Soft Error Rate in Space: A Unified Analytical Approach

A. A. Mateiko; A. S. Rodin; G. I. Zebrev; N. N. Samotaev; R. G. Useinov

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 15 references

Soft Error Rate in Space: A Unified Analytical Approach

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The space soft error rate per bit factors into an orbit-independent effective cross section times a single orbit flux.

desk verdict Useful closed-form SER formulas with a clean low-LET treatment, but the headline orbit-independence claim is undercut by the paper's own Eq. 26, which still contains the spectrum break LET. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06260 v1 pith:T7FPAQ5N submitted 2025-01-09 physics.app-ph astro-ph.IMcond-mat.mtrl-scihep-phphysics.ins-det

G. I. Zebrev , N. N. Samotaev , R. G. Useinov , A. A. Mateiko , A. S. Rodin This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phastro-ph.IMcond-mat.mtrl-scihep-phphysics.ins-det

keywords SoftErrorRateSingleEventUpsetcriticalLETSEUcrosssectionangularaveragingspectrumparametrizationmemorycellscalingspaceradiation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper aims to replace orbit-by-orbit numerical simulation of soft errors in space memory with a closed-form analytical formula. It claims that the soft error rate per bit is the product of an orbit-independent effective cross section and a single integral particle flux characteristic of the orbit. The effective cross section is fixed by two device parameters obtained from ground tests at normal ion incidence: the critical LET and the memory-cell area, so no Weibull fitting or device-level simulation is needed. The derivation averages the SEU cross section over the full solid angle for an isotropic particle flow and folds it with a universal broken power-law LET spectrum, explicitly including the low-LET region that matters for modern low-critical-charge circuits. If correct, this gives a fast, parameter-light path from ground measurements to in-orbit failure-rate estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the angular-averaged SEU cross section $\bar{\sigma}(\Lambda)$ of Eq. (8), built from the inverse-cosine track-length model: for $\Lambda \ge \Lambda_C$ it grows linearly with slope $K_d$, and for $\Lambda \le \Lambda_C$ it grows quadratically, with the two pieces meeting smoothly at the critical LET, the threshold interpolated from the linear part of the normal-incidence cross-section curve. The second ingredient is the parametrization of differential LET spectra as a broken power law, inverse cube below the break $\Lambda_r$ and inverse square above, so that all orbit dependence enters through one scale factor $b$. Normalizing the SER by the integral flux $\Phi(>\Lambda_r)$ cancels $b$, leaving the orbit-independent $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ of Eq. (26); Appendix A supplies an exact dilogarithm expression for the angular average that validates the piecewise approximation.

What would settle it

Take two measured differential LET spectra from orbits with different shielding and visibly different shapes below the break, compute $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ from Eq. (26) for the same device parameters, and check whether the value stays constant; if it changes, the orbit-independence is an artifact of assuming a universal spectrum shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the angular-averaged SEU cross section has a continuous piecewise form, linear in LET above the critical LET and quadratic below it, and that folding this with a broken power-law LET spectrum reduces the SER per bit to the product of an effective cross section $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}(\Lambda_C, a_C)$ and the integral flux $\Phi(>\Lambda_r)$ in the orbit. The effective cross section depends only on the critical LET $\Lambda_C$ measured at normal incidence and the memory-cell area $a_C$, not on orbit altitude, inclination, shielding, or space weather. The paper also shows that averaging over isotropic incidence doubles the apparent slope $K_d$ and halves the effective critical LET compared with normal-incidence values, and that the exact angular average can be written in closed form with a dilogarithm while differing little from the simple piecewise approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The orbit-independent effective cross section rests on the assumption that the LET spectrum has the same broken power-law shape in every orbit, with only its overall scale changing; the paper itself notes that real spectra are irregular below the break and smooths them away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Ground tests at normal incidence alone determine the two device parameters $K_d$ and $\Lambda_C$, so no orbit-specific fitting is needed to predict in-orbit soft error rates.
Because angular averaging doubles the slope and halves the effective critical LET, isotropic space flux produces a higher SER than a naive normal-incidence estimate would suggest.
The formula covers the low-LET region below the spectral break, so it captures upsets in modern low-critical-charge circuits that a step-function threshold model would miss.
The explicit SER expression shows how device scaling can affect the rate non-monotonically when cell area and critical LET both shrink.
The product form of the result allows rapid parameter sweeps over cell area and critical LET for mission-level reliability assessment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the broken-power-law shape is universal across orbits, a single ground-measured $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ table could be reused for any mission by rescaling one flux number, turning radiation qualification into a one-time device characterization.
A direct check would be to compute Eq. (26) with two measured spectra whose shapes below the break differ; if $\sigma_{\mathrm{eff}}$ shifts, the orbit-independence is a consequence of the assumed spectrum rather than a genuine device property.
The same angle-averaging construction could be carried over to proton- or neutron-induced soft errors by replacing the heavy-ion LET spectrum with a recoil-ion spectrum, provided a similar shape universality holds.
The exact dilogarithm formula in Appendix A offers a way to quantify how much the piecewise approximation errs for non-power-law spectra, such as heavily shielded environments or solar-event spectra.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the set of explicit closed-form SER expressions, Eq. (22), obtained by integrating the angle-averaged SEU cross-section over a broken-power-law LET spectrum. That is a legitimate extension of the authors' earlier compact models and of the Bradford/Effective Flux idea, and it gives engineers a quick analytical alternative to the Petersen FOM, especially in the low-LET region where Petersen is known to misbehave. The angular averaging in Section 2.1 and the chord-length equivalence in Appendix B are cleanly presented, and tying all model inputs to normal-incidence ground-test parameters is practically attractive.

Now the soft spots, roughly in order of seriousness. The abstract and conclusion claim that the effective cross-section per bit is independent of orbit and depends only on critical LET and cell area. That claim does not survive the paper's own Eq. (26). Every branch of (26) contains Lambda_r, the break LET of the orbital spectrum, either as Lambda_c/Lambda_r or as additive terms involving Lambda_r. Lambda_r is an environment parameter, not a device parameter. The derivation only shifts the orbit dependence from the normalization b to the break position Lambda_r. Unless Lambda_r is shown to be a universal constant across orbits, the orbit-independence claim is unsupported. The stress-test note is correct on this.

Second, there is no validation against ground-test data plus measured orbit spectra or a standard rate code. Without that, the formulas are plausible but not demonstrated to be predictive. Third, the printed equations are badly OCR-garbled, especially (3), (7), and (A1), which makes independent verification harder than it should be. Fourth, the exact angular averaging from Appendix A is not used in the main formulas; the piecewise approximation is asserted to be close, but no error bound is given. That is a minor issue, since the figures suggest the agreement is good, but it should be quantified. Finally, the starting cross-section function comes from the authors' own compact model; self-citation is not a flaw by itself, but the reader should know that the input function is not independently benchmarked here.

Who is this for? Radiation-effects engineers doing early-phase mission SER estimates will get the most value, especially if they want a transparent analytical supplement to numerical codes. The paper deserves a serious referee, but it needs major revision: correct the orbit-independence claim, add validation, and clean up the equations. I would not cite it in its current form, but I would read a revised version.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an analytical model for the heavy-ion soft error rate (SER) of digital memory in space. Starting from a compact model of the SEU cross section as a function of LET and incidence angle, it performs an average over solid angle and then integrates over a parameterized GCR LET spectrum with a broken power-law shape. The result is a closed-form SER expression, Eq. (22), and an associated 'effective cross section' per bit, Eq. (26), which the authors claim depends only on the critical LET measured at normal incidence and on the memory cell area. The paper also presents a comparison with the Petersen figure-of-merit model and a contour plot of the effective cross section versus critical LET and cell area.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, the paper would provide a simple, parameter-transparent alternative to orbit-by-orbit simulation: a device-only effective cross section multiplied by an integral flux from a standard LET spectrum. The analytical averaging treatment is physically motivated, and the use of ground-test parameters (critical LET and cell area) without fitting to the target SER is a real strength. The closed-form scaling in Eq. (22) is also falsifiable: it makes an explicit prediction of how SER varies with critical LET and spectrum parameters. However, the paper currently overstates the orbit independence of the effective cross section, and it offers no validation against measured data or independent Monte Carlo tools. The concept is useful, but the manuscript needs substantial clarification and validation before the advertised claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)

