Next Article in Journal
The Cryptographic Complexity of Anonymous Coins: A Systematic Exploration
Next Article in Special Issue
Grid Cyber-Security Strategy in an Attacker-Defender Model
Previous Article in Journal
TRNGs from Pre-Formed ReRAM Arrays
Previous Article in Special Issue
Electromagnetic and Power Side-Channel Analysis: Advanced Attacks and Low-Overhead Generic Countermeasures through White-Box Approach
Article

Why Is Deep Learning Challenging for Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Component Recognition and How Can We Address It?

Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 19 January 2021 / Revised: 5 February 2021 / Accepted: 10 February 2021 / Published: 1 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in Hardware Security)
In this paper, we present the need for specialized artificial intelligence (AI) for counterfeit and defect detection of PCB components. Popular computer vision object detection techniques are not sufficient for such dense, low inter-class/high intra-class variation, and limited-data hardware assurance scenarios in which accuracy is paramount. Hence, we explored the limitations of existing object detection methodologies, such as region based convolutional neural networks (RCNNs) and single shot detectors (SSDs), and compared them with our proposed method, the electronic component localization and detection network (ECLAD-Net). The results indicate that, of the compared methods, ECLAD-Net demonstrated the highest performance, with a precision of 87.2% and a recall of 98.9%. Though ECLAD-Net demonstrated decent performance, there is still much progress and collaboration needed from the hardware assurance, computer vision, and deep learning communities for automated, accurate, and scalable PCB assurance. View Full-Text
Keywords: hardware assurance; PCB assurance; reverse engineering; bill of materials; AutoBoM; automated optical inspection; automatic visual inspection hardware assurance; PCB assurance; reverse engineering; bill of materials; AutoBoM; automated optical inspection; automatic visual inspection
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Mallaiyan Sathiaseelan, M.A.; Paradis, O.P.; Taheri, S.; Asadizanjani, N. Why Is Deep Learning Challenging for Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Component Recognition and How Can We Address It? Cryptography 2021, 5, 9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryptography5010009

AMA Style

Mallaiyan Sathiaseelan MA, Paradis OP, Taheri S, Asadizanjani N. Why Is Deep Learning Challenging for Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Component Recognition and How Can We Address It? Cryptography. 2021; 5(1):9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryptography5010009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mallaiyan Sathiaseelan, Mukhil A., Olivia P. Paradis, Shayan Taheri, and Navid Asadizanjani. 2021. "Why Is Deep Learning Challenging for Printed Circuit Board (PCB) Component Recognition and How Can We Address It?" Cryptography 5, no. 1: 9. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/cryptography5010009

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop