검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Ex) Article Title, Author, Keywords

Article

Split Viewer

Research Paper

Curr. Opt. Photon. 2023; 7(4): 428-434

Published online August 25, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Copyright © Optical Society of Korea.

Improvement of Calibration Method for a Dual-rotating Compensator Type Spectroscopic Ellipsometer

Byeong-Kwan Yang1,2 , Jin Seung Kim2

1Jiny Photonics Inc., Jeonju 55124, Korea
2Institute of Photonics and Information Technology, Department of Physics, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea

Corresponding author: *bkyang@jbnu.ac.kr, ORCID 0000-0003-4914-9626

Received: April 6, 2023; Revised: May 26, 2023; Accepted: June 8, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The compensators used in spectroscopic ellipsometers are usually assumed to be ideal linear wave-plates. In reality, however, they are elliptical waveplates, because they are usually made by bonding two or more linear waveplates of different materials with slight misalignment. This induces systematic error when they are modeled as linear waveplates. We propose an improved calibration method based on an optical model that regards an elliptical waveplate as a combination of a circular waveplate (rotator) and a linear waveplate. The method allows elimination of the systematic error, and the residual error of optic axis measurement is reduced to 0.025 degrees in the spectral range of 450–800 nm.

Keywords: Dual-rotating compensator, Elliptical waveplate, Mueller matrix decomposition, Spectroscopic ellipsometry

OCIS codes: (120.2130) Ellipsometry and polarimetry; (240.2130) Ellipsometry and polarimetry; (260.1440) Birefringence

The most general polarization characteristics of an anisotropic object are usually described by using a real 4 × 4 Mueller matrix [1]. The Mueller calculus, based on Mueller matrices, can describe the interaction of an object even with partially polarized light, and has applications now extending to the measurement of critical dimensions and cancer detection [2, 3].

When measuring the Mueller matrix of an object using a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer, two waveplates are placed in parallel and the object is inserted between them. Then the compensators are rotated with different angular speeds, and the intensity of the light transmitted through (or reflected from) them is measured. The Mueller matrix of the object is determined from the Fourier coefficients of the measured signal, using the system matrix of the ellipsometer [4, 5].

The accuracy of the measurement is maximized when the condition number of the system matrix is minimized. The condition number is strongly correlated to the retardance of the waveplates, the optimal value of which is 127 degrees [6, 7]. For wider spectral range of the measurement, composite achromatic waveplates are commonly used. A composite waveplate is made by bonding two or more waveplates of different materials with their optic axes aligned in orthogonal directions [8]. However, if the alignment of the optic axes is imperfect, the resulting composite waveplate becomes an elliptical waveplate instead of a linear one [9, 10]. In such a situation, an unwanted systematic error can be included in the final result. To improve accuracy, the systematic error should be reduced or eliminated.

Among various methods of calibration developed to reduce the systematic error, the most popular are the eigenvalue calibration method (ECM) [11, 12] and the self-calibration method (SCM) [13, 14]. ECM does not rely on any assumption about the properties of the optical components in the ellipsometer, but it demands at least three times measurements for calibration and necessitates the use of a linear waveplate as a calibration sample. Although SCM requires only one measurement for calibration, the waveplates are assumed to be linear; thus when composite waveplates are used, it is necessary to characterize them separately [1417].

We propose an improved self-consistent calibration method (ISCM) with which one can significantly reduce the systematic errors. This method, like ECM, does not make any assumptions about the properties of the optical components. As a result, it does not require individual measurements for composite waveplates. However, unlike ECM, it does not require the use of a linear waveplate. The Mueller matrix of an elliptical waveplate can be decomposed into the product of the rotator and linear-waveplate Mueller matrices, or the product of the linear-waveplate and rotator Mueller matrices with the order reversed. In this paper, the Mueller matrices of the two compensators are decomposed in such a way that each Mueller matrix of the linear waveplate faces the sample. As a result, we can calibrate an ellipsometer with elliptical phase plates by replacing it with an equivalent ellipsometer with ideal linear waveplates and optical rotators combined.

In part II we explain the layout of the spectroscopic ellipsometer and the SCM. In part III we explain the method of calibrating the instrument, using an optical model of an elliptical waveplate as a combination of a linear waveplate and a polarization rotator.

Figure 1 shows a schematic of a transmission-type spectroscopic ellipsometer. The polarizer and analyzer are fixed, and thus the measured signal is not influenced by the polarization dependence of the detector or the variation in polarization of the light source. The two compensators C1 and C2 are achromatic waveplates, and the sample is placed in between them. They rotate about the common system axis with different angular speeds in the ratio ω1:ω2 = 1:5, where ω1 and ω2 are the angular speeds of C1 and C2, respectively. While rotating the compensators we measure the spectra by the scan-and-stop method, instead of continuously rotating them [13]. The measured intensity I(ϕB) can be expressed as a function of ϕB, the unit angle of rotation [4, 5]:

Figure 1.Schematic of a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. Polarizer (P) and analyzer (A) are Glan-Thompson polarizers. Compensators C1 and C2 are achromatic waveplates.

IϕB=I0α0+ n=1 12α2n cos2nϕB +β2n sin2nϕB

where I0 is a constant, α0 is the dc component, and α2n and β2n are the ac components of the Fourier coefficients. To simplify the expression, the dependence on wavelength is omitted.

