Utilizing the Mean Teacher with Supcontrast Loss for Wafer Pattern Recognition

Qiyu Wei; Xulei Yang; Xun Xu; Zeng Zeng

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 29 references

Utilizing the Mean Teacher with Supcontrast Loss for Wafer Pattern Recognition

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 Combining Mean Teacher with supervised contrastive loss raises wafer map recognition accuracy by 5.46 percentage points over a ResNet18 baseline when only 10% of data is labeled.

desk verdict The central accuracy claim is contradicted by the paper's own per-class table, and the missing experimental detail makes the rest hard to trust. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18533 v1 pith:4VITOTUF submitted 2024-11-27 cs.CV

Qiyu Wei , Xun Xu , Zeng Zeng , Xulei Yang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CV

keywords wafermappatternrecognitionmeanteachersupervisedcontrastivelearningsemi-supervisedclassimbalanceWM811KSMOTE

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

This paper tries to establish that semi-supervised learning and contrastive learning can be combined to improve wafer map pattern recognition under scarce labeled data. The authors argue that the Mean Teacher framework, which uses a moving-average teacher to enforce prediction consistency on unlabeled data, and the supervised contrastive loss, which pulls same-class features together, address complementary weaknesses. On the WM811K wafer dataset with only 10% labeled samples, the combined method reaches 84.63% accuracy, 86.24% precision, 84.41% recall, and 83.40% F1, beating the ResNet18 baseline by 5.46, 6.68, 5.42, and 4.53 percentage points respectively. If true, this offers a practical recipe for reducing labeling costs in semiconductor manufacturing.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the total loss function $L = L_{\text{consistency}} + L_{\text{classification}} + L_{\text{supcontrast}}$, where the supervised contrastive term is a temperature-scaled cosine-similarity loss that treats samples sharing a label as positive pairs. This loss supplements the classification objective and the Mean Teacher consistency regularization, which enforces agreement between the student and an EMA-averaged teacher on unlabeled wafer maps. Together, these terms are intended to yield a more discriminative feature space while exploiting a large pool of unlabeled data.

What would settle it

Run the same Mean Teacher plus SupConLoss method on WM811K with at least five different random seeds, using the same 10% labeled split and the same unlabeled data as the paper, and report the mean and standard deviation of accuracy, precision, recall, and F1. If the average improvements over ResNet18 fall outside the claimed 5.46/6.68/5.42/4.53 percentage points or the variance is comparable to the gains, the central claim would be weakened.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that integrating the Mean Teacher semi-supervised framework with the supervised contrastive loss (SupConLoss) yields the best wafer map pattern recognition performance compared to using either technique alone or a plain supervised baseline. In the experimental setup, the student and teacher networks share a ResNet18 backbone; labeled data trains the student with classification and supervised contrastive losses, while unlabeled data contributes a consistency loss between student and teacher outputs, with the teacher updated by exponential moving average. The reported numbers on WM811K show the combined model outperforms the baseline and each individual component, with the ablation indicating that SupConLoss adds about 2.11% F1 over Mean Teacher alone and Mean Teacher adds about 2.42% F1 over ResNet alone.

Load-bearing premise

The reported improvements are based on a single experimental run with a specific 10% labeled split, and the key hyperparameters are not disclosed, so the gains could plausibly shrink or vanish under different random seeds or splits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With only 10% of labels, the combined method outperforms the supervised baseline on all four metrics, suggesting that unlabeled wafer maps carry useful signal for pattern recognition.
The ablation indicates that each component contributes independently: Mean Teacher adds 2.42% F1 over the baseline and SupConLoss adds 4.11% F1, and the two together are complementary.
The method shows particular gains on rare or complex classes such as Donut, Loc, Scratch, and None, where the supervised contrastive loss may help form better feature clusters.
Because the approach is architecture-agnostic beyond using a ResNet18 backbone, the same loss combination could be applied to other wafer-map classifiers or to other industrial image domains with imbalanced, partially labeled data.

Reading between the lines

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

A likely practical extension is to tune the EMA decay, temperature, and loss weights per dataset; the paper does not report these hyperparameters, so the method's sensitivity to them remains an open question that a reader should test.
The reported gains come from a single experimental run, so the statistical stability of the 5-6 point improvements across different random seeds or different 10% splits is not established; multiple runs would be the natural next verification.
The method's success on WM811K suggests a general recipe for other semi-supervised industrial vision tasks where labeled examples are scarce but unlabeled images are plentiful, such as defect detection in other manufactured products.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this paper. It is a straightforward integration of supervised contrastive loss into the Mean Teacher framework for wafer map classification, evaluated on WM811K. That is a reasonable thing to try, and the paper is clearly written. The problem is internal consistency: Table I reports 84.13% accuracy for ResNet + SupConLoss, but Table II shows that same condition has 48.78% recall on the None class, which the paper itself calls the vast majority of the dataset. Overall accuracy is a class-weighted average of recalls; even with perfect recall on every other class, a test set that is 70% None would cap accuracy around 64%. One of those numbers is simply wrong. This lands directly on the paper's headline ablation claim.

What is actually new is narrow: combining these two known ingredients on this dataset. No new theory, no new loss, no comparisons to existing semi-supervised or contrastive methods. The empirical result is the whole contribution, and that result is exactly what is compromised.

The paper does some things well. The ablation design is sensible, the motivation for using unlabeled data in a fab setting is real, and the authors are upfront about class imbalance and address it with SMOTE and undersampling. The per-class table is informative when it is internally consistent.

Beyond the contradiction, the evaluation is thin. No error bars, a single split, and no disclosure of EMA decay, temperature, loss weights, SMOTE settings, or other training hyperparameters. No comparison with FixMatch, SupCon on other backbones, or the semi-supervised wafer-specific method from reference [18]. A few percentage points on a single split could easily be run-to-run noise.

The stress-test note holds up; the inconsistency is real. The paper needs a corrected table, multiple seeds with error bars, and a proper set of baselines before its claims can be taken seriously. That said, the underlying problem is important, and the method is plausible enough that I would not desk-reject it. Send it to review with a clear request to verify the numbers and add robustness analysis. I would not cite it in its current form, but it might become citable after revision.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-supervised wafer map pattern recognition method that integrates the Mean Teacher framework with a supervised contrastive loss, and applies SMOTE with under-sampling to address class imbalance. Experiments on the WM811K dataset with 10% labeled data report that the combination improves over a ResNet18 baseline by 5.46, 6.68, 5.42, and 4.53 percentage points in accuracy, precision, recall, and F1, respectively (Table I). The paper includes an ablation study (Table II) separating the contributions of Mean Teacher and SupConLoss.

Significance. If the reported results are correct and reproducible, the combination of Mean Teacher and supervised contrastive loss is a practical recipe for wafer map classification under label scarcity, and the ablation design is a useful step toward understanding the contribution of each component. The paper uses a public benchmark (WM811K) and reports per-class metrics, which is valuable. However, the manuscript currently lacks statistical validation, full hyperparameter details, and comparisons to existing methods, and it contains an internal numerical inconsistency between the two main tables. These issues prevent the central claim from being accepted as stated.

major comments (3)

[Section IV-B, Table I and Table II] For the '+SupConLoss' condition, the reported overall accuracy of 84.13% in Table I is arithmetically incompatible with the per-class recalls in Table II. Since overall accuracy equals the class-proportion-weighted average of per-class recalls, and the paper itself states that the Non-Pattern ('None') class constitutes a vast majority of WM811K, the 48.78% recall reported for 'None' makes the 84.13% accuracy unattainable. Even under the optimistic assumption that all non-'None' classes are recalled perfectly, the 'None' class would have to be at most 31.0% of the test set, contradicting the stated majority share; with a realistic 'None' share of 70%, the maximum attainable accuracy would be about 64.2%. One of the two tables must therefore be wrong for this condition, and since the headline improvement of the paper rests on Table I, the central empirical claim is not currently supported.
[Section IV-A] The experimental protocol omits values for the method's key hyperparameters: the EMA decay α in Eq. (1), the temperature τ in Eq. (2), the relative weights of the three loss terms in Eq. (3), SMOTE parameters, and standard training details (optimizer, learning rate, batch size, epochs, augmentation). Moreover, all results are reported as single numbers without error bars or multiple runs, and the 10% labeled split is not described beyond the fraction. These omissions make it impossible to reproduce the experiments or to determine whether the reported improvements of 5.46, 6.68, 5.42, and 4.53 percentage points are statistically meaningful; the gains could fall within run-to-run variance on a single split.
[Section I and Section IV] The paper claims a 'comprehensive comparison' but compares only against its own ResNet18 baseline and ablations. No existing semi-supervised methods, contrastive methods, or prior wafer-pattern recognition results on WM811K are included as baselines (the related work in Section II is not evaluated). Without such comparisons, the contribution of combining Mean Teacher with supervised contrastive loss is not situated relative to the literature, and the claim of effectiveness is only relative to one baseline.

minor comments (6)

[Section III-A] The text refers to 'Average Teacher' instead of 'Mean Teacher'; this should be corrected for consistency.
[Section II-B] The sentence 'THEY simplify recently proposed contrastive self-supervised learning algorithms' contains an unintended capitalization of 'THEY'.
[Equation (2)] The summation is rendered as 'NX i=1'; this should be typeset as Σ_{i=1}^{N} for clarity.
[Table II] The column labeled 'Accuracy' for each class is not defined, and the values appear inconsistent with the reported recall (e.g., Center has Accuracy 97.67% but Recall 89.38%). A per-class accuracy metric should be defined precisely or removed.
[Section IV-A] SMOTE is described as applied to the training set, but it is not explained how interpolation is performed on wafer map images; if SMOTE is applied to features or flattened images, this should be stated.
[References] Several references, e.g., [5], [6], [7], are missing spaces between the citation number and the following text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gains are direct empirical measurements, not quantities forced by definition or by self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison on the WM811K dataset: Table I reports Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1 for ResNet18, ResNet+Mean Teacher, ResNet+SupConLoss, and the combined method. These numbers are measured outcomes of training runs, not derived quantities obtained by plugging fitted parameters into a formula that defines the reported metric. The two key components, Mean Teacher (Eq. 1) and supervised contrastive loss (Eq. 2), are standard formulations taken from external prior work [11], [27], and the total loss in Eq. 3 is a simple sum of those external losses plus classification loss. No equation in the paper defines a prediction in terms of the target metric itself. The only self-citation is reference [4], an earlier wafer-map semi-supervised classification paper by one of the co-authors, cited in the introduction among other examples of existing work; it is not used to justify any theorem, architectural choice, or reported result. Thus there is no load-bearing self-citation chain and no fitted input renamed as a prediction. The manuscript describes experiments with 10% labeled data and a resampling strategy, but the absence of error bars or protocol details is an empirical-robustness concern, not circularity. Likewise, a skeptical checker's observation that Tables I and II may be internally inconsistent is a correctness or reporting issue, not a case of the derivation reducing to its own inputs. Overall, the paper is self-contained as an empirical study: its claims stand or fall on the measurements and the soundness of the experimental protocol, not on any circular definition or self-citation. Circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new theoretical entities. It relies on standard hyperparameters (not disclosed) and established techniques from the cited literature. The main burden is the undisclosed experimental configuration needed to reproduce the results.

free parameters (5)

EMA decay alpha = not specified
Controls teacher model stability in Eq. 1; not reported, directly affects consistency training.
Temperature tau = not specified
Temperature in supervised contrastive loss (Eq. 2); not reported, affects feature concentration.
Loss weights = not specified
Relative weighting of consistency, classification, and contrastive losses in Eq. 3; not specified.
SMOTE parameters = not specified
Number of neighbors and target class balance for SMOTE up-sampling are not disclosed.
Training hyperparameters = not specified
Learning rate, batch size, epochs, optimizer, and augmentation are not reported.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption WM811K ground-truth labels are reliable
The experiments use WM811K labels as ground truth without auditing label noise.
domain assumption Mean Teacher consistency loss effectively leverages unlabeled data
Relies on the established effectiveness of Mean Teacher [11] without further validation in this setting.
domain assumption Supervised contrastive loss improves intermediate feature learning
Assumes the benefits of SupCon [27] transfer to wafer maps.
domain assumption The 10% labeled split is representative and fair
No stratification details or multiple splits are given; fairness of comparison rests on this assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Utilizing the Mean Teacher with Supcontrast Loss for Wafer Pattern Recognition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VITOTUF

@misc{pith2026241118533,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Utilizing the Mean Teacher with Supcontrast Loss for Wafer Pattern Recognition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VITOTUF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18533}
}

read the original abstract

The patterns on wafer maps play a crucial role in helping engineers identify the causes of production issues during semiconductor manufacturing. In order to reduce costs and improve accuracy, automation technology is essential, and recent developments in deep learning have led to impressive results in wafer map pattern recognition. In this context, inspired by the effectiveness of semi-supervised learning and contrastive learning methods, we introduce an innovative approach that integrates the Mean Teacher framework with the supervised contrastive learning loss for enhanced wafer map pattern recognition. Our methodology not only addresses the nuances of wafer patterns but also tackles challenges arising from limited labeled data. To further refine the process, we address data imbalance in the wafer dataset by employing SMOTE and under-sampling techniques. We conduct a comprehensive analysis of our proposed method and demonstrate its effectiveness through experiments using real-world dataset WM811K obtained from semiconductor manufacturers. Compared to the baseline method, our method has achieved 5.46%, 6.68%, 5.42%, and 4.53% improvements in Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1 score, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18533 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

