This application claims priority to European Patent Application No. 16189519.8, filed Sep. 19, 2016, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Because a tomographic reconstruction is generally an under-determined problem, it produces a solution space (extended set of potential solutions) rather than a unique solution. Such a solution space will typically include (significant numbers of) “dud” solutions that are, for example, physically impossible and/or an inaccurate representation of the specimen under investigation. In order to “weed-out” such dud solutions from the solution space, the reconstruction procedure is generally subjected to one or more constraints, e.g. by discarding negative results and/or results that contain (certain types of) discontinuities, for instance.
A fundamental problem with tomographic imaging is the finite/bounded nature of the input set of images on which reconstruction is performed. More particularly, if said input set comprises large “voids” (e.g. collections of lines of sight for which there are no input images available, or only a sparse collection of input images), then this can lead to significant inaccuracies/limitations in the associated tomogram. Typically, of the theoretically possible 4π steradian (2π degree) angular extent of potential lines of sight relative to the specimen, one or more angular ranges are missing from the accumulated set of input images, e.g. due to a limited tilt range of the employed specimen holder, apparatus obscuration effects, etc. This is commonly referred to as the “missing wedge” problem. For lines of sight that have a relatively large elevation angle relative to the specimen, parts of the specimen image will be projected into regions that are not present in the reconstruction volume. This is commonly referred to as the “local tomography” effect. Apart from causing visible artifacts in the reconstructed tomogram, such effects also cause significant ill-posedness of the mathematical reconstruction problem, causing the resolution and fidelity of the resulting tomogram to be extremely sensitive to noise, with sub-optimal reconstructions as a result.
Although prior-art tomographic imaging techniques have produced tolerable results up to now, innovative alternatives to conventional approaches are needed and are disclosed below.
The invention relates to a method of investigating a specimen using tomographic imaging, comprising the following steps:
The invention also relates to a tomographic imaging apparatus that can be used in performing such a method.
The invention further relates to a charged-particle microscope in which such a tomographic imaging apparatus is comprised.
The invention will now be elucidated in more detail on the basis of exemplary embodiments and the accompanying schematic drawings, in which:
In tomographic imaging (also referred to as Computed Tomography (CT)) as referred to above, a radiation source and (diametrically opposed) detector are used to look through a specimen along different lines of sight, so as to acquire penetrative observations of the specimen from a variety of perspectives; these are then used as input to a mathematical procedure that produces a reconstructed “volume image” (tomogram) of (part of) the (interior of the) specimen. In order to achieve a series of different lines of sight as alluded to here, one can, for example, choose to:
Tomographic imaging as referred to here can be performed using a standalone apparatus, which is conventionally the case in medical imaging applications, for example, where the specimen (e.g. a human or animal) is macroscopic. Standalone CT tools are also available for performing so-called “micro CT”, in which a micro-focused source is used to image microscopic specimens, e.g. in geology/petrology, biological tissue studies, etc. Continuing this drive toward ever-greater resolution, so-called “nano CT” instruments have also been developed; these may be standalone tools, but, for example, they may also be embodied as (add-on) modules for (a vacant vacuum/interface port of) a charged-particle microscope (CPM)—such as a (S)TEM or SEM—in which case the CPM's charged-particle beam is used to irradiate the specimen directly, or to irradiate a metal target so as to cause production of an imaging X-ray beam. As referred to in this document, the concept of tomography should be broadly construed as encompassing so-called laminography. More information on (some) of these topics can, for example, be gleaned from the following references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_microtomography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotomography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_tomography
http://www.ndt.net/article/v04n07/bb67_11/bb67_11.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0029549398003197
It should be noted that, as referred to here in the context of a CPM, the phrase “charged particle” should be broadly construed as encompassing:
As regards the mathematical reconstruction technique used to produce a tomogram from a series of input images, use can be made of algorithms such as SIRT (Simultaneous Iterative Reconstruction Technique), ART (Algebraic Reconstruction Technique), DART (Discrete ART), SART (Simultaneous ART), MGIR (Multi-Grid Iterative Reconstruction), and many others: see, for example, the summary presented in the following publication:
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/˜nrezvani/CAIMS2009.pdf
It is an object of the invention to provide an innovative tomographic imaging technique. More specifically, it is an object of the invention that this technique should employ a radically different mathematical constraining strategy as compared to known techniques. In particular, it is an object of the invention that this technique should offer a solution (inter alia) for the abovementioned “missing wedge” and “local tomography” problems.
