
,z
1i┐ (3)
a
2j
=└x
2j
,y
2j
,z
2j┐ (4)
In 1c of
More specifically, for the data A1, the sub parameters of an orientation error parameter T1 are θ1, φ1, and ψ1 that correspond to rotation amounts with respect to the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively, and α1, β1, and γ1 that correspond to translation amounts with respect to the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, respectively. Similarly, for the data A2, the sub parameters of an orientation error parameter T2 are θ2, φ2, and ψ2 respectively corresponding to rotation amounts, and α2, β2, and γ2 respectively corresponding to translation amounts. The orientation error parameters T1 and T2 are defined as coordinate transformation matrices given by:
As described in Japanese Patent Laid-Open No. 2004-125768, as for shape data obtained by an interferometer for which rotation about each axis can be calculated by linear approximation, rotation calculation may be implemented by linear calculation instead of nonlinear calculation. That is, in equations (5) and (6), cos ξ=1 and sin ξ=ξ may be set.
In 1d of
S=S(x,y) (7)
The function S may return a coordinate value z for arbitrary input values x and y, or return coordinate values x′, y′, and z for the arbitrary input values x and y. The former corresponds to, for example, a shape error of the reference surface of the interferometer. The latter corresponds to, for example, a case in which an error in the in-plane direction such as distortion in the interferometer is included.
Using orthogonal polynomials as a function in a given measurement region facilitates calculation. Therefore, orthogonal polynomials are desirably adopted as the function S. More specifically, there are provided Zernike polynomials, XY polynomials orthogonalized using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization method, and the like.
As will be readily understood, the function S desirably has no linear components. Otherwise, the function is approximately equal to the above-described rotation calculation of the orientation error parameter, and subsequent optimization calculation may not converge.
In the Zernike polynomials generally used, the first to third terms are linear components, and are desirably removed. In a function other than the Zernike polynomials as well, similarly defined linear components are desirably removed.
In 1e of
EF1=Σ(A1·T1·S−A2·T2·S)2 (8)
In equation (8), • represents the action of a parameter on the shape data. The action includes not only integration of the data and the parameter but also addition and subtraction. That is, after causing the orientation error parameter T1 and the system error parameter S to act on the shape data A1 and the orientation error parameter T2 and the system error parameter S to act on the shape data A2, the difference between the obtained values is obtained and squared. In other words, this evaluation function is used to evaluate shape data obtained by correcting the shape data by the parameters. More specifically, the evaluation function EF1 corresponds to the difference between Z values in the overlapping regions of the corrected shape data, as shown in 1e of
Note that since the X and Y coordinates in the shape data A1 and A2 do not basically coincide with each other in the overlapping regions of the data, it is a common practice to interpolate these data, calculate Z values at arbitrary X and Y coordinates, and obtain the difference between the Z values. As a coordinate system at this time, a global coordinate system C independent of each measurement result may be defined, or one of coordinate systems C1 and C2 of respective measurement results may be used.
In 1f of
In 1g of
According to the aforementioned conventional stitch technique, it is possible to concatenate the shape data of a plurality of regions, thereby obtaining the shape data of a larger region.
In the conventional stitch technique shown in
A
1
′=A
1
u
1 (9)
A
2
′=A
2
u
2 (10)
These measurement errors u1 and u2 are considered to occur by the following factors:
If the stitch step is advanced similarly to
More specifically, stitch shape data AS′ shown in 2g of
A stitch technique according to this embodiment will be described with reference to
Obtained first shape data A1′ and second shape data A2′ that are shown in 3a of
P
1
=P
1(x1,y1) (11)
P
2
=P
2(x2/y2) (12)
Note that each of the functions P1 and P2 may return a coordinate value z for arbitrary input values x and y, or return coordinate values x′, y′, and z for the arbitrary input values x and y. The former corresponds to, for example, a shape error of the reference surface of the interferometer. The latter corresponds to, for example, a case in which an error in the in-plane direction such as distortion in the interferometer is included.
Using orthogonal polynomials as a function in a given measurement region facilitates calculation. Therefore, orthogonal polynomials are desirably adopted as a function P. More specifically, there are provided Zernike polynomials, XY polynomials orthogonalized using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization method, and the like.
