pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16597 · v1 · pith:QPV2VV5Anew · submitted 2026-05-15 · ⚛️ physics.ins-det

A Heavy Ion Monitor on a Chip Based on a Non-Volatile Memory Architecture -- Part II: Device Characterization & Modeling

Dale Julson , Mike Youngs , Hannah Lowrey , David Keltner , Tim Hossain , Clayton Fullwood This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 20:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.ins-det
keywords heavy ion monitornon-volatile memorythreshold voltage shiftradiation dosimetrycharge trappingion irradiationdevice modelingpassive detector
0
0 comments X

The pith

A non-volatile memory chip detects heavy ions by registering threshold voltage shifts that match detailed simulations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests a heavy ion monitor on a chip made from non-volatile memory technology. It exposes the device to specific heavy ion beams and measures resulting shifts in threshold voltage. A new simulation method that links particle transport calculations to electronic device simulation reproduces the observed voltage shift patterns. The device output grows in proportion to the combined effect of how many ions hit it, how much energy they deposit, and the size of the active area. These findings position the chip as a straightforward, power-free way to track heavy ion radiation exposure.

Core claim

Building on prior sensitivity demonstrations, this work shows good agreement between simulated and experimental threshold-voltage shift distributions after exposure to heavy ion beams. A coupled simulation workflow models the energy deposition from primary ions and secondary electrons as Gaussian charge-loss profiles within the device structure. The resulting signal in the HIMoC scales approximately linearly with ion fluence times LET times active area, confirming its utility as a passive heavy-ion dosimeter and providing a modeling framework for radiation-induced charge loss in charge-trapping memory.

What carries the argument

Coupled particle transport and TCAD simulation workflow that represents heavy-ion energy deposition and secondary electrons as Gaussian charge-loss profiles.

If this is right

  • The HIMoC device can serve as a passive heavy-ion dosimeter in power-constrained settings.
  • Simulations can forecast device response for untested ion types or energies.
  • The linear relationship enables straightforward conversion of measured signals into exposure estimates.
  • The modeling technique applies to understanding radiation effects in similar charge-trapping memory structures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This technology might allow embedding radiation sensing into standard electronics for real-time monitoring.
  • Future work could test the device in mixed radiation environments to assess selectivity.
  • The Gaussian profile assumption might be validated or refined by comparing to direct charge collection measurements.

Load-bearing premise

Heavy ion energy deposition and secondary electron effects can be captured sufficiently by Gaussian charge loss profiles in the device model without needing extra adjustable parameters specific to each ion or device.

What would settle it

Experimental threshold voltage shift distributions obtained from a different heavy ion species or energy that show poor agreement with predictions from the Gaussian charge-loss model without any parameter retuning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16597 by Clayton Fullwood, Dale Julson, David Keltner, Hannah Lowrey, Mike Youngs, Tim Hossain.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (Left) shows the three-dimensional mesh used to simulate the relationship between applied gate voltage and drain current, Vg–Id, which underlies the HIMoC sensing mechanism. Simulated trapped-charge configurations were placed within the thin regions labeled “Source Bit” and “Drain Bit” in the mesh. Importantly, the model was able to reproduce the two-bit effect, in which the threshold-voltage shift of each… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Building on the demonstrated sensitivity of the Heavy Ion Monitor on a Chip (HIMoC) presented in Part I of this work, we performed additional irradiation exposures using 24.8 MeV/u beams of $^{14}$N, $^{22}$Ne, and $^{40}$Ar at the Texas A&M University Cyclotron Institute. A novel simulation workflow was developed that couples the particle-transport toolkit Geant4 with the open-source TCAD simulator DEVSIM to model the heavy-ion-induced signal in HIMoC devices. The model represents energy deposition by primary heavy ions and secondary electrons as Gaussian charge-loss profiles that produce measurable threshold-voltage shifts in the device. Good agreement between simulated and experimental $\Delta V_{\mathrm{th}}$ distributions was obtained. HIMoC was also shown to generate a signal that scales approximately linearly with a dose-like quantity proportional to ion fluence, LET, and active detector area. These results support HIMoC as a passive heavy-ion dosimeter and provide a framework for modeling the effects of radiation-induced charge loss in charge-trapping non-volatile memory devices.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports device characterization of the Heavy Ion Monitor on a Chip (HIMoC) using 24.8 MeV/u beams of 14N, 22Ne, and 40Ar at Texas A&M. It introduces a simulation workflow coupling Geant4 particle transport with the DEVSIM TCAD simulator, representing primary-ion and secondary-electron energy deposition via Gaussian charge-loss profiles that induce threshold-voltage shifts. The work claims good agreement between simulated and experimental ΔV_th distributions and demonstrates that the HIMoC signal scales approximately linearly with a dose-like quantity proportional to fluence, LET, and active detector area, positioning the device as a passive heavy-ion dosimeter and offering a modeling framework for radiation-induced charge loss in charge-trapping NVM devices.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the results provide experimental validation of a compact, passive heavy-ion monitor and a practical simulation approach for charge-trapping memory under heavy-ion exposure. The coupling of Geant4 with DEVSIM and the multi-ion experimental dataset constitute clear strengths that would support use in radiation instrumentation if the modeling is shown to be predictive rather than tuned.

