Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 244

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of error rates in combinational and sequential logic

Buchner, S., Baze, M., Brown, D., McMorrow, D., Melinger, J.·1997·IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science

Abstract

A pulsed laser was used to demonstrate that, for transients much shorter than the clock period, error rates in sequential logic were independent of frequency, whereas error rates in combinational logic were linearly dependent on frequency. In addition, by measuring the error rate as a function of laser pulse energy for fixed clock frequency, the logarithmic dependence of the SEU vulnerable time period prior to the clock edge in combinational logic was established. A mixed mode circuit simulator program was used to successfully model the dynamic response of the logic circuit to pulses of laser light.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/23.659037

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 244

Metadata

Authors
Buchner, S., Baze, M., Brown, D., McMorrow, D., & Melinger, J.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science
Published
1997-12
Volume
44
Issue
6
Pages
2209-2216
ISSN
  • 0018-9499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-1578
OpenAlex
W2113626924
Cited by
244
References
0
FWCI
4.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of error rates in combinational and sequential logic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/23.659037
The paper
Buchner, S., Baze, M., Brown, D., McMorrow, D., & Melinger, J. (1997). Comparison of error rates in combinational and sequential logic. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science. https://doi.org/10.1109/23.659037

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.