A General Approach for Multivariate Statistical MOSFET Compact Modeling Preserving Correlations

Andr Lange , Christoph Sohrmann , Roland Jancke , Joachim Haase , e Binjie Cheng , Urban Kovac , and Asen Asenov
Fraunhofer

Institute for Integrated Circuits, Design Automation Division, Zeunerstrae 38, 01069 Dresden, Germany (andre.lange,christoph.sohrmann,roland.jancke,joachim.haase)@eas.iis.fraunhofer.de the School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8LT, United Kingdom (binjie.cheng,asen.asenov)@glasgow.ac.uk Gold Standard Simulations Ltd., Rankine Building, Glasgow, G12 8LT, United Kingdom u.kovac@goldstandardsimulations.com

AbstractAs feature sizes shrink, random uctuations gain importance in semiconductor manufacturing and integrated circuit design. Therefore, statistical device variability has to be considered in circuit design and analysis to properly estimate their impact and avoid expensive over-design. Statistical MOSFET compact modeling is required to accurately capture marginal distributions of varying device parameters and to preserve their statistical correlations. Due to limited simulator capabilities, variables are often assumed to be normally distributed. Although correlations may be captured using Principal Component Analysis, such an assumption may be inaccurate. As an alternative, Nonlinear Power Models have been proposed. Since we see some limitations in this approach, we analyze whether the multivariate Generalized Lambda Distribution is an alternative for statistical device modeling. Applying both approaches to extracted statistical device parameters, we conclude that both methods do not differ signicantly in accuracy, but the multivariate Generalized Lambda Distribution is more general and less computationally expensive.

I. I NTRODUCTION Integrated circuit variability has become a major issue in semiconductor manufacturing [1][3]. While differences from chip to chip due to non-uniformities in the manufacturing process have been known for years, shrinking dimensions in combination with discreetness of charge and matter have lead to random atomic-level variability in current semiconductor technology nodes. Random dopant uctuation, line edge roughness, as well as random grain granularity are examples for such effects which will become increasingly important in the future [4]. In this work, we therefore focus on statistical variability. As the basis for circuit design and analysis, device models are required to contain statistical variability. However, a standard procedure for statistical compact modeling has not yet been established. For the industry-standard transistor models BSIM4 [5] and PSP [6], research activities have shown that random device uctuations may be mapped to 7 partially correlated device parameters as a good trade-off between accuracy and computational cost [7]. From a statistical point of

view, the correct description of all interdependencies requires a fully multivariate description. This means 1) marginal distributions have to be well approximated and 2) correlations need to be preserved. In an early work, Gaussian tting and Principal Component Analysis have been applied [7]. In particular concerning the tails of device model parameter distributions, Gaussian approximations have been inaccurate introducing considerable errors in circuit simulations [7], [8]. Alternative statistical compact modeling strategies have been outlined as an important research topic. An approach to address the accuracy of marginal distributions is the Nonlinear Power Model (NPM) [9]. Extended to multivariate modeling, it has been applied in a 7-parameter statistical PSP model [8]. Distributions of device model parameters have been well approximated resulting in an increased accuracy in circuit simulation shown on electrical transistor characteristics, such as the threshold voltage Vth and the on-current Ion , as well as inverter delay times. However, the NPM approach has some limitations. Therefore we present a more general method for multivariate modeling using rank correlations [10], [11]. We approximate marginal distributions using the Generalized Lambda Distribution (GLD) [12] which has been applied to distributions of standard cell performance characteristics [13]. The remainder of this work is organized as follows. We discuss the theoretical background and previous work in Section II, before we apply the NPM and GLD approaches to device model data in Section III. The statistical models are applied to circuit simulation in Section IV and Section V nally concludes our work. II. T HEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND P REVIOUS W ORKS A. Probability Basics When considering an m-dimensional random variable X, we may focus on an arbitrary component Xi or on the interdependency between the components Xi and Xj .

978-1-4577-0708-7/11/$26.00 2011 IEEE

163

characteristics i,k (k {1, 2, 3, 4}) has to be solved to determine the coefcients ai,k . Generating a random sample of standard Gaussian variates Zi and applying (4) yields a random sample of the variable Xi . When considering two correlated random components Xi and Xj , their product-moment correlation coefcient cXi,Xj has to be transformed to the standard Gaussian variables Zi and Zj . Inserting the coefcients from (4) leads to a third order polynomial in cZi,Zj [14]
cXi,Xj
Fig. 1. Validity of probability distributions due to moments i,3 and i,4 ; adapted from [12] and [13]

(ai,1 aj,1 + 3 ai,1 aj,3 + 3 ai,3 aj,1 +9 ai,3 aj,3 ) cZi,Zj +2 ai,2 aj,2 c2 Zi,Zj +6 ai,3 aj,3 c3 Zi,Zj .

