| Literature DB >> 36081144 |
Jiangjie Xu1,2, Yanli Zou1,2, Yufei Tan1,2, Zichun Yu1,2.
Abstract
Chip pad inspection is of great practical importance for chip alignment inspection and correction. It is one of the key technologies for automated chip inspection in semiconductor manufacturing. When applying deep learning methods for chip pad inspection, the main problem to be solved is how to ensure the accuracy of small target pad detection and, at the same time, achieve a lightweight inspection model. The attention mechanism is widely used to improve the accuracy of small target detection by finding the attention region of the network. However, conventional attention mechanisms capture feature information locally, which makes it difficult to effectively improve the detection efficiency of small targets from complex backgrounds in target detection tasks. In this paper, an OCAM (Object Convolution Attention Module) attention module is proposed to build long-range dependencies between channel features and position features by constructing feature contextual relationships to enhance the correlation between features. By adding the OCAM attention module to the feature extraction layer of the YOLOv5 network, the detection performance of chip pads is effectively improved. In addition, a design guideline for the attention layer is proposed in the paper. The attention layer is adjusted by network scaling to avoid network characterization bottlenecks, balance network parameters, and network detection performance, and reduce the hardware device requirements for the improved YOLOv5 network in practical scenarios. Extensive experiments on chip pad datasets, VOC datasets, and COCO datasets show that the approach in this paper is more general and superior to several state-of-the-art methods.Entities:
Keywords: OCAM; YOLOv5; artificial intelligence; attention; chip pads
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081144 PMCID: PMC9460593 DOI: 10.3390/s22176685
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Wafer Solder Joint Dataset. (a,b) Sample image contains chip pad A; (c) Sample image contains chip pad B; (d) Sample image contains chip pad A and chip pad B; (e) Target frame distribution.
Figure 2Proposed improved YOLOv5s network structure diagram.
Figure 3Attentional Simplification Chart.
Figure 4Structure of OCAM attention module.
Figure 5Channel attention of OCAM attention module.
Figure 6Position attention module structure diagram.
Figure 7Network accuracy when designing the same OCAM layer in different layers.
Figure 8(a–d) shows the adjustment of the attention layer using different depth () and scaling ( ). Find the effect of scaling on accuracy at different with as the baseline, respectively, for the current α.
Performance comparison of our method with mainstream target detection models on chip pad dataset.
| Method | Model | Parameters | FLOPs | AP@0.5 | mAP@0.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solder Joint A | Solder Joint B | |||||
| Efficientdet-d0 | 15 M | 3.7 M | 2.50 B | 0.69 | 0.48 | 0.586 |
| SSD-mobile | 118 M | 25.06 M | 29.2 G | 0.67 | 0.43 | 0.55 |
| YOLOv3 | 117 M | 61.5 M | 154.9 G | 0.821 | 0.742 | 0.781 |
| YOLOX-S | 34.3 M | 9.1 M | 27.03 G | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.85 |
| YOLOv5-Lite-g | 10.7 M | 5.4 M | 15.6 G | 0.799 | 0.764 | 0.782 |
| YOLOv5s-5.0 | 13.7 M | 7.1 M | 16.5 G | 0.813 | 0.84 | 0.826 |
| YOLOv5s-6.0 | 14.4 M | 7.0 M | 15.9 G | 0.878 | 0.808 | 0.84 |
| Our | 10.8 M | 5.5 M | 15.6 G |
|
|
|
Figure 9(a,b) Our method.
Figure 10Comparison between our method and YOLOv5s model on-chip pad dataset. (a) Origin. (b) YOLOv5s. (c) Our.
Figure 11Grad-CAM visualization results. (a) YOLOv5s. (b) Our method.
Attention module comparison.
| Method | AP@0.5 | mAP@0.5 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chip Pads A | Chip Pads B | ||
|
| 0.85 | 0.802 | 0.826 |
| +CBAM | 0.867 | 0.794 | 0.831 |
| +CoordAtt | 0.86 | 0.814 | 0.837 |
| +SE | 0.871 | 0.767 | 0.819 |
| +ECA | 0.883 | 0.777 | 0.83 |
| +Our |
|
|
|
Comparison of attention layer design solutions.
| Method | Model | Parameters | FLOPs | mAP@0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YOLOv5s | 13.7 M | 7.0 M | 16.5 G | 0.826 |
| +OCAM (normal) | 13.8 M | 7.1 M | 16.7 G | 0.856 |
| +OCAM (guide) | 13.5 M | 6.3 M | 16.3 G |
|
Ablation experiments.
| Method | Model | Parameters | FLOPs | mAP@0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YOLOv5s | 13.7 M | 7.1 M | 16.5 G | 0.826 |
| YOLOv5 + Ghost | 12.8 M | 6.2 M | 14.9 G | 0.825 |
| YOLOv5 + OCAM | 13.5 M | 6.3 M | 16.3 G | 0.865 |
| Our | 10.8 M | 5.5 M | 15.6 G | 0.875 |
Performance comparison on VOC2007+2012 dataset.
| Method | Model | Parameters | FLOPs | mAP@0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficientdet-d0 | 15 M | 3.75 M | 2.50 B | 0.78 |
| SSD-mobile | 118 M | 25.06 M | 29.2 G | 0.77 |
| YOLOv3 | 117 M | 61.5 M | 155.2 G | 0.82 |
| YOLOX-S | 34.3 M | 9.1 M | 27.03 G | 0.75 |
| YOLOv5-Lite-g | 10.7 M | 5.5 M | 15.6 G | 0.811 |
| YOLOv5s-5.0 | 13.8 M | 7.1 M | 16.5 G | 0.794 |
| YOLOv5s-6.0 | 14.4 M | 7.0 M | 16.0 G | 0.803 |
| Our | 10.9 M | 5.5 M | 15.6 G |
|
Performance comparison on COCO dataset.
| Method | Model | Parameters | FLOPs | mAP@0.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YOLOv3-tiny | 23.0 M | 6.06 M | 6.96 B | 33.1 |
| YOLOv4-tiny | 33.7 M | 8.86 M | 5.62 G | 40.2 |
| Efficientdet-d0 | 15.0 M | 3.75 M | 2.60 B | 52.2 |
| YOLOv5-Lite-g | 10.7 M | 5.5 M | 15.6 G | 57.6 |
| YOLOv5s-5.0 | 14.0 M | 7.3 M | 17.0 G | 55.4 |
| YOLOv5s-6.0 | 14.0 M | 7.23 M | 16.0 G | 56.8 |
| Our | 10.9 M | 5.5 M | 15.6 G |
|