As the demand for computing applications capable of processing large datasets increases, there is a growing need for new in-memory computing technologies. Oxide-based resistive random-access memory (RRAM) devices are promising candidates for such applications because of their industry readiness, endurance, and switching ratio. These analog devices, however, suffer from poor linearity and asymmetry in their analog resistance change. Various reports have found that the temperature in RRAM devices increases locally by more than 1000 K during operation. Therefore, temperature control is of paramount importance for controlling their resistance. In this study, scanning thermal microscopy is used to map the temperature of Au/Ti/HfOx/Au devices at a steady power state and to measure temperature dynamics of the top electrode above the filament location during both resistive switching loops and voltage pulsing. These measurements are used to verify the thermal parameters of a multiphysics finite elements model. The model is then used to understand the impact of thermal conductivities and boundary conductances of constituent materials on resistance change during the first reset pulse in RRAM devices. It is found that the resistance change can be reduced significantly when the temperature in the titanium capping layer is reduced. We find that the greatest temperature reduction and, therefore, the lowest resistance change in the device are afforded by capping layers with increased thermal conductivities. This work links thermal properties to the resistance change in RRAM devices, providing critical insights into engineering devices with improved switching dynamics.

Many emerging technologies rely on understanding, manipulating, and making predictions based on large datasets using various machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms.1–5 With traditional computing architectures, these data intensive applications suffer from the von Neumann bottleneck, i.e., slow shuttling of data back and forth from memory to the central processing unit.6,7 Technologies that can compute in memory, such as filamentary oxide-based resistive random-access memory (RRAM), have been proposed to overcome this bottleneck and have attracted considerable attention.6,8 Electrical biasing across their metal–insulator–metal structure generates a conductive bridge, a filament, across electrodes via the creation of oxygen vacancies in the metal oxide insulator.9–15 The negatively charged oxygen ions migrate to the positively charged electrode by drift, diffusion, and thermophoresis.14,16–20 When the bias polarity is reversed, oxygen ions are pushed back into the filament, increasing the resistance. Transition from the low resistance state (LRS) to the high resistance state (HRS) is referred to as “reset” and the transition from the HRS to the LRS is referred to as “set.” Notably, these devices can achieve a continuum of resistance states between the LRS and HRS based on the polarity, amplitude, and duration of applied voltage pulses.13,21–24 This resistive switching behavior has been observed in many oxides, including HfO2,11,15,25,26 TiO2,9,27,28 and Ta2O5/TaO2.13,14,22,29,30 This study focuses on a device consisting of a sub-stoichiometric HfOx (x ≈ 1.85) active layer and a titanium capping layer due to its known stable operation and industry readiness.10,12,17,26,31 For example, switching retention times exceeding 10 years (>105 cycles) and resistance ratios >103 Ω have been reported for Ti/HfOx-based devices.10,12 The titanium capping layer, in direct contact with HfOx, acts as an oxygen reservoir, i.e., storing oxygen ions that are removed from the filament and returning them back to the filament upon inversion of bias polarity.10,12,20 Though this study focuses on a Ti/HfOx active material, the results presented here extend to other filamentary oxides that experience large localized temperature increases during operation.

Many challenges need to be overcome to harness the full potential of filamentary RRAM analog neuromorphic devices. These challenges include poor linearity of the resistance change with respect to the number of applied pulses, high variability, and asymmetry of resistance changes induced by pulses of opposite polarity.32–34 These non-idealities make it difficult to achieve specific analog resistance states, limiting the computational accuracy and efficiency of neuromorphic circuits.32–34 Often, a large resistance change is observed from the first reset pulse when the device is in the low resistance state. After just a few pulses, the resistance change saturates. This large resistance change likely occurs because of the larger current achieved during the first pulse, which leads to the largest Joule heating and temperature rise.34 Since the magnitudes of all three ion migration mechanisms (drift, diffusion, and thermophoresis) increase exponentially with temperature, the largest temperature rise also leads to the highest resistance change.18 Numerous works have studied the effect of filament thermal environment on the LRS to HRS resistance transition. These studies include introducing thermal enhancement layers/electro-thermal modulation layers,34–36 changing thermal conductivities (kth) of the electrodes,37 and varying kth of the substrate.17,18,26 Past experiments have shown that the thermal environment impacts the resistance change of these devices; however, characterizing the filament temperature during operation remains a challenge. For example, transient thermoreflectance imaging (TTI) was used to characterize and compare RRAM experimental and simulated temperature rises.18,38 However, TTI typically requires averaging of many images, precluding its use for characterizing transients in RRAM devices in which the resistance change occurs during the course of a single pulse. Similarly, Raman thermometry has measured steady-state heating, but its spatial resolution is insufficient to map localized heating from filamentary devices.39 AFM-based Scanning Joule Expansion Microscopy (SJEM) was used to estimate temperature rises in TaOx devices with nanoscale resolution, but SJEM measurements are hardly quantitative, as converting the SJEM signal to temperature is far from trivial.40 The high spatial and temperature resolution of scanning thermal microscopy (SThM) was recently used to measure the temperature rise of the top electrode (ΔTTE) right above the filament in resistive switching devices during biasing.39,41–44 Such SThM measurements on HfO2-based devices with single-layer graphene electrodes revealed a filament (≈13 nm diameter) reaching a temperature of approximately 1300 °C.39 Importantly, the authors suggested using low thermal conductivity substrates to reduce the heat transfer between neighboring devices to avoid unintended resistance changes.39 

Here, expanding on prior works, we developed a comprehensive electro-thermal model to evaluate the impact of thermal conductivities and thermal boundary conductances (G) of constituent materials and interfaces on RRAM devices' resistance change during analog pulsing. ΔTTE from the model is compared to the SThM measured ΔTTE during in situ analog pulsing in Ti/HfOx RRAM devices. In this study, we focus on the effects of the thermal environment on the first reset pulse since it leads to the largest temperature rise and the largest resistance change. The results of this parametric analysis suggest that a capping layer with high thermal conductivity and a high G between the capping layer and the top electrode reduce the magnitude of the resistance change from the first pulse. To ensure the attainability of many resistance states in analog devices, it is important to avoid large resistance changes from a single pulse. Pairing in situ thermal measurements with a simulation that relates temperature and resistance change, this work offers new insights for optimizing the operation of RRAM devices by engineering the devices' thermal environment.