(5)

This polynomial has to be solved for all combinations of two components of the m-dimensional random variable X to complete the statistical model. It consists of the NPM parameter set ai,k (k {0, 1, 2, 3}) for each marginal distribution Xi and the (mm) correlation matrix CZ with CZ (i, j) = cZi,Zj . 3 i,1 = i = E [Xi ] i,3 = E (Xi i )3 /i Random sampling from the multivariate NPM model fol2 4 i,2 = i = E (Xi i )2 i,4 = E (Xi i )4 /i , lows a two-step algorithm. 1) Generate an m-dimensional sample of standard Gaussian with the expected value E [.], provide information about the variates with the correlation matrix CZ . Correlated distribution. While the mean value i and the standard deviaGaussian sampling is usually available in state-off-thetion i dene the location and the spread of the distribution, art statistical software. its shape is determined by the skew i,3 and the kurtosis i,4 . 2) Apply (4) to determine the marginal distributions for all Probability theory shows that a valid distribution is constrained components Xi . by the inequality [12] However, the NPM approach has some drawbacks. It has been 2 i,3 + 1 i,4 . (1) reported that a one dimensional NPM is not able to capture Typical values for the Gaussian and the log normal distri- the whole range of possible distribution shapes determined bution, as well as the impossible region given by (1) are by skew i,3 and kurtosis i,4 [9], [15]. However, simply exchanging the approximation of marginal distributions is illustrated in Fig. 1. Interdependencies between the random variables Xi and hardly possible due to the particular method of preserving Xj are often expressed by the product-moment correlation correlations within the NPM. coefcient C. Correlated Multivariate Sampling in General E [(Xi i ) (Xj j )] A general approach for correlated multivariate sampling . (2) cXi,Xj = corr[Xi , Xj ] = i j from a multidimensional random variable X requires two The distribution of a single random component Xi is described by its probability density function (PDF) fXi (xi ), its cumulative distribution function (CDF) FXi (xi ), or its quantile 1 function QXi = FXi . Furthermore, the characteristics The rank correlation coefcient, rXi,Xj = corr [rk(Xi ), rk(Xj )] , (3) prerequisites to be fullled [10], [11]: 1) The marginal distributions of the components Xi have to be known in terms of their quantile functions QXi . 2) Correlations need to be available as a rank correlation matrix RX . Both items may be determined using samples of training data. Then, the following algorithm provides multivariate sampling [11]: 1) Convert the correlation matrix RX into a correlation matrix CZ applying RX (i, j) . (6) CZ (i, j) = 2 sin 6 2) Create samples of an m-dimensional Gaussian variable Z with the correlation matrix CZ . 3) Convert the Gaussian components into uniform components applying the standard Gaussian CDF Ui = (Zi ) such that Ui U (0, 1).

is an alternative that replaces the unscaled values of Xi and Xj by their ranks rk(Xi ) and rk(Xj ), i.e. their position when the sample is ordered. For simplicity, correlation coefcients are often summarized in the (mm) correlation matrix CX with CX (i, j) = cXi,Xj or RX with RX (i, j) = rXi,Xj . B. The Nonlinear Power Method The Nonlinear Power Model describes a random variable Xi as a polynomial of the standard Gaussian distribution Zi N (0, 1). Usually, a polynomial of 3rd order,
2 3 Xi = ai,0 + ai,1 Zi + ai,2 Zi + ai,3 Zi

(4)

with the coefcients ai,k (k {0, 1, 2, 3}), approximates nonnormal distributions [8], [9]. A nonlinear equation system built up by matching theoretical and empirical distribution