Using the shape correction parameters makes it possible to individually correct the measurement errors respectively included in the shape data A1′ and A2′, as a matter of course. Consequently, an evaluation function EF3 shown in 3e of
EF3=Σ(A1u1·P1·T1·S−A2u2·P2·T2·S)2 (13)
The above evaluation function EF3 is the weighted squared error of the first shape data A1 and the second shape data A2. It will be understood that the weight of the first shape data A1 includes the first shape correction parameter P1 and the weight of the second shape data A2 includes the second shape correction parameter P2. In the optimization step, the shape correction parameters P1 and P2 as variables can be respectively set to satisfy functions given by:
P
1
=u
1
−1 (14)
P
2
=u
2
−1 (15)
As described above, in equation (13), • represents the action of a parameter on the shape data. The action includes not only integration of the data and the parameter but also addition and subtraction. It is thus possible to solve equation (13), similarly to equation (8). As an important point, in the optimization step, it is possible to simultaneously determine all the parameters.
In 3f of
In 3g of
According to the above-described stitch technique of this embodiment, even if the shape data of respective partial regions include different measurement errors, it is possible to satisfactorily concatenate the shape data of the plurality of regions, and obtain the data of a larger region at high accuracy.
To obtain a value at arbitrary coordinates in A1″ and A2″, the overall shape parameter G is desirably defined as a function G given by:
G=G(x,y) (16)
The function G returns a coordinate value z for arbitrary input values x and y, and represents an approximate error shape in an entire region A″ including the first and second partial regions. With this parameter, when the region A″ actually has a shape including an error, it is possible to subtract the overall shape parameter G from measurement data by expressing the shape by the result of adding a continuous function to a design value. As a result, the measurement data to be processed has a narrow dynamic range with respect to stitch calculation, thereby reducing the calculation load.
Using orthogonal polynomials as a function in a given measurement region facilitates calculation. Therefore, orthogonal polynomials are desirably adopted as a function G. More specifically, there are provided Zernike polynomials, XY polynomials orthogonalized using the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization method, and the like.
As will be readily understood, the function G desirably has no linear components. Otherwise, the function is approximately equal to the above-described rotation calculation of the orientation error parameter, and subsequent optimization calculation may not converge.
In this embodiment as well, as shown in 4f of
In 4g of
The above evaluation function EF4 is the weighted squared error of the design shape data of the entire region and the first and second shape data. It will be understood that the weight of the design shape data D includes the overall shape parameter G and the weights of the first shape data A1 and second shape data A2 include the first shape correction parameter P1 and the second shape correction parameter P2, respectively. The evaluation function EF4 is intended to minimize deviation of each shape data from the design shape of the surface to be measured. That is, the result of adding an error by the overall shape parameter G to the design shape data D is set as a reference, and the difference between the reference and the result of correcting measurement data Ai″ by the respective correction parameters P, T, and S is obtained. This processing is performed for each shape data, and the parameters that minimize the evaluation function EF4 are finally determined. Each parameter can be obtained by linear least squares or nonlinear least squares.
At this time, even if each measurement data includes a measurement error u, it is possible to correct the measurement error using the shape correction parameter P.
Referring to
According to the above-described stitch technique of this embodiment, even if the shape data of respective partial regions include different measurement errors with respect to the design shapes, it is possible to satisfactorily concatenate the shape data of the plurality of regions, and obtain the shape data of a larger region at high accuracy.
Note that in this embodiment, an example of stitch calculation using an orientation error parameter and system error parameter in addition to the shape correction parameters has been explained. In fact, however, the embodiment may have a feature in which only parameters including at least the shape correction parameters are set. This indicates, for example, a case in which a system error or orientation error can be accurately corrected and an error occurs in only a partial shape.
The above-described embodiment assumes that the set parameters do not interfere with each other. That is, if the orientation error parameter, system error parameter, overall shape parameter, and shape correction parameters are independent of each other, it is possible to globally search for the minimum value of the evaluation function EF.
Alternatively, if these parameters depend on each other, the parameters interfere with each other at the time of minimization of the evaluation function EF. As a result, a local minimum value is found or the evaluation function does not converge.
An example will be described with reference to
S=S(x1,y1)=δP1(x1,y1)=δP1 (18)
That is, an equation having S and P is uncertain, and it is impossible to determine whether the target shape includes a system error or is a really existing shape.
In such case, the problem can be solved by selecting parameters to be independent of each other so that the parameters do not interfere or approximately interfere with each other.