These and other objects are achieved in a method as set forth in the opening paragraph above, which method is characterized by the following steps:
Three-dimensional SEM imaging is a technique that was recently developed by the assignee of the present application. It is a reconstructive technique that can be summarized as follows:
The basic idea behind the invention is to use details from 3D SEM imagery of (a relevant part of) the specimen to test whether given (intermediate) solutions in the possible solution space of a tomographic reconstruction are producing results that are realistic (i.e. consistent with the 3D SEM data—in which case the solutions in question can be kept) or unrealistic (i.e. at variance with the 3D SEM data—in which case the solutions in question can be discarded). The 3D SEM data can be rendered usable as a reference/constraint for (autonomous use in/by) the tomographic reconstruction using a variety of methods, as long as the data of one imagery type (e.g. 3D SEM) is cast to a descriptor that is similar for the other imagery type (e.g. tomography). As examples, one can, for instance, consider the following approaches:
One could ask why, if one already has 3D SEM data for a given specimen, there is a need/desire to perform tomographic imaging on that specimen at all. However, the skilled artisan will realize that, for example, the tomographic imaging may use a different type of probing radiation (e.g. X-rays, or higher-energy electrons, or other charged particles) to the 3D SEM imagery, which may be more optimal in imaging certain materials, and have different penetrative behavior vis-à-vis the specimen. One must bear in mind that 3D SEM imagery is collected in such a way as to produce isotropic resolution, whereas tomography looks at the specimen along a range of lines of sight that may not fill the full range of possible line-of-sights; this difference can have an effect on the volume that can be imaged and/or the (isotropy of the) resolution that can be attained, for instance.
The 3DSEM-constrained tomography approach provided by the present invention can be mathematically expressed in terms of an optimization problem:
in which:
For good order, it is pointed out that, when performing tomographic imaging, there are various ways in which to acquire a set of input images (for use in subsequent tomographic reconstruction). For example, one can make use of:
The particle-optical column 3 comprises an electron source 17 (such as a Schottky emitter), (electrostatic/magnetic) lenses 19, 21 (in general, more complex in structure than the schematic depiction here) to focus the electron beam 5 onto the specimen 13, and a deflection unit 23 to perform beam deflection/scanning of the beam 5. When the beam 5 impinges on/is scanned across the specimen 13, it will precipitate emission of various types of “stimulated” radiation, such as backscattered electrons, secondary electrons, X-rays and cathodoluminescence (infra-red, visible and/or ultra-violet photons); one or more of these radiation types can then be sensed/recorded using one or more detectors, which may form an image, spectrum, diffractogram, etc., typically by assembling a “map” (or “matrix”) of detector output as a function of scan position on the specimen. The present Figure shows two such detectors, 25, 27, which may, for example, be embodied as follows:
The microscope 1 further comprises a controller/computer processing unit 31 for controlling inter alia the lenses 19 and 21, the deflection unit 23, and detectors 25, 27, and displaying information gathered from the detectors 25, 27 on a display unit 33 (such as a flat panel display); such control occurs via control lines (buses) 31′. The controller 31 (or another controller) can additionally be used to perform various mathematical processing, such as combining, integrating, subtracting, false colouring, edge enhancing, and other processing known to the skilled artisan. In addition, automated recognition processes (e.g. as used for particle analysis) may be included in such processing.
Also depicted is a vacuum port 7′, which may be opened so as to introduce/remove items (components, specimens) to/from the interior of vacuum chamber 7 (load lock), or onto which, for example, an ancillary device/module may be mounted (not depicted). A microscope 1 may comprise a plurality of such ports 7′, if desired.
In the context of the current invention, the microscope 1 can also comprise an in situ CT module 7″ as shown in
Such a CT module 7″ may be permanently present (ab initio) in the vacuum enclosure 7, or it may be an add-on module that can be mounted (post-manufacture of the CPM 1) on/within a spare vacuum port 7′, for example. As an alternative to the use of an in situ CT module 7″, the present invention also allows the use of a standalone CT apparatus, if desired/required. In that context, one could, of course, make use of a TEM/STEM to perform charged particle tomography.
In the specific context of the present invention, 3D SEM image data of (a relevant part of) specimen S—obtained in a previous measurement session using SEM 1, or using a different SEM—are made available to controller 31 (or a similar such controller in a standalone CT apparatus). In line with the explanation given above, the controller 31 uses this 3D SEM data to mathematically constrain the (solution space of the) tomographic reconstruction that it calculates based on a set of input images (sinogram) of specimen S obtained using the CT module 7″ (or standalone CT apparatus).
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
16189519.8 | Sep 2016 | EP | regional |