[Sec. 3.1, Eq. (26) and Conclusion] The central claim that the effective cross section is orbit-independent is contradicted by Eq. (26), which depends explicitly on the spectrum break LET Λ_r through the ratios Λ_C/Λ_r and Λ_r/Λ_C; for example, the first branch contains terms proportional to (Λ_C/Λ_r)^2 and ln(Λ_C/Λ_r). Since Λ_r is introduced in Sec. 2.4 as the break of the orbital LET spectrum, and the paper states that real spectra below Λ_r are irregular and are smoothed away, Λ_r is an environment parameter rather than a device parameter. Normalizing by Φ(>Λ_r) in Eq. (25) removes only the overall scale factor b, not the spectral-shape dependence. Unless Λ_r is fixed a priori as a universal reference independent of orbit, the Conclusion's statement that σ_eff is determined only by Λ_C and a_C is unsupported.
[Sec. 2.4, Eqs. (12)-(13)] The broken power-law parameterization is the premise for the claimed orbit independence, but the paper does not justify that the break LET Λ_r is common across orbits. The text itself notes that LET spectra below Λ_r are 'very irregular in nature' and are smoothed away for analytical convenience, yet the low-LET region contributes through Eqs. (13) and (18)-(20). A sensitivity analysis is needed to show that the uncertainty in the assumed spectral shape, especially below Λ_r, does not materially affect the total SER or the effective cross section.
[Sec. 2.1 and Appendix A, Eq. (8)] The main SER derivation uses the piecewise approximation Eq. (8) rather than the exact angular average given in Appendix A. The paper asserts that the approximation differs 'little' from the exact formula, but no error bound or quantitative comparison is provided. Since Eqs. (14)-(22) all rely on Eq. (8), the authors should present a numerical comparison of Eq. (8) with Eq. (A1) over the relevant parameter range, for example 0.1 ≤ Λ_C/Λ_r ≤ 10, to establish that the approximation error is below the intended accuracy of the method.
[Validation, Figs. 3-4] The manuscript contains no comparison with ground-test data, on-orbit SER measurements, or independent Monte Carlo simulations. Fig. 3 compares only with the Petersen model and artificially equates the two calculations at one point, while Fig. 4 plots the model's own prediction. For an applied method whose stated purpose is predictive SER estimation, at least one validation against published flight data or a standard code such as CREME96 is necessary; without this, the accuracy claim in the abstract remains untested.

minor comments (5)

[Throughout] Several equations, especially Eqs. (3), (7), and (A1), are heavily garbled as printed, with mixed limits, exponentials, and missing symbols that make the derivation impossible to verify. A cleanly typeset manuscript is required.
[Section numbering] There are two subsections labelled 3.1 ('Piecewise representation of SER' and 'Effective cross section'), and Eq. (21) is missing from the sequence.
[Appendix B and References] The Bradford approach is cited in the text as reference [11], but Ref. [11] is the dilogarithm paper; the reference numbering in Appendix B should be corrected.
[Eq. (26)] The step from Eq. (22) to Eq. (26) uses a relation between K_d and a_C that is not stated where needed; the authors should explicitly write K_d = 2a_C/Λ_C^2 after angular averaging, or otherwise define the symbols in Eq. (26).
[Minor language issues] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Egs.' for 'Eqs.', 'depndent' for 'dependent', and 'seizes' for 'sizes'; these should be corrected in revision.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed orbit-independent effective cross-section is not a derived result: Eq. (26) retains the orbital spectrum break LET Λ_r, so the orbit-independence claim restates the assumed universality of the LET spectrum shape after normalizing by flux.

self definitional [Sec. 3.1, Eqs. (25)-(26); Conclusion]
"It seems reasonable to normalize the orbit depndent SER to the total fluence of particles with LET greater than some reference value Λ>Λ_r. Then the effective cross section can be defined as follows ... Since the LET spectra for different orbits differ more by the scaling factor b rather than the shape of the spectrum ... the effective cross section is almost orbit-independent and is a characteristic of the integrated circuit rather than the space environment."

Eq. (25) defines σ_eff as the SER divided by the integral flux above the spectral break Λ_r. Under the assumed broken power law in Eqs. (12)-(13), the SER in Eq. (22) is exactly proportional to this same integral flux, so the division removes only the overall scale b. The resulting Eq. (26) still contains the ratio Λ_C/Λ_r, i.e., the orbital break LET. The Conclusion's statement that σ_eff 'does not depend on the orbit parameters and is determined only by ... critical LET ... and area' is therefore not a consequence of the algebra; it is the input assumption that all orbits share one spectral shape and one break Λ_r. The orbit dependence is hidden, not eliminated, in Λ_r.
self citation load bearing [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (1); Sec. 2.2, Eq. (9)]
"Based on statistical consideration we found that the SEU cross section (probability) per bit can be explicitly estimated by the value of the collected charge ΔQ or the energy ΔE ... [6] ... For given orbital LET spectra, the soft error rate (SER) per bit can be expressed [8] in two equivalent forms."