In SCM we take the system axis as the z-axis of the coordinate system, and the transmission axis P of the polarizer as the reference for the azimuthal angle. If the Mueller matrix of air is the unit matrix and the compensators are ideal linear waveplates, the calibration parameters are related to the Fourier coefficients of the measured signal I(ϕB) [defined in Eq. (1)] with null sample in the following way [18]:

α0=cos2d12cos2d22cos2A+1

α2=sin2d12cos2d22cos2A4c1

β2=sin2d12cos2d22sin2A4c1

α4=1  2sind1sind2cos2A2c2+2c1

β4=12sind1sind2sin2A2c2+2c1

α6=12sind1sind2cos2A2c22c1

β6=12sind1sind2sin2A2c22c1

α8=sin2d12sin2d22cos2A4c2+4c1

β8=sin2d12sin2d22sin2A4c2+4c1

α10=cos2d12sin2d22cos2A4c2

β10=cos2d12sin2d22sin2A4c2

where ci and di are respectively the angle of the slow axis and the retardance of the ith (i = 1, 2) compensator, and A is the angle of the transmission axis of the analyzer. One can obtain the calibration parameters using the following expressions [13]:

d12=2tan1α82 + β82α102 2 + β102 21/2

c1=14θ8θ10

c2=14θ2 + θ82θ10

A=14θ2 + θ8θ10

where θ2n = tan−1 (β2n /α2n).

Figure 2 shows the variations of the calibration parameters with wavelength that are obtained using the SCM. The measurement is repeated at every rotation of 8 degrees, to yield 45 data points in one cycle. The compensators used are achromatic composite waveplates, consisting of a quartz plate and a MgF2 plate bonded together with their optic axes orthogonal. The angles c1 and c2 of the optic axes of the two compensators and the angle A of the transmission axis of the analyzer apparently oscillate with wavelength, almost in phase. This indicates some misalignment of the optic axes within the composite waveplates used for the compensators [16, 19].

Figure 2.Calibration results of the self-calibration method (SCM). (a) Retardances d1 and d2 of the two compensators. (b) Angles c1 and c2 of the optic axes of the two compensators, and the angle A of the transmission axis of the analyzer.

The Mueller matrix Me of an elliptical waveplate, can be factorized into the product of the Mueller matrices Mc of a rotator and Ml or Ml of a linear waveplate [20, 21].

Me=MlMc

or

Me=McMl'

These expressions imply that an elliptical waveplate can be made by superposing a rotator and a linear waveplate. Ml and Ml are related by a similarity transformation,

Ml=McMl'Mc1

Adopting this model, we replace compensator C1 with a superposition of a rotator C1C and a linear waveplate C1L as in Eq. (4), and replace compensator C2 with a superposition of a linear waveplate C2L and a rotator C2C as in Eq. (5) (Fig. 3). In this system we measure the spectrum by rotating C1 (= C1CC1L) and C2 (= C2LC2C), keeping the ratio of their rotation speeds 1:5.

Figure 3.Optical models of a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. (a) Original optical model. (b) Equivalent optical model. CiC and CiL are the rotator and linear waveplate of the compensator i (i = 1, 2) respectively, and ei is the optical rotatory power (ORP) of CiC. P and A are the azimuthal angles of the transmission axes of the polarizer and the analyzer respectively.

The Mueller matrix of a rotator with optical rotatory power (ORP) e is the following:

Mce=10000cos2esin2e00sin2ecos2e00001

This matrix is invariant with respect to the rotation of the coordinate system about the z axis, which means that the optical properties of a rotator are invariant to its in-plane rotation.

So, we can assume that all rotators are fixed and only C1L and C2L rotate. Linearly polarized light passing through a rotator remains linearly polarized, but its polarization direction is rotated. Now the combination of the polarizer and the rotator C1C works as an effective polarizer, whose transmission angle is the effective polarizer angle P′ instead of P. In the same way, the combination of the rotator C2C and the analyzer works as an effective analyzer whose transmission angle is the effective analyzer angle A′ instead of A.

Now the ellipsometer built using composite waveplates as compensators can be modeled as one with ideal linear waveplates, as shown in Fig. 3(b). However, in this model, the polarizer and analyzer are replaced with the effective polarizer and effective analyzer respectively. When we apply the SCM to this model, the reference for the azimuthal angle should be the effective polarizer angle P′ instead P.

3.1. Analytic Method

As the ORP e1 of C1c changes with wavelength, so does P′ as well as the apparent P, the reference for the azimuthal angle. To establish a reference for the azimuthal angle that does not move with wavelength, we use a Glan-Thompson polarizing prism as a sample for calibration and take its transmission axis as the reference.

The Fourier coefficients with respect to the new reference can be obtained from Eq. (2) by changing variables in the following way:

AAPc1c1'Pc2c2'P

where c1 and c′2 are respectively the angles of the slow axes of C1L and C2L with respect to the new reference; We will omit the prime (′) hereafter, for simplicity. P and A are related to P′ and A′ in the following way:

P=P+e1

A=Ae2

We attach a prime to the Fourier coefficients in Eq. (2) after changing their variables according to Eq. (8), to distinguish them from those before the change. Each retardance of the linear waveplates C1L and C2L has the same form and value as in Eq. (3a):

d12=2tan1α82 +β82 α102 2 +β102 2 1/2

If we set θ2n = tan−1(β2n /α2n) as before, then θ2 and θ10 are

θ2'=2P+2A4c1

θ10'=2P+2A4c2

The nonzero Fourier coefficients obtained from the signal measured using the polarizing prism (which is assumed to be ideal as a sample for calibration) are

α0"=12cos2d22cos2A'+1cos2d12cos2P'+1

α2"=12sin2d12cos2d22cos2A'+1cos2P'4c1

β2"=12sin2d12cos2d22cos2A'+1sin2P'4c1

α8"=14sin2d12sin2d22cos2P'2A'+4c24c1

β8"=14sin2d12sin2d22sin2P'2A'+4c24c1

α10"=12sin2d22cos2d12cos2P+1cos2A'4c2

β10"=12sin2d22cos2d12cos2P+1sin2A'4c2

β10"=12sin2d22cos2d12cos2P+1sin2A'4c2

β12"=14sin2d12sin2d22sin2P'+2A'4c24c1

We can determine the remaining calibration parameters from Eqs. (12)–(13):

A=12θ2'θ2"

P=12θ10'θ10"

c1=142P'θ2"

c2=142A'θ10"

where θ2n = tan−1(β2n /α2n). P and A cannot be obtained because they are combined with e1(2), which demand separate measurements for determination. However, they are not needed in the analysis of the measured data.

