1. Implementation Details
For evaluation, we used the ISCAS'85 benchmark circuits in conjunction with the Atalanta
automatic test pattern generator (ATPG) [16] and the FSIM fault simulator [17]. The dataset consists of test patterns as inputs and corresponding labels with the
number of stuck-at faults detected by each pattern. Moreover, regression models were
trained using the Adam optimizer [18] with a learning rate of 1e-4 for 200 epochs and a batch size of 32. All spectral
images were resized to a fixed resolution of $28\times 28$ to ensure uniform input
dimensions for the CNNs. The objective was to predict the number of detected faults
for each test pattern based on the spectral images. We propose a lightweight CNN,
which consists of two convolutional layers with $3\times 3$ kernels and ReLU activation
functions, each followed by $2\times 2$ max pooling. The convolutional layers are
followed by a fully connected layer with 128 hidden dimensions and a single output
dimension. The term Proposed in the experimental results refers to the CNN described
above. The accuracy metric used in this study quantifies the agreement between the
CNN regres-sion outputs and the ground-truth fault expectations. Eq. (1) defines the accuracy as follows:
where $N$ is the number of test patterns, $V^y_i$ denotes the ground-truth expected
fault count for the $i$-th test pattern, and $V^{pred}_i$ is the predicted value generated
by the CNN-based regression model.
2. Experimental Results and Analysis
To assess the effectiveness of the proposed method for adaptive testing, extensive
experiments were conducted across the circuits. The experiments aim to investigate
three key aspects: (1) the impact of FFT dimensionality on model performance, (2)
the effectiveness of multi-channel spectral images, and (3) the competitive-ness of
the proposed lightweight CNN in comparison with MLP and conventional CNNs.
First, we compared the impact of 1-D FFT and 2-D FFT in the conversion of single-channel
spectral images derived from the magnitude part. 1-D FFT refers to the FFT using the
1-D test pattern during the conversion of spectral images, excluding the reshaping
process. Both images were used to train CNNs with the same hyperparameters. As shown
in Table 1, using the 2-D FFT for spectral image conversion resulted in improved model performance
across all circuits. The average prediction accuracy increased from 94.92% to 95.20%,
showing a gain of 0.28%. These results suggest that spectral images using 2-D FFT
offer richer spatial and frequency-domain features, which allow the CNN to extract
more informative representations for fault prediction. Therefore, the 2-D FFT was
used in all subsequent experiments.
Second, we compared the impact of single-channel and multi-channel spectral images.
The single-channel spectral images include only the magnitude, while the multi-channel
images incorporate magnitude, real, and imaginary parts from the FFT result. Table 2 shows comparative results across circuits when using single-channel 2-D spectral
images and multi-channel 2-D spectral images. Contrary to the hypothesis in Section
II, the single-channel spectral images achieved higher prediction accuracy overall.
Specifically, the single-channel spectral images achieved 94.93% prediction accuracy,
while the multi-channel spectral images achieved 94.42% accuracy, representing a performance
drop of 0.51%. One explanation for these results is that the magnitude, real, and
imaginary parts are highly correlated. Therefore, the correlation between these parts
may introduce redundant information into the input, limiting the ability to benefit
from additional channels. As shown in Fig. 4, the model using multichannel spectral images initially achieved higher prediction
accuracy during early epochs. However, the performance converged and eventually declined
compared to the model using single-channel spectral images, suggesting that excessive
representation similarity across channels may interfere with robust learning. Therefore,
the 2-D FFT and single-channel configuration was used in all subsequent experiments.
