Test system and data verification method thereof

Abstract

To provide a data verification method for verifying data generated by a test system in order to make sure the test system can use the correct data, and to provide a test system that implements the method.SOLUTION: A test system includes a main control unit having a control host and an analyzer, and a probe member comprising at least one probe-head with multiple probe tips and a cable connected to the analyzer. The probe member is configured to contact a testing circuit of a calibration standard member via the probe tips to perform a calibration process. The method comprises inputting signal source data to the calibration standard member, generating measured uncorrected data, and then verifying the measured uncorrected data by performing relative comparison on any two sets of the measured uncorrected data.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 1

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a test system for data verification, and particularly to a method for verifying data based on relative comparison of test circuit outputs to ensure that the test system can output accurate measurement results.

Background Art

[0002] In the prior art, a test system includes at least one radio-frequency (RF) probe and circuit components for testing the RF electrical characteristics of a device under test (DUT). For example, the test system is an automated device realized by the cooperation of hardware and software used for performing electrical tests, and particularly for the RF characteristics of high-frequency transistors, high-frequency passive components, and millimeter-wave (mmWave) integrated circuits (ICs) or switches of semiconductor devices. However, each RF probe includes the characteristics of the RF circuit itself and inherent RF characteristics, and all of them affect the measurement of the test system. Therefore, how to reduce the influence of the electrical characteristics inherent to the test system has become an important issue.

[0003] In a specific technical solution of the prior art, the influence of radio frequency signals on the measurement results generated by the test system can be reduced by installing shielding elements between the circuit components of the test system or forming a specific shielding structure. Furthermore, the fact that the influence of measurement errors can be quantified means that the measured values of the test system can be corrected.

Summary of the Invention

Problems to be Solved by the Invention

[0004] To provide the test system with accurate and reliable measurement results, we disclose a data verification method and a test system that implements this data verification method, which verify the data generated by the test system and ensure that the test system can use accurate data, as an alternative to the conventional technology. [Means for solving the problem]

[0005] In one embodiment, the test system performs a data verification method, the test system includes a main control unit including a control host and an analyzer, and the probe member including the test system includes at least one probe head having one or more probe tips and at least one cable connected to the analyzer by at least one port. The test system provides calibration standard members, where the probe member is connected to a test circuit of one of the calibration standard members via at least one probe tip and performs a calibration flow of signal source data generated by the control host.

[0006] The test circuit is mounted on a calibration board and connected to one or more probe tips of at least one probe member of the test system.

[0007] In the data verification method performed by the test system, the main control unit inputs signal source data to a calibration standard component having at least two test circuits, then measures the signal source data through at least two test circuits, acquires the measured uncalibrated data, and verifies the measured uncalibrated data by performing a relative comparison between the measured uncalibrated data output by at least two test circuits in the calibration standard component. One of the test circuits can be selected as the reference circuit, and another test circuit can be selected as the test circuit that outputs the measured uncalibrated data to be verified.

[0008] Furthermore, the results of the relative comparison can be used to compare the validation boundary settings, thereby verifying the measured uncalibrated data. These validation boundary settings are adjustable and can be described by a set of frequency-based thresholds or by a range between an upper and lower limit line.

[0009] Before the measured uncalibrated data is validated, the data validation method further includes validating the measured uncalibrated data by comparing it to a raw data boundary setting. The raw data boundary setting is adjustable and can be described by a threshold based on a set of frequencies, or by a range between an upper limit line and a lower limit line.

[0010] In particular, since the at least two test circuits can be selected mainly from AIR test circuits, OPEN test circuits, SHORT test circuits, LOAD test circuits, THROUGH test circuits, and LINE test circuits, it is possible to generate uncalibrated data measured based on the corresponding standard selected from among the AIR standard, OPEN standard, SHORT standard, LOAD standard, THROUGH standard, and LINE standard.

[0011] In the test system, in reflection mode, the analyzer processes the signals received via the signal terminal and ground terminal of at least one probe head of the probe member and at least one port. In transmission mode, the analyzer processes the signals received via the signal terminal and ground terminal of at least one probe head of the probe member and at least two ports.

[0012] Furthermore, the measured uncalibrated data includes a series of frequency responses related to the electrical characteristics of the probe members of the test system, which can be expressed as frequency-based phase or intensity, or as normalized phase or intensity. Furthermore, the series of frequency responses can be represented by a frequency response diagram displayed on the control host's display device.

[0013] The aforementioned validation boundary setting can be used to validate measured uncalibrated data, and the validation boundary setting can be represented by a series of thresholds shown as boundary lines in the frequency response diagram, or by a range between frequency-based upper and lower limit lines.

[0014] Furthermore, the boundary lines, upper limit lines, and / or lower limit lines can be adjusted on the frequency response diagram via computer-enabled adjustment tools. In addition, the boundary lines, upper limit lines, and / or lower limit lines include one line segment having one set of boundary values, or multiple line segments having different sets of boundary values.

[0015] Furthermore, before executing the data validation method, the stability of the test system is first verified by performing a reproducibility verification. In an embodiment of the reproducibility verification, data is first input to a calibration standard member via a probe member of the test system, and then uncalibrated data is repeatedly measured through at least two test circuits of the calibration standard member. In this way, any two measured uncalibrated data obtained by repeated measurements are compared with a reproducibility boundary setting to verify the reproducibility of the measured uncalibrated data.