164

4) Calculate the values Xi using the marginal quantile functions, Xi = QXi (Ui ). From our point of view, this approach has some advantages in comparison to multivariate NPM. First, approximations of marginal distributions and handling of correlations do not interact. Without changing the principle sampling algorithm, this enables exchanging the description of marginal distributions as long as the quantile functions QXi are available. Since the quantile function of NPM is not explicitly known, it does not t this general algorithm. By choosing an adequate description for the marginal distributions, we are able to accurately approximate distributions of extreme shapes that are not supported by NPM. Second, the general approach uses the rank correlation matrix RX and analytically transforms it to the sampling correlation matrix CZ using (6) which is computationally less intense than applying (5) for NPM. D. The Generalized Lambda Distribution The GLD is an approach to model marginal distributions of different shapes. It is dened by the quantile function [12] 1 u i,3 (1 ui ) i,4 (7) xi = QXi (ui ) = i,1 + i,2 i with 0 ui 1 and the parameters i,k (k {1, 2, 3, 4}). While the location parameter i,1 may be any real number, the scale parameter i,2 as well as the shape parameters i,3 and i,4 may not be arbitrarily set to achieve a valid distribution. Considering the distribution shape, a GLD may be found if the relation 2 1.8 i,3 + 1 i,4 (8) is fullled [12]. In Fig. 1, it is illustrated that the region of valid probability distributions is not completely covered by the GLD. However, the remaining gap is approximately the same as for NPM [15] so that we do not expect large differences applying NPM and GLD. GLD tting matches theoretical and empirical quantiles or distribution characteristics i,k (k {1, 2, 3, 4}). Both approaches require a nonlinear equation system to be solved. Hence, the computational effort for tting marginal distributions should not differ signicantly between NPM and GLD. Although we are aware that GLD dened in (7) may not be the optimum approximation for marginal distributions, we apply it to multivariate compact modeling in this work. Nevertheless, future research may be required to close the gap shown in Fig. 1. III. A PPLICATION TO M ULTIVARIATE S TATISTICAL D EVICE M ODELING Our test devices are polygate 35 nm square NMOS and PMOS transistors. The Glasgow atomistic 3D drift-diffusion simulator analyzed N = 200 microscopically different samples of both devices. Their characteristics are mapped to BSIM4 device models whereas 7 device parameters capture variability. They are [16] the long-channel threshold voltage at zero body bias (vth0), the zero-bias source and drain resistance (rdsw), the subthreshold swing factor (nfactor), the offset voltage in

TABLE I PMOS: R ESULTS OF A NDERSON -DARLING TESTS FOR NORMALITY AND KOLMOGOROV-S MIRNOV GOODNESS OF FIT TESTS FOR NPM AND GLD Model Anderson-Darling test KS test Parameter for normality NPM GLD vth0 accept feasible feasible rdsw reject feasible feasible nfactor reject feasible feasible voff accept feasible feasible u0 reject feasible feasible dsub reject feasible feasible vsat reject feasible feasible

Fig. 2. Histogram and PDF plots of device parameter distributions; (a) NMOS low-eld mobility (u0); (b) PMOS zero-bias source and drain resistance (rdsw)

Fig. 3. Scatter plots of statistical NMOS parameters; black: empirical data; red: NPM; green: GLD

subthreshold regime (voff), the low-eld carrier mobility (u0), the coefcient for drain-induced barrier lowering (dsub), and the saturation velocity (vsat). We evaluate NPM and GLD modeling applying the principles from Section II to raw device model parameters. As a comparison, we also approximate data by Gaussian distributions. Anderson-Darling tests for normality and KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) goodness of t tests [17] for NPM and GLD quantitatively check whether the approximations are feasible. Since the results for NMOS and PMOS are very similar, we present only examples. Summarized in Tab. I, the test results for PMOS data exemplarily indicate that while NPM and GLD well describe raw data, Gaussian tting is only feasible for vth0 and voff due to not capturing distribution skewness and kurtosis. This is further illustrated by the PDF plots in Fig. 2. To check whether correlations are captured by our statistical models, we draw random samples of the size N = 200. Comparing rank correlation matrices shows a good matching

165

Fig. 4. PP plots of (a) inverter delay distributions and (b) ring oscillator frequency and leakage power distributions