The starting cross-section function in Eq. (1) and the SER integral representation in Eq. (9) are not derived in this paper but are cited to the authors' own prior compact models (refs. 5, 6, 8). The new analytical result is therefore a rearrangement of the authors' own functional ansatz rather than an independent first-principles derivation. This is load-bearing because every subsequent integral uses Eq. (1) as its integrand; the paper does not provide an external, machine-checked or independently fitted validation of this input here.

1 more flagged steps

uniqueness imported from authors [Appendix B, final paragraph]
"The idea that such averaging can be carried out independently is mathematically inconsistent and erroneous due to the fundamental non-locality of the effect of an individual ion [5]."

The paper rejects the RPP method by invoking 'fundamental non-locality' supported only by its own prior reference [5], and then presents its own angle-averaging method as the only consistent approach. The forced uniqueness of the method is imported from the same authors rather than demonstrated in this paper. This is a secondary rhetorical step, but it reinforces the self-citation chain and is used to make the adopted averaging scheme appear uniquely correct.

full rationale

The core SER integrals in Eqs. (14)-(22) are an honest analytical integration of the assumed broken-power-law LET spectrum with the authors' compact cross-section model; those equations are not fitted to space data, and K_d, a_C, and Λ_C are ground-test inputs. The serious problem is the headline claim of an orbit-independent effective cross section. Eq. (25) defines σ_eff by dividing by the integral flux above Λ_r, and Eq. (22) is proportional to that same flux, so the division automatically removes the scale factor b. Eq. (26) nevertheless contains Λ_r explicitly, so σ_eff is not a device-only quantity unless Λ_r is universal, which the paper neither proves nor states; the remark that real spectra below Λ_r are irregular and are smoothed away makes the universality an assumption, not a result. In addition, the starting model and the rejection of RPP are imported from the authors' own prior work, making the derivation chain depend on self-citations that are not re-validated here. The SER formula itself retains independent content, but the central 'orbit-independent effective cross section' prediction reduces by construction to the assumed spectrum shape, so a score of 6 is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model uses three classes of input: parameters extracted from normal-incidence ground tests (Lambda_C, K_d, a_C), an orbit-scaling parameter b or Phi(>Lambda_r), and the assumed broken power-law shape of the LET spectrum. The cross-section formula and the inverse-cosine geometry are inherited from prior compact models by the same group; the spectral shape assumption and the scale-only orbit dependence are the main premises that turn the integrals into closed form.

free parameters (5)

Lambda_C (critical LET at normal incidence) = not given in paper
Extracted as the intercept of the quasi-linear part of the measured SEU cross-section vs LET curve at theta = 0 degrees (Eq 4b). Central circuit parameter; no data or uncertainty shown.
K_d (slope of quasi-linear SEU cross-section) = not given in paper
Measured at normal incidence from the same ground-test curve (Eq 4a). Controls the high-LET contribution to the SER integral.
a_C (memory cell area) = not given in paper; technology-dependent
Cell area that sets the saturation scale of the SEU cross-section; used in Eqs 4 and 26 and in the contour plot of Fig 4.
Lambda_r (break/reference LET) = not given in paper; figure uses e.g. 1 MeV-cm2/mg
Reference point where the LET spectrum changes slope; the piecewise integrals in Eqs 14-20 and 22 depend on the choice of Lambda_r.
b or Phi(>Lambda_r) (orbit spectrum scale) = orbit-dependent, not given in paper
Empirical scale of the power-law LET spectrum; varies with orbit, shielding, and space weather (Sec 2.4, Eq 11). The effective cross-section definition divides it out.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The per-bit SEU cross-section is an exponential function of deposited energy, sigma(Delta E) = a_C exp(-epsilon_C / Delta E), Eq (1).
Taken from the authors' prior compact model [6]; no derivation is repeated in this paper.
domain assumption Energy deposited in the sensitive volume scales as 1/cos(theta) (inverse cosine model), Eq (2).
Assumes a single thin sensitive layer with effective thickness t_eff; standard but fragile at grazing angles and for small cells.
ad hoc to paper The piecewise linear/quadratic approximation of the angular SEU cross-section (Eq 3) is valid and remains continuous in value and derivative after averaging (Eq 8).
Approximation introduced to get closed-form integrals; the exact averaging in Appendix A is not used in the SER formulas, and the accuracy claim is qualitative.
domain assumption Differential LET spectra follow a broken power law with an inverse-cube dependence below a break LET Lambda_r and an inverse-square dependence above it (Eqs 11-13).
Empirical parameterization from the literature [9]; the paper acknowledges irregular, uncertain spectra below Lambda_r and smooths them away.
domain assumption Different orbits' LET spectra differ mainly by a scale factor b, not by shape.
Needed for the orbit-independent effective cross-section in Eq 26; stated in Sec 3.1 without quantitative support.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Soft Error Rate in Space: A Unified Analytical Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/T7FPAQ5N

