Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Wafer Map Defect Classification Using Autoencoder-Based Data Augmentation and Convolutional Neural Network

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding Gaussian noise to an autoencoder's latent space to synthesize wafer maps, then training a CNN on the balanced set, classifies eight wafer defect types at 98.56% accuracy on WM-811K, beating random forest, SVM, and logistic…

desk verdict A plausible augmentation trick applied to wafer maps, but the paper's own tables contradict each other and the test protocol is ambiguous, so the 98.56% claim is unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11029 v1 pith:XSS55ELO submitted 2024-11-17 cs.CV cs.AIeess.IV

Yin-Yin Bao , Er-Chao Li , Hong-Qiang Yang , Bin-Bin Jia This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIeess.IV
keywords wafermapdefectclassificationdataaugmentationautoencoderlatentspacenoiseconvolutionalneuralnetworkclassimbalanceWM-811Ksemiconductoryield
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that injecting Gaussian noise into the latent space of an autoencoder, decoding the result into new wafer maps, and training a CNN on the balanced set yields near-perfect classification of eight wafer defect types. On the WM-811K dataset it reports 98.56% accuracy, with precision, recall, and F1 around 0.988 and AUC and average precision at 1.00, outperforming random forest, SVM, and logistic regression by 17 to 27 percentage points. The appeal is that the augmentation both enlarges rare defect classes and diversifies the data, so a standard CNN no longer overfits the majority classes. The reader should care because real fab wafer maps are scarce, noisy, and imbalanced, and a low-cost generative augmentation that works would make yield diagnosis more reliable.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the autoencoder's latent space plus Gaussian noise: an encoder compresses a $26\times26\times3$ wafer map into a $13\times13\times64$ representation, noise $\epsilon \sim N(0,\sigma^2)$ is added, and the decoder maps the perturbed latent vector back to image space to synthesize new defect maps. This is the component that turns the imbalanced dataset into 10,000 samples per class, and it is the component whose removal would collapse the claimed gains; the CNN then extracts spatial features through three $3\times3$ convolutional layers and classifies with a softmax output.