major comments (2)
  1. [Modeling section] Modeling section (workflow description): the representation of energy deposition solely by Gaussian charge-loss profiles in DEVSIM is presented as requiring no additional free parameters tuned to ion species. However, the manuscript does not specify how the Gaussian widths, amplitudes, or centering were determined for 14N, 22Ne, and 40Ar; if these were adjusted to reproduce the measured ΔV_th data, the reported agreement would be non-predictive and would undermine the parameter-free framework claim.
  2. [Results section] Results section (ΔV_th distributions): good agreement between simulation and experiment is asserted, yet no quantitative metrics (e.g., RMS deviation, Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, or error bars on experimental histograms) are provided to substantiate the claim. This omission makes it impossible to evaluate the strength of the validation for the central modeling result.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the scaling is 'approximately linear' but does not indicate the fluence or LET range over which linearity holds or report any observed deviations; the full text should include this detail and a quantitative measure of linearity (e.g., R² or slope uncertainty).
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels for the ΔV_th vs. dose-like quantity plots should explicitly define the proportionality constant and units of the composite dose-like variable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments, which help clarify the modeling approach and strengthen the validation of our results. We address each major comment point by point below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Modeling section] Modeling section (workflow description): the representation of energy deposition solely by Gaussian charge-loss profiles in DEVSIM is presented as requiring no additional free parameters tuned to ion species. However, the manuscript does not specify how the Gaussian widths, amplitudes, or centering were determined for 14N, 22Ne, and 40Ar; if these were adjusted to reproduce the measured ΔV_th data, the reported agreement would be non-predictive and would undermine the parameter-free framework claim.

    Authors: The Gaussian parameters are extracted directly from the Geant4-simulated energy deposition for each ion species without any adjustment to fit the experimental ΔV_th data. Specifically, the width reflects the lateral spread of primary ion tracks and secondary electrons from Geant4, the amplitude is normalized to the total energy loss per ion, and centering is determined by the simulated ion impact location. These profiles are then used as fixed inputs to DEVSIM to predict threshold-voltage shifts. No species-specific tuning to measured data occurs. We have revised the Modeling section to explicitly describe this Geant4-to-Gaussian extraction procedure, reinforcing the parameter-free claim with respect to experimental results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results section (ΔV_th distributions): good agreement between simulation and experiment is asserted, yet no quantitative metrics (e.g., RMS deviation, Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic, or error bars on experimental histograms) are provided to substantiate the claim. This omission makes it impossible to evaluate the strength of the validation for the central modeling result.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics are necessary for rigorous validation. We have added error bars to the experimental ΔV_th histograms (derived from multiple device measurements) and now report RMS deviations between simulated and experimental distributions for each ion (14N, 22Ne, 40Ar). We have also included Kolmogorov-Smirnov test statistics to quantify distributional agreement. These additions appear in the revised Results section and confirm the strength of the modeling validation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: simulation-experiment agreement rests on independent modeling choices

full rationale

The paper presents a Geant4-DEVSIM workflow that adopts Gaussian charge-loss profiles as a modeling representation for energy deposition, then compares resulting simulated ΔV_th distributions against separate experimental measurements from three ion species. No equations or workflow steps are shown to define the output distributions in terms of the measured data itself, nor are profile parameters demonstrated to be fitted to the target ΔV_th results. The reported linear scaling with fluence/LET/area is stated as an experimental observation. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks rather than reducing to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The modeling rests on standard radiation-transport physics plus an ad-hoc choice of Gaussian functional form for charge loss; no new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian charge-loss width and amplitude
    Parameters that define the spatial profile of charge removal inside each memory cell; their values are not stated as derived from first principles in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Energy deposition by primary ions and secondary electrons can be represented by Gaussian charge-loss profiles that directly translate into threshold-voltage shifts.
    Invoked in the description of the novel simulation workflow.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5742 in / 1404 out tokens · 34180 ms · 2026-05-19T20:49:06.042825+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A Heavy Ion Monitor on a Chip based on a non-volatile memory architecture