@misc{pith2026250106260,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Soft Error Rate in Space: A Unified Analytical Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/T7FPAQ5N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06260}
}

read the original abstract

A new physics-based model for analytical calculation of Soft Error Rate (SER) in digital memory circuits under the influence of heavy ions in space orbits is proposed. This method is based on parameters that are uniquely determined from the results of ground tests under nor-mal ion incidence. It is shown that preliminary averaging over the total solid angle within the standard inverse cosine model allows one to take into account the effect of isotropic flow, which increases the effective SER. The model includes the ability to estimate the contribution to SER of the low LET spectrum region, which is very important for modern ICs with low Single Event Upset tolerance.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

[1]

The Single Event Revolution, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2013, 60 (3), 1824-1835

Petersen, E.L.; Koga, R.; Shoga, M.A.; Pickel, J.C., Price, W.E. The Single Event Revolution, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2013, 60 (3), 1824-1835. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2013.2248065

work page arXiv 2013
[2]

Single-Event Analysis and Prediction, IEEE NSREC Short Course Notes, 1997

Petersen, E.L. Single-Event Analysis and Prediction, IEEE NSREC Short Course Notes, 1997

work page 1997
[3]

A Review of Single-Event Upset-Rate Calculation Methods,

Hansen D. L. et al. "A Review of Single-Event Upset-Rate Calculation Methods," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2024.3451312

arXiv 2024
[4]

et al., SEU-sensitive volumes in bulk and SOI SRAMs from first-principles calculations and experiments, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2001, 48 (6), 1893-1903

Dodd, P.E. et al., SEU-sensitive volumes in bulk and SOI SRAMs from first-principles calculations and experiments, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2001, 48 (6), 1893-1903. doi: 10.1109/23.983148

work page doi:10.1109/23.983148 2001
[5]

Compact Modeling and Simulation of Heavy Ion -Induced Soft Error Rate in Space Environment: Principles and Validation, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2017, 64 (8), 2129-2135

Zebrev, G.I.; Galimov, A.M. Compact Modeling and Simulation of Heavy Ion -Induced Soft Error Rate in Space Environment: Principles and Validation, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2017, 64 (8), 2129-2135. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2017.2678685

work page arXiv 2017
[6]

Zebrev, G.I. et al. Proton - and Neutron -Induced SEU Cross -Section Modeling and Simulation: A Unified Analytical Approach, Radiation 2024, 4(1), 37-49; https://doi.org/10.3390/radiation4010004

work page doi:10.3390/radiation4010004 2024
[7]

et al., Statistics and methodology of multiple cell upset characterization under heavy ion irradiation, Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect A, 2015, 775, 41-45

Zebrev, G.I. et al., Statistics and methodology of multiple cell upset characterization under heavy ion irradiation, Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect A, 2015, 775, 41-45. doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2014.11.106

work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.11.106 2015
[8]

Methodology of Soft Error Rate Computation in Modern Microelectronics, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2010, 57 (6), 3725-3733

Zebrev, G.I.; Ishutin, I.O.; Useinov, R.G.; Anashin, V.S. Methodology of Soft Error Rate Computation in Modern Microelectronics, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2010, 57 (6), 3725-3733. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2010.2073487

work page arXiv 2010

Show all 15 references

[9]

Suggested Single Event Upset Figure of Merit,

Petersen E. L. et al. "Suggested Single Event Upset Figure of Merit," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 4533-4539, Dec. 1983, doi: 10.1109/TNS.1983.4333166

