Comparative Study on the “Soft Errors” Induced by Single-Event Effect and Space Electrostatic Discharge
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single event effect (SEE) and space electrostatic discharge (SESD) are two important types of effects causing spacecraft anomalies. However, it is difficult to differentiate them to identify the root cause of on-orbit anomalies. This paper pioneers the comparative study of the “soft errors” induced by the SEE and SESD with a well-known static random-access memory (SRAM). The similarity and difference of the physical mechanisms between the “soft errors” induced by SEE and SESD are studied with the technology computer-aided design (TCAD) simulations. Meanwhile, the characteristics of the “soft errors” and the relation with external stimulus between SEE and SESD are further investigated with the pulsed laser SEE facility and SESD test system. The results showed that the similar appearances of “soft errors” can be generated by both SEE and SESD, while multiple-bit upset (MBU) has been observed only in SESD testing. In addition, in comparison to the random distribution of SEE sensitivity areas, the SESD sensitivity areas are in closer proximity to the power supply regions. The different symptoms in upsets can be used to identify the root causes of the spacecraft anomalies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it