    D. Julsonet al., “A Heavy Ion Monitor on a Chip based on a non-volatile memory architecture” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Re- search Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment1072, 170221 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170221

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2025.170221 2025

  2. [2]

    Everything you wanted to know about space ra- diation but were afraid to ask

    Chancellor J, Nowadly C, Williams J, Aunon- Chancellor S, Chesal M, Looper J, Newhauser W. “Everything you wanted to know about space ra- diation but were afraid to ask” J Environ Sci Health C Toxicol Carcinog. 2021;39(2):113-128. doi: 10.1080/26896583.2021.1897273

    work page doi:10.1080/26896583.2021.1897273 2021

  3. [3]

    Results from the Radiation Assessment Detector on the International Space Station: Part 1, the Charged Particle Detector

    C. Zeitlinet al.“Results from the Radiation Assessment Detector on the International Space Station: Part 1, the Charged Particle Detector” Life Sciences in Space Re- search39, 67-75 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2023.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2023.01.003 2023

  4. [4]

    HERA: A Timepix-based radiation detection system for Exploration-class space missions

    N. Stoffleet al.“HERA: A Timepix-based radiation detection system for Exploration-class space missions” Life Sciences in Space Research39, 59-66 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2023.03.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2023.03.004 2023

  5. [5]

    The importance of time-resolved per- sonal Dosimetry in space: The ISS Crew Active Dosime- ter

    R. Gazaet al.“The importance of time-resolved per- sonal Dosimetry in space: The ISS Crew Active Dosime- ter” Life Sciences in Space Research39, 95-105 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2023.08.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.lssr.2023.08.004 2023

  6. [6]

    A Heavy-Ion Detector Based on 3-D NAND Flash Memories

    M. Bagatinet al., “A Heavy-Ion Detector Based on 3-D NAND Flash Memories” IEEE Trans- actions on Nuclear Science67, 154-160 (2020) doi:10.1109/TNS.2019.2955776

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2019.2955776 2020

  7. [7]

    Floating-Gate MOS Transistor with Dy- namic Biasing as a Radiation Sensor

    S. Ili´ cet al.“Floating-Gate MOS Transistor with Dy- namic Biasing as a Radiation Sensor” Sensors20, 3329 (2020) doi:10.3390/s20113329

    work page doi:10.3390/s20113329 2020

  8. [8]

    Thermal neutron measurements with an unpowered, miniature, solid-state device

    T. Hossainet al.“Thermal neutron measurements with an unpowered, miniature, solid-state device” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Asso- ciated Equipment1012, 0168-9002 pg. 165577 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.nima.2021.165577

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2021.165577 2021

  9. [9]

    Ultra-Low Power Consuming Direct Radiation Sensors Based on Floating Gate Structures

    Pikhay, E.; Roizin, Y.; Nemirovsky, Y. “Ultra-Low Power Consuming Direct Radiation Sensors Based on Floating Gate Structures.” J. Low Power Electron. Appl. (2017), 7, 20. doi:10.3390/jlpea7030020

    work page doi:10.3390/jlpea7030020 2017

  10. [10]

    Anomalous charge loss from floating- gate memory cells due to heavy ions irradiation

    G. Cellereet al.“Anomalous charge loss from floating- gate memory cells due to heavy ions irradiation” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 49, no. 6, pp. 3051- 3058 (2002) doi: 10.1109/TNS.2002.805339

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2002.805339 2002

  11. [11]

    Radiation effects in nitride read- only memories

    S. Libertinoet al.“Radiation effects in nitride read- only memories” Microelectronics Reliability50, 1857- 1860 (2010) doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2010.07.068

    work page doi:10.1016/j.microrel.2010.07.068 2010

  12. [12]

    Data retention after heavy ion exposure of floating gate memories: analysis and simulation

    L. Larcheret al.“Data retention after heavy ion exposure of floating gate memories: analysis and simulation” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science50, 2176-2183 (2003) doi:10.1109/TNS.2003.821598

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2003.821598 2003

  13. [13]

    NROM™— a new non-volatile memory technology: from device to products

    Ilan Bloom, Paolo Pavan, Boaz Eitan, “NROM™— a new non-volatile memory technology: from device to products” Microelectronic Engineering, Volume 59, Issues 1–4, 2001, Pages 213-223, ISSN 0167-9317, doi:10.1016/S0167-9317(01)00625-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0167-9317(01)00625-6 2001

  14. [14]

    Recombination along the tracks of heavy charged particles in SiO2 films

    Timothy R. Oldham “Recombination along the tracks of heavy charged particles in SiO2 films” J. Appl. Phys. 15 April 1985; 57 (8): 2695–2702. doi:10.1063/1.335409

    work page doi:10.1063/1.335409 1985

  15. [15]

    Heavy-Ion Charge Yield Measure- ment by Floating Gate Dosimeters

    M. Brucoliet al.“Heavy-Ion Charge Yield Measure- ment by Floating Gate Dosimeters” 2021 21th European Conference on Radiation and Its Effects on Components and Systems (RADECS), Vienna, Austria, 2021, pp. 1-4, doi:10.1109/RADECS53308.2021.9954559

    work page doi:10.1109/radecs53308.2021.9954559 2021

  16. [16]

    Theoretical determination of the temporal and spatial structure of /spl alpha/-particle induced electron-hole pair generation in silicon,

    P. Oldiges, R. Dennard, D. Heidel, B. Klaasen, F. As- saderaghi and M. Ieong “Theoretical determination of the temporal and spatial structure of /spl alpha/-particle induced electron-hole pair generation in silicon,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 2575- 2579, Dec. 2000, doi:10.1109/23.903811

    work page doi:10.1109/23.903811 2000

  17. [17]

    Modeling single event upsets in Floating Gate memory cells,

    N. Z. Butt and M. Alam “Modeling single event upsets in Floating Gate memory cells,” 2008 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2008, pp. 547-555, doi:10.1109/RELPHY.2008.4558944

    work page doi:10.1109/relphy.2008.4558944 2008

  18. [18]

    Recent developments in G EANT 4

    J. Allisonet. al“Recent developments in Geant4” Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As- 10 sociated Equipment, Volume 835, Pages 186-225, (2016) doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2016.06.125 2016

  19. [19]

    G EANT 4 developments and applications

    J. Allison et al., ”Geant4 developments and ap- plications,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Sci- ence, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 270-278, Feb. 2006 doi:10.1109/TNS.2006.869826

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2006.869826 2006

  20. [20]

    Agostinelli, et al., Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet. al“Geant4 – a simulation toolkit” Nu- clear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Sec- tion A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and As- sociated Equipment, Volume 506, Issue 3, Pages 250-303, (2003) doi:10.1016/S0168-9002(03)01368-8

    work page doi:10.1016/s0168-9002(03)01368-8 2003

  21. [21]

    Validation of the Geant4 elec- tromagnetic photon cross-sections for elements and com- pounds

    G.A.P. Cirrone, G. Cuttone, F. Di Rosa, L. Pandola, F. Romano, Q. Zhang “Validation of the Geant4 elec- tromagnetic photon cross-sections for elements and com- pounds” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detec- tors and Associated Equipment, Volume 618, Issues 1–3, 2010, Pages 315-322, doi:10.1016/j....

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2010.02.112 2010

  22. [22]

    Explanation of the Charge Trapping Properties of Silicon Nitride Storage Lay- ers for NVMs—Part II: Atomistic and Electri- cal Modeling,

    E. Vianelloet al.“Explanation of the Charge Trapping Properties of Silicon Nitride Storage Lay- ers for NVMs—Part II: Atomistic and Electri- cal Modeling,” IEEE Transactions on Electron De- vices, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 2490-2499, Aug. 2011, doi:10.1109/TED.2011.2156407

    work page doi:10.1109/ted.2011.2156407 2011

  23. [23]

    Geant4 physics processes for microdosimetry simulation: Very low energy electromagnetic models for protons and heavy ions in silicon

    A. Valentin, M. Raine, M. Gaillardin, P. Paillet “Geant4 physics processes for microdosimetry simulation: Very low energy electromagnetic models for protons and heavy ions in silicon” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Ma- terials and Atoms, Volume 287, Pages 124-129, 2012, doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2012.06.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2012.06.007 2012

  24. [24]

    Sanchez, J. E. ”DEVSIM: A TCAD Semiconductor De- vice Simulator” Journal of Open Source Software, 7(70), 3898, (2022). doi:10.21105/joss.03898

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.03898 2022

  25. [25]

    Element Edge Based Dis- cretization for TCAD Device Simulation

    J. E. Sanchez and Q. Chen “Element Edge Based Dis- cretization for TCAD Device Simulation” IEEE Transac- tions on Electron Devices, vol. 68, no. 11, pp. 5414-5420, Nov. 2021 doi:10.1109/TED.2021.3094776

    work page doi:10.1109/ted.2021.3094776 2021

  26. [26]

    The Role of Atomic Displacements in Ion-Induced Dielectric Breakdown

    M. J. Beck et al. “The Role of Atomic Displacements in Ion-Induced Dielectric Breakdown” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 3210-3217, Dec. 2009, doi:10.1109/TNS.2009.2034157

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2009.2034157 2009

  27. [27]

    Radiation Effects in MOS Oxides

    J. R. Schwank et al. “Radiation Effects in MOS Oxides” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 1833-1853, Aug. 2008, doi:10.1109/TNS.2008.2001040

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2008.2001040 2008

  28. [28]

    A model for the channel potential of charge-trapping memories and its implica- tions for device scaling

    M. Sadd, S.G.H. Anderson, B. Hradsky, R. Muralid- har, E.J. Prinz, R. Rao, S. Straub, R.F. Steimle, C.T. Swift, B.E. White, J.A. Yater, “A model for the channel potential of charge-trapping memories and its implica- tions for device scaling” Solid-State Electronics, Volume 49, Issue 11, 2005, Pages 1754-1758, ISSN 0038-1101, doi:10.1016/j.sse.2005.10.009

    work page doi:10.1016/j.sse.2005.10.009 2005

  29. [29]

    A new channel percolation model for V/sub T/ shift in discrete-trap memories,

    D. Ielmini, C. M. Compagnoni, A. S. Spinelli, A. L. Lacaita and C. Gerardi, “A new channel percolation model for V/sub T/ shift in discrete-trap memories,” 2004 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium. Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 2004, pp. 515-521, doi:10.1109/RELPHY.2004.1315382

    work page doi:10.1109/relphy.2004.1315382 2004

  30. [30]

    Modeling of Heavy Ion Induced Charge Loss Mechanisms in Nanocrys- tal Memory Cells

    A. Cester, N. Wrachien, J. R. Schwank, G. Vizkelethy, R. Portoghese and C. Gerardi “Modeling of Heavy Ion Induced Charge Loss Mechanisms in Nanocrys- tal Memory Cells” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 2895-2903, Dec. 2008 doi:10.1109/TNS.2008.2006051

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2008.2006051 2008

  31. [31]

    The devel- opment of carbon-neutral data centres in space,

    A. Aili, J. Choi, Y. S. Ong, and Y. Wen, “The devel- opment of carbon-neutral data centres in space,” Na- ture Electronics, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 1016–1026, 2025, doi:10.1038/s41928-025-01476-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41928-025-01476-1 2025

  32. [32]

    Single-Event Effects Induced by Heavy Ions in SONOS Charge Trapping Memory Arrays,

    T. P. Xiaoet al.“Single-Event Effects Induced by Heavy Ions in SONOS Charge Trapping Memory Arrays,” in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 69, no. 3, pp. 406-413, March 2022, doi:10.1109/TNS.2021.3127549

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2021.3127549 2022

  33. [33]

    Misawa, Advances in Physics: X 1, 544 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1080/23746149.2016.1221327

    G. W. Burret al.“Neuromorphic computing using non- volatile memory”, Advances in Physics: X, 2(1), pp. 89–124. (2017) doi:10.1080/23746149.2016.1259585

    work page doi:10.1080/23746149.2016.1259585 2017

  34. [34]

    The Effect of Heavy-Ion Single Events on the Accuracy of SONOS Analog In-Memory Comput- ing Accelerators,

    D. Wilsonet al.“The Effect of Heavy-Ion Single Events on the Accuracy of SONOS Analog In-Memory Comput- ing Accelerators,” IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Sci- ence, vol. 72, no. 4, pp. 1452-1459, April 2025, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2025.3543349

    work page doi:10.1109/tns.2025.3543349 2025