Hafnium oxide-based neuromorphic devices were fabricated on a silicon substrate with a 300 nm thick SiO2 surface layer. The bottom electrode was patterned with a negative photoresist using maskless UV photolithography. After development, a titanium adhesion layer (≈10 nm) and a gold film (≈70 nm) were deposited by electron beam evaporation (6.7 × 10−4 Pa or lower). Lift-off of the photoresist in acetone yielded the patterned bottom electrode. The electrodes were rinsed in acetone, methanol, and isopropyl alcohol and further cleaned with an O2 plasma descum (8 Pa, 150 W, and 8.3 × 10−7 m3 s−1 O2 flow rate) right before loading the devices into a preheated (250 °C) atomic layer deposition (ALD) chamber. A 5 nm HfOx layer was deposited with 55 ALD cycles of alternating water vapor for 0.06 s and tetrakis(dimethylamido)hafnium (TDMA-Hf) for 0.25 s. The thickness of HfOx was confirmed by ellipsometry after deposition. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) revealed a sub-stoichiometric composition (x ≈ 1.85) of the HfOx layer. Next, the top electrode was patterned using the same procedure as the bottom electrode. After development, a titanium capping layer (≈5 nm) and a gold electrode (≈150 nm) were deposited by electron beam evaporation (6.7 × 10−4 Pa or lower). Lift-off in acetone was used to remove the remaining photoresist and obtain the final device pattern. A representative cross-sectional transmission electron microscopy (TEM) image is shown in Fig. 1(a), and an optical micrograph of the 10 × 10 μm2 crossbar structure is shown in Fig. 1(b). Additional details for this fabrication process can be found in Basnet et al.17 and West et al.26 

FIG. 1.

(a) Cross-sectional TEM image of an as-deposited device stack. This confirms deposition of a ≈ 5 nm titanium capping layer and ≈5 nm HfOx active area. (b) Device structure used to create RRAM crossbars. This design ensures that no electrical sneak paths are possible due to electrical isolation of each device.

FIG. 1.

(a) Cross-sectional TEM image of an as-deposited device stack. This confirms deposition of a ≈ 5 nm titanium capping layer and ≈5 nm HfOx active area. (b) Device structure used to create RRAM crossbars. This design ensures that no electrical sneak paths are possible due to electrical isolation of each device.

Close modal

A positive voltage sweep from 0 to 3.5 V was applied to the top electrode to form the filament while grounding the bottom electrode. A 0.1 mA current compliance ensured no damage to the device. After forming, negative voltage sweeps were applied, starting at −0.1 V and gradually increasing to −1.5 V, in increments of 0.1 V. After reaching the final reset voltage, the device was switched back into the LRS with a positive voltage sweep from 0 to 1.2 V using a current compliance of 1 mA. The device was cycled between the HRS and LRS with −1.5 and 1.2 V, respectively, to ensure that the device could switch repeatably before thermal and voltage pulse measurements. Pulsing was conducted with devices starting in the LRS (≈550 Ω). Several negative voltage pulses (1 ms pulse width) were applied to the top electrode to gradually reset the device. Though 1 ms is a relatively long pulse for analog RRAM devices, such long pulse widths mimic biological processes and are used for some neuromorphic implementations.22,29,45–48

SThM was used to measure with nanoscale resolution (i) steady state temperature maps, (ii) transient temperatures at selected locations, and (iii) to correlate applied voltages to the measured currents and temperatures [Fig. 2(a)]. Our custom SThM setup consists of custom-modified atomic force microscopy (AFM),49 a commercially available SThM probe and a SThM amplifier (30 kHz bandwidth),50 a commercially available oscilloscope (200 MHz bandwidth and 2 GS/s sampling rate), and a commercially available semiconductor analyzer. A custom ceramic package was developed to enable wire bonding of neuromorphic devices and electrical biasing during scanning. Commercially available silicon SThM cantilevers50 (500 μm long and 50 μm wide) characterized by a 50 nm diameter hollow SiO2 tip with a thermocouple embedded close to the tip apex were used to sense the temperature rise in the sample while in contact with the top electrode.

FIG. 2.

(a) Simplified wiring diagram of the SThM setup. Voltages applied to the device are recorded by the oscilloscope enabling direct correlation with ΔVtip. (b) A four-point probe gold microheater was first placed in an oven to extract its temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR). Next, a microheater was used to calibrate ΔVtip with respect to the temperature of the tip (ΔTtip = ΔTmicroheter−center). The horizontal error bars represent the propagated uncertainty of ΔTtip derived from the standard error of the averaged microheater resistance and the linear fit uncertainty of the TCR. The vertical error bars represent the standard error of the averaged ΔVtip (with 95% confidence intervals). A finite element model was used to correct systematic errors associated to heterogeneous heat distribution along the length of the calibrating wire (see the finite element thermal model for SThM calibration sec. in the supplementary material) and calibration was carried out using the calculated temperature in the center of the heater.

FIG. 2.

(a) Simplified wiring diagram of the SThM setup. Voltages applied to the device are recorded by the oscilloscope enabling direct correlation with ΔVtip. (b) A four-point probe gold microheater was first placed in an oven to extract its temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR). Next, a microheater was used to calibrate ΔVtip with respect to the temperature of the tip (ΔTtip = ΔTmicroheter−center). The horizontal error bars represent the propagated uncertainty of ΔTtip derived from the standard error of the averaged microheater resistance and the linear fit uncertainty of the TCR. The vertical error bars represent the standard error of the averaged ΔVtip (with 95% confidence intervals). A finite element model was used to correct systematic errors associated to heterogeneous heat distribution along the length of the calibrating wire (see the finite element thermal model for SThM calibration sec. in the supplementary material) and calibration was carried out using the calculated temperature in the center of the heater.

Close modal

The thermocouple voltage was amplified (1000×) with a SThM amplifier. For steady-state temperature mapping, the amplified SThM voltage was input to an atomic force microscopy (AFM) controller and recorded simultaneously with the AFM height (i.e., topography) channel. This way, surface morphological changes (if any) that may be caused by device degradation could be easily detected. After locating the filament position in the SThM map [see, for example, Fig. 2(a)], the tip was positioned above the filament region to measure the sample temperature dynamics in situ during set/reset sweeps and pulse biasing. This was accomplished using an oscilloscope triggered by the output bias of the semiconductor analyzer, which also recorded the device bias concurrently.

The SThM tips were calibrated using ≈200 nm thick gold microheaters on a SiO2 (≈300 nm)/Si substrate (same as the device substrate). Notably, the microheater/tip and top electrode/tip interfaces are made of same materials. The microheater (1000 × 5 μm2 with two contact pads on each side) enables precise four-point measurements [inset of Fig. 2(b)] of the gold microheater’s average resistance. First, the gold microheater was placed in an oven and its temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) was obtained by determining device resistance as a function of temperature (see Fig. S1 in the supplementary material). Next, the microheater was used to calibrate the SThM tip as follows. The microheater temperature was controlled precisely by using the TCR obtained previously and measuring the heater resistance while supplying a current to it. The SThM probe calibration was obtained by positioning the probe tip at the center of the microheater by measuring the probe voltage (ΔVtip) as a function of the heater ΔT. A linear fit using a Monte Carlo method was used to extract the tip calibration coefficient and its associated uncertainty [Fig. 2(b)].

