Design Article
PCM Progress Report No 4: Brains
Ron Neale
7/22/2011 2:32 PM EDT
Synapse Emulation
Proving the required 1% accuracy represented the first part of the work reported by the Stanford group. As well as structural analysis and PCM device simulation, the main focus of the second part of the Stanford work was the actual synapse emulation. The innovation and key to success of the Stanford Synapse emulation is the method by which the recorded resistance value is linked to the relative positions in time of the single pre- and post-synaptic pulses.
The method used is both simple and elegant. It is achieved by first changing the single pre-synaptic pulse (spike) into a pulse train of set and reset pulses, with the reset pulses increasing in amplitude (to cause a decrease the PCM conductance), followed by set pulses that will decrease the value of conductance. The mid-point in time between the two pulse types now becomes application time of the pre-synaptic pulse (spike).
In the Stanford work, the actual spike pair synapse emulation was carried out with a sufficient number of pulses: 15 to obtain 15 data points. Here, in order to explain the principles, it is easier to use 5 pulses as illustrated in Figure 4.
The division of the pre-synaptic pulse into a train of reset and set pulses poses a “which came first, a chicken or egg” type problem. For the emulation to succeed, there needs to be a link between the two pulse trains that is both intriguing and, at first sight, unexpected. The link is the voltage amplitude of the post-synaptic pulse (Vpost). It is possible to obtain a value of Vpost for the emulation starting with either the set or rest pulses, and they may have a different value. Consider first the steps required to develop the reset part of the pulse train.
From a fixed starting value of conductance, Vdmin is defined as the voltage of a reset pulse that will result in a reduction of the value of the PCM conductance by10%, see Figure 4(a).
The amplitudes of the following pulses (four in this example) are selected to result in equal steps needed to obtain the required 50% decrease in conductance, each time from the same fixed starting conductance value. In the actual emulation [1] these values ranged from 25kOhms to 100Kohms, with a midpoint at about 50kOhms. The difference between Vdmax and Vdmin then serves to define the value of Vpost, the voltage of the post-synaptic pulse.
The next step is to define the set pulse train. The lowest value in the set pulse train is obtained using a fixed starting voltage with a value close to Vpost. With this voltage as a starting point, the form of the set pulse (width, number of sub-pulses and voltages) must be found that causes an increase of 10% in the conductance the voltage and this is defined as Vpmin. Then, the voltage levels of the steps for the pulses in this part of the pre-synaptic pulse train that will incrementally increase the conductance to 100% must also be determined.
The next step, shown in Figure 4(b), is to obtain the pre-synaptic pulses that will be used in the emulation. This is achieved by reducing the value of the reset and set pulses by an amount: (Vdmax –Vdmin) = Vpost. The authors in a separate communication advise this was about 0.5Volts for the emulation.
Each data point in the emulation is obtained by applying the pre-synaptic pulse train to one electrode of the PCM and strobing it with a negative going pulse equal to Vpost applied to the other electrode. Figure 4 (b) shows three examples, (i), (ii) and (iii), one for each of one of the possible relative positions of the pre and post-synaptic pulses in the emulation, (i.e. lag. equal and lead respectively). Figure 4(c) shows the resulting voltage that would appear across the PCM when the post-synaptic pulse is coincident with one of the pulses in the pre-synaptic pulse train. Figure 4(d) shows how the resulting percentage change in resistance is used to build the data points that form the emulated synapse characteristics.
As explained above, Vpmin is defined as the minimum voltage that causes a 10% increase in the conductance of a PCM from a fixed initial value. It might be considered surprising and intriguing that Vpost, derived from the reset pulses, is almost equal to Vpmin. This is not a fundamental link; it is a forced link. A value close to Vpost must define the starting point in developing the set pulses. If this were not the case, it would not be possible to use the same Vpost to strobe both the reset and set pulse trains There is a second condition: the max voltage value of the set pulse needed to produce a 100% increase in conductance (Vpmax) cannot exceed 2 x Vpost.
It is of course possible to work in the opposite direction from that described above and use the set pulses as a starting point, obtaining a value for Vpost close to Vpmin and then obtain a set of reset pulses in the opposite way to that described above. Some might consider that complexity of the set pulses, especially if multiple sub-pulses are used, might make that the more desirable starting point to define Vpost as a voltage just less than Vpmin. Then adjust the single reset pulses to find the desired (Vdmax – Vdmin) value.
Sharp-eyed readers will have surely noticed that even without the post-synaptic pulse, all the reset part of the pulse train exceeds Vpmin. Apparently this is not a problem, these pulses are 50ns wide and spaced 10us apart. They are not considered to have any ability to modify the set state and can be ignored. As stated for the emulation each point was obtained by returning the state of the device to a known value, this was achieved by a write-verify technique. Duygu Kuzum one of the authors [1] informed us that this initial value is maintained in the range 5 to 8% .
How good is this PCM based synapse emulator especially with respect to STDP? The simplest way is to consider an equation that is used in bio-science to quantify the data obtained from real synapse.
It is: Δw = Ae-Δt/τ
Where Aw is the percentage increase in synaptic weight (PCM set level) with respect to the initial value, Δt is the pre-post spike interval. While A and τ are free parameters obtained from curve fitting the real data, they are a scaling factor and a time constant. Using the PCM emulator and varying the pulse spacing, the Stanford team was able, by changing the pulse spacing in the emulation, to control the value of τ . Another feature of the real-world synapse is a saturation value in the weight (conductance) of the synapse. With emulation that involved up to 100 pulse (spike) pairs the Stanford team demonstrated similar saturation behavior. The conclusion is the PCM can be used to accurately emulate all aspects of synapse behavior.
From the PCM perspective in the first part of this work, the repeatable control of 100 steps of resistance without recourse to read verify is interesting. The ability to cycle up and down repeatedly through the 100 step of PCM resistance (and in any cycle at any given step have the same value of resistance) must surely teach something about the internal structure.
From the structural analysis [1], it appeared that, for reset, the device operated by varying the size of the dome that was completely returned to the amorphous state, a process likely to be repeatable. However, as the low resistance crystallites grow during set pulse will they be the same and have the same resistance and grain boundary contact resistance? If not, the result would be a less repeatable value of overall resistance? It would appear from the structural analysis in [1] that the region of the device characteristics chosen for the proof of the 100 resistance value capability (i.e 10k to 100K) the volume of the amorphous material involved is close the size of the crystallites.
My view is this could provide the answer to the repeatability of the 100-step results and be applicable for those pursuing multilevel PCMs. That is providing the crystallites are of the right average size so as not to be completely removed on reset, epitaxial grow-back will return the situation exactly as it was before reset with the same total resistance. I would translate this into my rule that says: multilevel repeatability requires the volume of amorphous material used never exceeds the half the crystallite volume.
The quality of the PCM-Synapse emulation was very high. However, it would have been interesting to hear about the effects of temperature on the state of the PCM-synapse and comparison of device-to-device variation. Perhaps the major issue is that the Stanford research acknowledges that the future for PCM-based synapse and its application relies on PCM scaling and the development of 3D stacked matrices. The Stanford research seemed very selective in the detail they offered as supporting evidence from cited references for the possibility of meeting their PCM scaling and reduction in power dissipation requirements.
If you liked this article...
R.G. Neale is the former editor-in-chief of Electronic Engineering. Also, he is the co-author of Nonvolatile and reprogrammable, the read-mostly memory is here, by R.G.Neale, D.L.Nelson and Gordon E. Moore, Electronics, pp56-60, Sept. 28, 1970.
Previous Progress Reports:
[1] Nanoelectronic Programmable Synapses Based on Phase Change Materials for Brain-Inspired Computing
Duygu Kuzum et al,Stanford, NanoLetters 2011.
[2] A Multi-Level-Cell Bipolar-Selected Phase Change Memory, Ferdinando Bedeschi, et al Proc ISSCC 2008
[3] EETimes http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217373/IBM-multilevel-cell-PCM#55892
Proving the required 1% accuracy represented the first part of the work reported by the Stanford group. As well as structural analysis and PCM device simulation, the main focus of the second part of the Stanford work was the actual synapse emulation. The innovation and key to success of the Stanford Synapse emulation is the method by which the recorded resistance value is linked to the relative positions in time of the single pre- and post-synaptic pulses.
The method used is both simple and elegant. It is achieved by first changing the single pre-synaptic pulse (spike) into a pulse train of set and reset pulses, with the reset pulses increasing in amplitude (to cause a decrease the PCM conductance), followed by set pulses that will decrease the value of conductance. The mid-point in time between the two pulse types now becomes application time of the pre-synaptic pulse (spike).
In the Stanford work, the actual spike pair synapse emulation was carried out with a sufficient number of pulses: 15 to obtain 15 data points. Here, in order to explain the principles, it is easier to use 5 pulses as illustrated in Figure 4.
The division of the pre-synaptic pulse into a train of reset and set pulses poses a “which came first, a chicken or egg” type problem. For the emulation to succeed, there needs to be a link between the two pulse trains that is both intriguing and, at first sight, unexpected. The link is the voltage amplitude of the post-synaptic pulse (Vpost). It is possible to obtain a value of Vpost for the emulation starting with either the set or rest pulses, and they may have a different value. Consider first the steps required to develop the reset part of the pulse train.
From a fixed starting value of conductance, Vdmin is defined as the voltage of a reset pulse that will result in a reduction of the value of the PCM conductance by10%, see Figure 4(a).
The amplitudes of the following pulses (four in this example) are selected to result in equal steps needed to obtain the required 50% decrease in conductance, each time from the same fixed starting conductance value. In the actual emulation [1] these values ranged from 25kOhms to 100Kohms, with a midpoint at about 50kOhms. The difference between Vdmax and Vdmin then serves to define the value of Vpost, the voltage of the post-synaptic pulse.
The next step is to define the set pulse train. The lowest value in the set pulse train is obtained using a fixed starting voltage with a value close to Vpost. With this voltage as a starting point, the form of the set pulse (width, number of sub-pulses and voltages) must be found that causes an increase of 10% in the conductance the voltage and this is defined as Vpmin. Then, the voltage levels of the steps for the pulses in this part of the pre-synaptic pulse train that will incrementally increase the conductance to 100% must also be determined.
The next step, shown in Figure 4(b), is to obtain the pre-synaptic pulses that will be used in the emulation. This is achieved by reducing the value of the reset and set pulses by an amount: (Vdmax –Vdmin) = Vpost. The authors in a separate communication advise this was about 0.5Volts for the emulation.
Each data point in the emulation is obtained by applying the pre-synaptic pulse train to one electrode of the PCM and strobing it with a negative going pulse equal to Vpost applied to the other electrode. Figure 4 (b) shows three examples, (i), (ii) and (iii), one for each of one of the possible relative positions of the pre and post-synaptic pulses in the emulation, (i.e. lag. equal and lead respectively). Figure 4(c) shows the resulting voltage that would appear across the PCM when the post-synaptic pulse is coincident with one of the pulses in the pre-synaptic pulse train. Figure 4(d) shows how the resulting percentage change in resistance is used to build the data points that form the emulated synapse characteristics.
As explained above, Vpmin is defined as the minimum voltage that causes a 10% increase in the conductance of a PCM from a fixed initial value. It might be considered surprising and intriguing that Vpost, derived from the reset pulses, is almost equal to Vpmin. This is not a fundamental link; it is a forced link. A value close to Vpost must define the starting point in developing the set pulses. If this were not the case, it would not be possible to use the same Vpost to strobe both the reset and set pulse trains There is a second condition: the max voltage value of the set pulse needed to produce a 100% increase in conductance (Vpmax) cannot exceed 2 x Vpost.
It is of course possible to work in the opposite direction from that described above and use the set pulses as a starting point, obtaining a value for Vpost close to Vpmin and then obtain a set of reset pulses in the opposite way to that described above. Some might consider that complexity of the set pulses, especially if multiple sub-pulses are used, might make that the more desirable starting point to define Vpost as a voltage just less than Vpmin. Then adjust the single reset pulses to find the desired (Vdmax – Vdmin) value.
Sharp-eyed readers will have surely noticed that even without the post-synaptic pulse, all the reset part of the pulse train exceeds Vpmin. Apparently this is not a problem, these pulses are 50ns wide and spaced 10us apart. They are not considered to have any ability to modify the set state and can be ignored. As stated for the emulation each point was obtained by returning the state of the device to a known value, this was achieved by a write-verify technique. Duygu Kuzum one of the authors [1] informed us that this initial value is maintained in the range 5 to 8% .
How good is this PCM based synapse emulator especially with respect to STDP? The simplest way is to consider an equation that is used in bio-science to quantify the data obtained from real synapse.
It is: Δw = Ae-Δt/τ
Where Aw is the percentage increase in synaptic weight (PCM set level) with respect to the initial value, Δt is the pre-post spike interval. While A and τ are free parameters obtained from curve fitting the real data, they are a scaling factor and a time constant. Using the PCM emulator and varying the pulse spacing, the Stanford team was able, by changing the pulse spacing in the emulation, to control the value of τ . Another feature of the real-world synapse is a saturation value in the weight (conductance) of the synapse. With emulation that involved up to 100 pulse (spike) pairs the Stanford team demonstrated similar saturation behavior. The conclusion is the PCM can be used to accurately emulate all aspects of synapse behavior.