[0016] Furthermore, in the data validation method, the control host calculates correction data measured by the control host by comparing the ideal dataset with the measured uncalibrated data. In particular, this correction data is used to correct the next measured uncalibrated data to obtain an error term validation dataset. If the difference between the error term validation dataset and the ideal dataset falls within the model data boundary setting, the validation of the correction data is successful. [Effects of the Invention]

[0017] The data verification method and test system for performing the data verification method of the present invention verify the data generated by the test system, ensure that the test system can use accurate data, and provide accurate and reliable measurement results. [Brief explanation of the drawing]

[0018] [Figure 1] It is an explanatory diagram of an embodiment of a test system and its surroundings. [Figure 2A] It is an embodiment diagram of a calibration substrate provided with a test circuit. [Figure 2B] It is an embodiment diagram of a plan view of a probe tip provided with a plurality of contacts for measuring SHORT, LOAD, and AIR standards. [Figure 2C] It is an embodiment diagram of a plan view of a probe tip provided with a plurality of contacts for measuring SHORT, LOAD, and AIR standards. [Figure 2D] It is an embodiment diagram of a plan view of a probe tip provided with a plurality of contacts for measuring SHORT, LOAD, and AIR standards. [Figure 3] It is a flowchart of an embodiment of data measured by a test system. [Figure 4] It is a flowchart of an embodiment for verifying the reproducibility of measured uncalibrated data. [Figure 5] It is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method for verifying data in a test system. [Figure 6] It is an explanatory diagram of an embodiment showing the operating concept of a test system that executes a data verification method. [Figure 7] It is a flowchart of an embodiment for verifying error terms in a data verification method. [Figure 8] It is an explanatory diagram of another embodiment showing the operating concept of a test system. [Figure 9A] It is an embodiment diagram of a reference diagram explaining the frequencies of the non-normalized intensities of S11-AIR, S11-OPEN, S22-AIR, and S22-OPEN parameters. [Figure 9B] It is an embodiment diagram of a frequency response diagram providing two boundary lines for the difference between the S11 and S22 parameters of the intensity measurement values of AIR standard and OPEN standard. [Figure 10] It is an embodiment diagram of a frequency response diagram providing two boundary lines for the difference between the S11 and S22 parameters of OPEN and SHORT standard phase measurements. [Figure 11A]It is an embodiment diagram of a non-normalized phase frequency response diagram for explaining S11-AIR, S11-OPEN, S22-AIR, and S22-OPEN parameters. [Figure 11B] It is an embodiment diagram of a frequency response diagram of two boundary lines for the difference between S11 and S22 parameters measured by AIR standard and OPEN standard. [Figure 12] It is an embodiment diagram of another frequency response diagram of a boundary line for the difference between S11 and S22 parameters measured for OPEN standard strength and LOAD standard strength. [Figure 13] It is an embodiment diagram of a frequency response diagram providing two adjustable boundary lines for the difference between S11 and S22 parameters. [Figure 14] It is another embodiment diagram of a frequency response diagram providing four boundary lines for the difference between S11 and S22 parameters. [Figure 15] It is another embodiment diagram of a frequency response diagram providing two fixed boundary lines and two adjustable boundary lines for the difference between S11 and S22 parameters. [Figure 16] It is an explanatory diagram of an embodiment of a probe head of four probes for connecting a calibration substrate.

Embodiments for Carrying out the Invention

[0019] To further understand the features and technical content of the present invention, the following will refer to the detailed description and drawings related to the present invention. However, the provided drawings are only for reference and explanation and do not limit the present invention.

[0020] The following describes how the present invention can be implemented through specific embodiments, enabling those skilled in the art to understand the advantages and effects of the invention from the disclosures herein. The present invention can also be implemented or applied through other different specific embodiments, and various modifications and changes can be made to the sections of this specification based on different viewpoints and applications without departing from the concept of the invention. Furthermore, the drawings of the present invention are for illustrative purposes only and are not drawn to actual dimensions. The following embodiments describe the relevant technical aspects of the present invention in more detail, but the disclosures do not limit the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0021] Here, terms such as "first," "second," and "third" may be used to describe various components or signals, but these components or signals are not limited to those defined by these terms. These terms are primarily used to distinguish one component from another, or one signal from another. Furthermore, the term "or" used here may include any one or more of the relevant enumerated items, depending on the context.

[0022] Due to shortcomings in prior art, it is impossible to ensure the accuracy of source data provided for measuring a DUT. This disclosure proposes a test system and a data verification method it performs, which allows for verification of the accuracy of source data before performing the test. To ensure accurate measurements when testing a DUT, the test system providing it is required to be able to provide source data that has been verified by passing through at least one verification program beforehand. The main purpose of the data verification method performed by the test system is to verify measured uncorrected data and to ensure that the data generated by the main control unit of the test system is accurate.

[0023] Another objective of the data validation method is to calculate an error term from the validated uncalibrated data, which is used to correct the difference between the ideal dataset and the measured uncalibrated data. The measured uncalibrated data includes a series of frequency responses related to the electrical characteristics of the probe member of the test system, and may be expressed as frequency-based phase or intensity, or as normalized phase or intensity.