Since the heater resistance measured as described above is related to a device-wide spatially averaged temperature while the SThM is a local measurement of the temperature in the center of the heater, such calibration may suffer from systematic errors due to temperature gradients along the microheater length.51 Therefore, a thermal finite element model (FEM) was developed to quantify the temperature gradient along the microheater (see Fig. S2 in the supplementary material). The maximum discrepancy between the temperature calculated at the center of the microheater (the spot measured by the SThM probe) and the average temperature (based on electrical resistance) was calculated to be 2.41%. This systematic error was corrected by using the FEM calculated temperatures in the heater center in Fig. 2(b) in place of heater average temperatures. Additional efforts to reduce the measurement uncertainty included positioning the cantilever perpendicular to the microheater (this orientation minimized external indirect heating of the probe tip via heating of the cantilever). Finally, to ensure the tip does not act as a heat sink when in contact with the surface, the metal heater’s resistance was monitored before and after engaging the tip onto the surface. No change was detected when engaging the tip, likely due to the tip's low thermal conductivity. (similarly, no change in the RRAM device current was observed when engaging the tip.)

The model self consistently solves partial differential equations for the conservation of oxygen vacancies [Eq. (1)], conservation of current [Eq. (2)], and conservation of thermal energy [Eq. (3)] using commercially available multiphysics software,18 
(1)
(2)
(3)
In Eq. (1), nv [m−3] represents the concentration of oxygen vacancies, vv [m s−1] is the oxygen vacancy drift velocity, Dv [m2 s−1] is the diffusion coefficient, Sv [K−1] is the Soret (or thermophoresis) coefficient, and T [K] is the temperature. In Eq. (2), σ [S m−1] represents electrical conductivity and ψ [V] is the voltage potential. Finally, in Eq. (3), ρ [kg m−3] is the density, cp [J kg−1 K−1] is the heat capacity, and kth [W m−1 K−1] is the thermal conductivity. In the filament region of the device, the thermal and electrical conductivities of the material are dependent on nv according to Eqs. S1 and S2 in the supplementary material and are not varied in this study. The diffusion coefficient, drift velocity, and thermophoresis coefficient equations used for the filament are given in Eqs. (4)–(6),
(4)
(5)
(6)

In these equations, a [m] represents the hopping distance for a vacancy, f [Hz] is the hoping frequency, Ea [J] is the activation energy for vacancies, kB [J K−1] is the Boltzmann constant, and q [C] is the charge of an electron. This FEM multiphysics model is unable to simulate the forming process; therefore, an initial condition of the filament must be assumed. Here, a filament with an inverted conical shape and a diameter varying along its length from 6 to 10 nm was used, consistent with previous works.52–55 A cross-sectional image of the initial vacancy distribution is shown in Fig. S3 in the supplementary material. The model also assumes that the device is radially axisymmetric with respect to the center of the filament. The only variables that are changed in this study are thermal conductivities of various materials and thermal boundary conductances between the layers. In the model, the interface of the bottom of the substrate with the environment is fixed to room temperature. This boundary was found to have little impact on both the simulated device temperature and the resistance change, thus fixing it to room temperature is a reasonable approximation. All other environmental boundaries of the device assume a convective heat flux with still air using a heat transfer coefficient of 5 W m−2 K−1.56 The values of all other material properties are listed in Table S2 in the supplementary material. A more detailed explanation of this electro-thermal model can be found in the study by Pahinkar et al.18 

Scanning thermal microscopy was used to locate the filament, perform in situ thermal measurements of ΔTTE (top electrode temperature) during voltage sweeps and voltage pulsing, and calibrate a comprehensive electro-thermal model. After the filament formation step and multiple cycling between the LRS and HRS, the device was held at a steady-state power of 1 mW, while scanning the SThM tip. Note that in these conditions, the voltage is too low to induce resistance changes in the device. A representative SThM map [Fig. 3(a)] shows that heat generation is localized to one small filament or filament area, with a maximum ΔTTE of only 2.79 ± 0.08 K. The temperature rise in this device is modest because the filament is buried under a 150 nm thick top electrode and much of the heat is dissipated through the substrate.17,18,26 Simulations under same conditions (1 mW steady state power) show a very good agreement with the experimental data [see Fig. 3(a)].

FIG. 3.

(a) Maps of the top electrode temperature obtained with the multiphyics model (left) and SThM (right) showing good agreement when a constant 1 mW of power goes through the filament. (b) Top electrode temperature profile passing through the center of the hot spot for simulation and SThM.

FIG. 3.

(a) Maps of the top electrode temperature obtained with the multiphyics model (left) and SThM (right) showing good agreement when a constant 1 mW of power goes through the filament. (b) Top electrode temperature profile passing through the center of the hot spot for simulation and SThM.

Close modal

The model captures lateral heat dissipation reasonably well, although the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the line profile across the hot spot does not exactly match the experimental data. In contrast to the perfectly centrosymmetric hot spot of the model, the measured hot spot is slightly asymmetric and has a larger FWHM, possibly because of the asymmetric heat transfer that results from the formation of the filament near the edge of the device. The relevant thermal parameters that yield such agreement are listed in Table I.

TABLE I.

Thermal properties used in the model to obtain good agreement with the experiment. The filament thermal conductivity varies with the number of vacancies (Eq. S1 in the supplementary material) but is assumed to not vary with temperature.

MaterialsThermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1)
Au top and bottom electrode 31057  
Ti capping layer 458  
Filament 10–23 
Non-filament HfOx 259  
Substrate 13817  
Interfaces Thermal boundary conductance (GW m−2 K−1
Ti capping/Au top electrode 100 
Au bottom electrode/substrate 80 
MaterialsThermal conductivity (W m−1 K−1)
Au top and bottom electrode 31057  
Ti capping layer 458  
Filament 10–23 
Non-filament HfOx 259  
Substrate 13817  
Interfaces Thermal boundary conductance (GW m−2 K−1
Ti capping/Au top electrode 100 
Au bottom electrode/substrate 80 

Next, the SThM tip was positioned directly on the hot spot (i.e., above the filament) and held in contact with the sample while the device was cycled between the LRS and HRS to verify that the filament survived the temperature mapping procedure and still exhibits resistive switching. This allows tracking of the top electrode temperature (ΔTTE) in situ, directly above the filament during both voltage sweeping and pulsing, enabling direct correlation with current and applied voltage that were recorded with the same oscilloscope. Figure 4 shows a typical set/reset hysteresis loop with the measured current (left axis) and ΔTTE (right axis). As expected, the temperature rise is strongly correlated with the current. During negative biasing, the device starts in the LRS. As the magnitude of the voltage increases, ΔTTE also increases due to the rising current and Joule heating through the device. At ≈−0.5 V, the device starts to reset since the filament has reached a critical temperature and the bias is large enough to push oxygen ions from the titanium capping layer into the filament by drift. This causes an increase in resistance (i.e., a decrease in the current), which lowers ΔTTE even as the magnitude of the bias is increased. At the start of positive biasing, the temperature rise is very small because the current is very low in the HRS. The low ΔTTE measured from 0 to ≈0.8 V shows that the measured tip voltage is not affected by the voltage applied to the device. At ≈0.8 V, there is an abrupt increase in the current and ΔTTE, which, in turn, promotes the drift, diffusion, and thermophoresis of oxygen vacancies into the filament.