When the deformed shape is expressed by general Zernike polynomials, the shape (lower-order shape) of the fourth to ninth Zernike terms often dominates the deformed shape. In other words, the fourth to ninth Zernike term components are appropriately set as the shape correction parameters in this case.
In the above-described embodiments, it is possible to reduce the discontinuity of the respective partial regions by correcting measurement errors using the shape correction parameters. However, if the surface to be measured actually has an error shape, and the shape correction parameters act by including the error shape, the actual error shape may be unwantedly corrected. That is, a measurement result with an error smaller than the actual error is unwantedly obtained. Depending on an evaluation function, the actual error shape cannot be uniquely determined, and may diverge. This means that the surface to be measured cannot be accurately measured, thereby causing a measurement problem.
To solve this problem, a description will be provided with reference to
A conventional stitch result obtained by using an orientation error parameter and system error parameter as in steps S361, S371, and S381, similarly to steps S5 to S7, is as shown in 9c of
On the other hand, 9f of
In this embodiment, in 9i of
The above control processing will be summarized. As described above, overall shape data is generated using the evaluation function indicated by equation (13) or (17) (steps S35 to S382). After that, higher-order spatial frequency components H of the overall shape data are generated (9h of
According to the embodiment, while maintaining the advantage of the first embodiment that it is difficult for a combining operation to cause a higher-order component error, it is possible to avoid, by using the conventional method, the disadvantage that a lower-order shape components include an error depending on a selected evaluation function.
Note that in this embodiment, the above-described method of determining parameters is divided into two patterns. The number of patterns is not limited to two. It will be readily understood that more patterns may be used depending on a measurement target.
A combining result obtained without using any shape correction parameters is shown in 10c and 10d. The lower-order components (the fourth to ninth Zernike term components) are 5.7 nm RMS while the higher-order components (the 10th Zernike term component and subsequent term components) are 19 nm RMS. On the other hand, 10e and 10f show a combining result obtained using the fourth to ninth Zernike terms as partial shape parameters. The lower-order components are 48 nm RMS and the higher-order components are 2.9 nm RMS.
From this simulation result, for the lower-order components, the ratio of an error when no shape correction parameters are used to that when the shape correction parameters are used is about 1:0.12. Consequently, it is more advantageous not to use the shape correction parameters. On the other hand, for the higher-order components, the ratio of an error when no shape correction parameters are used to that when the shape correction parameters are used is about 1:0.15. Consequently, it is more advantageous to use the shape correction parameters.
In this simulation, the lower-order components are defined by the fourth to ninth Zernike terms. This is because an error provided as a measurement error is a lower-order shape. In different data as well, it is desirable to determine patterns into which spatial frequency components are divided in accordance with shape components and an assumed measurement error.
In this simulation, the spatial frequency components are divided into two regions. However, the number of patterns is not limited to two. It will be readily understood that more patterns may be used depending on a measurement target.
According to the above-described measurement method of combining partial shapes, it is possible to accurately calculate the overall shape of an object to be measured that has low measurement reproducibility in each partial measurement operation by reducing an error caused by combining, especially a higher-order spatial frequency error.
The shape measurement apparatus includes a control unit 10.
<Embodiment of Method of Manufacturing Article>
A method of manufacturing an article according to an embodiment is used to manufacture an article such as a metal part or an optical element. The method of manufacturing an article according to this embodiment includes a step of measuring the shape of an object to be measured using the above-described shape measurement apparatus, and a step of processing, based on the measurement result in the above step, the object to be measured. For example, the shape of the object to be measured is measured using the measurement apparatus, and the object to be measured is processed (manufactured) based on the measurement result so that the shape of the object to be measured conforms to a design value. The method of manufacturing an article according to this embodiment can measure the shape of the object to be measured at higher accuracy by using the measurement apparatus. Therefore, when compared to the conventional methods, this method is advantageous in at least one of the performance, quality, productivity, and production cost of an article.
While the present invention has been described with reference to exemplary embodiments, it is to be understood that the invention is not limited to the disclosed exemplary embodiments. The scope of the following claims is to be accorded the broadest interpretation so as to encompass all such modifications and equivalent structures and functions.
This application claims the benefit of Japanese Patent Application Nos. 2013-227525, filed Oct. 31, 2013 and 2014-185660, filed Sep. 11, 2014, which are hereby incorporated by reference herein in their entirety.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2013-227525 | Oct 2013 | JP | national |
2014-185660 | Sep 2014 | JP | national |