Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Thickness Dependence of Coercive Field in Ferroelectric Doped-Hafnium Oxide

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The coercive field in ferroelectric hafnium oxide scales as $E_c \propto d^{-1/2}$ rather than the classical $d^{-2/3}$, because spacer layers confine reverse domains to single polar layers.

desk verdict A genuinely new idea—anisotropic domain confinement giving Ec ∝ d^{-1/2}—but the load-bearing confinement assumption and a dimensional slip in the apparent-field definition keep the central claim unproven as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06222 v1 pith:VXSBGBVF submitted 2025-06-06 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-ph

Revanth Koduru , Sumeet Kumar Gupta This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-ph
keywords ferroelectrichafniumoxidecoercivefieldthicknessscalingdomainnucleationorthorhombicHfO2polarlayerconfinementJKDtheoryhalf-prolateellipticalcylinder
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the experimentally observed weaker-than-classical thickness dependence of the coercive field in ferroelectric hafnium oxide follows from the crystal's anisotropic layering. The orthorhombic phase has continuous polar layers in one in-plane direction and alternating polar/spacer layers in the other, and the spacer layers block domain growth across them. As a result, nucleated reverse domains are confined to a single polar layer and take a half-prolate elliptical cylindrical shape. Modeling the nucleation and growth energetics of such domains gives $E_c \propto d^{-1/2}$, and after correcting measured coercive fields for depolarization this slope matches experimental sub-100 nm HfO$_2$ data while perovskites retain the $d^{-2/3}$ slope.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the energy functional $U_\Delta(E_v,r,l)$ for a half-prolate elliptical cylinder reverse domain of radius $r$, length $l$, and fixed thickness $t$: $U_\Delta = -a E_{va} r l + b l + c r^2$, with $a = P_s\pi t$, $b = 7\pi\sigma_c t/11$, $c = P_s^2 t/(4\sqrt{\varepsilon_a\varepsilon_c})$, and $E_{va} = E_v - E_h - 2\sigma_e/P_s$. Minimizing over nuclei that can grow defines the critical field at which the minimum energy crosses zero, producing the $d^{-1/2}$ law. The decisive geometric input is that spacer layers confine growth to a single polar layer, making $t$ a material constant rather than a scaling dimension.

What would settle it

Measure the log-log slope of the depolarization-corrected intrinsic coercive field versus thickness in sub-100 nm single-orientation orthorhombic HfO$_2$ films: a slope near $-1/2$ supports the confined-cylinder picture, while a slope near $-2/3$ indicates that domains are not confined to single polar layers.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the anisotropic crystal structure of polar orthorhombic HfO$_2$ forces nucleated reverse domains to stay within a single polar layer: continuous polar layers along one in-plane axis and alternating polar and spacer layers along the orthogonal axis make lateral growth along the spacer direction energetically prohibitive. The domain is therefore modeled as a half-prolate elliptical cylinder with fixed thickness $t$ equal to half the lattice constant, not the half-prolate spheroid assumed in classical JKD nucleation-growth theory. Evaluating the energy of such a cylinder and requiring both nucleation and growth to be energetically favorable yields an apparent critical field $E_{va,c} = 2\sqrt{cb/a^2}/\sqrt{d}$, and hence $E_c = 2\sqrt{cb/a^2}\,d^{-1/2} + E_h + 2\sigma_e/P_s$, i.e. $E_c \propto d^{-1/2}$. This weaker thickness dependence is presented as the explanation for the sub-100 nm experimental trend in ferroelectric HfO$_2$ films.