FIG. 4.

Set/reset hysteresis loop of a Ti/HfO1.85 RRAM device with a simultaneous measurement of the applied voltage, current, and local ΔTTE. The temperature rise is well correlated to the current because heat is primarily generated in the filament via Joule heating. The negligible ΔTTE when the device is in the HRS proves that the SThM tip voltage is not impacted by the voltage applied to the device. A current compliance of 1 mA is used on the set side to ensure the device does not permanently breakdown.

FIG. 4.

Set/reset hysteresis loop of a Ti/HfO1.85 RRAM device with a simultaneous measurement of the applied voltage, current, and local ΔTTE. The temperature rise is well correlated to the current because heat is primarily generated in the filament via Joule heating. The negligible ΔTTE when the device is in the HRS proves that the SThM tip voltage is not impacted by the voltage applied to the device. A current compliance of 1 mA is used on the set side to ensure the device does not permanently breakdown.

Close modal

Voltage pulsing was initiated with the devices in the LRS (≈550 Ω). The first pulse is defined as the pulse after the device is put back in the LRS. Figure 5 shows a typical ΔTTE measured for first −0.7 and −1 V pulses on the same device. Between these two pulses, the device is put back in the LRS with a 0–1.2 V sweep (1 mA current compliance). It is noted that due to a limitation of the pulsing equipment, the voltage pulse is not a square pulse, and the peak voltage is only held for a short time, see Fig. 5 (right axis). As expected, the temperature rise during the −0.7 V pulse (2.16 K ± 0.06 K) is smaller than ΔTTE obtained for the −1 V pulse (2.62 K ± 0.07 K). Additionally, while the temperature rises monotonically during the −0.7 V pulse, for the −1 V pulse, the temperature starts decreasing while the voltage is still increasing. We interpret this as follows. During the larger −1 V pulse, the resistance increases quickly due to the higher peak temperature that drastically increases the drift, diffusion, and thermophoresis of oxygen vacancies since these processes have an exponential dependence on the temperature [Eqs. (4)–(6)]. In addition, RRAM devices are very sensitive to the applied voltage via the exponential relationship with ionic drift [Eq. (5)]. These two mechanisms act together, quickly increasing the resistance (lowering the current), leading to a reduction in ΔTTE with time. Consequently, the −0.7 V pulse caused the filament to increase in resistance by only ≈285 Ω, while the −1 V pulse caused a resistance change of ≈5120 Ω.

FIG. 5.

Comparison between ΔTTE measured in the experiment on top of the filament and ΔTTE obtained by the model during voltage pulsing under identical conditions (−0.7 V, left and −1 V, right). The model predicts the maximum temperature rise accurately and captures the temperature dynamic trends.

FIG. 5.

Comparison between ΔTTE measured in the experiment on top of the filament and ΔTTE obtained by the model during voltage pulsing under identical conditions (−0.7 V, left and −1 V, right). The model predicts the maximum temperature rise accurately and captures the temperature dynamic trends.

Close modal

The voltage pulses from the experiment were applied to the model using the same material parameters that yielded good agreement for the steady state comparison in Fig. 3. Similarly, Fig. 5 shows a good agreement between the modeled and measured ΔTTE for both −0.7 and −1 V amplitude pulses. For the −0.7 V pulse, the ΔTTE predicted by the model is 2.18 K, very close to the measured value (≈2.2 K). The maximum simulated ΔTTE for the −1 V pulse is 2.52 K compared to the measured value of ≈2.6 K, well within the uncertainty of the measurement (≈0.07 K). Besides the peak temperatures, the modeled ΔTTE follows the measured temperature dynamics reasonably well. That is, the −1 V pulse amplitude causes a fast reduction in temperature during the pulse compared to the lower amplitude pulse. There is, however, a noticeable reduction in ΔTTE for the −0.7 V pulse in the simulation, which is not observed experimentally (Fig. 5). This can be attributed to the model's overestimation of the resistance change (≈1250 Ω) for the −0.7 V pulse compared to just ≈285 Ω in the experiment. The estimated resistance change (≈4830 Ω) has a much better agreement with the experiment (≈5120 Ω) for the −1 V pulse. Given the large variability of RRAM devices observed in practice, capturing the exact resistance changes in the model is very difficult. The simulation, however, estimates ΔTTE well and yields the correct trends for the resistance change. This allows for systematically assessing the impacts of various material thermal properties and interfaces on estimated trends in resistance change.

The same simulation can also be used to estimate the relationship between the measured ΔTTE and the rise in filament temperature. The plot in Fig. 6 compares three different estimated filament region temperatures to the estimated ΔTTE for powers ranging from 17 to 737 μW. The average filament temperature is defined as the average temperature within the 5 nm filament radius and 5 nm filament height. Similarly, the average titanium capping layer temperature is defined as the average temperature above the filament in the same volume (depicted in Fig. 6 inset). To understand the heat transfer between the filament and the capping layer, the average temperature of their interface is also plotted. According to the linear fit in Fig. 6, a ΔTTE of just ≈2 to 3 K (depending on the biasing condition) corresponds to a temperature rise of the filament/capping layer interface between ≈883 and ≈1330 K, respectively. For example, ΔTTE measured by SThM for the −1 V pulse (2.62 K ± 0.07 K) corresponds to a rise in the filament/capping layer interface by 1160 ± 31 K. This filament temperature is similar to other estimates in previous RRAM studies.18,25 We can estimate the rise in filament temperature with the fits in Fig. 6. For material parameters validated by steady-state experiments (Fig. 3), the average temperatures of the capping layer and the filament are nearly identical. The relationship between these two temperatures and the resistance change will be discussed in a later section of this paper. These large locally confined temperature rises greatly impact the mobility of oxygen vacancies by means of drift, diffusion, and thermophoresis. Therefore, determining which thermal properties of the materials and interfaces in the device affect the device resistance change the most is critical to engineer and improve the device characteristics, particularly with regard to reducing the amount of resistance change from the first reset pulse.

