Track trials, findings, and clinical evidence as it lands.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper models space radiation errors on low-power NVM by analyzing bit flips from a CubeSat mission's FRAM chip, identifying regular spatial error patterns. A generative deep learning approach is then employed to learn these patterns and synthesize realistic error data for application-level experimentation. The model achieves high fidelity, with 92% of generated bit flips matching observed errors and capturing 91% of observed bit flips, demonstrating its effectiveness in mimicking real-world radiation effects.
Generative deep learning can synthesize realistic space radiation error patterns for NVM, achieving 92% fidelity with observed bit flips and capturing 91% of observed errors.
We develop an error model for a Non-Volatile Memory (NVM) device that represents the effects of physical faults experienced in a CubeSat mission in Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The CubeSat carries an off-the-shelf low-power Ferroelectric RAM (FRAM) chip and runs repeated read/write tests according to a predefined pattern. We compare every memory snapshot received from the satellite with a reference bitmap to identify bit errors. We visually analyze erroneous values distributions in the memory snapshots and we understand that they are frequently distributed according to regular spatial patterns. We define a generative deep learning technique to automatically learn these spatial patterns and to synthetically generate additional error patterns mimicking the observed ones. The model is capable at producing memory errors for general application-level experimentation. Our preliminary validation indicates that when comparing the model output with the data we collect, 0.92 of the generated bit flips correspond to bit flips in the memory snapshots and the model captures 0.91 of the observed bit flips. A comparison of the spatial distribution of bit flips in 10,000 generated error patterns also provides a Wasserstein distance of 0.073, indicating that the two distributions differ by roughly 7% of the maximum possible displacement of their probability masses.