What would settle it

Re-run the experiment with a strictly original test set: after the 4:1 split, confirm that no autoencoder-reconstructed sample appears in the test fold, then measure test accuracy on those untouched maps. If accuracy falls well below the reported 98.56%, for example toward the roughly 85% validation accuracy seen before augmentation, the headline result is being measured on the model's own synthetic reconstructions rather than on real wafer maps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that latent-space noise injection into a trained autoencoder is a sufficient data augmentation strategy for wafer-map defect classification: perturbing the encoder's compressed representation and decoding it back produces plausible new wafer maps, and when each of the eight defect classes is augmented to 10,000 samples, a plain CNN with three convolutional layers and two dense layers classifies the test set at 98.56% accuracy. The paper further claims this augmentation resolves class imbalance and overfitting, raising validation accuracy from roughly 85% to roughly 98% and lifting rare classes such as Local and Random from 80% and 39% to 97% and 100%. Against random forest, SVM, logistic regression, and a voting ensemble, the augmented CNN is reported to be uniformly superior, with AUC and average precision of 1.0.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the test set containing only original, un-augmented wafer maps, even though the paper never explicitly confirms that the augmented samples were kept out of the test fold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training on the augmented, balanced set raises validation accuracy from about 85% to about 98% and removes the overfitting gap seen before augmentation.
  • Rare classes benefit most: Local accuracy rises from 80% to 97% and Random from 39% to 100%, according to the reported confusion matrices.
  • On the paper's test protocol, CNN-AUG beats random forest, SVM, logistic regression, and a voting ensemble on every reported metric, with AUC and AP both 1.00.
  • Removing the third convolutional layer or the first dense layer lowers test accuracy by only about half a percentage point, indicating that the architecture is not the main source of the gain.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method's practical value depends on the test set being original and un-augmented; the paper never states this explicitly, so the first reproducibility check should verify that no synthetic reconstruction appears in the test fold.
  • If the protocol holds, the same latent-noise augmentation could be tested on other scarce and noisy image domains, such as medical or industrial inspection, where class imbalance dominates.
  • A natural extension would be to vary the noise scale $\sigma$ per class and measure how reconstruction fidelity trades off against classification gain, which the paper leaves unexamined.
  • Because the autoencoder can also produce intermediate or mixed defect morphologies, the approach could be pushed toward detecting unseen or mixed-defect wafer maps rather than only the eight labeled classes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a pipeline for wafer map defect classification on the WM-811K benchmark. An autoencoder is trained to reconstruct wafer maps; Gaussian noise is added to the latent representation, and the noisy codes are decoded to synthesize additional training samples, balancing all eight defect classes to 10,000 samples each. A CNN with three convolutional layers (16, 64, 128 filters) and two dense layers (512, 128 units) is then trained on the augmented data. The paper reports 98.56% test accuracy, precision/recall/F1 around 0.9877, and AUC/AP equal to 1.0000, outperforming Logistic Regression, SVM, Random Forest, and a Voting Classifier by large margins. Section 4.2 states that the data were split 4:1 before augmentation, but the paper never explicitly states that the test set was not augmented, and Table 2 reports only post-augmentation per-class counts. Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 give inconsistent metrics for the same CNN-AUG model, and Section 3.4/Table 3 contain conflicting architectural details.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, the method would be a substantial advance: near-perfect classification of the WM-811K eight-class defect benchmark with a simple augmentation scheme, far above classical baselines. The paper includes useful comparisons, ablation studies, occlusion sensitivity analysis, and uses a public benchmark. However, as written, the central claim is not verifiable. The evaluation protocol is ambiguous regarding whether the test set was augmented; the same model receives different precision/recall/F1 in Tables 4 and 5; and the CNN architecture is under-specified. These issues are load-bearing because they bear directly on the validity of the 98.56% accuracy and the AUC/AP of 1.00. The paper would be strengthened by releasing code or an explicit data split, by stating clearly that the test set consisted of original un-augmented wafer maps, and by reconciling the metric tables and architecture equations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Tables 1 and 2] The split protocol is not adequately specified. The text says 'we first divided the dataset into training and testing sets using a 4:1 ratio before data augmentation,' but Table 1 shows per-class train/test ratios of about 3.07:1, 2.67:1, 3.5:1, etc., not 4:1, and Table 2 lists 10,000 samples per class without indicating whether these counts include training only or training plus test. If autoencoder-generated reconstructions of test images were included in training, or if the test set was augmented, the reported AUC/AP of 1.0000 could be an artifact of leakage rather than generalization. Please state explicitly whether the test set consisted only of original (un-augmented) wafer maps, and give exact train/test splits and augmentation counts.
  2. [Section 4.3, Table 4 vs Section 4.4, Table 5] The CNN-AUG model is reported with inconsistent metrics. Table 4 lists precision 0.9877, recall 0.9878, and F1 0.9877; Table 5 lists precision 0.9855, recall 0.9856, and F1 0.9855, both with accuracy 0.9856. No standard macro or micro averaging makes both sets correct; at least one table is wrong. Please reconcile these numbers and state the averaging scheme used.
  3. [Section 3.4, Eqs. (19)-(23), Table 3] The architectural description is internally contradictory and not reproducible. The text says the first convolutional layer has 16 filters, but Eq. (19) states that the output of that layer is 26×26×128; the flatten step in Eq. (20) refers to an undefined H^(3), and the flattened size 86,528 equals 26×26×128. Table 3 lists three convolutional layers (16, 64, 128 filters) and two dense layers (512, 128 units), while Eqs. (21)-(23) reference D1 and D2 without defining D2's dimensionality except implicitly through W_d^(3) ∈ R^{8×128}. Please provide a single unambiguous table of layer shapes and correct the equations accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.1/4.1] The total number of labeled defective wafers is given as 25,519 in Section 2.1 and as 24,519 in Section 4.1; Table 1 sums to 25,519. Please correct the typo.
  2. [Section 3.2] The noise standard deviation σ is never specified. Please report its value and any sensitivity analysis.
  3. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'As shown in Fig 4, Fig 5 and Tabel 2, the graph illustrates...' is confusing; the graph under discussion is Fig 5 only.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typos and wording errors ('T able', 'Tabel', 'self-encoder' vs 'autoencoder', 'imporve', 'wafet', 'for for', '3 ×33×3'). A careful proofread is needed.
  5. [References] Reference [33] is cited as the source of the WM-811K dataset, but it is a paper on transfer learning. The original WM-811K dataset (Wu et al., 2015) should be cited.
  6. [Section 3.4, Eq. (23)] Eq. (23) indexes classes 1 through 8, while the dataset labels are 0 through 7; please align the notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the accuracy claim is tied to the original held-out WM-811K test split, and no equation or citation reduces the reported result to the method's own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 4.2 explicitly states: 'we first divided the dataset into training and testing sets using a 4:1 ratio before data augmentation,' and Table 1 reports separate training and testing counts for each class. The autoencoder is trained for reconstruction via Eq. (10) and used only to generate additional training samples by adding Gaussian noise in latent space (Eqs. 12-16); the CNN is then evaluated on the original test set described in Table 1. None of the reported accuracy, AUC, or AP values follows by construction from a fitted parameter or from the augmentation equations. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via prior work by the same authors. The ambiguous presentation in Table 2 (10,000 samples per class without separating train/test), the numerical inconsistencies between Tables 4 and 5, and the omission of an explicit statement that the test set was never augmented are reproducibility and correctness concerns, not circularity, because the manuscript places the evaluation on the original test split. No circular step can be exhibited from the text, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main hand-chosen parameters are the latent noise sigma (not reported) and the augmentation target of 10,000 samples per class. The pipeline relies on assumptions that the WM-811K labels are correct, that decoded noisy latent vectors remain valid class representatives, and that a CNN trained on these synthetic samples transfers to real images. No novel entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Noise standard deviation sigma for latent space augmentation
    Section 3.2 adds epsilon ~ N(0, sigma^2) but does not state the sigma value; it is a hand-chosen hyperparameter that controls the diversity of synthetic samples.
  • Target sample count per class after augmentation = 10,000
    Section 4.1 and Table 2 set each of the eight classes to 10,000 samples; this is a design choice, not derived from data.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The WM-811K manual labels (0-7) are treated as ground truth.
    The paper uses the labeled portion of WM-811K as ground truth; if labels are noisy or inconsistent, the reported accuracy is affected.
  • domain assumption Synthetic samples generated from the autoencoder's noised latent space are treated as valid representatives of their class.
    Section 3.3 assumes that adding Gaussian noise in latent space and decoding yields new, class-preserving wafer maps; there is no validation that synthetic samples truly reflect real manufacturing defect distributions.
  • domain assumption The CNN trained on augmented data will generalize to real test data.
    This is the core learning assumption; if the augmentation distribution shifts away from the real data distribution, test performance would degrade, yet the paper reports near-perfect test scores.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wafer Map Defect Classification Using Autoencoder-Based Data Augmentation and Convolutional Neural Network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XSS55ELO