FIG. 6.

Average capping layer temperature (pink), filament temperature (yellow), and temperature of their interface (blue) compared to ΔTTE as a function of the device applied power. The inset shows the localized temperature generation in the HfOx filament area and defines the average capping layer, filament, and interface temperatures. This graph demonstrates how a relatively low top electrode temperature relates to large increases in the filament temperature deep into the device structure.

FIG. 6.

Average capping layer temperature (pink), filament temperature (yellow), and temperature of their interface (blue) compared to ΔTTE as a function of the device applied power. The inset shows the localized temperature generation in the HfOx filament area and defines the average capping layer, filament, and interface temperatures. This graph demonstrates how a relatively low top electrode temperature relates to large increases in the filament temperature deep into the device structure.

Close modal

The model was used to independently understand the impact of thermal boundary conductances and thermal conductivities on the predicted resistance change of HfOx-based filamentary RRAM. There are seven thermal boundaries in the simulated device geometry and five material thermal conductivities as illustrated in Fig. 7.

FIG. 7.

Simulated model geometry annotated with thermal conductivity and boundary locations varied in parametric studies. The thermal conductivity of the filament is variable with the concentration of oxygen vacancies and is not changed in any of the parametric studies (Eq. S1 in the supplementary material). Each of these thermal conductivities and interfacial thermal conductances is changed independently while all other parameters are constant according to Table S2 in the supplementary material.

FIG. 7.

Simulated model geometry annotated with thermal conductivity and boundary locations varied in parametric studies. The thermal conductivity of the filament is variable with the concentration of oxygen vacancies and is not changed in any of the parametric studies (Eq. S1 in the supplementary material). Each of these thermal conductivities and interfacial thermal conductances is changed independently while all other parameters are constant according to Table S2 in the supplementary material.

Close modal

The thermal conductivity of the titanium capping layer was varied between 0.5 and 17 W m−1 K−1 spanning the range between TiO2 and titanium metal, respectively.58,60 The electrode thermal conductivity was varied between 50 and 300 W m−1 K−1 to represent a wide variety of metals, including gold and gold thin films.57 The thermal conductivity of non-filamentary HfO2 was varied from 0.1 to 2 W m−1 K−1, which encompass the typical range for HfO2 thin films and substoichiometric films.59 The substrate thermal conductivity was varied between 1 and 300 W m−1 K−1 to include many possible substrate materials.18 Since not all G values have been measured previously, the G of each interface was varied over five orders of magnitude from 1 × 105 to 1 × 109 W m−2 K−1, i.e., within the ranges, typical of the metal/oxide interfaces and encompassing the values assumed in other SThM RRAM works.39,59,61 For all of these parameters, the resistance was measured with a −0.1 V, 1 ms read pulse before and after the application of a square −0.7 V, 1 ms reset pulse.

Figure 8(a) shows that the thermal conductivity of the capping layer (kth,capping) has the largest impact on the calculated resistance change, ranging from 215 Ω for kth,capping = 17 W m−1 K−1 (typical for bulk titanium metal) to 4473 Ω for 0.5 W m−1 K−1 (typical for TiO2). Over this range, the thermal conductivity of the capping layer has the effect to reduce the average filament temperature rise from 1283 K (kth,capping = 0.5 W m−1 K−1) to 938 K (kth,capping = 17 W m−1 K−1), a 27% reduction. Furthermore, the average capping layer temperature decreases even more significantly from 973 to 581 K, a 40% reduction, when kth,capping is increased. The impact of the capping layer temperature and filament temperature with respect to resistance change will be discussed later. The data in Fig. 8(a) suggest that the thermal conductivity of the electrodes and the substrate have a marginal impact on the device resistance change, compared to the impact of kth,capping. Though the electrodes and substrate have a significant impact on overall heat dissipation from the device, they have a marginal impact on the local temperature in the regions where the migration of ions occurs. Additionally, Fig. 8(a) shows that the thermal conductivity of the material laterally next to the filament, in this case, the non-filament HfO2, has a large impact on the resistance change. Although increasing the thermal conductivity of this layer would reduce the resistance change, only few materials are known to have high thermal conductivity but a very low electrical conductivity. The latter is a strict requirement for RRAM devices because if the electrical conductivity is too large, the leakage current would prevent the formation of the filament in the active (HfO2) layer.

FIG. 8.

(a) Change in RRAM device resistance due to a single −0.7 V, 1 ms pulse as a function of varied thermal conductivities of the capping layer, electrodes, surrounding HfO2, and substrate. The thermal conductivity of the capping layer has the greatest impact on the resistance change. (b) Change in RRAM device resistance due to a single −0.7 V, 1 ms pulse as a function of thermal boundary conductance (G) magnitude between the device interfaces. The results suggest that a low G for the filament/Au BE interface has the greatest impact on the resistance change and that the Ti Capping/Au TE interface is the only interface that is not in direct contact with the filament that impacts the resistance change.

FIG. 8.

(a) Change in RRAM device resistance due to a single −0.7 V, 1 ms pulse as a function of varied thermal conductivities of the capping layer, electrodes, surrounding HfO2, and substrate. The thermal conductivity of the capping layer has the greatest impact on the resistance change. (b) Change in RRAM device resistance due to a single −0.7 V, 1 ms pulse as a function of thermal boundary conductance (G) magnitude between the device interfaces. The results suggest that a low G for the filament/Au BE interface has the greatest impact on the resistance change and that the Ti Capping/Au TE interface is the only interface that is not in direct contact with the filament that impacts the resistance change.

Close modal

Of the seven boundary locations, only three have significant impacts on the device resistance change: the filament/Au bottom electrode interface, the titanium capping layer/Au top electrode interface, and the filament/surrounding HfO2 interface [Fig. 8(b)]. The only influential boundary not in contact with the filament is the titanium capping layer to the gold top electrode. A low G between these layers traps the heat within the capping layer, slowing dissipation into the top electrode. Since the capping layer is the device oxygen reservoir and T strongly affects the migration of oxygen ions, maintaining a high temperature in the capping layer induces large changes in the device resistance. Most of the temperature rise is generated by the filament, not the capping layer. Therefore, the transfer and dissipation of heat to/from the capping layer crucially affect its temperature rise. If the heat from the filament is allowed to dissipate quickly, the capping layer temperature may be too low for any significant migration of oxygen ions, leading to small resistance changes.

A closer look at the varied thermal boundary conductance of the filament and capping layer interface (Gfilament/capping) is needed to further understand the importance of the capping layer temperature. Gfilament/capping is the only interface in Fig. 8(b) that shows an increase in the device resistance with an increase in G. This can be explained by Gfilament/capping having a proportionally small effect on the filament temperature rise (from ≈1398 to ≈1293 K) but a much larger effect on the capping layer temperature rise (from ≈354 to ≈714 K), which, in turn, has a large effect on resistance change [Fig. 9(a)]. Figure 9(b) shows vacancy distributions after the reset pulse for the cases with Gfilament/capping of 1 × 105 and 1 × 109 W m−2 K−1. For low Gfilament/capping, a higher concentration of vacancies remains in the top portion of the filament and accumulates just above the filament in the titanium layer. In contrast, the high Gfilament/capping allows for higher temperatures in the titanium layer, facilitating the migration of vacancies further from the filament. Remarkably, this suggests that reducing the capping layer temperature and confining the heat to the filament can reduce the large resistance change typically observed from the first reset pulse. Furthermore, by identifying the thermal properties with the greatest effect on the device resistance change, this study also identifies the thermal properties that should be measured with the greatest possible accuracy to aid in the engineering of RRAM devices. Therefore, this study calls for the development of novel measurement techniques capable of measuring thermal properties with nanoscale spatial resolution and high accuracy.62 

FIG. 9.

(a) Average filament temperature, capping layer temperature, and resistance change for varying Gfilament/capping. The resistance change does not start increasing until the heat is able to transfer from the filament to the capping layer. (b) Vacancy distribution after the −0.7 V, 1 ms simulated pulse for Gfilament/capping of 1 × 105 and 1 × 109 W m−2 K−1. With a low Gfilament/capping (top), a higher concentration of vacancies (≈2.5 × 1027 compared to ≈2 × 1027) is trapped near the top of the filament leading to a reduced change in resistance.

FIG. 9.

(a) Average filament temperature, capping layer temperature, and resistance change for varying Gfilament/capping. The resistance change does not start increasing until the heat is able to transfer from the filament to the capping layer. (b) Vacancy distribution after the −0.7 V, 1 ms simulated pulse for Gfilament/capping of 1 × 105 and 1 × 109 W m−2 K−1. With a low Gfilament/capping (top), a higher concentration of vacancies (≈2.5 × 1027 compared to ≈2 × 1027) is trapped near the top of the filament leading to a reduced change in resistance.

Close modal

In this study, we analyze the effects of the thermal environment on the magnitude of resistance changes in oxide-based RRAM devices during the first reset pulse. SThM was used to measure the top electrode temperature during steady-state measurements providing the basis for the reasonable estimates of thermal conductivities and thermal boundary conductances in our RRAM device. The estimated thermal properties were validated by comparing a comprehensive electro-thermal model with a top electrode temperature measured in situ with SThM during voltage pulsing. Furthermore, parametric studies of thermal conductivities and thermal boundary conductances in HfOx neuromorphic devices identify the thermal conductivity of the capping layer as the most important thermal property in these devices. A low thermal conductivity capping layer, a low thermal boundary conductance between the capping layer and the top electrode, and a high thermal boundary conductance between the filament and the capping layer, all promote large resistance changes in the device due to the resulting higher capping layer temperature. Therefore, the novel guidance provided by this study is to thermal engineer oxide-based RRAM devices with a low capping layer temperature to mitigate undesirable large resistance changes during the first reset pulse. Furthermore, by identifying which thermal properties most critically affect the device behavior, we also highlight proper targets for novel, nanoscale, low uncertainty thermal property measurements of materials and interfaces that may change between the resistance states.

See the supplementary material for S1–S3, Table S1–S2, and Equations S1–S3. More information on the SThM calibration procedure and multiphysics model are available in the supporting information.

This work was supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research MURI entitled, “Cross-disciplinary Electronic-ionic Research Enabling Biologically Realistic Autonomous Learning (CEREBRAL)” under Award No. FA9550-18-1-0024. This work was performed in part at the Georgia Tech Institute for Electronics and Nanotechnology, a member of the National Nanotechnology Coordinated Infrastructure (NNCI), which is supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (No. ECCS-2025462). This material is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE-1650044.

The authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Matthew P. West: Conceptualization (equal); Data curation (equal); Formal analysis (equal); Investigation (equal); Methodology (equal); Writing – original draft (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Georges Pavlidis: Data curation (equal); Investigation (equal); Writing – original draft (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Robert H. Montgomery: Methodology (equal). Fabia Farlin Athena: Investigation (supporting); Methodology (supporting). Muhammad S. Jamil: Formal analysis (supporting); Validation (supporting). Andrea Centrone: Investigation (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal). Samuel Graham: Funding acquisition (equal); Supervision (supporting); Writing – review & editing (supporting). Eric M. Vogel: Funding acquisition (equal); Project administration (equal); Resources (equal); Supervision (equal); Writing – review & editing (equal).

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

1.
P. P.
Shinde
and
S.
Shah
, in
2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA)
(IEEE,
2018
), pp.
1
6
.
2.
J. T.
McCoy
and
L.
Auret
,
Miner. Eng.
132
,
95
109
(
2019
).
3.
M. W.
Libbrecht
and
W. S.
Noble
,
Nat. Rev. Genet.
16
,
321
332
(
2015
).
4.
K.
Kourou
,
T. P.
Exarchos
,
K. P.
Exarchos
,
M. V.
Karamouzis
, and
D. I.
Fotiadis
,
Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J.
13
,
8
17
(
2015
).
6.
X.
Zou
,
S.
Xu
,
X.
Chen
,
L.
Yan
, and
Y.
Han
,
Sci. China Inform. Sci.
64
,
160404
(
2021
).
7.
N. K.
Upadhyay
,
H.
Jiang
,
Z.
Wang
,
S.
Asapu
,
Q.
Xia
, and
J.
Joshua Yang
,
Adv. Mater. Technol.
4
,
1800589
(
2019
).
8.
E. J.
Fuller
,
S. T.
Keene
,
A.
Melianas
,
Z.
Wang
,
S.
Agarwal
,
Y.
Li
,
Y.
Tuchman
,
C. D.
James
,
M. J.
Marinella
,
J. J.
Yang
,
A.
Salleo
, and
A. A.
Talin
,
Science
364
,
570
574
(
2019
).
9.
D. B.
Strukov
,
G. S.
Snider
,
D. R.
Stewart
, and
R. S.
Williams
,
Nat. Lett.
453
,
80
83
(
2008
).
10.
H. Y.
Lee
,
P. S.
Chen
,
T. Y.
Wu
,
Y. S.
Chen
,
C. C.
Wang
,
P. J.
Tzeng
,
C. H.
Lin
,
F.
Chen
,
C. H.
Lien
, and
M.-J.
Tsai
, in
2008 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting
(
IEEE
,
2008
), pp.
1
4
.
11.
G.
Bersuker
,
D.
Veksler
,
D. M.
Nminibapiel
,
P. R.
Shrestha
,
J. P.
Campbell
,
J. T.
Ryan
,
H.
Baumgart
,
M. S.
Mason
, and
K. P.
Cheung
,
J. Comput. Electron.
16
,
1085
1094
(
2017
).
12.
S. Z.
Rahaman
,
Y. D.
Lin
,
H. Y.
Lee
,
Y. S.
Chen
,
P. S.
Chen
,
W. S.
Chen
,
C. H.
Hsu
,
K. H.
Tsai
,
M. J.
Tsai
, and
P. H.
Wang
,
Langmuir
33
,
4654
4665
(
2017
).
13.
Y.
Jeong
,
S.
Kim
, and
W. D.
Lu
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
107
,
173105
(
2015
).
14.
S.
Kim
,
S.
Choi
, and
W.
Lu
,
ACS Nano
8
,
2369
2376
(
2014
).
15.
G.
Bersuker
,
D. C.
Gilmer
,
D.
Veksler
,
P.
Kirsch
,
L.
Vandelli
,
A.
Padovani
,
L.
Larcher
,
K.
McKenna
,
A.
Shluger
,
V.
Iglesias
,
M.
Porti
, and
M.
Nafría
,
J. Appl. Phys.
110
,
124518
(
2011
).
16.
L.
Vandelli
,
A.
Padovani
,
L.
Larcher
,
G.
Broglia
,
G.
Ori
,
M.
Montorsi
,
G.
Bersuker
, and
P.
Pavan
, in
2011 International Electron Devices Meeting
(IEEE,
2011
), pp.
17.5.1
17.5.4
.
17.
P.
Basnet
,
D. G.
Pahinkar
,
M. P.
West
,
C. J.
Perini
,
S.
Graham
, and
E. M.
Vogel
,
J. Mater. Chem. C
8
,
5092
5101
(
2020
).
18.
D. G.
Pahinkar
,
P.
Basnet
,
M. P.
West
,
B.
Zivasatienraj
,
A.
Weidenbach
,
W. A.
Doolittle
,
E.
Vogel
, and
S.
Graham
,
AIP Adv.
10
,
035127
(
2020
).
19.
S.
Menzel
,
U.
Böttger
,
M.
Wimmer
, and
M.
Salinga
,
Adv. Funct. Mater.
25
,
6306
6325
(
2015
).
20.
S.
Dirkmann
,
J.
Kaiser
,
C.
Wenger
, and
T.
Mussenbrock
,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
10
,
14857
14868
(
2018
).
21.
L.
Gao
,
P.-Y.
Chen
, and
S.
Yu
,
IEEE Electron Device Lett.
36
,
1157
1159
(
2015
).
22.
X.
Li
,
H.
Wu
,
B.
Gao
,
W.
Wu
,
D.
Wu
,
N.
Deng
,
J.
Cai
, and
H.
Qian
,
Nanotechnology
27
,
305201
(
2016
).
23.
F. F.
Athena
,
M. P.
West
,
P.
Basnet
,
J.
Hah
,
Q.
Jiang
,
W.-C.
Lee
, and
E. M.
Vogel
,
J. Appl. Phys.
131
,
204901
(
2022
).
24.
J.
Hah
,
M. P.
West
,
F. F.
Athena
,
R.
Hanus
,
E. M.
Vogel
, and
S.
Graham
,
J. Mater. Sci.
57
,
9299
9311
(
2022
).
25.
S. R.
Bradley
,
G.
Bersuker
, and
A. L.
Shluger
,
J. Phys.: Condens. Matter
27
,
415401
(
2015
).
26.
M. P.
West
,
P.
Basnet
,
D. G.
Pahinkar
,
R. H.
Montgomery
,
S.
Graham
, and
E. M.
Vogel
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
116
,
063504
(
2020
).
27.
H. Y.
Jeong
,
Y. I.
Kim
,
J. Y.
Lee
, and
S. Y.
Choi
,
Nanotechnology
21
,
115203
(
2010
).
28.
D.
Carta
,
I.
Salaoru
,
A.
Khiat
,
A.
Regoutz
,
C.
Mitterbauer
,
N. M.
Harrison
, and
T.
Prodromakis
,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
8
,
19605
19611
(
2016
).
29.
Z.
Wang
,
M.
Yin
,
T.
Zhang
,
Y.
Cai
,
Y.
Wang
,
Y.
Yang
, and
R.
Huang
,
Nanoscale
8
,
14015
14022
(
2016
).
30.
Y. D.
Zhao
,
P.
Huang
,
Z.
Chen
,
C.
Liu
,
H. T.
Li
,
W. J.
Ma
,
B.
Gao
,
X. Y.
Liu
, and
J. F.
Kang
, in
2015 International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (SISPAD)
(IEEE,
2015
), pp.
285
288
.
31.
Z.
Fang
,
X. P.
Wang
,
J.
Sohn
,
B. B.
Weng
,
Z. P.
Zhang
,
Z. X.
Chen
,
Y. Z.
Tang
,
G. Q.
Lo
,
J.
Provine
,
S. S.
Wong
,
H. S. P.
Wong
, and
D. L.
Kwong
,
IEEE Electron Device Lett.
35
,
912
914
(
2014
).
32.
M. J.
Marinella
,
S.
Agarwal
,
A.
Hsia
,
I.
Richter
,
R.
Jacobs-Gedrim
,
J.
Niroula
,
S. J.
Plimpton
,