Figure 4 shows the results of the new calibration method. As described above, the retardances of the linear waveplates are the same as those shown in Fig. 2. The reason is that the main difference in the optical models of the two calibration methods (the SCM and the analytic method) is the rotation of the reference, which changes only the phase of the Fourier coefficients.

Figure 4.Results of calibration with the analytic approach obtained using the elliptical-waveplate model. (a) Retardances of the two linear waveplates. (b) Angles of the optic axes.

Because the ORPe1(2) oscillates with wavelength, so do the effective angles P′ and A′. The optic axes of the linear waveplates also oscillate with wavelength.

Figure 5 shows the results of measurements obtained using a Glan-Tompson polarizer as a sample, for comparison of the two calibration methods. It displays azimuthal angle η and ellipticity ϵ of the polarization ellipse, whose transmittance is maximum. η and ϵ are obtained from the first row of the Mueller matrix (m11, m12, m13 and m14) as [22]

Figure 5.Diattenuation vector of the Mueller matrix for a Glan-Thompson polarizer. (a) Azimuthal angle η. (b) Ellipticity ε.

η=12tan1m13m12

ϵ=tan12tan1m14m122+m132

In the SCM, the azimuthal angle oscillates with an amplitude of 0.5 degrees, but if the elliptical-waveplate model with analytic method is applied, the angle is almost constant with just small ripples; The standard deviation is 0.025 degrees over the whole wavelength range. Because the transmission axis of a Glan-Tompson polarizer is independent of wavelength, we can see that the new calibration method of the analytic approach works well. Figure 5(b) shows that the ellipticity is nearly zero, as expected, and we see that the polarization state of maximum transmittance is linear polarization.

3.2. Improved Self-consistent Calibration Method

In the SCM result of Fig. 5(a), the optic axis oscillates because we set the transmission axis P′ of the effective polarizer as the new reference. As e1 oscillates with wavelength, so do P′ and the azimuthal angle of the diattenuation vector. However, the ellipticity of the diattenuation vector remains the same, even in the rotation of the new reference. The ellipticity shown in Fig. 5(b) remains almost constant and nearly zero, with small ripples over the whole wavelength range. Thus, we can guess that the error in the results of the SCM comes from the rotation of the reference coordinate, due to dispersion.

Therefore, the systematic error can be significantly reduced if we compensate for the rotation of the reference due to the dispersion in the SCM. One way of doing this is to rotate the reference to make the azimuthal angle in Fig. 5(a) be equal to zero. That can be done by transforming the measured Mueller matrix Mm to the corrected Mueller matrix Mcor by the following similarity transformation.

Mcor=MrotηMmMrotη

Mrotη=10000cos2ηsin2η00sin2ηcos2η00001

We call this the ISCM, because we can use the conventional SCM and do not need to know the analytic solution [Eqs. (13)] of a calibration sample.

Figure 6 is a comparison of the results obtained using the analytic method and ISCM. The sample is a zeroth-order composite waveplate. The eigenpolarization of the waveplate is extracted from its Mueller matrix using the polar-decomposition technique [22]. Figure 6(a) shows the retardance, and Figs. 6(b) and 6(c) show the azimuthal angle of the slow axis and the ellipticity of the eigenpolarization ellipse respectively.

Figure 6.Comparison of the analytic method and the improved self-consistent calibration method (ISCM). The sample is a zeroth-order waveplate. (a) Retardance δ. (b) Azimuthal angle η. (c) Ellipticity ε.

Both the azimuthal angle of the slow axis and the ellipticity oscillate with wavelength. Nonzero ellipticity indicates that the waveplate is elliptical, of course. The two methods yield almost the same results; The differences in the retardances and the azimuthal angles are less than ±0.08 degrees and ±0.09 degrees respectively. The two ellipticities are well matched within the instrumental error. The problem that arises if we regard the elliptical waveplate as a linear one is simply the rotation of the reference with wavelength, and a solution is to fix the reference using a polarizing prism as a calibrating sample. Then the two calibration methods, the analytic method and the ISCM, become equivalent. However, the ISCM does not require the analytic solution of Eqs. (13). The error coming from the measurement for calibration remains as background error in the subsequent real measurement.

It has been shown that systematic error can be significantly reduced by applying a new, improved calibration method to a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. The key ideas are modeling the compensators as elliptical waveplates instead of linear ones, and considering an elliptical waveplate as a combination of a rotator and a linear-waveplate. We can place the rotators of the two compensators to face the polarizer and the analyzer respectively. Then the ellipsometer system becomes equivalent to one built using ideal linear waveplates, but with different orientations of the effective polarizer and the effective analyzer.

In the SCM the systematic error shows oscillation with wavelength, which comes from the dispersion of the model’s circular waveplates. To set up a fixed reference against the dispersion, it is necessary to characterize the system using a sample with fixed optic axis, such as a polarizing prism, for additional calibration.

We have proposed two calibration methods to eliminate the systematic error. One is based on the analytic theory for a polarizing prism as a calibration sample. The other is an improvement upon the SCM, by adding a correction for optic axis rotation. The two methods yield well matched results in the test measurement of a zeroth-order composite waveplate within the instrumental error of ±0.08 and ±0.09 degrees for retardance and optic axis respectively.