@misc{pith2026241111029,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wafer Map Defect Classification Using Autoencoder-Based Data Augmentation and Convolutional Neural Network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XSS55ELO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11029}
}
read the original abstract

In semiconductor manufacturing, wafer defect maps (WDMs) play a crucial role in diagnosing issues and enhancing process yields by revealing critical defect patterns. However, accurately categorizing WDM defects presents significant challenges due to noisy data, unbalanced defect classes, and the complexity of failure modes. To address these challenges, this study proposes a novel method combining a self-encoder-based data augmentation technique with a convolutional neural network (CNN). By introducing noise into the latent space, the self-encoder enhances data diversity and mitigates class imbalance, thereby improving the model's generalization capabilities. The augmented dataset is subsequently used to train the CNN, enabling it to deliver precise classification of both common and rare defect patterns. Experimental results on the WM-811K dataset demonstrate that the proposed method achieves a classification accuracy of 98.56%, surpassing Random Forest, SVM, and Logistic Regression by 19%, 21%, and 27%, respectively. These findings highlight the robustness and effectiveness of the proposed approach, offering a reliable solution for wafer defect detection and classification.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Advanced Clustering Framework for Semiconductor Image Analytics Integrating Deep TDA with Self-Supervised and Transfer Learning Techniques

    cs.CV 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    An integrated Deep TDA plus self-supervised plus transfer learning framework clusters semiconductor wafer maps into groups that visually match known defect patterns, without using labels during training.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    In: 2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems (CIS) and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM), pp

    Wei, Q., Zhao, W., Zheng, X., Zeng, Z.: Wafer map defect patterns semi- supervised classification using latent vector representation. In: 2023 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems (CIS) and IEEE Conference on Robotics, Automation and Mechatronics (RAM), pp. 192–197 (2023). IEEE

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    In: 38th European Mask and Lithography Conference (EMLC 2023), vol

    De Ridder, V., Dey, B., Dehaerne, E., Halder, S., De Gendt, S., Van Waeyenberge, B.: Semi-centernet: a machine learning facilitated approach for semiconductor defect inspection. In: 38th European Mask and Lithography Conference (EMLC 2023), vol. 12802, pp. 220–228 (2023). SPIE