[18]

Semi-supervised imbalanced classification of wafer bin map defects using a dual-head cnn,

S. Manivannan, “Semi-supervised imbalanced classification of wafer bin map defects using a dual-head cnn,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 238, p. 122301, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

A review study on ml- based methods for defect-pattern recognition in wafer maps,

T. Theodosiou, A. Rapti, K. Papageorgiou, T. Tziolas, E. Papageorgiou, N. Dimitriou, G. Margetis, and D. Tzovaras, “A review study on ml- based methods for defect-pattern recognition in wafer maps,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 217, pp. 570–583, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Advances in machine learning and deep learn- ing applications towards wafer map defect recognition and classification: a review,

T. Kim and K. Behdinan, “Advances in machine learning and deep learn- ing applications towards wafer map defect recognition and classification: a review,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , pp. 1–33, 2022

work page 2022
[3]

Boosted stacking ensemble machine learning method for wafer map pattern classification

J. Choi, D. Suh, and M.-O. Otto, “Boosted stacking ensemble machine learning method for wafer map pattern classification.” Computers, Ma- terials & Continua , vol. 74, no. 2, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

Wafer map defect patterns semi-supervised classification using latent vector representation,

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

work page 2023
[5]

A light-weight neural network for wafer map classification based on data augmentation,

T.-H. Tsai and Y .-C. Lee, “A light-weight neural network for wafer map classification based on data augmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 663–672, 2020

work page 2020
[6]

Wafer map defect pattern classifi- cation and image retrieval using convolutional neural network,

T. Nakazawa and D. V . Kulkarni, “Wafer map defect pattern classifi- cation and image retrieval using convolutional neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 309– 314, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

An efficient deep learning framework for mixed-type wafer map defect pattern recognition,

H. Sheng, K. Cheng, X. Jin, X. Jiang, C. Dong, and T. Han, “An efficient deep learning framework for mixed-type wafer map defect pattern recognition,” AIP Advances, vol. 14, no. 4, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 29 references

[8]

Semi-supervised clustering methods,

E. Bair, “Semi-supervised clustering methods,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics , vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 349–361, 2013

2013
[9]

Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks,

D.-H. Lee et al., “Pseudo-label: The simple and efficient semi-supervised learning method for deep neural networks,” in Workshop on challenges in representation learning, ICML , vol. 3, no. 2. Atlanta, 2013, p. 896

2013
[10]

Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learn- ing,

S. Laine and T. Aila, “Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learn- ing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02242 , 2016

2016 arXiv
[11]

Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,

A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 30, 2017

2017
[12]

A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,

T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi, and G. Hinton, “A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations,” in International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 1597–1607

2020
[13]

Deep learning-based wafer-map failure pattern recognition framework,

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

2019
[14]

Wafer map defect detection and recognition using joint local and nonlocal linear discriminant analysis,

J. Yu and X. Lu, “Wafer map defect detection and recognition using joint local and nonlocal linear discriminant analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 33–43, 2015

2015
[15]

Active learning of convolutional neural network for cost-effective wafer map pattern classification,

J. Shim, S. Kang, and S. Cho, “Active learning of convolutional neural network for cost-effective wafer map pattern classification,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 258– 266, 2020

2020
[16]

Learning from single-defect wafer maps to classify mixed-defect wafer maps,

J. Shim and S. Kang, “Learning from single-defect wafer maps to classify mixed-defect wafer maps,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 233, p. 120923, 2023

2023
[17]

Efficient mixed-type wafer defect pattern recognition based on light-weight neural network,

G. Deng and H. Wang, “Efficient mixed-type wafer defect pattern recognition based on light-weight neural network,” Micromachines, vol. 15, no. 7, p. 836, 2024

2024
[19]

Self-supervised learning of pretext- invariant representations,

I. Misra and L. v. d. Maaten, “Self-supervised learning of pretext- invariant representations,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2020, pp. 6707–6717

2020
[20]