[0024] Figure 1 is an explanatory diagram of an embodiment of the test system and its surroundings. The test system includes a main control unit 10 used to control the operation of the test system and, in particular, to generate test data, the main control unit 10 includes a computer-implemented control host 101 and an analyzer 102, the control host 101 operates as a system controller used to generate test data and generate control commands to operate the analyzer 102, the control host 101 can communicate with the analyzer 102 and control the analyzer 102 through signals transmitted via signal lines (such as a GPIB bus). In the embodiments proposed in this disclosure, the analyzer 102 can be implemented as a vector network analyzer (VNA) with a source measure unit (SMU), the analyzer 102 can function as a signal generation and analysis member and is used for data transmission, measurement data reception and measurement analysis.

[0025] In one embodiment, the control host 101 may be provided with a display that shows a screen indicating the operation of the test system or a graphic indicating the measurement results. The display may be any device used to display the operation program of the test system, for example, the control host 101 may be a light-emitting diode display (LED display) or a liquid crystal display (LCD). For example, the measurement results of the test system can be displayed as a frequency response diagram via a graphical user interface (GUI), and the intensity or phase of the frequency response of the data through the test object can be displayed.

[0026] To test the test subject 18 shown in the figure, the analyzer 102 outputs data generated by the control host 101 through at least one port to inspect the electrical characteristics of the test subject 18 located on the main fixture (chuck) 17. Generally, the analyzer 102 outputs a radio frequency (RF) test signal to the test subject 18 through a probe member (such as a radio frequency probe member), which includes at least one cable, at least one probe head, and at least one probe tip. In one embodiment, as shown in the figure, the analyzer 102 provides a first port 121 connected to a first probe head 11 via a first cable 123, and provides a second port 122 connected to a second probe head 12 via a second cable 124.

[0027] The probe heads (first probe head 11, second probe head 12) are provided with at least one probe tip, and the probe member includes at least one probe head having at least one probe tip, and at least one cable connected to the analyzer 102 via at least one port (121, 122). At least one probe tip is used to connect to the calibration substrate of the calibration standard assembly 16 of the calibration chuck 15, and can transmit data generated by the control host 101 to the calibration substrate, and one or more probe tips receive data from the calibration substrate. As shown in the figure, the first probe head 11 includes at least one first probe tip 110, and the second probe head 12 includes at least one second probe tip 120.

[0028] In one embodiment, the analyzer 102 is provided with a memory 103 which can be used to store data processed by the analyzer 102, data received by the analyzer 102, and data to be transmitted to the calibration standard member 16. The data may be measured uncalibrated data, and calibrated data can be stored which has been further corrected by an error term via uncalibrated data measured by a calibration board and an error term calculated by the control host 101.

[0029] The test system can be calibrated via one or more of the above-mentioned calibration standards, enabling the test system to provide accurate measurements before performing tests on the test object 18 placed on the main fixture 17 on the machine base 100. In this embodiment, the calibration standard member 16 is placed on the calibration fixture 15 on the machine base 100, preparing it for the test system to perform calibration, where at least two test circuits are provided on the calibration substrate of the calibration standard member 16, and the probe member of the test system is connected to at least one test circuit via at least one probe tip (first probe tip 110, second probe tip 120) of the probe member, so that the test system can transmit uncalibrated data to at least one test circuit via these probe members and subsequently measure this uncalibrated data.

[0030] During operation of the test system, it can operate in reflection mode and transmission mode. In reflection mode, the analyzer 102 is used to process signals received by the signal terminal and ground terminal of at least one probe head (11, 12) of the probe member and at least one port (121, 122). Similarly, in transmission mode, the analyzer 102 is used to process signals received through the signal terminal and ground terminal of at least one probe head (11, 12) of the probe member and at least two ports (121, 122).

[0031] For example, the control host 101 sends a command to the analyzer 102 to activate reflection mode. In reflection mode, the analyzer 102 transmits uncalibrated data, such as incident data 111 or 113 generated by the control host 101, to at least one test circuit on the calibration board of the calibration standard member 16 via the first port 121 or the second port 122, and then receives uncalibrated data 112 (or 114) measured by the same port (first port 121 or second port 122). On the other hand, the control host 101 sends another command to the analyzer 102 to activate transmission mode. In transmission mode, the analyzer 102 transmits incident data 111 via the first port 121 to at least one test circuit, and further receives uncalibrated data 114 measured by another port (second port).

[0032] Figure 2A shows that the calibration board 20 provided has at least one test circuit, and in one embodiment the calibration board 20 may be a printed circuit board including at least one test circuit, the test circuit consisting of multiple metal wires and multiple electrical contacts, providing a variety of test circuit standards. To achieve relative comparison, at least two test circuits must be placed on the calibration board 20, and the at least two test circuits can be selected from AIR test circuits, OPEN test circuits, SHORT test circuits, LOAD test circuits, THROUGH test circuits, and LINE test circuits. Therefore, when generating the measured uncalibrated data, the corresponding standard measurement can be selected based on the AIR standard, OPEN standard, SHORT standard, LOAD standard, THROUGH standard, and LINE standard to generate the measured uncalibrated data.

[0033] Figures 2B to 2D selectively show explanatory diagrams of embodiments of probe tip sections having multiple contacts corresponding to the SHORT standard, LOAD standard, and AIR standard, respectively. In particular, in the embodiments proposed in this disclosure, the AIR test circuit performs electrical characteristic testing using a radio frequency probe held at a certain distance from the test object.