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at the time of publication, but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

  1. R. M. A. Azzam and N. M. Bashara, Ellipsometry and Polarized Light, 1st ed. (North-Holland, Netherlands, 1987).
  2. M. R. Antonelli, A. Pierangelo, T. Novikova, P. Validire, A. Benali, B. Gayet, and A. De Martino, “Mueller matrix imaging of human colon tissue for cancer diagnostics: How Monte Carlo modeling can help in the interpretation of experimental data,” Opt. Express 18, 10200-10208 (2010).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. M. Foldyna, A. De Martino, E. Garcia-Caurel, R. Ossikovski, C. Licitra, F. Bertin, K. Postava, and B. Drevillon, “Critical dimension of biperiodic gratings determined by spectral ellipsometry and Mueller matrix polarimetry,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 42, 351-359 (2008).
    CrossRef
  4. R. M. A. Azzam, “Photopolarimetric measurement of the Mueller matrix by Fourier analysis of a single detected signal,” Opt. Lett. 2, 148-150 (1978).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. D. H. Goldstein, “Mueller matrix dual-rotating retarder polarimeter,” App. Opt. 31, 6676-6683 (1992).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. M. H. Smith, “Optimization of a dual-rotating-retarder Mueller matrix polarimeter,” Appl. Opt. 41, 2488-2493 (2002).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. K. M. Twietmeyer and R. A. Chipman, “Optimization of Mueller matrix polarimeters in the presence of error sources,” Opt. Express 16, 11589-11603 (2008).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. P. Hariharan, “Achromatic retarders using quartz and mica,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 6, 1078-1079 (1995).
    CrossRef
  9. B. Boulbry, B. Bousquet, B. Le Jeune, Y. Guern, and J. Lotrian, “Polarization errors associated with zero-order achromatic quarter-wave plates in the whole visible spectral range,” Opt. Express 9, 225-235 (2001).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. H. Gu, S. Liu, X. Chen, and C. Zhang, “Calibration of misalignment errors in composite waveplates using Mueller matrix ellipsometry,” Appl. Opt. 54, 684-693 (2015).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. E. Compain, S. Poirier, and B. Drevillon, “General and self-consistent method for the calibration of polarization modulators, polarimeters, and Mueller-matrix ellipsometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3490-3502 (1999).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. C. Macías-Romero and P. Török, “Eigenvalue calibration methods for polarimetry,” J. Eur. Opt. Soc.: Rapid Publ. 7, 12004 (2012).
    CrossRef
  13. K. Y. Bang, J. S. An, I. An, and R. W. Collins, “Self-calibrated Mueller matrix spectroscopic ellipsometry,” J. Korean Phys. Soc. 45, 185-188 (2004).
  14. C. Chen, I. An, G. M. Ferreira, N. J. Podraza, J. A. Zapien, and R. W. Collins, “Multichannel Mueller matrix ellipsometer based on the dual rotating compensator principle,” Thin Solid Films 455-456, 14-23 (2004).
    CrossRef
  15. J. Lee, J. Koh, and R. W. Collins, “Dual rotating-compensator multichannel ellipsometer: instrument development for high-speed Mueller matrix spectroscopy of surfaces and films,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72, 1742-1754 (2001).
    CrossRef
  16. J. Lee, P. I. Rovira, I. An, and R. W. Collins, “Alignment and calibration of the MgF2 biplate compensator for applications in rotating-compensator multichannel ellipsometry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 1980-1985 (2001).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. H. Gu, X. Chen, H. Jiang, C. Zhang, and S. Liu, “Optimal broadband Mueller matrix ellipsometer using multi-waveplates with flexibly oriented axes,” J. Opt. 18, 025702 (2016).
    CrossRef
  18. D. H. Goldstein and R. A. Chipman, “Error analysis of a Mueller matrix polarimeter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 693-700 (1990).
    CrossRef
  19. H. Gu, X. Chen, Y. Shi, H. Jiang, C. Zhang, P. Gong, and S. Liu, “Comprehensive characterization of a general composite waveplate by spectroscopic Mueller matrix polarimetry,” Opt. Express 26, 25408-25425 (2018).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. H. Hurwitz Jr. and R. C. Jones, “A new calculus for the treatment of optical systems II. Proof of three general equivalence theorems,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31, 493-499 (1941).
    CrossRef
  21. S. Manhas, M. K. Swami, P. Buddhiwant, N. Ghosh, P. K. Gupta, and K. Singh, “Mueller matrix approach for determination of optical rotation in chiral turbid media in backscattering geometry,” Opt. Express 14, 190-202 (2006).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. S.-Y. Lu and R. A. Chipman, “Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 1106-1113 (1996).
    CrossRef

Article

Research Paper

Curr. Opt. Photon. 2023; 7(4): 428-434

Published online August 25, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Copyright © Optical Society of Korea.

Improvement of Calibration Method for a Dual-rotating Compensator Type Spectroscopic Ellipsometer

Byeong-Kwan Yang1,2 , Jin Seung Kim2

1Jiny Photonics Inc., Jeonju 55124, Korea
2Institute of Photonics and Information Technology, Department of Physics, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea

Correspondence to:*bkyang@jbnu.ac.kr, ORCID 0000-0003-4914-9626

Received: April 6, 2023; Revised: May 26, 2023; Accepted: June 8, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The compensators used in spectroscopic ellipsometers are usually assumed to be ideal linear wave-plates. In reality, however, they are elliptical waveplates, because they are usually made by bonding two or more linear waveplates of different materials with slight misalignment. This induces systematic error when they are modeled as linear waveplates. We propose an improved calibration method based on an optical model that regards an elliptical waveplate as a combination of a circular waveplate (rotator) and a linear waveplate. The method allows elimination of the systematic error, and the residual error of optic axis measurement is reduced to 0.025 degrees in the spectral range of 450–800 nm.

