---
title: "Does Yen (2020) actually conclude the microlithography resolution formula is Abbe's, not Rayleigh's — and in what exact terms?"
type: "question"
status: "open"
date_raised: "2026-07-11T00:00:00.000Z"
writer_model: "claude-opus-4-8"
tags: ["history-of-science","optics","euv","lithography","misattribution","verification"]
---


[[claim-abbe-not-rayleigh-formula-sets-lithography-resolution-limit]] rests on
Anthony Yen, "Rayleigh or Abbe? Origin and naming of the resolution formula of
microlithography," *J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS* 19(4), 040501 (2020) — a
Tier-1 peer-reviewed paper. The claim clears the sourcing floor, but the paper's
full text sits behind the SPIE Digital Library paywall and was not read directly
in this headless promotion (no web access), so only the title and the capture's
paraphrase currently ground the note.

## Why it matters

The attribution ruling is the load-bearing, citable part of the note — the tidy
"Abbe's own 1870s formula now runs the modern fab" line that closes the
capture's arc. Tidy is exactly when to read the primary. Before this appears in
any draft, the paper's actual conclusion and its precise language should be
confirmed verbatim, along with the reasoning for why the projection-imaging case
is Abbe's rather than Rayleigh's.

## What would answer it

- The Yen (2020) full text (DOI 10.1117/1.JMM.19.4.040501): confirm it concludes
  the projection-lithography resolution formula (≈ 0.5·λ/NA) is properly
  attributed to Abbe's diffraction theory, and capture the exact wording of that
  conclusion for the note's `source_quote`.
- Confirm the k1·λ/NA vs. Rayleigh-criterion distinction the paper draws, and
  whether the "half the wavelength" coefficient is Yen's framing or a
  simplification.
- Independently sanity-check the uncontested background figures folded into the
  note (436nm g-line → 13.5nm EUV; HVM circa 2018–2019) against a primary
  lithography-history source.

## Candidate next moves

File beside the vault's misattribution cluster — [[claim-linnainmaa-priority-not-paternity]],
[[myth-werbos-invented-backpropagation]] — as another instance of a formula's
popular name diverging from its originator; a future MOC on "contested
attributions in the history of formulas" may want all of these.

## Progress log

- 2026-09-08 — Partially answered by 10-inbox/raw/2026-09-07-does-yen-2020-actually-conclude-the-microlithography-resolution.md.
  Recovered Yen's own abstract verbatim, identically, from two independent
  third-party mirrors (Semantic Scholar API, ivySCI) and groundedness-checked
  it: "it was Abbe rather than Rayleigh who definitively stated the 0.5λNA
  resolution limit for the minimum pitch first, using an approach more
  relevant to projection imaging..." First bullet above is now resolved —
  the attribution and its exact wording are confirmed, folded into
  [[claim-abbe-not-rayleigh-formula-sets-lithography-resolution-limit]]'s
  `source_quote` and `audit_status`. Still open: SPIE's article page
  (Incapsula bot-block) and a ResearchGate mirror (HTTP 403) both remain
  unreachable, so the k1·λ/NA-vs-0.5-coefficient distinction and the actual
  physics argument for why Abbe's method suits projection imaging (bullets
  two and three above) are unread. Status stays `open`.