[0034] Figure 2B shows an explanatory diagram of an embodiment forming a coplanar waveguide type probe tip 30. The probe tip 30 includes a plurality of contacts 211, 212, and 213, and the arrangement of the plurality of contacts 211, 212, and 213 corresponds to the conductive pads of the SHORT test circuit in the SHORT standard.

[0035] In one embodiment, the multiple contacts (211, 212, 213) are a first ground terminal 211, a signal terminal 212, and a second ground terminal 213. These terminals are used to connect to a conductive strip 200 installed on a calibration substrate 20 as shown in Figure 2A, allowing the contacts 211, 212, and 213 on the probe tip 30 to be consistently connected to the conductive pads of the SHORT test circuit.

[0036] Figure 2C illustrates another embodiment of the probe tip 30 having multiple contacts 211, 212, and 213, showing the first ground terminal 211, the signal terminal 212, and the second ground terminal 213, which are the multiple contacts 211, 212, and 213. The contacts 211, 212, and 213 are used to connect three conductive strips that are connected to each other using resistors 204 and 205 (e.g., 100-ohm resistors) of a LOAD test circuit using a LOAD standard. Similarly, conductive strips 201, 202, and 203 can be used to consistently connect the contacts 211, 212, and 213 of the probe tip 30 to the conductive pads of the LOAD test circuit.

[0037] Figure 2D illustrates another embodiment of the probe tip 30 having multiple contacts 211, 212, and 213, the contacts 211, 212, and 213 not connected to any test circuit, in other words, the contacts 211, 212, and 213 are testable according to AIR standards.

[0038] Furthermore, in certain embodiments, the test system uses multiple probes instead of the aforementioned radio frequency probes, and relevant embodiments can be seen in Figure 16, which illustrates an explanatory diagram of an embodiment of a four-probe test system (four-tip probe head) connected to four test circuits on a calibration board.

[0039] For example, Figure 16 shows that the calibration board provides multiple LOAD test circuits, each LOAD test circuit including multiple conductive strips interconnected via resistors, where four probe heads are provided and four probe contacts 161, 162, 163, and 164 suitable for the four probe test systems described above are included and used to connect four groups of conductive strips arranged on the calibration board.

[0040] In the embodiments proposed in this disclosure, the measured uncalibrated data can be verified by a relative comparison between any two measured uncalibrated data output by at least two test circuits of a calibration standard member, and the data verification must be verified by performing the relative comparison in at least two test circuits. The relative comparison requires calculating the difference between two standard measurement results, and the difference may be any combination of two standards such as AIR-OPEN, AIR-SHORT, OPEN-SHORT, OPEN-THROUGH, OPEN-LOAD, SHORT-THROUGH, and SHORT-LOAD.

[0041] For example, when performing a relative comparison of OPEN-SHORT standard measurements, the OPEN dataset and SHORT dataset become available, and the difference between the normalized phase and normalized intensity of these datasets can be calculated. The results obtained from the relative comparison are then compared to a verification boundary setting to verify the measured uncalibrated data. In particular, the verification boundary setting is adjustable and can be described by a set of frequency-based thresholds or a range between an upper and lower limit line. Here, the relative comparison method can identify problems in the test system such as bad contact, dead standard, dead standard, broken probe, damaged cable, not-planarized probe, damaged analyzer port, or measured wrong standard.

[0042] Figure 3 shows a flowchart for verifying the data obtained by the test system before verifying the measured uncalibrated data.

[0043] The control host of the main control unit of the test system outputs data to perform system calibration, the analyzer of the main control unit inputs data into the test circuit of one of the calibration standard components (step S301), and uncalibrated data can be measured from the test circuit (step S303).

[0044] To validate the data, the system first sets a raw data boundary setting, and the control host compares the measured uncalibrated data with the raw data boundary setting (step S305) to validate the measured uncalibrated data (step S307). Here, the raw data boundary setting is adjustable and can be described by a series of thresholds based on frequency or a range between an upper limit line and a lower limit line based on frequency. If the difference between the measured uncalibrated data and the raw data boundary setting exceeds a predetermined range, the data validation fails; conversely, if the difference is within the predetermined range, the data validation is successful.

[0045] Furthermore, before data validation, the system first performs a reproducibility test to confirm the stability of the test system. Figure 4 shows a flowchart of an embodiment in which a reproducibility test is performed on the measured uncalibrated data.

[0046] First, the analyzer inputs data to one of the test circuits of the calibration standard member via the probe member of the test system (step S401), and repeatedly measures the uncalibrated data received from at least two test circuits (step S403). Here, since the analyzer can repeatedly measure multiple times on the same test circuit corresponding to one of the standards, the analyzer can receive measured uncalibrated data obtained from multiple repeated measurements. Subsequently, the control host can calculate the difference between any two measured uncalibrated data obtained by repeated measurements (step S405).

[0047] The aforementioned differences are then compared to a pre-set reproducibility boundary by the test system (step S407), which is adjustable and can be described by a series of frequency-based thresholds or a range between frequency-based upper and lower limits. If the result of the relative comparison falls within a specific range, the reproducibility of the measured uncalibrated data can be verified.

[0048] After the measured uncalibrated data has been verified and / or its reproducibility has been verified, the data input from the analyzer to the test circuit is measured and verification is requested. A flowchart of an embodiment of the data verification method shown in Figure 5 can be referenced.