Lastly, we compared the proposed CNN with MLP and conventional CNNs in terms of model
complexity and computational efficiency. The evaluation includes VGG16, ResNet20,
and MobileNetV3, which are widely adopted as baselines in image-based deep learning
tasks, as well as MLP. In addition, the number of trainable parameters and floating-point
operations per second (FLOPs) were used as metrics for comparison. As shown in Table 1, the proposed model consists of 0.42M parameters and requires 2.28 MFLOPs. In contrast,
MobileNetV3, which is optimized for lightweight applications, requires 2.97M parameters
and 18.64 MFLOPs. VGG16 and ResNet20 require 0.61M and 0.27M parameters, respectively,
but their computational costs remained higher than that of the proposed model. Furthermore,
MLP requires 40$\times $ more parameters and nearly 30$\times $ more MFLOPs than the
proposed model. These results demonstrate that the proposed CNN achieves an optimal
trade-off between the number of parameters and computational costs. In addition, Table 4 shows a comparison of the prediction accuracy of each model when trained with single-channel
spectral images using 2-D FFT. The proposed model achieved the highest average accuracy
of 95.20% across circuits. In contrast, MobileNetV3 achieved 94.06%, while VGG16 and
ResNet20 showed significantly lower average accuracies of 84.46% and 81.33%, respectively.
These results suggest that the performance is not directly proportional to architectural
complexity or the number of parameters. MLP showed an average accuracy of 92.71% but
required significantly more parameters and computational cost than both conventional
CNNs and the proposed model, as shown in Table 1. As a result, converting test patterns into spectral images using the FFT proved
effective for adaptive testing. Moreover, the use of a lightweight CNN enabled high
predictive performance while requiring fewer parameters and computational resources
compared to more complex models. These results demonstrate that the combination of
FFT-based spectral image conversion and lightweight CNNs offers a scalable and efficient
approach for adaptive testing.
Fig. 4. Training graphs of models using multi-channel and single channel based spectral
images.
Table 1. Experimental results of converting test patterns using 1-D FFT and 2-D FFT.
|
Method
|
Circuit
|
Average
|
|
c432
|
c499
|
c880
|
c1908
|
c2670
|
c3540
|
c5315
|
c6288
|
c7552
|
|
1-D
|
95.85
|
95.56
|
96.00
|
95.85
|
95.89
|
95.65
|
93.99
|
90.71
|
94.79
|
94.92
|
|
2-D
|
96.20
|
96.81
|
95.91
|
96.25
|
96.14
|
95.81
|
93.87
|
90.71
|
95.10
|
95.20
|
Table 2. Experimental results of converting test patterns using single-channel and
multi-channel spectral images.
|
Method
|
Circuit
|
Average
|
|
c432
|
c499
|
c880
|
c1908
|
c2670
|
c3540
|
c5315
|
c6288
|
c7552
|
|
Single
|
96.20
|
96.81
|
95.91
|
96.25
|
96.14
|
95.81
|
93.87
|
90.71
|
95.10
|
95.20
|
|
Multi
|
96.03
|
95.81
|
95.57
|
95.80
|
95.44
|
95.44
|
93.91
|
90.71
|
94.45
|
94.80
|
Table 3. Comparison of the parameters and computational costs of each model. Term
VGG, Res, and Mobile refer to VGG16, ResNet20, and MobileNetV3, respectively.
|
Metric
|
Model
|
|
VGG
|
Res
|
Mobile
|
MLP
|
Proposed
|
|
Params
|
0.61M
|
0.27M
|
2.97M
|
17.66M
|
0.42M
|
|
FLOPs
|
3.78M
|
3.89M
|
18.64M
|
67.73M
|
2.28M
|
Table 4. Experimental results of CNNs on ISCAS '85 benchmark circuits.
|
Method
|
Circuit
|
Average
|
|
c432
|
c499
|
c880
|
c1908
|
c2670
|
c3540
|
c5315
|
c6288
|
c7552
|
|
VGG16
|
97.33
|
78.09
|
88.88
|
81.06
|
86.76
|
86.11
|
83.93
|
87.56
|
80.46
|
84.46
|
|
ResNet20
|
83.96
|
71.23
|
85.90
|
78.58
|
93.80
|
82.81
|
81.59
|
86.67
|
77.45
|
81.33
|
|
MobileNetV3
|
95.78
|
94.53
|
94.70
|
94.04
|
95.45
|
94.87
|
93.36
|
89.99
|
93.78
|
94.06
|
|
MLP
|
98.04
|
84.46
|
99.28
|
83.87
|
98.23
|
99.37
|
92.54
|
88.28
|
90.36
|
92.71
|
|
Proposed
|
96.20
|
96.81
|
95.91
|
96.25
|
96.14
|
95.81
|
93.87
|
90.71
|
95.11
|
95.20
|