1983
[10]

Scaling Trends and Bias Dependence of SRAM SER from 16 -nm to 3 -nm FinFET,

Narasimham B. et al., "Scaling Trends and Bias Dependence of SRAM SER from 16 -nm to 3 -nm FinFET," 2024 IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium (IRPS), Grapevine, TX, USA, 2024, pp. 10C.2 -1-10C.2-4, doi: 10.1109/IRPS48228.2024.10529467

2024
[11]

33, 146, pp

Morris R., The Dilogarithm Function of a Real Argument, Mathematics of Computation, Vol. 33, 146, pp. 778-787, 1979

1979
[12]

Geometrical analysis of soft errors and oxide damage produced by heavy cosmic rays and alpha particles,

Bradford J. N. , “Geometrical analysis of soft errors and oxide damage produced by heavy cosmic rays and alpha particles,” IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 27, p. 942, Feb. 1980

1980
[13]

CREME’96: a revision of the cosmic ray effects on microelectronics c ode

Tylka A. J. , et al. , “CREME’96: a revision of the cosmic ray effects on microelectronics c ode”, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., NS-41, 2150 (1997)

1997
[14]

Single-Event Effects Rate Prediction

Pickel J. C., “Single-Event Effects Rate Prediction”, IEEE Trans. Nuclear Science,Vol. 43, No. 2, 1996

1996
[15]

Analytic SEU rate calculation compared to space data,

Binder D. "Analytic SEU rate calculation compared to space data," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1570-1572, Dec. 1988, doi: 10.1109/23.25499

1988 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The Single Event Revolution, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2013, 60 (3), 1824-1835

Petersen, E.L.; Koga, R.; Shoga, M.A.; Pickel, J.C., Price, W.E. The Single Event Revolution, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2013, 60 (3), 1824-1835. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2013.2248065

work page arXiv 2013

[2] [2]

Single-Event Analysis and Prediction, IEEE NSREC Short Course Notes, 1997

Petersen, E.L. Single-Event Analysis and Prediction, IEEE NSREC Short Course Notes, 1997

work page 1997

[3] [3]

A Review of Single-Event Upset-Rate Calculation Methods,

Hansen D. L. et al. "A Review of Single-Event Upset-Rate Calculation Methods," in IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, doi: 10.1109/TNS.2024.3451312

arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

et al., SEU-sensitive volumes in bulk and SOI SRAMs from first-principles calculations and experiments, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2001, 48 (6), 1893-1903

Dodd, P.E. et al., SEU-sensitive volumes in bulk and SOI SRAMs from first-principles calculations and experiments, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2001, 48 (6), 1893-1903. doi: 10.1109/23.983148

work page doi:10.1109/23.983148 2001

[5] [5]

Compact Modeling and Simulation of Heavy Ion -Induced Soft Error Rate in Space Environment: Principles and Validation, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2017, 64 (8), 2129-2135

Zebrev, G.I.; Galimov, A.M. Compact Modeling and Simulation of Heavy Ion -Induced Soft Error Rate in Space Environment: Principles and Validation, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2017, 64 (8), 2129-2135. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2017.2678685

work page arXiv 2017

[6] [6]

Zebrev, G.I. et al. Proton - and Neutron -Induced SEU Cross -Section Modeling and Simulation: A Unified Analytical Approach, Radiation 2024, 4(1), 37-49; https://doi.org/10.3390/radiation4010004

work page doi:10.3390/radiation4010004 2024

[7] [7]

et al., Statistics and methodology of multiple cell upset characterization under heavy ion irradiation, Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect A, 2015, 775, 41-45

Zebrev, G.I. et al., Statistics and methodology of multiple cell upset characterization under heavy ion irradiation, Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res, Sect A, 2015, 775, 41-45. doi.org/10.1016/j.nima.2014.11.106

work page doi:10.1016/j.nima.2014.11.106 2015

[8] [8]

Methodology of Soft Error Rate Computation in Modern Microelectronics, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2010, 57 (6), 3725-3733

Zebrev, G.I.; Ishutin, I.O.; Useinov, R.G.; Anashin, V.S. Methodology of Soft Error Rate Computation in Modern Microelectronics, IEEE Trans Nucl Sci, 2010, 57 (6), 3725-3733. doi: 10.1109/TNS.2010.2073487

work page arXiv 2010