[0049] The analyzer of the main control unit of the test circuit inputs signal data to at least two calibration standard members of the test circuit (step S501), that is, inputs signal data to any one of the test circuits installed on the calibration board, and the analyzer subsequently measures the data received from the test circuit (step S503). After measuring the signal source data through at least two test circuits, the control host acquires the measured uncalibrated data (step S505) and can perform a relative comparison with the two sets of measured uncalibrated data output to at least two test circuits in the calibration standard member (step S507).

[0050] When performing a relative comparison between any two uncalibrated measured data outputs from at least two test circuits of a calibration standard component, one test circuit can be selected as the reference circuit, and another test circuit different from the reference circuit can be selected as the second test circuit. After comparing the outputs of the reference circuit, the difference can be obtained, and the measured uncalibrated data output from the second test circuit can be verified based on this difference.

[0051] Subsequently, the relative comparison results are output (step S509), and these results are compared with the verification boundary settings pre-set by the above test system (step S511). By comparing the relative comparison results with the verification boundary settings, it is possible to confirm whether the signal source data has been verified (step S513).

[0052] Figure 6 shows an embodiment of the operational concept of a test system that performs a data validation method. To verify the data generated by the test system for testing the DUT, the test system first defines an ideal dataset, such as model 60, as shown in the figure. The test system then defines model data 603 based on the environment of the test system, and the model data 603 operates as an ideal dataset defined considering the electrical characteristics of the environment, which includes, for example, a calibration board 601 with a test circuit and a probe member 602 of the test system. For example, by referring to the data sheet of the calibration board 601 and the frequency characteristics of the probe member 602, the test system can define a suitable model data 603 as an ideal dataset for system verification to test the DUT, perform error term calculation 66, and use it for verification calibration results 68.

[0053] The analyzer 62 stores uncalibrated data 621, error terms 622 obtained by error term calculation 66, and calibrated data 623 in its memory. The analyzer 62 outputs the uncalibrated data 621 to one of the test circuits of the calibration standard members, and the analyzer 62 can then measure the output data of the test circuit to form measured uncalibrated data 621. For example, the measured uncalibrated data 621 is preferably a test result generated by an AIR test circuit, OPEN test circuit, SHORT test circuit, LOAD test circuit, THROUGH test circuit, or LINE test circuit, and correspondingly the measured uncalibrated data may be AIR standard measurement data, OPEN standard measurement data, SHORT standard measurement data, LOAD standard measurement data, THROUGH standard measurement data, or LINE standard measurement data.

[0054] Before the test system is operational, it performs raw data verification 64, which includes repeatability verification 641 and raw data analysis 642 used to verify the data output by the test system. The repeatability verification 641 can be described by referring to the flowchart of the embodiment shown in Figure 4.

[0055] Based on the embodiment, the test system provides an error term verification mechanism used to verify the accuracy of the error term. If the error term (e.g., 10 - 6 = "4") is successfully verified and the difference between the error term verification dataset (e.g., "10'") and the ideal dataset (e.g., "10") falls within the model data boundary setting of the system configuration, the corrected data (e.g., "4") can also be verified. The model data boundary setting can be expressed as a set of thresholds based on frequency, or as a range between an upper and lower limit line based on frequency, and is an adjustable setting. The error term verification dataset is obtained by correcting the measured uncalibrated data (e.g., "6'") with the error term (e.g., "4"), and relevant details can be found in Figure 7.

[0056] According to one embodiment, the test system provides an adjustable boundary line, setting an upper and lower limit line. For example, the upper and lower limit lines can be adjusted on a frequency response diagram via a computer-implemented adjustment tool, and the boundary line, upper limit line, or lower limit line may include a line segment containing one set of boundary lines, or a plurality of line segments having different sets of boundary values.

[0057] In some embodiments, the adjustment tool may be a software function implemented on a computer that adjusts the boundary lines. For example, the adjustment tool may be displayed as a code or a specific image (icon) on a touch panel display, allowing the user to control the adjustment tool via touch, or the user may also control the adjustment tool using other input methods (e.g., a computer mouse or keyboard) to adjust the position and length of the boundary lines in the frequency response diagram.

[0058] Refer to the flowchart of the embodiment of the verification error term shown in Figure 7. As shown in the figure, model data 603 (e.g., "10") is used as the ideal dataset prepared by the system (step S701), the test system inputs the signal source data to the calibration standard member via a probe member (step S703), and the analyzer measures the uncalibrated data (e.g., "6'") received from the calibration standard member via one of the test circuits, and simultaneously verifies the uncalibrated data by reproducibility verification (step S705). The control host then performs raw data analysis, calculating the difference between the ideal dataset (i.e., model data 603 of "10") and the measured uncalibrated data (i.e., "6") to obtain corrected data (i.e., error term), for example, 10-6=4, and if the difference between the ideal dataset (i.e., "10'") and the calibrated data (i.e., "10") falls within the model data boundary setting, the error term is validated successfully. The validated error term can then be used as corrected data for reproducibility verification, raw data verification, and raw data analysis, or for data verification by relative comparison. In this way, the measured uncalibrated data can be corrected with this error term.