From the PCM perspective in the first part of this work, the repeatable control of 100 steps of resistance without recourse to read verify is interesting. The ability to cycle up and down repeatedly through the 100 step of PCM resistance (and in any cycle at any given step have the same value of resistance) must surely teach something about the internal structure.
From the structural analysis [1], it appeared that, for reset, the device operated by varying the size of the dome that was completely returned to the amorphous state, a process likely to be repeatable. However, as the low resistance crystallites grow during set pulse will they be the same and have the same resistance and grain boundary contact resistance? If not, the result would be a less repeatable value of overall resistance? It would appear from the structural analysis in [1] that the region of the device characteristics chosen for the proof of the 100 resistance value capability (i.e 10k to 100K) the volume of the amorphous material involved is close the size of the crystallites.
My view is this could provide the answer to the repeatability of the 100-step results and be applicable for those pursuing multilevel PCMs. That is providing the crystallites are of the right average size so as not to be completely removed on reset, epitaxial grow-back will return the situation exactly as it was before reset with the same total resistance. I would translate this into my rule that says: multilevel repeatability requires the volume of amorphous material used never exceeds the half the crystallite volume.
The quality of the PCM-Synapse emulation was very high. However, it would have been interesting to hear about the effects of temperature on the state of the PCM-synapse and comparison of device-to-device variation. Perhaps the major issue is that the Stanford research acknowledges that the future for PCM-based synapse and its application relies on PCM scaling and the development of 3D stacked matrices. The Stanford research seemed very selective in the detail they offered as supporting evidence from cited references for the possibility of meeting their PCM scaling and reduction in power dissipation requirements.
If you liked this article...
- Head to the Memory Designline homepage for the latest updates in memory and storage.
- Sign up for the Memory Designline Newsletter, 2X a month delivered to your mailbox with the latest highlights from the site.
R.G. Neale is the former editor-in-chief of Electronic Engineering. Also, he is the co-author of Nonvolatile and reprogrammable, the read-mostly memory is here, by R.G.Neale, D.L.Nelson and Gordon E. Moore, Electronics, pp56-60, Sept. 28, 1970.
Previous Progress Reports:
- PCM Progress: Temperatures rise and constituents on the move
- Phase change memory (PCM) progress report, part 2
- PCM-NV progress report Part 3: A new direction using polyamorphic states
[1] Nanoelectronic Programmable Synapses Based on Phase Change Materials for Brain-Inspired Computing
Duygu Kuzum et al,Stanford, NanoLetters 2011.
[2] A Multi-Level-Cell Bipolar-Selected Phase Change Memory, Ferdinando Bedeschi, et al Proc ISSCC 2008
[3] EETimes http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4217373/IBM-multilevel-cell-PCM#55892
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
janine.love
7/22/2011 2:53 PM EDT
I asked Ron Neale to take a look at some of the current work being done in PCM and he took the time to analyze some work being done by Stanford University. Look for more on PCM, with a new progress report coming in a week or two.
Sign in to Reply
iniewski
8/2/2011 6:35 PM EDT
Could you let us know where the report is published/posted? Kris
Sign in to Reply
resistion
7/22/2011 9:10 PM EDT
I think the desired outcome will be foiled by resistance drift. I also wonder if something similar could be accomplished by Flash? If not, the reason(s) would also be important.
Sign in to Reply
R G.Neale
7/23/2011 6:38 AM EDT
Resistion-You could be right, I guess it's up to someone to prove the point experimentally, arm waving solutions and claims of brain functions or any other aspect of PCM developments are no longer acceptable.
The 100 level resolution (1%)for Flash might result in some drift. In a modern scaled Flash how many electrons does that involve for each step? It is even possible if all devices in an emulated synapse network drift together the relative learned experience of the neural network is the same, others will have to answer that question. Drift tolerance is the feature that IBM use in their MLC-PCM. Both IBM-MLC and PCM-Onyx were originally part of this Progress Report I understand that material will now appear in the next PCM Progress Report, #5 in the near future.
Sign in to Reply
resistion
7/24/2011 12:02 AM EDT
The drift can be compensated with a reference, but each new data input needs a new reference, so things (costs, power, delays) add up that way.
100 levels in flash I think is not doable, even 8 levels or 3 bits is borderline. Too few random electrons to tell the difference.