Keywords: Dual-rotating compensator, Elliptical waveplate, Mueller matrix decomposition, Spectroscopic ellipsometry

I. INTRODUCTION

The most general polarization characteristics of an anisotropic object are usually described by using a real 4 × 4 Mueller matrix [1]. The Mueller calculus, based on Mueller matrices, can describe the interaction of an object even with partially polarized light, and has applications now extending to the measurement of critical dimensions and cancer detection [2, 3].

When measuring the Mueller matrix of an object using a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer, two waveplates are placed in parallel and the object is inserted between them. Then the compensators are rotated with different angular speeds, and the intensity of the light transmitted through (or reflected from) them is measured. The Mueller matrix of the object is determined from the Fourier coefficients of the measured signal, using the system matrix of the ellipsometer [4, 5].

The accuracy of the measurement is maximized when the condition number of the system matrix is minimized. The condition number is strongly correlated to the retardance of the waveplates, the optimal value of which is 127 degrees [6, 7]. For wider spectral range of the measurement, composite achromatic waveplates are commonly used. A composite waveplate is made by bonding two or more waveplates of different materials with their optic axes aligned in orthogonal directions [8]. However, if the alignment of the optic axes is imperfect, the resulting composite waveplate becomes an elliptical waveplate instead of a linear one [9, 10]. In such a situation, an unwanted systematic error can be included in the final result. To improve accuracy, the systematic error should be reduced or eliminated.

Among various methods of calibration developed to reduce the systematic error, the most popular are the eigenvalue calibration method (ECM) [11, 12] and the self-calibration method (SCM) [13, 14]. ECM does not rely on any assumption about the properties of the optical components in the ellipsometer, but it demands at least three times measurements for calibration and necessitates the use of a linear waveplate as a calibration sample. Although SCM requires only one measurement for calibration, the waveplates are assumed to be linear; thus when composite waveplates are used, it is necessary to characterize them separately [1417].

We propose an improved self-consistent calibration method (ISCM) with which one can significantly reduce the systematic errors. This method, like ECM, does not make any assumptions about the properties of the optical components. As a result, it does not require individual measurements for composite waveplates. However, unlike ECM, it does not require the use of a linear waveplate. The Mueller matrix of an elliptical waveplate can be decomposed into the product of the rotator and linear-waveplate Mueller matrices, or the product of the linear-waveplate and rotator Mueller matrices with the order reversed. In this paper, the Mueller matrices of the two compensators are decomposed in such a way that each Mueller matrix of the linear waveplate faces the sample. As a result, we can calibrate an ellipsometer with elliptical phase plates by replacing it with an equivalent ellipsometer with ideal linear waveplates and optical rotators combined.

In part II we explain the layout of the spectroscopic ellipsometer and the SCM. In part III we explain the method of calibrating the instrument, using an optical model of an elliptical waveplate as a combination of a linear waveplate and a polarization rotator.

II. SPECTROSCOPIC ELLIPSOMETER FOR MEASUREMENT OF MUELLER MATRIX

Figure 1 shows a schematic of a transmission-type spectroscopic ellipsometer. The polarizer and analyzer are fixed, and thus the measured signal is not influenced by the polarization dependence of the detector or the variation in polarization of the light source. The two compensators C1 and C2 are achromatic waveplates, and the sample is placed in between them. They rotate about the common system axis with different angular speeds in the ratio ω1:ω2 = 1:5, where ω1 and ω2 are the angular speeds of C1 and C2, respectively. While rotating the compensators we measure the spectra by the scan-and-stop method, instead of continuously rotating them [13]. The measured intensity I(ϕB) can be expressed as a function of ϕB, the unit angle of rotation [4, 5]:

Figure 1. Schematic of a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. Polarizer (P) and analyzer (A) are Glan-Thompson polarizers. Compensators C1 and C2 are achromatic waveplates.

IϕB=I0α0+ n=1 12α2n cos2nϕB +β2n sin2nϕB

where I0 is a constant, α0 is the dc component, and α2n and β2n are the ac components of the Fourier coefficients. To simplify the expression, the dependence on wavelength is omitted.

In SCM we take the system axis as the z-axis of the coordinate system, and the transmission axis P of the polarizer as the reference for the azimuthal angle. If the Mueller matrix of air is the unit matrix and the compensators are ideal linear waveplates, the calibration parameters are related to the Fourier coefficients of the measured signal I(ϕB) [defined in Eq. (1)] with null sample in the following way [18]:

α0=cos2d12cos2d22cos2A+1

α2=sin2d12cos2d22cos2A4c1

β2=sin2d12cos2d22sin2A4c1

α4=1  2sind1sind2cos2A2c2+2c1

β4=12sind1sind2sin2A2c2+2c1

α6=12sind1sind2cos2A2c22c1

β6=12sind1sind2sin2A2c22c1

α8=sin2d12sin2d22cos2A4c2+4c1

β8=sin2d12sin2d22sin2A4c2+4c1

α10=cos2d12sin2d22cos2A4c2

β10=cos2d12sin2d22sin2A4c2

where ci and di are respectively the angle of the slow axis and the retardance of the ith (i = 1, 2) compensator, and A is the angle of the transmission axis of the analyzer. One can obtain the calibration parameters using the following expressions [13]:

d12=2tan1α82 + β82α102 2 + β102 21/2

c1=14θ8θ10

c2=14θ2 + θ82θ10

A=14θ2 + θ8θ10

where θ2n = tan−1 (β2n /α2n).