[0059] In Figure 7, the test system inputs data from another signal source to a calibration standard component (step S707), the analyzer measures the uncalibrated data (e.g., "6'") received from the calibration standard component having a specific test circuit, and verifies the measured uncalibrated data by comparing it with the raw data boundary setting (step S709). Subsequently, the control host can calculate calibrated data (e.g., "10'") based on the uncalibrated data (e.g., "6'") and error term (e.g., "4") obtained by steps S701 to S709 (step S711). To verify the error term, it is necessary to calculate the difference between the ideal dataset (e.g., "10") and the calibrated data (e.g., "10'") (step S713), and this difference for the error term can be verified by comparing it with the model data boundary setting described above (step S715).

[0060] Therefore, once the error term is verified, the test system can be calibrated by one or more calibration standards having the correction data, based on the accuracy of the error term.

[0061] In addition to the embodiment shown in Figure 6, Figure 8 shows another embodiment diagram illustrating the operational concept of the test system.

[0062] In Figure 8, the calibration verification 80 performed by the test system includes reproducibility verification (801), raw data analysis (802), and golden verification 803 using the error term obtained by error term calculation 66.

[0063] The test system first defines model data 603 (e.g., "10"), then obtains measured uncalibrated data 621 (e.g., "6"), and calculates an error term 622 (e.g., 10 - 6 = "4") which is used to correct the test system by error term calculation 66 based on the model data 603 and the measured uncalibrated data 621.

[0064] When a specified error term (e.g., "4") is derived, the error term is considered to be corrected data for correcting the measured uncalibrated data (e.g., "6'"). However, the error term can be verified through standard validation comparing an error term validation dataset (e.g., "10'") with an ideal dataset (e.g., "10", i.e., model data), thereby confirming the accuracy of the compensated dataset. In particular, the error term validation dataset is based on measured uncalibrated data (e.g., "6'") corrected by the error value (e.g., "4").

[0065] When verifying measured uncalibrated data, the data verification method provides various standard measurements performed by the main control unit of the test system for error term and reproducibility verification. The following drawings illustrate various frequency response diagrams that allow the operator or user to identify these standard measurements (not limiting the scope of the invention) and to check whether the data has been verified. Each frequency response diagram is displayed on a graphical user interface shown on the main control unit and control host displays.

[0066] When measuring radio frequency characteristics, the test system can measure frequency response characteristics based on the S11 or S22 parameters within the target frequency range. The S11 and S22 parameters can be used to represent the return loss and reflection coefficient of the RF equipment. The measurement of these characteristics can be performed using a vector network analyzer (VNA). The purpose of the analyzer, for example, in the test system shown in the figure, is to perform data conversion between the time domain and the frequency domain.

[0067] For example, one can refer to the embodiment diagram in the reference figure 9A, which illustrates the frequency of the denormalized intensity of the S11-AIR, S11-OPEN, S22-AIR, and S22-OPEN parameters, and which describes the measurement results for uncalibrated data output by the AIR test circuit and OPEN test circuit of the calibration standard member.

[0068] Next, refer to the embodiment diagram of the frequency response diagram of the frequency-based normalized intensity shown in Figure 9B. In Figure 9B, the difference in the S11 parameter represents the difference in the S11 parameter of the normalized difference between the AIR standard and the OPEN standard (S11-AIR and S11-OPEN as shown in Figure 9A). Similarly, the difference in the S22 parameter shown in Figure 9B represents the normalized value of the difference between the S22-AIR and S22-OPEN parameters in Figure 9A.

[0069] In the embodiment shown in the figure, two boundary lines are provided for the difference between the S11 and S22 parameters measured for intensity using the AIR standard and the OPEN standard. The dashed line in the figure shows the difference between the S11 parameter measured for intensity using the AIR standard and the OPEN standard, and the solid line shows the difference between the S22 parameter measured for intensity using the AIR standard and the OPEN standard.

[0070] Based on the frequency response diagram shown in the figure, the series of intensity differences validate the uncalibrated data measured in comparison to the validation boundary setting, and in this figure, the upper limit line 901 and lower limit line 902 described by a series of frequency-based thresholds form the validation boundary setting.

[0071] Again, referring to the frequency response diagrams that depict the difference between the S11 and S22 parameters in the OPEN and SHORT standard measurements using the frequency-based phase (normalized phase) shown in Figure 10, the diagrams have two boundary lines, including an upper limit line 1001 and a lower limit line 1002 for the S11 and S22 parameters.

[0072] In this way, the difference between a series of S11 and S22 can be calculated based on the OPEN-SHORT standard used to verify the measured uncalibrated data, and the upper limit line 1001 and the lower limit line 1002 form a range for determining whether the measured uncalibrated data can be verified.

[0073] Figure 11A shows an embodiment of the frequency response diagram of the unnormalized phase of the S11-AIR, S11-OPEN, S22-AIR, and S22-OPEN parameters obtained by measuring the uncalibrated data output from the AIR test circuit and OPEN test circuit of the calibration standard member.

[0074] The frequency response diagram shown in Figure 11B depicts the difference between the measured S11 and S22 parameters for the AIR standard and OPEN standard, described by frequency-based normalized phase. The phase difference of the series of S11 and S22 parameters is used to validate the measured uncalibrated data. The two boundary lines shown in the figure include an upper limit line 1101 near phase 90 and a lower limit line 1102 near phase 0, and are measured at the phases of the AIR standard and OPEN standard.