between raw data as well as NPM and GLD model data. The NMOS data in the scatter plots in Fig. 3 indicate that both compact modeling methods preserve correlations. IV. A PPLICATION IN C IRCUIT S IMULATION We apply the NPM and GLD modeling approaches to the simulation of two example circuits. We analyze inverter delay for xed output load and input transition time as well as frequency and leakage power of a three-stage ring oscillator. We only consider statistical variability and assume devices to be uncorrelated. Raw device extraction data of the sample size N = 200 is our reference. Random permutations of device extraction data sets generate uncorrelated n-channel and p-channel transistors. From the NPM and GLD models, we draw samples of the size N = 20000 for each transistor to run statistical analyses. Fig. 4 illustrates the distributions of the gures of merit. Both compact modeling approaches, NPM and GLD, well represent circuit simulation results using raw extraction data and prove applicable to multivariate statistical device modeling without causing considerable errors in circuit simulations. Two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests quantitatively underline that delay, frequency, and leakage power distributions using raw extraction data and both compact modeling methods do not differ signicantly. V. C ONCLUSIONS AND O UTLOOK In this work we have discussed approaches for multivariate statistical device modeling. While Nonlinear Power Models (NPM) had already been applied successfully [8], we consider the multivariate extension of Generalized Lambda Distributions (GLD) to be an alternative. Both methods approximate marginal distributions of multiple shapes and preserve correlations. Both NPM and GLD are dened by four parameters and tting marginal distributions requires a four-dimensional nonlinear equation system to be solved. Unfortunately, the models do not cover the whole range of possible distribution shapes, but NPM and GLD rarely differ in this point. To capture correlations in NPM, the polynomial (5) needs to be solved for all combinations of random components. In contrast, the multivariate extension of the GLD uses rank correlations, a computationally less expensive approach. This method is more general since marginal distributions may be exchanged to

a great extend without affecting the principle algorithm for generating the multivariate model and sampling. Both compact modeling approaches have been applied to statistical BSIM4 device parameters. Marginal distributions and correlations have been represented without considerable errors whereas Gaussian approximations have been infeasible in some cases. NPM and GLD models have been used in statistical circuit simulations to analyze inverter delay as well as ring oscillator frequency and leakage power. Statistical tests have not shown signicant differences when using raw device extraction data and multivariate NPM or GLD modeling such that both methods appear to be practically applicable. Nevertheless, there are still open issues. Methods to approximate a broad class of marginal distributions as they occur in statistical compact modeling are an important research topic. Furthermore, to additionally account for process variability, correlations between transistors of the same as well as different type need to be included. We have shown that the discussed approaches, NPM and GLD, are a good basis for future research in multivariate compact modeling. Due to its universality and lower resource requirements we consider the rank correlation method combined with GLD a more convenient candidate. R EFERENCES
[1] European EDA Roadmap 2009, http://www.catrene.org [2] International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, 2009 Edition, http://www.itrs.net [3] J. Lorenz et. al., Hierarchical Simulation of Process Variations and their Impact on Circuits and Systems - Methodology, accepted for publication in the IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, August 2011 [4] A. Cathignol et. al., Quantitative Evaluation of Statistical Variability Sources in a 45-nm Technological Node LP N-MOSFET, IEEE Electron Device Letters, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2008. [5] http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/bsim3/bsim4.html [6] http://pspmodel.asu.edu [7] B. Cheng et. al., Statistical-Variability Compact-Modeling Strategies for BSIM4 and PSP, IEEE Design & Test of Computers, Vol. 27, Issue 2, 2010. [8] U. Kovac et. al., A Novel Approach to the Statistical Generation of Non-normal Distributed PSP Compact Model Parameters using a Nonlinear Power Method, International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (SISPAD), 2010. [9] A.I. Fleishman, A Method for Simulating Non-Normal Distributions, Psychometrika, Vol. 43, No. 4, 1978. [10] P.L. Fackler, Modeling Interdependence: An Approach to Simulation and Elicitation, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 73, Number 4, 1991. [11] K.-K. Phoon et. al., Simulation of non-Gaussian processes using fractile correlation, Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics 19, 2004. [12] Z. A. Karian and E. J. Dudewicz, Fitting Statistical Distributions: The Generalized Lambda Distribution and Generalized Bootstrap Methods, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2000. [13] A. Lange, J. Haase, and H. Mau, Fitting Standard Cell Performance to Generalized Lambda Distributions, Great Lakes Symposium on VLSI (GLSVLSI), 2011. [14] D.C. Vale and V.A. Maurelli, Simulating multivariate nonnormal distributions, Psychometrika, Vol. 48, No. 3, 1983. [15] P.R. Tadikamalla, On simulating non-normal distributions, Psychometrika, Vol. 45, No. 2, 1980. [16] T.H. Morshed et. al., BSIM4.6.4 MOSFET Model Users Manual, http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/ bsim3/BSIM4/BSIM464/ BSIM464 Manual.pdf. [17] M.A. Stephens, EDF Statistics for Goodness of Fit and Some Comparisons, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 69, No. 347, 1974.

166