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Physical Review B 99(4), 041405 (2019)

    Yin, H., Shi, X., He, C., Martinez-Canales, M., Li, J., Pickard, C.J., Tang, C., Ouyang, T., Zhang, C., Zhong, J.: Stone-wales graphene: A two-dimensional carbon semimetal with magic stability. Physical Review B 99(4), 041405 (2019)

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Journal of photochemistry and photobiology A: Chemistry 108(1), 1–35 (1997)

    Mills, A., Le Hunte, S.: An overview of semiconductor photocatalysis. Journal of photochemistry and photobiology A: Chemistry 108(1), 1–35 (1997)

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Computers & Industrial Engineering 166, 107977 (2022)

    Yoon, S., Kang, S.: Semi-automatic wafer map pattern classification with con- volutional neural networks. Computers & Industrial Engineering 166, 107977 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    In: 20th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED), pp

    Ishida, T., Nitta, I., Fukuda, D., Kanazawa, Y.: Deep learning-based wafer- map failure pattern recognition framework. In: 20th International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design (ISQED), pp. 291–297 (2019). IEEE

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    In: Koren, I

    Ferris-Prabhu, A.V.: Defects, faults and semiconductor device yield. In: Koren, I. 23 (ed.) Defect and Fault Tolerance in VLSI Systems: Volume 1, pp. 33–46. Springer, Boston, MA (1989)

    work page 1989

  8. [8]

    Journal of electronic testing 37, 427–437 (2021)

    Poehls, L.B., Fieback, M., Hoffmann-Eifert, S., Copetti, T., Brum, E., Menzel, S., Hamdioui, S., Gemmeke, T.: Review of manufacturing process defects and their effects on memristive devices. Journal of electronic testing 37, 427–437 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 34(3), 365–371 (2021)

    Kim, J., Nam, Y., Kang, M.-C., Kim, K., Hong, J., Lee, S., Kim, D.-N.: Adversar- ial defect detection in semiconductor manufacturing process. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 34(3), 365–371 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    In: 2019 International Conference on Engineering and Telecommunication (EnT), pp

    Maksim, K., Kirill, B., Eduard, Z., Nikita, G., Aleksandr, B., Arina, L., Vladislav, S., Daniil, M., Nikolay, K.: Classification of wafer maps defect based on deep learning methods with small amount of data. In: 2019 International Conference on Engineering and Telecommunicatio...

    2019

  3. [11]

    Expert Systems with Applications 233, 120923 (2023)

    Shim, J., Kang, S.: Learning from single-defect wafer maps to classify mixed- defect wafer maps. Expert Systems with Applications 233, 120923 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Microelectronics Reliability 38(6-8), 1155–1164 (1998)

    Hansen, C., Thyregod, P.: Use of wafer maps in integrated circuit manufacturing. Microelectronics Reliability 38(6-8), 1155–1164 (1998)

    1998

  5. [13]

    IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 28(3), 431–437 (2015)

    Kang, S., Cho, S., An, D., Rim, J.: Using wafer map features to better predict die- level failures in final test. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 28(3), 431–437 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 31(1), 156–165 (2017)

    Taha, K., Salah, K., Yoo, P.D.: Clustering the dominant defective patterns in semiconductor wafer maps. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 31(1), 156–165 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    IEEE transactions on computer-aided design of integrated circuits and systems 37(4), 832–844 (2017)

    Alawieh, M.B., Wang, F., Li, X.: Identifying wafer-level systematic failure pat- terns via unsupervised learning. IEEE transactions on computer-aided design of integrated circuits and systems 37(4), 832–844 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pp

    Geng, H., Sun, Q., Chen, T., Xu, Q., Ho, T.-Y., Yu, B.: Mixed-type wafer failure pattern recognition. In: Proceedings of the 28th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference, pp. 727–732 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    IEEE Transactions on Semiconduc- tor Manufacturing 31(2), 309–314 (2018)

    Nakazawa, T., Kulkarni, D.V.: Wafer map defect pattern classification and image retrieval using convolutional neural network. IEEE Transactions on Semiconduc- tor Manufacturing 31(2), 309–314 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(8), 3599–3621 (2023) 24

    Piao, M., Jin, C.H.: Cnn and ensemble learning based wafer map failure pat- tern recognition based on local property based features. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 34(8), 3599–3621 (2023) 24