Load-bearing premise

The reverse domain stays strictly confined to a single polar layer along the alternating polar-spacer direction, with fixed thickness equal to half the lattice constant; if domain walls could cross spacer layers under operating fields, the geometry would approach a spheroid and the classical $d^{-2/3}$ exponent would return.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For orthorhombic-phase HfO$_2$ films below roughly 100 nm, the coercive field grows as $d^{-1/2}$, which is slower than the $d^{-2/3}$ growth expected for perovskites.
  • Thick-film saturation of $E_c$ remains explained by thickness-independent grain size, while the new $d^{-1/2}$ law applies in the thin-film regime where grains no longer limit the domain size.
  • Epitaxial films dominated by the rhombohedral phase should follow the classical $d^{-2/3}$ scaling because that phase lacks the alternating polar-spacer layer structure.
  • The prefactor in the scaling law depends on material constants such as polarization, domain-wall energy, and permittivity, so dopant or processing changes shift the magnitude of $E_c$ without changing the $d^{-1/2}$ exponent.
  • Comparing theory with experiment requires correcting measured coercive voltages for depolarization at the metal-ferroelectric interface; raw measured slopes can be distorted by this effect.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the confinement picture is correct, tuning the spacer-layer energy barrier through strain, doping, or interface engineering should continuously vary the effective thickness exponent between $-1/2$ and $-2/3$, a testable prediction not made in the paper.
  • The model implies strongly anisotropic in-plane domain growth, so patterned electrodes or in-plane electric-field components should reveal growth predominantly along the continuous-polar-layer direction.
  • The same confined-domain logic could apply to other layered ferroelectrics with alternating polar and spacer sublattices, where similarly reduced thickness exponents might be observed.
  • Because each polar layer switches quasi-independently, the model suggests that coercivity in polycrystalline films is controlled more by the distribution of local nucleation sites than by film thickness alone.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the reduced thickness dependence of the coercive field in ferroelectric HfO2, compared with the classical Janovec-Kay-Dunn (JKD) scaling Ec ∝ d^{−2/3}, originates from the anisotropic crystal structure of the orthorhombic phase. The authors argue that alternating polar and spacer layers confine reverse domains to a single polar layer, so that domains are half-prolate elliptical cylinders rather than half-prolate spheroids. By modeling the energetics of nucleation and growth of such confined domains, they derive a modified scaling law Ec ∝ d^{−1/2}. The model is then compared with experimental data from several HfO2 samples after a depolarization correction, and the reported log-log slopes are close to −1/2, in contrast to the perovskite slopes near −2/3.

Significance. If valid, the proposed mechanism would resolve a well-known puzzle in ferroelectric HfO2: why thin films exhibit a weaker thickness dependence than perovskites. The paper is clear and offers a falsifiable prediction, and it attempts a quantitative comparison with multiple experimental datasets. Its strength is that the d^{−1/2} exponent arises from a physical model rather than from a curve fit, and the comparison to experiments is a genuine test of the scaling form. However, the central derivation contains a dimensional inconsistency and an unverified extension of an electrostatic formula, and the key geometric assumption of single-layer confinement under bias is not directly validated. The significance is therefore conditional on correcting these technical issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (13), (14), and (19)] The definition Eva = Ev − Eh − 2σe/Ps is dimensionally inconsistent. In Eq. (13) the surface-energy term is 2σeπrl, and when this is combined with −EvPsπtrl and +EhPsπtrl to form −aEva rl with a = Psπt, the field-like term must be 2σe/(Ps t), not 2σe/Ps. As written, the contribution a(2σe/Ps)rl has units of J·m rather than J, so Eq. (14) does not follow from Eq. (13). This error propagates to the offset term in Eq. (42). The authors should correct Eq. (19) and re-derive the final expression, or at least clarify the intended definitions.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (6)] The inhomogeneous-field energy is stated as an extension of Landauer's 2D result to a 3D half-prolate elliptical cylinder, but no derivation is provided and the typeset formula is ambiguous. The reduction to Eq. (7) in the limit l ≫ r is not transparent from the printed expression, and the term appears to be missing parentheses. Because the r^2 scaling of this term is what ultimately produces the −1/2 exponent in Eq. (42), this step is load-bearing. The authors should supply a derivation of the 3D expression, or cite a source that contains it, and explicitly show the l ≫ r limit.
  3. [Section II] The central geometric assumption is that the reverse domain is strictly confined to a single polar layer of thickness t equal to half a lattice constant, even under applied fields near Ec. References [5], [21], and [22] establish the existence of unit-cell-wide domains in equilibrium and the structural asymmetry of the orthorhombic phase, but they do not demonstrate that a switching domain remains pinned to one polar layer when the applied field is close to the coercive field. If domain walls can cross the spacer layers, the domain geometry approaches a half-prolate spheroid and the JKD d^{−2/3} scaling is restored. The manuscript should provide a quantitative estimate of the energy barrier for domain propagation across spacer layers, or otherwise justify the confinement assumption under bias.
  4. [Section VI] The experimental validation compares log-log slopes of depolarization-corrected coercive fields but does not test the full predicted functional form Ec = A d^{−1/2} + B from Eq. (42). With a finite offset B, the log-log slope is not equal to −1/2, and a slope near −0.5 over a limited thickness range can be consistent with other functional forms. The authors should fit the complete expression to the data, or demonstrate explicitly that the offset B is negligible over the fitted thickness range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (13)] The typesetting of the inhomogeneous-energy term in Eq. (13) is ambiguous and appears to contain a stray "r2"; the intended expression is presumably Ps^2 r^2 t/(4√(εaεc)), but this should be cleaned up.
  2. [Section V, after Eq. (35)] The sentence "Substituting (34) and (35) into (1)" should refer to Eq. (14), not Eq. (1), since Eq. (1) is the proposed scaling law rather than the energy expression.
  3. [Section II, Fig. 2] The description of the domain geometry is confusing: the relationships among r, l, t, the film thickness d, and the APSL/CPL directions should be stated explicitly in terms of coordinate axes so that the reader can verify the volume and surface-area formulas.
  4. [Section VI, Fig. 5a] The parameter values used for the depolarization correction are listed without sources; the authors should indicate how Ps, a, and εf were chosen for each experimental dataset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Ec ∝ d^{-1/2} exponent follows from the internal energy minimization (Eqs. 13-42); the single-layer domain confinement is an externally supported input, not the predicted quantity, and the experimental comparison is a slope check of a predicted power law, not a fit.

