Interface engineering between HfZrO2 thin films and electrodes for enhanced ferroelectricity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keeping the miniaturisation pace in the modern semiconductor technology, while chasing an increased computing efficiency, has stimulated the research to focus on novel computing paradigms. One of these is neuromorphic engineering, which aims at the physical implementation of devices mimicking biological neuron and synapses. In this context, memristors based on ferroelectric material are promising candidates to implement synaptic functions. For instance ferroelectric tunnel junction (FTJ) memristors, based on HfZrO2 (HZO) have shown synaptic learning abilities [1]. In addition, HZO processes are already fully compatible with the CMOS industry, with oxide layers thinner than 10 nm. In this work we present a comparative study of different HZO-based FTJs. By interface engineering, we aimed at improving the structural and electrical performances of ultra-thin ferroelectric HZO films. The HZO was synthesized by magnetron sputtering from a Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 ceramic target and subsequently crystallized by rapid thermal annealing [2]. We compared the structural properties and the electrical performances of sub-8 nm HZO layers sandwiched between bottom and top electrodes made of titanium nitride or tungsten. Furthermore, we probed the effect on the ferroelectric properties of HZO of the insertion of an ultra-thin titanium layer at the electrode/HZO interface. The microstructure and the chemical properties of HZO were investigated by means of glancing incidence X-ray diffraction, transmission electron microscopy, and electron energy loss spectroscopy. Electrical characterization was conducted using the positive-up-negative-down-technique and by the acquisition of current vs voltage characteristics. We propose optimized stacks with enhanced ferroelectricity, which are considered for the implementation of FTJs, and for the demonstration of synaptic learning mechanisms for neuromorphic applications [3].[1] L. Chen et al. Nanoscale, vol. 10, no. 33, pp. 15826–15833, 2018.[2] J. Bouaziz et al., ACS Applied Electronic Materials 1 (9), 1740-1745, 2019.[3] G. Segantini et al., physica status solidi (RRL)–Rapid Research Letters, 2100583, 2022.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".