[0075] In particular, the difference in the S11 parameter in Figure 11B represents the normalized value of the difference between the S11-AIR and S11-OPEN parameters shown in Figure 11A, and similarly, the difference in the S22 parameter in Figure 11B represents the normalized value of the difference between the S22-AIR and S22-OPEN parameters shown in Figure 11A.

[0076] Figure 12 shows another frequency response diagram in which the intensity of uncalibrated data (normalized intensity) based on the frequencies received by the OPEN and LOAD test circuits, respectively, was measured using a calibration standard component, and shows the difference between the S11 and S22 parameters measured at the OPEN standard intensity and the LOAD standard intensity.

[0077] As shown in the frequency response diagram of Figure 12, the upper limit 1201 forms the boundary between the intensity measurements of the OPEN standard and the LOAD standard, providing an evaluation of whether the measured uncalibrated data is validated.

[0078] In particular, one or more of the above boundary settings are adjustable based on actual conditions. For example, the frequency response diagram shown in the figure displays adjustable boundaries in a graphical user interface, allowing the user to adjust the boundaries via input.

[0079] Referring to the embodiment of the frequency response diagram showing two adjustable boundary lines as shown in Figure 13, it is shown that the number of adjustable boundary lines can be increased as needed.

[0080] For example, Figure 13 includes an adjustable upper limit line 1301 and another adjustable lower limit line 1302, and the user can adjust the boundary settings by moving the boundary line terminals displayed on the graphical user interface. Furthermore, if it is necessary to verify uncalibrated data measured under specific circumstances, the user can also add at least one additional boundary line to the figure.

[0081] Figure 14 shows an embodiment of a frequency response diagram having four boundary lines, the four boundary lines being a first upper limit line 1401, a first lower limit line 1402, a second upper limit line 1403, and a second lower limit line 1404, the first upper limit line 1401 and the second upper limit line 1403 can be used to examine the difference in intensity of the upper limits of the S11 and S22 parameters of two different standard test circuits in two different frequency ranges, and the first lower limit line 1402 and the second lower limit line 1404 are used to examine the intensity at the lower limit.

[0082] Figure 15 shows another example of a frequency response diagram, which provides two fixed boundary lines including a first upper limit line 1501 and a first lower limit line 1502, and two adjustable boundary lines including an adjustable second upper limit line 1503 and an adjustable second lower limit line 1504.

[0083] In addition to the fixed boundary lines in the figure (first upper limit line 1501 and first lower limit line 1502), the frequency response diagram provides an adjustable second upper limit line 1503 and an adjustable second lower limit line 1504, allowing the user to adjust the upper and lower limit boundary lines in the latter half of the frequency range.

[0084] According to this, if the difference between any two corresponding S11 and S22 parameters in a standard measurement falls within the range defined by frequency-based boundaries (1501, 1502, 1503, and 1504), the measured uncalibrated data can be considered successfully validated, and the validation boundary settings used therein can be adjusted as needed.

[0085] In summary, unlike conventional test systems that cannot verify the accuracy of data during the calibration flow and require repeating the entire calibration flow to correct the error term when an error is found, the test system provided in this disclosure uses data generated by the main control unit of the test system in the data verification method performed, for the purpose of calibration, and ensures the accuracy of the data through a verification program. Specifically, the provided data verification method is used to verify the raw data (such as uncalibrated data) output by the analyzer of the test system, verifies the reproducibility of the measured uncalibrated data, and obtains an error term to correct the output data by boundary setting. The data verification method performed based on the test system can be corrected by this error term, enabling the test system to obtain accurate electrical characteristics of the object under test using a probe member.

[0086] What is emphasized here is that, through a development system and operating method for customizing automation equipment based on node processes, developers can directly develop automation equipment processes through node process software on the automation equipment machine, then package them to form workflows that can be directly implemented into the automation equipment. In this way, after the workflow is implemented into the automation equipment, the node process software can adjust and optimize control nodes as needed based on real-time data, achieving higher operational efficiency.

[0087] The contents disclosed above are merely preferred embodiments of the present invention and do not limit the scope of the claims of the present invention. Accordingly, any equivalent technical modifications made using the contents of the specification and drawings of the present invention shall be included within the scope of the claims of the present invention. [Explanation of Symbols]

[0088] 10 Main control unit 101 Control Host 102 Analyzer 103 memory 121 Port 1 123 Cable No. 1 122 Port 2 124 Second Cable 11. First probe head 110 First probe tip 12. Second probe head 120 Second probe tip 100 machines 17 Main jig 18 Test subjects 15 Calibration jig 16 Calibration Standard Components 111, 113 Signal source data 112, 114 Measured uncalibrated data 200 Planar conductive strips 211 1st ground terminal 212 signal terminals 213 2nd ground terminal 30 Probe tip 60 Model 601 Calibration board 602 Probe component 603 Model Data 62 Analyzer 621 Uncalibrated data 622 Error term 623 Calibrated data 64. Raw Data Verification 641 Reproducibility Verification 642 Raw Data Analysis 66 Error term calculation 68 Verification and Calibration Results 80 Calibration Verification 801 Reproducibility 802 Raw Data Verification 803 Standard Verification 1101 Upper limit line 1102 Lower limit line 1201 upper limit 1301 Adjustable upper limit line 1302 Adjustable lower limit line 1401 First Upper Limit Line 1402 First lower limit line 1403 Second Upper Limit Line 1404 Second lower limit line 1501 First Upper Limit Line 1502 First lower limit line 1503 Adjustable second upper limit line 1504 Adjustable second lower limit line 161, 162, 163, 164 Probe contacts Steps S301-S307: Validation flow of data measured by the test system. Steps S401-S409: Verification flow for the reproducibility of measured uncalibrated data Steps S501-S513: Data validation flow within the test system Steps S701-S715 Error Term Verification Flow