full rationale

The thickness-scaling claim Ec∝d^{-1/2} is obtained by minimizing the energy functional (13)-(14) with respect to nucleus dimensions and identifying the critical field at which favorable nucleation first occurs (Eqs. 31, 40-42). The exponent emerges from the algebra of the growth conditions (20)-(24) and is not imposed by any fitted parameter; a, b, and c are material and geometric constants. The geometric input that domains are half-prolate elliptical cylinders confined to a single polar layer is an assumption, but the paper supports it with first-principles and microscopic evidence [5,21,22], and that input is not the quantity being predicted. The experimental comparison in Sec. VI computes log-log slopes of depolarization-corrected data rather than fitting the model to all points, so it is a test of the predicted power law. The one self-citation ([21], a same-group arXiv study) supports the structural confinement premise but is corroborated by independent references [5] and [22], and it does not assert the thickness scaling; hence it is not load-bearing for the central claim. Eq. (42)'s constant offset is not tested against the log-log slope, but that is a validation limitation, not circularity. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a specific domain geometry and several material parameters as inputs. The key added structure is the half-prolate elliptical cylinder domain, which is a modeling choice, not a new object. The central claim depends on the single-layer confinement premise and the unverified extension of Landauer's formula.

free parameters (3)
  • domain thickness t (set to half lattice constant) = about 0.25 nm
    Chosen by hand in Section II as half the lattice constant, based on unit-cell-wide domains from prior DFT. This fixed third dimension is a load-bearing geometric constant in the energy model.
  • normalized screening length a (lambda/epsilon_e) = not given in text, see Fig. 5a
    Used in the depolarization correction (Eq. 43) for each experimental sample. Values are taken from prior work or assumed, not derived in this paper.
  • saturation polarization Ps = material-specific, not tabulated in text
    Input material parameter used in both the energy model and the depolarization correction. Affects the corrected Ec values and the slope comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Landauer's 2D electrostatic energy formula can be extended to a 3D half-prolate elliptical cylinder geometry without additional derivation (Eq. 6).
    The paper states it uses Landauer's formulation 'instead of deriving the expressions from scratch' and writes Eq. 6. No validation or derivation of the 3D extension is provided.
  • domain assumption Reverse domains are confined to a single polar layer along the APSL direction, so the domain thickness t is fixed at half the lattice constant.
    Section II: this is the central geometric premise, based on first-principles calculations [5], [21] and experiments [22], but applied as a hard constraint for all switching events without considering possible escape across spacer layers.
  • domain assumption Nucleation occurs at the metal-ferroelectric interface, and events are independent, single-grain, with polarization aligned with the field.
    Section III: simplifying assumptions to make the model tractable. The authors acknowledge these are idealizations and argue they can be extended to polycrystalline films, but the extension is not quantified.
  • standard math Ramanujan's approximation for ellipse perimeter is accurate in the high eccentricity limit (l >> r).
    Used in Eq. 9-10 to derive the lateral surface area Sc. This is a standard mathematical approximation, appropriate for the assumed geometry.
  • domain assumption The depolarization correction of Dawber et al. applies with uniform screening parameters to all experimental HfO2 samples.
    Section VI: the correction is applied without verifying the screening lengths or permittivities for each specific sample, which could bias the resulting slopes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thickness Dependence of Coercive Field in Ferroelectric Doped-Hafnium Oxide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VXSBGBVF

