Learning from Limited Data in VLSI CAD

  • Li-C. WangEmail author


Applying machine learning to analyze data from design and test flows has received growing interests in recent years. In some applications, data can be limited and the core of analytics becomes a feature search problem. In this context, the chapter explains the challenges for adopting a traditional machine learning problem formulation view. An adjusted machine learning view is suggested where learning from limited data is treated as an iterative feature search process. The theoretical and practical considerations for implementing such a search process are discussed.



This work is supported in part by National Science Foundation under grant No. 1618118 and in part by Semiconductor Research Corporation with project 2016-CT-2706.

The author would also like to thank his doctoral student Kuo-Kai Hsieh especially for his help on Sects. 13.6.4 and 13.6.5.

This chapter is an extension from author’s prior work “Machine Learning for Feature-Based Analytics,” in Proceeding 2018 International Symposium on Physical Design, pp. 74-81 Ⓒ2018 Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. Reprinted by permission.


  1. 1.
    L.-C. Wang, Experience of data analytics in EDA and test - principles, promises, and challenges. IEEE Trans. CAD 36(6), 885–898 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. Chen, L.-C. Wang, J. Bhadra, Simulation knowledge extraction and reuse in constrained random processor verification, in ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    L.-C. Wang, Data mining in functional test content optimization, in ACM/IEEE Asian South Pacific Design Automation Conference (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G. Drmanac, F. Liu, L.-C. Wang, Predicting variability in nanoscale lithography processes, in ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Chen, B. Bolin, L.-C. Wang, J. Zeng, D. (Gagi) Drmanac, M. Mateja, Mining AC delay measurements for understanding speed-limiting paths, in IEEE International Test Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I. Goodfellow, Y. Benjio, A. Courville, Deep Learning (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2016)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Chen, L.-C. Wang, P.-H. Chang, J. Zeng, S. Yu, M. Metaja, Data learning techniques and methodology for Fmax prediction, in IEEE International Test Conference (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Tikkanen, S. Siatkowski, N. Sumikawa, L.-C. Wang, M.S. Abadir, Yield optimization using advanced statistical correlation methods, in IEEE International Test Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Siatkowski, L.-C. Wang, N. Sumikawa, L. Winemberg, Learning the process for correlation analysis, in IEEE VLSI Test Symposium (2017)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    F. Pedregosa et al., Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2010)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    N. Callegari, D. (Gagi) Drmanac, L.-C. Wang, M.S. Abadir, Classification rule learning using subgroup discovery of cross-domain attributes responsible for design-silicon mismatch, in ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference, 374–379 (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.H. Wolpert, The lack of a priori distinctions between learning algorithms. Neural Comput. 8(7), 1341–1390 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Nero, J. Shan, L.-C. Wang, N. Sumikawa, Concept recognition in production yield data analytics, in IEEE International Test Conference (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Hsieh, L.-C. Wang, W. Chen, J. Bhadra, Learning to produce direct tests for security verification using constrained process discovery, in Design Automation Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K-K. Hsieh, S. Siatkowski, L.-C. Wang, W. Chen, J. Bhadra, Feature extraction from design documents to enable rule learning for improving assertion coverage, in ACM/IEEE Asia South Pacific Design Automation Conference (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    L.G. Valiant, A theory of learnable. Commun. ACM 27(11), 1134–1142 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M.J. Kearns, U. Vazirani, An Introduction to Computational Learning Theory (The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    V. Vapnik, The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory (Springer, New York, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M.J. Kearns, U. Vazirani, Cryptographic limitations on learning Boolean formulae and finite automata. J. ACM 14(1), 67–95 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Daniely, N. Linial, S. Shaleve-Shwartz, From average case complexity to improper learning complexity, in ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (2014), pp. 441–448.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    D.H. Wolpert, The relationship between Occam’s Razor and convergent guessing. Complex Syst. 4, 319–368 (1990)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Pearl, On the connection between the complexity and credibility of inferred models. Int. J. General Syst. 4, 255–264 (1978)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Daniely, S. Shalev-Shwartz, Complexity theoretic limitations on learning DNF’s, in PMLR: Proceeding of Machine Learning Research, vol. 49 (2016), pp. 815–830Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    R. Motwani, P. Raghavani, Randomized Algorithms (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    D. Haussler, Quantifying inductive bias: AI learning algorithms and valiant’s learning framework. Artif. Intell. 36, 177–221 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Y. Ben-Haim, A. Ivrii, O. Margalit, A. Matsliah, Perfect hashing and CNF encodings of cardinality constraints, in International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (Springer, Berlin, 2012), pp. 397–409zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Sinz, Towards an optimal CNF encoding of boolean cardinality constraints, in International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming (Springer, Berlin, 2005), pp. 827–831zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    K. Hsieh, L.-C. Wang, A concept learning tool based on calculating version space cardinality (2018). arXiv:1803.08625v1Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    A. Biere, Lingeling, Plingeling and Treengeling entering the SAT competition, in Proceedings of SAT Competition (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    I. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, J. Bengio, Generative adversarial networks (2014). arXiv:1406.2661Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    A. Radford, L. Metz, S. Chintala, Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks (2016). arXiv:1511.06434v2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations