Interpretable CNN-Based Lithographic Hotspot Detection Through Error Marker Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the technology node develops toward its physical limit, lithographic hotspot detection has become increasingly important and ever-challenging in the computer-aided design (CAD) flow. In recent years, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have achieved great success in hotspot detection. However, the interpretability of their hotspot prediction has yet to be considered. Compared with conventional lithography simulation and pattern matching-based methods, the black-box nature of CNNs wavers their practical applications with confidence. In this article, we propose the first interpretable CNN-based hotspot detector capable of providing high-detection accuracy and reliable explanations for hotspot identification. Specifically, we augment the training dataset with expanded error markers obtained and preprocessed from lithography simulation, which are then learned by an encoder-decoder architecture as intermediate features. We additionally introduce coordinate attention in the encoder to facilitate better-feature extraction. By learning these error markers and part of their surrounding metals as root cause hotspot features, our architecture achieves the highest-hotspot accuracy of 99.78% and the lowest-false positive rate of 5.29% compared to all prior work. Moreover, our method demonstrates the best visual and quantitative interpretability results when applying CNN interpretation methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".