Figure 2 shows the variations of the calibration parameters with wavelength that are obtained using the SCM. The measurement is repeated at every rotation of 8 degrees, to yield 45 data points in one cycle. The compensators used are achromatic composite waveplates, consisting of a quartz plate and a MgF2 plate bonded together with their optic axes orthogonal. The angles c1 and c2 of the optic axes of the two compensators and the angle A of the transmission axis of the analyzer apparently oscillate with wavelength, almost in phase. This indicates some misalignment of the optic axes within the composite waveplates used for the compensators [16, 19].

Figure 2. Calibration results of the self-calibration method (SCM). (a) Retardances d1 and d2 of the two compensators. (b) Angles c1 and c2 of the optic axes of the two compensators, and the angle A of the transmission axis of the analyzer.

III. ELLIPTICAL-WAVEPLATE MODEL

The Mueller matrix Me of an elliptical waveplate, can be factorized into the product of the Mueller matrices Mc of a rotator and Ml or Ml of a linear waveplate [20, 21].

Me=MlMc

or

Me=McMl'

These expressions imply that an elliptical waveplate can be made by superposing a rotator and a linear waveplate. Ml and Ml are related by a similarity transformation,

Ml=McMl'Mc1

Adopting this model, we replace compensator C1 with a superposition of a rotator C1C and a linear waveplate C1L as in Eq. (4), and replace compensator C2 with a superposition of a linear waveplate C2L and a rotator C2C as in Eq. (5) (Fig. 3). In this system we measure the spectrum by rotating C1 (= C1CC1L) and C2 (= C2LC2C), keeping the ratio of their rotation speeds 1:5.

Figure 3. Optical models of a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. (a) Original optical model. (b) Equivalent optical model. CiC and CiL are the rotator and linear waveplate of the compensator i (i = 1, 2) respectively, and ei is the optical rotatory power (ORP) of CiC. P and A are the azimuthal angles of the transmission axes of the polarizer and the analyzer respectively.

The Mueller matrix of a rotator with optical rotatory power (ORP) e is the following:

Mce=10000cos2esin2e00sin2ecos2e00001

This matrix is invariant with respect to the rotation of the coordinate system about the z axis, which means that the optical properties of a rotator are invariant to its in-plane rotation.

So, we can assume that all rotators are fixed and only C1L and C2L rotate. Linearly polarized light passing through a rotator remains linearly polarized, but its polarization direction is rotated. Now the combination of the polarizer and the rotator C1C works as an effective polarizer, whose transmission angle is the effective polarizer angle P′ instead of P. In the same way, the combination of the rotator C2C and the analyzer works as an effective analyzer whose transmission angle is the effective analyzer angle A′ instead of A.

Now the ellipsometer built using composite waveplates as compensators can be modeled as one with ideal linear waveplates, as shown in Fig. 3(b). However, in this model, the polarizer and analyzer are replaced with the effective polarizer and effective analyzer respectively. When we apply the SCM to this model, the reference for the azimuthal angle should be the effective polarizer angle P′ instead P.

3.1. Analytic Method

As the ORP e1 of C1c changes with wavelength, so does P′ as well as the apparent P, the reference for the azimuthal angle. To establish a reference for the azimuthal angle that does not move with wavelength, we use a Glan-Thompson polarizing prism as a sample for calibration and take its transmission axis as the reference.

The Fourier coefficients with respect to the new reference can be obtained from Eq. (2) by changing variables in the following way:

AAPc1c1'Pc2c2'P

where c1 and c′2 are respectively the angles of the slow axes of C1L and C2L with respect to the new reference; We will omit the prime (′) hereafter, for simplicity. P and A are related to P′ and A′ in the following way:

P=P+e1

A=Ae2

We attach a prime to the Fourier coefficients in Eq. (2) after changing their variables according to Eq. (8), to distinguish them from those before the change. Each retardance of the linear waveplates C1L and C2L has the same form and value as in Eq. (3a):

d12=2tan1α82 +β82 α102 2 +β102 2 1/2

If we set θ2n = tan−1(β2n /α2n) as before, then θ2 and θ10 are

θ2'=2P+2A4c1

θ10'=2P+2A4c2

The nonzero Fourier coefficients obtained from the signal measured using the polarizing prism (which is assumed to be ideal as a sample for calibration) are

α0"=12cos2d22cos2A'+1cos2d12cos2P'+1

α2"=12sin2d12cos2d22cos2A'+1cos2P'4c1

β2"=12sin2d12cos2d22cos2A'+1sin2P'4c1

α8"=14sin2d12sin2d22cos2P'2A'+4c24c1

β8"=14sin2d12sin2d22sin2P'2A'+4c24c1

α10"=12sin2d22cos2d12cos2P+1cos2A'4c2

β10"=12sin2d22cos2d12cos2P+1sin2A'4c2

β10"=12sin2d22cos2d12cos2P+1sin2A'4c2

β12"=14sin2d12sin2d22sin2P'+2A'4c24c1

We can determine the remaining calibration parameters from Eqs. (12)–(13):

A=12θ2'θ2"

P=12θ10'θ10"

c1=142P'θ2"

c2=142A'θ10"

where θ2n = tan−1(β2n /α2n). P and A cannot be obtained because they are combined with e1(2), which demand separate measurements for determination. However, they are not needed in the analysis of the measured data.

Figure 4 shows the results of the new calibration method. As described above, the retardances of the linear waveplates are the same as those shown in Fig. 2. The reason is that the main difference in the optical models of the two calibration methods (the SCM and the analytic method) is the rotation of the reference, which changes only the phase of the Fourier coefficients.

Figure 4. Results of calibration with the analytic approach obtained using the elliptical-waveplate model. (a) Retardances of the two linear waveplates. (b) Angles of the optic axes.

Because the ORPe1(2) oscillates with wavelength, so do the effective angles P′ and A′. The optic axes of the linear waveplates also oscillate with wavelength.

