Disclaimer:
This tool and its accompanying documentation are provided for
preliminary analysis and educational purposes only.
Results have not been independently verified or validated for use in
mission-critical decisions. Users are solely responsible for verifying all
outputs against their own analysis and applicable standards before making any
design, test, or mission decisions. Space RHA LLC makes no warranties, express
or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular
purpose of the results produced by this tool, and shall not be held liable for
any damages arising from its use.
1. What This Tool Does
Beam time runs out, facilities offer one cocktail energy, and screening campaigns produce
exactly one number per part: a cross section (or a null) at a single LET that is rarely the
saturation value. This tool turns that number into a threshold estimate with
calibrated confidence bounds: the LET at which the SEL cross section crosses
10⁻⁸ cm², conditioned on device class, era and population, without ever assuming
your measurement was saturated. Four inputs are accepted: SEL observed at a test LET
(events and fluence, or a cross section), a saturated cross section, and a null result.
The model:
the
Extended Historical SEL Priors (EHSP), release 2026-09: Ladbury's historical-data SEL priors (IEEE TNS 2024, 2025) rebuilt as a single machine-readable file
from a mechanism-screened, uniformly refit corpus of 4,610 SEL part-entries drawn from the
IEEE REDW and RADECS records, RADECS and TNS papers, NASA GSFC test reports and proprietary
test reports. It carries an errors-in-variables onset versus saturation trend
(LET
0 = 2.714 σ(80)
−0.161 with scatter that grows with
σ), partially pooled class and era trends, iso-LET predictors for measurements at LET
15 to 80, a density-gated SRAM prior, within-part temperature factors, a global onset CDF over
739 onsets and censoring-aware susceptibility priors in nine population strata. The full
derivation, with figures, tables and references, is on the tool page:
Methodology.
2. Using It
- SEL observed at the test LET: enter events and fluence (Poisson
uncertainty on σ is propagated with a Jeffreys prior), or enter σ directly. The
prediction uses the iso-LET predictor at your test LET, then applies the hard constraint:
latching at the test LET means the 10⁻⁸ crossing lies below it, so the distribution is
truncated there. When most of the untruncated trend mass sits above the test LET the result
is flagged as onset-dominated: your measurement caught the curve near its rise and the
truncation is doing the heavy lifting. The cross-check line shows what treating the
measurement as saturated would have given, and the corpus growth factor from your LET to
saturation, which is why the tool does not do that.
- Saturated cross section: enter σ(80), the cross section at LET 80
or on the plateau. The tool uses the partially pooled class trend for the chosen era when
the class has at least eight entries (bulk CMOS, ADC/DAC, MCU/processor, power, logic,
FPGA, amplifier, flash, DRAM, BiCMOS, BCD), otherwise the global errors-in-variables trend,
and flags the fallback. The global, OLS and CERN 2023 values are shown alongside.
- Null result: enter the fluence achieved and whether the test was hot.
The tool updates the class prior P(SEL-susceptible) for the chosen population stratum,
using the same censoring-credit construction that produced the priors: candidate onsets
from the global onset CDF are weighted by the corpus probability of zero events at their
cross section at the test LET, following Ladbury, Joplin and Lauenstein [2]. You get the
posterior P(susceptible), the threshold distribution if the part is susceptible after all,
and the demonstrated σ bound. A room-temperature null is credited at a hot-equivalent
LET of 0.74 times the test LET.
- Elevated temperature: tick the box if the test was at or above 60 °C.
Unticked, the tool reports the as-tested result and a hot-equivalent median scaled by
0.744 (the within-part factor from 20 room/hot pairs).
- Device class, era and stratum: the class selects the saturation trend
and the susceptibility bucket; the era selects the class trend (modern, 2010 and later, is
the default); the population stratum selects the prior for the null branch (modern is the
default; the Space-RHA campaign stratum reflects customer-selected COTS parts and is
more pessimistic for BiCMOS).
- SRAM: in the corpus, SRAM onset is uncorrelated with σ; the tool
switches to a density-gated lognormal prior (below 1 Mbit legacy, GM 22; 1 Mbit and above,
GM 1.6 with sln 0.9) and applies the same truncation logic.
3. Calibration
Leave-one-out validation across the corpus: each part's threshold predicted from a model
trained without it. The nominal 90% intervals of the iso-LET predictors cover 94, 93, 91
and 92% of parts at test LET 20, 30, 50 and 80, with median error factors of 1.5 to 1.7.
An external check on CERN parts with full Weibull curves covers 94%. The susceptibility
priors pass posterior-predictive checks on held-out modern papers; held-out 2025-26
commercial campaigns exceed literature-trained predictions, which is why a dedicated
stratum exists. Treat the intervals as honest; treat single medians as guidance, not
clearance.
4. Default susceptibility priors (modern stratum)
Bulk CMOS 0.45, ADC/DAC 0.83,
BiCMOS 0.39, SiGe 0.25, SRAM 0.83,
DRAM 0.29, flash 0.54, SRAM-based FPGA 0.32,
antifuse FPGA 0.05, SOI 0.06, SOS 0.07,
BCD / smart power 0.42, unknown 0.35. Each is a posterior mean
with a 90% credible interval shown in the tool; see the methodology for all strata.
5. Caveats
- The trend describes the historical population of SEL-susceptible parts; a part from a
process family with unusual SEL topology can sit in the tails. Extreme legacy SRAMs and
physically large multi-die devices populate the corpus tails for real reasons.
- Threshold is defined at σ = 10⁻⁸ cm² from the fitted curve, not the
author-quoted first-observed-SEL LET, which typically runs higher. Extrapolated corpus
thresholds were treated as intervals in the fit; for conservative use of your own data,
floor an extrapolated threshold at the lowest tested LET.
- Test conditions matter: the corpus mixes temperatures and biases; worst-case hot,
maximum-bias data should be compared against hot-equivalent predictions.
- A one-point prediction is a planning instrument: it tells you where to aim the next
test, or what a mission rate might look like. It is not a substitute for a measured curve,
and for system-level screening decisions use the SEL Test-LET Tool.
6. References
[1] R. Ladbury, “Under-Constrained SEE Data: Implications for Estimating
and Bounding SEE Rates,”
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 680–689,
2024.
(Onset versus σ trend framework and Bayesian prior use.)
[2] R. Ladbury, M. Joplin and J.-M. Lauenstein, “Bounding SEL Rates for
Null Results and Other Limited Test Data,”
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., 2026,
DOI 10.1109/TNS.2026.3662106.
(Null-result inference.)
[3] R. Ladbury, G. R. Allen, F. Irom, R. Gaza, S. Vartanian, J. D. Barth and
R. F. Hodson, “Statistical Analysis of Historical SEL Test Data to Provide a Priori Risk
Estimates for Use of Unhardened CMOS Parts,”
IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci., vol. 72,
no. 4, pp. 1094–1101, 2025.
(Technology susceptibility priors.)
[4] G. R. Allen, Extended Historical SEL Priors (EHSP), release 2026-09, Space-RHA.
Methodology, figures and model file;
manuscript in preparation, 2026.
(Trend, iso-LET predictors, priors, onset CDF,
temperature factors; proprietary sources used in aggregate only.)
← Back to SEL Threshold Predictor