When wafer failure pattern classification meets few-shot learning and self-supervised learning,

H. Geng, F. Yang, X. Zeng, and B. Yu, “When wafer failure pattern classification meets few-shot learning and self-supervised learning,” in 2021 IEEE/ACM International Conference On Computer Aided Design (ICCAD). IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8

2021
[21]

Unsupervised representation learning for large-scale wafer maps in micro-electronic manufacturing,

Q. Xu, N. Yu, and H. Yu, “Unsupervised representation learning for large-scale wafer maps in micro-electronic manufacturing,” IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics , 2023

2023
[22]

Multiple granularities generative adversarial network for recognition of wafer map defects,

J. Yu and J. Liu, “Multiple granularities generative adversarial network for recognition of wafer map defects,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1674–1683, 2021

2021
[23]

Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere,

T. Wang and P. Isola, “Understanding contrastive representation learning through alignment and uniformity on the hypersphere,” in International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2020, pp. 9929–9939

2020
[24]

Contrastive representation learning: A framework and review,

P. H. Le-Khac, G. Healy, and A. F. Smeaton, “Contrastive representation learning: A framework and review,” Ieee Access , vol. 8, pp. 193 907– 193 934, 2020

2020
[25]

Contrastive learning with hard negative samples,

J. Robinson, C.-Y . Chuang, S. Sra, and S. Jegelka, “Contrastive learning with hard negative samples,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.04592 , 2020

2010 arXiv
[26]

Understanding the behaviour of contrastive loss,

F. Wang and H. Liu, “Understanding the behaviour of contrastive loss,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 2495–2504

2021
[27]

Supervised contrastive learn- ing,

P. Khosla, P. Teterwak, C. Wang, A. Sarna, Y . Tian, P. Isola, A. Maschinot, C. Liu, and D. Krishnan, “Supervised contrastive learn- ing,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 33, pp. 18 661–18 673, 2020

2020
[28]

Wafer map failure pattern recognition and similarity ranking for large-scale data sets,

M.-J. Wu, J.-S. R. Jang, and J.-L. Chen, “Wafer map failure pattern recognition and similarity ranking for large-scale data sets,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2014

2014
[29]

Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,

N. V . Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,” Journal of artificial intel- ligence research, vol. 16, pp. 321–357, 2002

2002

Pith tools

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

[1] [18]

Semi-supervised imbalanced classification of wafer bin map defects using a dual-head cnn,

S. Manivannan, “Semi-supervised imbalanced classification of wafer bin map defects using a dual-head cnn,” Expert Systems with Applications , vol. 238, p. 122301, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [1]

A review study on ml- based methods for defect-pattern recognition in wafer maps,

T. Theodosiou, A. Rapti, K. Papageorgiou, T. Tziolas, E. Papageorgiou, N. Dimitriou, G. Margetis, and D. Tzovaras, “A review study on ml- based methods for defect-pattern recognition in wafer maps,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 217, pp. 570–583, 2023

work page 2023

[3] [2]

Advances in machine learning and deep learn- ing applications towards wafer map defect recognition and classification: a review,

T. Kim and K. Behdinan, “Advances in machine learning and deep learn- ing applications towards wafer map defect recognition and classification: a review,” Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing , pp. 1–33, 2022

work page 2022

[4] [3]

Boosted stacking ensemble machine learning method for wafer map pattern classification

J. Choi, D. Suh, and M.-O. Otto, “Boosted stacking ensemble machine learning method for wafer map pattern classification.” Computers, Ma- terials & Continua , vol. 74, no. 2, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [4]

Wafer map defect patterns semi-supervised classification using latent vector representation,

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

work page 2023

[6] [5]

A light-weight neural network for wafer map classification based on data augmentation,

T.-H. Tsai and Y .-C. Lee, “A light-weight neural network for wafer map classification based on data augmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 663–672, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [6]

Wafer map defect pattern classifi- cation and image retrieval using convolutional neural network,

T. Nakazawa and D. V . Kulkarni, “Wafer map defect pattern classifi- cation and image retrieval using convolutional neural network,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 309– 314, 2018

work page 2018

[8] [7]

An efficient deep learning framework for mixed-type wafer map defect pattern recognition,

H. Sheng, K. Cheng, X. Jin, X. Jiang, C. Dong, and T. Han, “An efficient deep learning framework for mixed-type wafer map defect pattern recognition,” AIP Advances, vol. 14, no. 4, 2024

work page 2024