    2023

  11. [19]

    In: 2013 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC), pp

    Sumikawa, N., Wang, L.-C., Abadir, M.S.: A pattern mining framework for inter- wafer abnormality analysis. In: 2013 IEEE International Test Conference (ITC), pp. 1–10 (2013). IEEE

    2013

  12. [20]

    IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications 13(4), 18–28 (1998)

    Hearst, M.A., Dumais, S.T., Osuna, E., Platt, J., Scholkopf, B.: Support vector machines. IEEE Intelligent Systems and their applications 13(4), 18–28 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Scholarpedia 4(2), 1883 (2009)

    Peterson, L.E.: K-nearest neighbor. Scholarpedia 4(2), 1883 (2009)

    2009

  14. [22]

    Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 5(6), 448–455 (2013)

    De Ville, B.: Decision trees. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 5(6), 448–455 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 28(1), 1–12 (2014)

    Wu, M.-J., Jang, J.-S.R., Chen, J.-L.: Wafer map failure pattern recognition and similarity ranking for large-scale data sets. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 28(1), 1–12 (2014)

    2014

  16. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13714 (2024)

    Yin, H., Gu, Z., Wang, F., Abuduhaibaier, Y., Zhu, Y., Tu, X., Hua, X.-S., Luo, X., Sun, Y.: An evaluation of large language models in bioinformatics research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13714 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    GigaScience 13, 018 (2024)

    Yin, H., Wu, S., Tan, J., Guo, Q., Li, M., Guo, J., Wang, Y., Jiang, X., Zhu, H.: Ipev: identification of prokaryotic and eukaryotic virus-derived sequences in virome using deep learning. GigaScience 13, 018 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    Quality and Reliability Engineering International 36(4), 1245– 1257 (2020)

    Wang, R., Chen, N.: Defect pattern recognition on wafers using convolutional neural networks. Quality and Reliability Engineering International 36(4), 1245– 1257 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    In: 2020 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), pp

    Phua, C., Theng, L.B.: Semiconductor wafer surface: Automatic defect classifica- tion with deep cnn. In: 2020 IEEE Region 10 Conference (TENCON), pp. 714–719 (2020). IEEE

    2020

  20. [28]

    Computers in Industry 109, 121–133 (2019)

    Yu, J., Zheng, X., Liu, J.: Stacked convolutional sparse denoising auto-encoder for identification of defect patterns in semiconductor wafer map. Computers in Industry 109, 121–133 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Neurocomputing 139, 84–96 (2014)

    Liou, C.-Y., Cheng, W.-C., Liou, J.-W., Liou, D.-R.: Autoencoder for words. Neurocomputing 139, 84–96 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp

    Zhai, J., Zhang, S., Chen, J., He, Q.: Autoencoder and its various variants. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 415–419 (2018). IEEE

    2018

  23. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 32(2), 163–170 (2019)

    Cheon, S., Lee, H., Kim, C.O., Lee, S.H.: Convolutional neural network for wafer surface defect classification and the detection of unknown defect class. IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing 32(2), 163–170 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Quality Engineering, 1–15 (2023)

    Kim, S., Kim, H.: Mixed-type defect pattern recognition in noisy labeled wafer 25 bin maps. Quality Engineering, 1–15 (2023)

    2023

  25. [33]

    In: 2022 IEEE Delhi Section Conference (DELCON), pp

    Bhatnagar, P., Arora, T., Chaujar, R.: Semiconductor wafer map defect classifica- tion using transfer learning. In: 2022 IEEE Delhi Section Conference (DELCON), pp. 1–4 (2022). IEEE

    2022

  26. [34]

    Applied measurement in education 9(4), 355–379 (1996)

    Kane, M.: The precision of measurements. Applied measurement in education 9(4), 355–379 (1996)

    1996

  27. [35]

    620, 1st edn

    Van Rossum, G., Drake Jr, F.L.: Python Tutorial vol. 620, 1st edn. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1995)

    1995

  28. [36]

    Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 45(2), 227–248 (2020)

    Pang, B., Nijkamp, E., Wu, Y.N.: Deep learning with tensorflow: A review. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 45(2), 227–248 (2020)

    2020

  29. [37]

    Programming with TensorFlow: solution for edge computing applications, 87–104 (2021) 26

    Imambi, S., Prakash, K.B., Kanagachidambaresan, G.: Pytorch. Programming with TensorFlow: solution for edge computing applications, 87–104 (2021) 26

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.