Figure 5 shows the results of measurements obtained using a Glan-Tompson polarizer as a sample, for comparison of the two calibration methods. It displays azimuthal angle η and ellipticity ϵ of the polarization ellipse, whose transmittance is maximum. η and ϵ are obtained from the first row of the Mueller matrix (m11, m12, m13 and m14) as [22]

Figure 5. Diattenuation vector of the Mueller matrix for a Glan-Thompson polarizer. (a) Azimuthal angle η. (b) Ellipticity ε.

η=12tan1m13m12

ϵ=tan12tan1m14m122+m132

In the SCM, the azimuthal angle oscillates with an amplitude of 0.5 degrees, but if the elliptical-waveplate model with analytic method is applied, the angle is almost constant with just small ripples; The standard deviation is 0.025 degrees over the whole wavelength range. Because the transmission axis of a Glan-Tompson polarizer is independent of wavelength, we can see that the new calibration method of the analytic approach works well. Figure 5(b) shows that the ellipticity is nearly zero, as expected, and we see that the polarization state of maximum transmittance is linear polarization.

3.2. Improved Self-consistent Calibration Method

In the SCM result of Fig. 5(a), the optic axis oscillates because we set the transmission axis P′ of the effective polarizer as the new reference. As e1 oscillates with wavelength, so do P′ and the azimuthal angle of the diattenuation vector. However, the ellipticity of the diattenuation vector remains the same, even in the rotation of the new reference. The ellipticity shown in Fig. 5(b) remains almost constant and nearly zero, with small ripples over the whole wavelength range. Thus, we can guess that the error in the results of the SCM comes from the rotation of the reference coordinate, due to dispersion.

Therefore, the systematic error can be significantly reduced if we compensate for the rotation of the reference due to the dispersion in the SCM. One way of doing this is to rotate the reference to make the azimuthal angle in Fig. 5(a) be equal to zero. That can be done by transforming the measured Mueller matrix Mm to the corrected Mueller matrix Mcor by the following similarity transformation.

Mcor=MrotηMmMrotη

Mrotη=10000cos2ηsin2η00sin2ηcos2η00001

We call this the ISCM, because we can use the conventional SCM and do not need to know the analytic solution [Eqs. (13)] of a calibration sample.

Figure 6 is a comparison of the results obtained using the analytic method and ISCM. The sample is a zeroth-order composite waveplate. The eigenpolarization of the waveplate is extracted from its Mueller matrix using the polar-decomposition technique [22]. Figure 6(a) shows the retardance, and Figs. 6(b) and 6(c) show the azimuthal angle of the slow axis and the ellipticity of the eigenpolarization ellipse respectively.

Figure 6. Comparison of the analytic method and the improved self-consistent calibration method (ISCM). The sample is a zeroth-order waveplate. (a) Retardance δ. (b) Azimuthal angle η. (c) Ellipticity ε.

Both the azimuthal angle of the slow axis and the ellipticity oscillate with wavelength. Nonzero ellipticity indicates that the waveplate is elliptical, of course. The two methods yield almost the same results; The differences in the retardances and the azimuthal angles are less than ±0.08 degrees and ±0.09 degrees respectively. The two ellipticities are well matched within the instrumental error. The problem that arises if we regard the elliptical waveplate as a linear one is simply the rotation of the reference with wavelength, and a solution is to fix the reference using a polarizing prism as a calibrating sample. Then the two calibration methods, the analytic method and the ISCM, become equivalent. However, the ISCM does not require the analytic solution of Eqs. (13). The error coming from the measurement for calibration remains as background error in the subsequent real measurement.

IV. CONCLUSION

It has been shown that systematic error can be significantly reduced by applying a new, improved calibration method to a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. The key ideas are modeling the compensators as elliptical waveplates instead of linear ones, and considering an elliptical waveplate as a combination of a rotator and a linear-waveplate. We can place the rotators of the two compensators to face the polarizer and the analyzer respectively. Then the ellipsometer system becomes equivalent to one built using ideal linear waveplates, but with different orientations of the effective polarizer and the effective analyzer.

In the SCM the systematic error shows oscillation with wavelength, which comes from the dispersion of the model’s circular waveplates. To set up a fixed reference against the dispersion, it is necessary to characterize the system using a sample with fixed optic axis, such as a polarizing prism, for additional calibration.

We have proposed two calibration methods to eliminate the systematic error. One is based on the analytic theory for a polarizing prism as a calibration sample. The other is an improvement upon the SCM, by adding a correction for optic axis rotation. The two methods yield well matched results in the test measurement of a zeroth-order composite waveplate within the instrumental error of ±0.08 and ±0.09 degrees for retardance and optic axis respectively.

DISCLOSURES

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at the time of publication, but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

FUNDING

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.Schematic of a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. Polarizer (P) and analyzer (A) are Glan-Thompson polarizers. Compensators C1 and C2 are achromatic waveplates.
Current Optics and Photonics 2023; 7: 428-434https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Fig 2.

Figure 2.Calibration results of the self-calibration method (SCM). (a) Retardances d1 and d2 of the two compensators. (b) Angles c1 and c2 of the optic axes of the two compensators, and the angle A of the transmission axis of the analyzer.
Current Optics and Photonics 2023; 7: 428-434https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Fig 3.

Figure 3.Optical models of a dual-rotating compensator type spectroscopic ellipsometer. (a) Original optical model. (b) Equivalent optical model. CiC and CiL are the rotator and linear waveplate of the compensator i (i = 1, 2) respectively, and ei is the optical rotatory power (ORP) of CiC. P and A are the azimuthal angles of the transmission axes of the polarizer and the analyzer respectively.
Current Optics and Photonics 2023; 7: 428-434https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Fig 4.

