Semiconductor, packaging & electronics

CMP scratch & planarization inspection

Locate scratches, residual particles, dishing, and erosion signatures after chemical mechanical planarization.

ModalitiesBrightfieldDarkfieldOptical profilometry
Illustrative polished wafer surface with fine scratches and isolated particles for CMP inspection
27
Scratches
11
Particles
0.16%
Affected area

Example outputs shown for illustration. Numbers depend on your samples and protocol.

Image: Illustrative rendering (AI-generated, gpt-image-2), not a photograph of a specific wafer

Brightfield
Transmitted or reflected light for stained, etched, and polished samples.
Darkfield
Oblique illumination that lifts scratches and small particles off the surface.
Optical profilometry
Non-contact surface height and step geometry.

Results

Each measurement below comes from your own images, tied back to the annotated frame it came from, so results stay comparable across samples, locations, and conditions.

per area

Scratch map

Findings placed in sample coordinates to reveal spatial patterns and local density.

Illustrative shape
Bottom
64%
Corner
71%

In your report: Coordinate-referenced map, regional density, and representative images.

µm or count

Particle count

Size and shape measured for every detected object, then summarized across the population.

Particles11

Example, not a claimed result

In your report: Per-object table, size distribution, and summary percentiles.

per area

Dishing / erosion regions

Findings placed in sample coordinates to reveal spatial patterns and local density.

Illustrative shape
Bottom
64%
Corner
71%

In your report: Coordinate-referenced map, regional density, and representative images.

% area

Affected-area fraction

Segmented area of the feature divided by the eligible area in the two-dimensional image.

Affected area0.16%
<1µm
1-2µm
2-4µm
>4µm

Example, not a claimed result

In your report: Per-field value, size distribution, and the segmentation overlay used.

Built around your image set

Use the calibrated images your team already collects, together with the locations you need to compare.

01
Representative images
Provide representative brightfield images with a recorded scale calibration and the regions of interest clearly visible.
02
Image capture details
Record instrument, magnification, pixel scale, preparation method, and the smallest feature the review must resolve.
03
What to compare
State the samples, number of fields, and conditions to compare. A single field of view is not treated as a whole-sample result by itself.

Each report includes

The artifacts your team receives, ready for review and archive.

Annotated image set

Original images with regions of interest, measurement points, masks, and finding overlays.

Measurement table

Location-indexed values, units, distributions, and QC flags in a structured export.

Method record

Calibration evidence, analysis settings, version history, and validation summary.

Confidence in every resultTraceable measurements, reviewed against your agreed reference method.
Traceable scale
The report records the image scale, calibration evidence, and a method-specific expanded measurement uncertainty. It does not use one product-wide accuracy number.
Reference comparison
The configured method is compared with your accepted reference method or reviewed annotations, and reports bias by measurement range and image condition.
Detection performance
Detections are evaluated against reviewed reference regions with precision, recall, and segmentation overlap, separated by the conditions that affect performance.
Repeatability
The locked protocol is rerun on the same inputs and on a defined repeat set. The review records variation from image acquisition, sampling, and analysis separately where possible.

What this result does not establish: Flags surface features visible to the supplied imaging modality. Dishing, erosion, and film thickness need a calibrated reference method before being used as process-release measurements.

The measurement, today

CMP review is commonly a visual screen followed by manual annotation. Fine scratches and spatial trends can be hard to compare across pads, slurries, and lots.

What it costs

Planarization defects can carry into subsequent patterning and interconnect steps. Image-linked defect classes make a pad or consumable comparison easier to review.

From image to reviewed result

  1. 1

    Load post-CMP images

    Upload optical, darkfield, or profilometry images from the wafer locations under review.

  2. 2

    Separate surface features

    Detect linear scratches, particle-like features, and regions with a different planarization signature.

  3. 3

    Measure the distribution

    Record feature dimensions, affected area, and field or wafer position.

  4. 4

    Review by lot or condition

    Export annotated images and summary tables for pad, slurry, and process comparison.

Talk to a scientist

Not sure this is the right measurement?

Send a representative image and your measurement goal. A ConductVision scientist will confirm whether this is the right fit, or point you to the closer workflow, before you commit to a quote.

Share your image set
One representative image is enough to start the conversation.
Book a 30-minute review
Walk through the measurement plan and confidence evidence live.

Send a sample image and a measurement goal

We will show the closest ConductVision workflow and flag what needs custom validation for your images.