Cited by 108Advanced Memory and Neural ComputingFerroelectric and Negative Capacitance DevicesPhase-change materials and chalcogenides

Voltage-time dilemma of pure electronic mechanisms in resistive switching memory cells

Open access
Schroeder, Herbert, Zhirnov, Victor V., Cavin, Ralph K., Waser, Rainer·2010·Journal of Applied Physics

Abstract

Metal/insulator/metal thin film stacks showing stable resistive switching are promising candidates for future use as a nonvolatile resistive random access memory, competitive to FLASH and DRAM. Although the switching mechanisms are not completely understood a lot of theories and models try to describe the effects. One of them postulates the trapping and detrapping of electronic charge in immobile traps as the reason for the resistance changes, also known as Simmons & Verderber model. This contribution shows that this “pure electronic” switching mechanism will face a voltage-time dilemma—general to all switching insulators—at conditions competitive to the state-of-the-art FLASH. There is an incompatibility between the long retention time (10 years) and the short READ/WRITE current pulses (tREAD/WRITE≤100 ns) at high densities (area≤100×100 nm2) at low applied voltages (≤1 V). This general dilemma is exemplified in two detailed scenarios with different electronic band and defect properties.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1063/1.3319591

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Because programming and reading operations share identical terminals, there is a contradiction between the stability of trapped charges (retention) and the reliability of the programming process.

    “However, as the programming and reading operations share identical terminals, there is a contradiction between the stability of the trapped charges (i.e., retention) and the reliability of the programming process (i.e., writing or erasing).[ 20 ]”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schroeder, H., Zhirnov, V. V., Cavin, R. K., & Waser, R.
Affiliations
  • Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
  • Semiconductor Research Corporation (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Physics
Published
2010-03-01
Volume
107
Issue
5
ISSN
  • 0021-8979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-7550
OpenAlex
W2019323909
Cited by
108
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Physics (publishedVersion)
  • JuSER (Forschungszentrum Jülich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Advanced Memory and Neural Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Ferroelectric and Negative Capacitance Devices
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Phase-change materials and chalcogenides
Keywords
resistive random access memory, charge trapping and detrapping, retention time, low-voltage operation, defect properties, non-volatile memory

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