Sign in to Reply
janine.love
7/23/2011 4:44 PM EDT
I have hidden some of the comments on this article because of their unproductive nature. My thanks to those readers who pointed them out. I understand and am glad that we are passionate about our work, but let's keep it professional. Thanks.
Sign in to Reply
Volatile Memory
7/25/2011 10:58 AM EDT
Dear RF/Memory Editor:
Yes, let's keep it professional! When pseudo-research is touted as some kind of breakthrough in a respected publication, the duty of the editor is to notice, not to silence the whistleblower. The fact is, Mr. Neale dropped the ball on this one. He knew or should have known that Mr. Ovshinsky has claimed similar "results" for at least 25 years. Those claims and results turned out to be fraudulent. As will the latest "results" from the "researchers" at Stanford University.
Sign in to Reply
janine.love
7/25/2011 1:18 PM EDT
Debate and conversation is welcome. In fact, it is the intent of the comments section. As long as you refrain from name calling, I'm happy to let the comments stand and the debate ensue.
Sign in to Reply
Solster
7/25/2011 5:55 PM EDT
The fact remains that this is an academic paper peer-reviewed by credentialed research scientists and a professor. Constructive dialogue is the cornerstone of academic research, while "commentators" to web-articles expressing opinions with no apparent personal credibility whatsoever, don't contribute much to the debate, really. There's hopefully a reason why R.G. Neale (and not a certain "commentator") was invited to write this review article and any real constructive debate on this paper could really just be a rebuttal paper in Nano Letters. Anything less, especially those without any technical discussions and instead full of dubious accusations, is worth little more than idle chit-chat for mere entertainment.
Sign in to Reply
Volatile Memory
7/25/2011 9:05 PM EDT
Solster: Care to explain how exactly Mr. Ovshinsky managed to publish a fraudulent paper, describing the 16-level magic neuron device, on the pages of the peer-reviewed Japanese Journal of Applied Physics in 2004:
http://jjap.jsap.jp/link?JJAP/43/4695/
I wonder what Mr. Neale has to say about it.
Sign in to Reply
rbtbob
7/25/2011 12:44 AM EDT
Some of the readers that are not current on the research being done on phase change materials and devices in the last few years might like to read some of the papers presented at the European Phase Change and Ovonics Science Symposium. Regarding the subject of Mr. Neale's analysis, I recommend the paper presented by Stan Ovshinsky at the 2004 Symposium.
http://www.epcos.org/library/library2010.htm
Sign in to Reply
Volatile Memory
7/25/2011 11:10 AM EDT
Here is the 10x Microsofts quote, accompanied with the "results:"
http://goo.gl/WCxQm
The document was created in December of 2004 (and published in early 2005) when Mr. Ovshinsky was still at the helm of Ovonic Cognitive Computer and its parent.
Sign in to Reply
R G.Neale
7/25/2011 5:23 AM EDT
rbtbob-I was careful to put the precedence claim in quotes in case I had missed a paper. My brief was to explore what the Stanford team had been able to get the PCM to do based on their real experimental data, not to research the whole field of bio-science for claims and counter claims. The word "promising" in the title of the paper you recommend gives cause for concern. I think to date the whole field of phase change memory has been beset and damaged by too many unfulfilled promises.
Sign in to Reply
R G.Neale
7/26/2011 10:57 AM EDT
Solster: Outside of the subject of this paper, and your comment""The fact remains that this is an academic paper peer-reviewed by credentialed research scientists and a professor. Constructive dialogue is the cornerstone of academic research, while "commentators" to web-articles expressing opinions with no apparent personal credibility whatsoever, don't contribute much to the debate, really.""
I think as the web takes over paper publishing peer group review will change and become web based with an opportunity for peer group review to come quickly from all quarters, including your professors etc. With the editors responsible for the removal of any offensive material. I am convinced that is the future of peer group review.
Also would you care to explain your words regarding myself and my reputation in parenthesis and quotes.
Sign in to Reply
R G.Neale
7/26/2011 12:01 PM EDT
Solster- On the subject of peer group review there is an interesting article "Putting Peer Review on Trial", by Raoul Franklin,in PhysicsWorld, December 2010,p17.Published by the Institute of Physics (IoP)
Key quote "The system we use to judge our peers work must be made more transparent" He points out a number of problems and defects with the present method and offers some possible changes.
If you read it it may shake your faith a little in the present system.I will try and assess if it is on the web.
Sign in to Reply