E.
Ipek
, and
C. D.
James
,
IEEE J. Emerging Sel. Top. Circuits Syst.
8
,
86
101
(
2018
).
33.
S.
Agarwal
,
S. J.
Plimpton
,
D. R.
Hughart
,
A. H.
Hsia
,
I.
Richter
,
J. A.
Cox
,
C. D.
James
, and
M. J.
Marinella
, in
2016 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN)
(IEEE,
2016
), pp.
929
938
.
34.
W.
Wu
,
H.
Wu
,
B.
Gao
,
P.
Yao
,
X.
Zhang
,
X.
Peng
,
S.
Yu
, and
H.
Qian
, in
2018 IEEE Symposium on VLSI Technology
(
IEEE
,
2018
), pp.
103
104
.
35.
W.
Wu
,
H.
Wu
,
B.
Gao
,
N.
Deng
,
S.
Yu
, and
H.
Qian
,
IEEE Electron Device Lett.
38
,
1019
1022
(
2017
).
36.
Y.
Xi
,
J.
Tang
,
B.
Gao
,
F.
Xu
,
X.
Li
,
Y.
Lu
,
H.
Qian
, and
H.
Wu
,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices
69
,
4254
4258
(
2022
).
37.
S.
Kim
,
S. J.
Kim
,
K. M.
Kim
,
S. R.
Lee
,
M.
Chang
,
E.
Cho
,
Y. B.
Kim
,
C. J.
Kim
,
U. I.
Chung
, and
I. K.
Yoo
,
Sci. Rep.
3
,
1680
(
2013
).
38.
S. K.
Nandi
,
S. K.
Nath
,
A. E.
El-Helou
,
S.
Li
,
T.
Ratcliff
,
M.
Uenuma
,
P. E.
Raad
, and
R. G.
Elliman
,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
12
,
8422
8428
(
2020
).
39.
S.
Deshmukh
,
M. M.
Rojo
,
E.
Yalon
,
S.
Vaziri
,
C.
Koroglu
,
R.
Islam
,
R. A.
Iglesias
,
K.
Saraswat
, and
E.
Pop
,
Sci. Adv.
8
,
eabk1514
(
2022
).
40.
J. M.
Goodwill
,
G.
Ramer
,
D.
Li
,
B. D.
Hoskins
,
G.
Pavlidis
,
J. J.
McClelland
,
A.
Centrone
,
J. A.
Bain
, and
M.
Skowronski
,
Nat. Commun.
10
,
1628
(
2019
).
41.
I. M.
Datye
,
M. M.
Rojo
,
E.
Yalon
,
S.
Deshmukh
,
M. J.
Mleczko
, and
E.
Pop
,
Nano Lett.
20
,
1461
1467
(
2020
).
42.
S.
Deshmukh
,
M. M.
Rojo
,
E.
Yalon
,
S.
Vaziri
, and
E.
Pop
, in
2018 76th Device Research Conference (DRC)
(IEEE,
2018
), pp.
1
2
.
43.
S. K.
Nandi
,
E.
Puyoo
,
S. K.
Nath
,
D.
Albertini
,
N.
Baboux
,
S. K.
Das
,
T.
Ratcliff
, and
R. G.
Elliman
,
ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces
14
,
29025
29031
(
2022
).
44.
R.
Islam
,
S.
Qin
,
S.
Deshmukh
,
Z.
Yu
,
C.
Köroğlu
,
A. I.
Khan
,
K.
Schauble
,
K. C.
Saraswat
,
E.
Pop
, and
H. S. P.
Wong
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
121
,
082103
(
2022
).
45.
T.
Chang
,
S.-H.
Jo
, and
W.
Lu
,
ACS Nano
5
,
7669
7676
(
2011
).
46.
A.
Subramaniam
,
K. D.
Cantley
,
G.
Bersuker
,
D. C.
Gilmer
, and
E. M.
Vogel
,
IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol.
12
,
450
459
(
2013
).
47.
T.
Ohno
,
T.
Hasegawa
,
T.
Tsuruoka
,
K.
Terabe
,
J. K.
Gimzewski
, and
M.
Aono
,
Nat. Mater.
10
,
591
595
(
2011
).
48.
S. H.
Jo
,
T.
Chang
,
I.
Ebong
,
B. B.
Bhadviya
,
P.
Mazumder
, and
W.
Lu
,
Nano Lett.
10
,
1297
1301
(
2010
).
49.
D. S.
Jakob
and
A.
Centrone
,
Anal. Chem.
94
,
15564
15569
(
2022
).
50.
G. S.
Shekhawat
,
S.
Ramachandran
,
H.
Jiryaei Sharahi
,
S.
Sarkar
,
K.
Hujsak
,
Y.
Li
,
K.
Hagglund
,
S.
Kim
,
G.
Aden
,
A.
Chand
, and
V. P.
Dravid
,
ACS Nano
12
,
1760
1767
(
2018
).
51.
G.
Pavlidis
,
S.
Pavlidis
,
E. R.
Heller
,
E. A.
Moore
,
R.
Vetury
, and
S.
Graham
,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices
64
,
78
83
(
2017
).
52.
N.
Raghavan
,
D. D.
Frey
,
M.
Bosman
, and
K. L.
Pey
,
Microelectron. Reliab.
55
,
1422
1426
(
2015
).
53.
E. A.
Ganykina
,
A. A.
Rezanov
, and
Y. S.
Gornev
,
Proc. SPIE
12157
,
121570B
(
2022
).
54.
C. H.
Wu
,
S. K.
Lin
,
C. H.
Pan
,
P. H.
Chen
,
W. Y.
Lin
,
T. C.
Chang
,
T. M.
Tsai
,
Y. L.
Xu
,
C. C.
Shih
,
Y. S.
Lin
,
W. C.
Chen
,
M. H.
Wang
,
S. D.
Zhang
, and
S. M.
Sze
,
IEEE Electron Device Lett.
39
,
1163
1166
(
2018
).
55.
Y.
Hou
,
U.
Celano
,
L.
Goux
,
L.
Liu
,
R.
Degraeve
,
Y.
Cheng
,
J.
Kang
,
M.
Jurczak
, and
W.
Vandervorst
,
Appl. Phys. Lett.
109
,
023508
(
2016
).
56.
M.
Vollmer
,
Eur. J. Phys.
30
,
1063
1084
(
2009
).
57.
G.
Langer
,
J.
Hartmann
, and
M.
Reichling
,
Rev. Sci. Instrum.
68
,
1510
1513
(
1997
).
58.
D. J.
Kim
,
D. S.
Kim
,
S.
Cho
,
S. W.
Kim
,
S. H.
Lee
, and
J. C.
Kim
,
Int. J. Thermophys.
25
,
281
289
(
2004
).
59.
M. A.
Panzer
,
M.
Shandalov
,
J. A.
Rowlette
,
Y.
Oshima
,
Y.
Wei Chen
,
P. C.
McIntyre
, and
K. E.
Goodson
,
IEEE Electron Device Lett.
30
,
1269
1271
(
2009
).
60.
D.
Thuau
,
I.
Koymen
, and
R.
Cheung
,
Microelectron. Eng.
88
,
2408
2412
(
2011
).
61.
E. A.
Scott
,
J. T.
Gaskins
,
S. W.
King
, and
P. E.
Hopkins
,
APL Mater.
6
,
058302
(
2018
).
62.
M.
Wang
,
G.
Ramer
,
D. J.
Perez-Morelo
,
G.
Pavlidis
,
J. J.
Schwartz
,
L.
Yu
,
R.
Ilic
,
V. A.
Aksyuk
, and
A.
Centrone
,
Nano Lett.
22
,
4325
4332
(
2022
).

Supplementary Material