MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122747234 · doi:10.1109/isqed.2008.4479727

Investigation of Process Impact on Soft Error Susceptibility of Nanometric SRAMs Using a Compact Critical Charge Model

2008· article· en· W2122747234 on OpenAlexaff
Shah M. Jahinuzzaman, Mohammad Sharifkhani, Manoj Sachdev

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSemiconductor materials and devices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoft errorSpiceRobustness (evolution)Static random-access memoryDecoupling (probability)VoltageTransistorMaterials scienceCapacitorResistive touchscreenMemory cellCMOSElectronic engineeringSemiconductor device modelingCharge (physics)OptoelectronicsElectrical engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nanometric SRAMs are more vulnerable to experiencing particle induced soft error due to lower operating voltages coupled with higher packing density and increased process variations. In this paper, we present a compact model for critical charge of a 6T SRAM cell for estimating the effects of process variations on its soft error susceptibility. The model is based on dynamic behavior of the cell and a simple decoupling technique for the non-linearly coupled storage nodes. The model describes the critical charge in terms of transistor parameters, cell supply voltage, and injected current parameters. Consequently, it enables investigating the spread of critical charge due to process induced variations in these parameters and to manufacturing defects, such as, resistive contacts or vias. In addition, the model can estimate the improvement in critical charge when MIM capacitors are added to the cell in order to improve the soft error robustness. The critical charge calculated by the model is in good agreement with SPICE simulations for a commercial 90 nm CMOS process with a maximum discrepancy of less than 5%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSemiconductor materials and devicesFrench-language works237,207