Figure 4.Results of calibration with the analytic approach obtained using the elliptical-waveplate model. (a) Retardances of the two linear waveplates. (b) Angles of the optic axes.
Current Optics and Photonics 2023; 7: 428-434https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Fig 5.

Figure 5.Diattenuation vector of the Mueller matrix for a Glan-Thompson polarizer. (a) Azimuthal angle η. (b) Ellipticity ε.
Current Optics and Photonics 2023; 7: 428-434https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

Fig 6.

Figure 6.Comparison of the analytic method and the improved self-consistent calibration method (ISCM). The sample is a zeroth-order waveplate. (a) Retardance δ. (b) Azimuthal angle η. (c) Ellipticity ε.
Current Optics and Photonics 2023; 7: 428-434https://doi.org/10.3807/COPP.2023.7.4.428

References

  1. R. M. A. Azzam and N. M. Bashara, Ellipsometry and Polarized Light, 1st ed. (North-Holland, Netherlands, 1987).
  2. M. R. Antonelli, A. Pierangelo, T. Novikova, P. Validire, A. Benali, B. Gayet, and A. De Martino, “Mueller matrix imaging of human colon tissue for cancer diagnostics: How Monte Carlo modeling can help in the interpretation of experimental data,” Opt. Express 18, 10200-10208 (2010).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. M. Foldyna, A. De Martino, E. Garcia-Caurel, R. Ossikovski, C. Licitra, F. Bertin, K. Postava, and B. Drevillon, “Critical dimension of biperiodic gratings determined by spectral ellipsometry and Mueller matrix polarimetry,” Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 42, 351-359 (2008).
    CrossRef
  4. R. M. A. Azzam, “Photopolarimetric measurement of the Mueller matrix by Fourier analysis of a single detected signal,” Opt. Lett. 2, 148-150 (1978).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. D. H. Goldstein, “Mueller matrix dual-rotating retarder polarimeter,” App. Opt. 31, 6676-6683 (1992).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. M. H. Smith, “Optimization of a dual-rotating-retarder Mueller matrix polarimeter,” Appl. Opt. 41, 2488-2493 (2002).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. K. M. Twietmeyer and R. A. Chipman, “Optimization of Mueller matrix polarimeters in the presence of error sources,” Opt. Express 16, 11589-11603 (2008).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. P. Hariharan, “Achromatic retarders using quartz and mica,” Meas. Sci. Technol. 6, 1078-1079 (1995).
    CrossRef
  9. B. Boulbry, B. Bousquet, B. Le Jeune, Y. Guern, and J. Lotrian, “Polarization errors associated with zero-order achromatic quarter-wave plates in the whole visible spectral range,” Opt. Express 9, 225-235 (2001).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. H. Gu, S. Liu, X. Chen, and C. Zhang, “Calibration of misalignment errors in composite waveplates using Mueller matrix ellipsometry,” Appl. Opt. 54, 684-693 (2015).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. E. Compain, S. Poirier, and B. Drevillon, “General and self-consistent method for the calibration of polarization modulators, polarimeters, and Mueller-matrix ellipsometers,” Appl. Opt. 38, 3490-3502 (1999).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. C. Macías-Romero and P. Török, “Eigenvalue calibration methods for polarimetry,” J. Eur. Opt. Soc.: Rapid Publ. 7, 12004 (2012).
    CrossRef
  13. K. Y. Bang, J. S. An, I. An, and R. W. Collins, “Self-calibrated Mueller matrix spectroscopic ellipsometry,” J. Korean Phys. Soc. 45, 185-188 (2004).
  14. C. Chen, I. An, G. M. Ferreira, N. J. Podraza, J. A. Zapien, and R. W. Collins, “Multichannel Mueller matrix ellipsometer based on the dual rotating compensator principle,” Thin Solid Films 455-456, 14-23 (2004).
    CrossRef
  15. J. Lee, J. Koh, and R. W. Collins, “Dual rotating-compensator multichannel ellipsometer: instrument development for high-speed Mueller matrix spectroscopy of surfaces and films,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 72, 1742-1754 (2001).
    CrossRef
  16. J. Lee, P. I. Rovira, I. An, and R. W. Collins, “Alignment and calibration of the MgF2 biplate compensator for applications in rotating-compensator multichannel ellipsometry,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 18, 1980-1985 (2001).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. H. Gu, X. Chen, H. Jiang, C. Zhang, and S. Liu, “Optimal broadband Mueller matrix ellipsometer using multi-waveplates with flexibly oriented axes,” J. Opt. 18, 025702 (2016).
    CrossRef
  18. D. H. Goldstein and R. A. Chipman, “Error analysis of a Mueller matrix polarimeter,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 7, 693-700 (1990).
    CrossRef
  19. H. Gu, X. Chen, Y. Shi, H. Jiang, C. Zhang, P. Gong, and S. Liu, “Comprehensive characterization of a general composite waveplate by spectroscopic Mueller matrix polarimetry,” Opt. Express 26, 25408-25425 (2018).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  20. H. Hurwitz Jr. and R. C. Jones, “A new calculus for the treatment of optical systems II. Proof of three general equivalence theorems,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31, 493-499 (1941).
    CrossRef
  21. S. Manhas, M. K. Swami, P. Buddhiwant, N. Ghosh, P. K. Gupta, and K. Singh, “Mueller matrix approach for determination of optical rotation in chiral turbid media in backscattering geometry,” Opt. Express 14, 190-202 (2006).
    Pubmed CrossRef
  22. S.-Y. Lu and R. A. Chipman, “Interpretation of Mueller matrices based on polar decomposition,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 13, 1106-1113 (1996).
    CrossRef
Optical Society of Korea

Current Optics
and Photonics


Min-Kyo Seo,
Editor-in-chief

Share this article on :

  • line