Claims

1. A data verification method for verifying data from a test system, wherein the method is: The test system's probe component inputs signal source data from the main control unit to a calibration standard component having at least two test circuits. The main control unit acquires the measured uncalibrated data obtained by measuring signal source data with at least two test circuits. The steps include: verifying the measured uncalibrated data by performing a relative comparison with the measured uncalibrated data output from at least two test circuits of the calibration standard member; Includes, A data verification method comprising selecting one of the aforementioned test circuits as a reference circuit, selecting another test circuit as a second test circuit, and verifying the measured uncalibrated data output from the second test circuit.

2. The data verification method according to claim 1, wherein the result of the relative comparison verifies the measured uncalibrated data by comparing it with the verification boundary setting, and before verifying the measured uncalibrated data, the method further comprises the step of comparing the measured uncalibrated data with the raw data boundary setting.

3. The data verification method according to claim 2, wherein the verification boundary setting and the raw data boundary setting are each adjustable and are described by a series of frequency-based thresholds or a range between frequency-based upper and lower limits.

4. The data verification method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the two test circuits is installed on a calibration board and connected to at least one probe tip of at least one probe member of the test system.

5. The data verification method according to claim 4, wherein the measured uncalibrated data includes a series of frequency responses related to the electrical characteristics of the probe member of the test system, and is expressed as a frequency-based phase or intensity.

6. Before the data verification method described above, first, a reproducibility verification is performed to verify the stability of the test system, and the reproducibility verification step is as follows: The probe member of the test system inputs data to the calibration standard member, The uncalibrated data is repeatedly measured using the at least two test circuits of the calibration standard member, The reproducibility of the measured uncalibrated data is verified by comparing any two repeatedly measured uncalibrated data with the reproducibility boundary setting. A data verification method according to claim 1, including the following:

7. The data verification method according to claim 1, wherein the main control unit includes a control host, and the control host calculates correction data measured by the control host by comparing an ideal dataset with the measured uncalibrated data.

8. A test system for performing data validation, A main control unit including a control host and analyzer, A probe member including at least one probe head, Equipped with, The probe head includes at least one probe tip and at least one cable connected to the analyzer. The probe member is connected to one of the test circuits of the calibration standard member by at least one probe tip, and a calibration flow is executed on the signal source data generated by the control host. The test system executes the data verification method by the control host, The test system's probe member inputs signal source data from the main control unit to the calibration standard member having at least two test circuits, The main control unit acquires measured uncalibrated data obtained by measuring signal source data using at least two test circuits. The steps include: verifying the measured uncalibrated data by performing a relative comparison with the measured uncalibrated data output from at least two test circuits of the calibration standard member; Includes, A test system that performs data verification by selecting one of the aforementioned test circuits as a reference circuit, selecting another test circuit as a second test circuit, and verifying the measured uncalibrated data output from the second test circuit.

9. The test system according to claim 8, wherein the results of the relative comparison are compared with the verification boundary setting, the measured uncalibrated data is verified, and the verification boundary setting is adjustable and described by a range between a set of frequency-based thresholds or frequency-based upper and lower limits.

10. In reflection mode, the analyzer processes the signals received via the signal terminal and ground terminal of at least one probe head in the probe member, and at least one port. In transmission mode, the analyzer processes the signals received via the signal terminal and ground terminal and at least two ports of at least one probe head in the probe member, according to claim 8.

11. The test system according to claim 8, wherein the measured uncalibrated data includes a series of frequency responses relating to the electrical characteristics of the probe member of the test system, and is expressed as a frequency-based phase or intensity.

12. The frequency response diagram displayed by the display device of the main control unit represents the series of frequency responses, The test system according to claim 11, wherein the verification boundary setting for verifying the measured uncalibrated data is described by a boundary line represented by a threshold based on a series of frequencies displayed in the frequency response diagram, or by a range between an upper limit line and a lower limit line based on frequencies displayed in the frequency response diagram.

13. The test system according to claim 12, wherein the boundary line, the upper limit line and / or the lower limit line are adjusted in the frequency response diagram by an adjustment tool implemented by a computer.

14. The test system according to claim 13, wherein the boundary line, the upper limit line and / or the lower limit line include one line segment having a set of boundary values, or a plurality of line segments having different sets of boundary values.

15. Before the data verification method described above, first, a reproducibility verification is performed to verify the stability of the test system, and the reproducibility verification step is as follows: The probe member of the test system inputs data to the calibration standard member, The uncalibrated data is repeatedly measured using at least two test circuits of the calibration standard member, The reproducibility of the measured uncalibrated data is verified by comparing any two measured uncalibrated data obtained through repeated measurements with the reproducibility boundary setting. The test system according to claim 8, including the following:

16. The test system according to claim 8, wherein the control host calculates correction data measured by the control host by comparing the ideal dataset with the measured uncalibrated data in the data verification method.

Images