@misc{pith2026250606222,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thickness Dependence of Coercive Field in Ferroelectric Doped-Hafnium Oxide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VXSBGBVF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06222}
}
abstract

Ferroelectric hafnium oxide (${HfO_2}$) exhibits a thickness-dependent coercive field $(E_c)$ behavior that deviates from the trends observed in perovskites and the predictions of Janovec-Kay-Dunn (JKD) theory. Experiments reveal that, in thinner $HfO_2$ films ($<100\,nm$), $E_c$ increases with decreasing thickness but at a slower rate than predicted by the JKD theory. In thicker films, $E_c$ saturates and is independent of thickness. Prior studies attributed the thick film saturation to the thickness-independent grain size, which limits the domain growth. However, the reduced dependence in thinner films is poorly understood. In this work, we expound the reduced thickness dependence of $E_c$, attributing it to the anisotropic crystal structure of the polar orthorhombic (o) phase of $HfO_2$. This phase consists of continuous polar layers (CPL) along one in-plane direction and alternating polar and spacer layers (APSL) along the orthogonal direction. The spacer layers decouple adjacent polar layers along APSL, increasing the energy barrier for domain growth compared to CPL direction. As a result, the growth of nucleated domains is confined to a single polar plane in $HfO_2$, forming half-prolate elliptical cylindrical geometry rather than half-prolate spheroid geometry observed in perovskites. By modeling the nucleation and growth energetics of these confined domains, we derive a modified scaling law of $E_c \propto d^{-1/2}$ for $HfO_2$ that deviates from the classical JKD dependence of $E_c \propto d^{-2/3}$. The proposed scaling agrees well with the experimental trends in coercive field across various ferroelectric $HfO_2$ samples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06222 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Experimental trends (reproduced from [9] with permission) of coercive field (Ec) versus ferroelectric thickness (d) for various samples of HfO2 and perovskites, showing the different regimes and the reduced thickness dependence in HfO2. b) Unit lattice crystal structure of the orthorhombic phase of HfO2 in upward and downward polarization, highlighting the centrosymmetric (spacer) and non-centrosymmetric(polar) s… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Structure of the half-prolate elliptical cylinder reverse domain with upward polarization (+P ) confined to a single polar layer along the APSL direction in a fully poled −P polarized HfO2 layer in a) 3D view, b) 2D front-view and c) 2D bottom view. First principles studies [5], [21] have shown that, along the APSL direction, spacer layers act as decoupling planes be￾tween adjacent polar layers. This leads to direct… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a) Plot of boundary curves (b1’) and (b1”), which divide the l − r plane into 4 regions based on energetic favorability of domain growth. Representative trajectories of nucleated domains in each region illustrated to show possible growth or collapse behaviors. (b) Evolution of boundary curves with decreasing external electric field Ev (and consequently Eva), highlighting critical field Ek below which region I, repre… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Apparent electric field (Eva) and the corresponding minimum energy of the nucleus (U∗ Eva ) plotted against the radius (r ∗ Eva ) of the minimum-energy nucleus. Highlights the critical field Evac, defined by the zero-crossing of U∗ Eva , marking the onset of energetica…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) Parameter values used to correct experimentally measured coercive field values for depolarization effects in HfO2 and perovskites. b) Slopes of log(Ec,F E) versus. log(d) of corrected experimental coercive field, showing close to -0.5 slope for FE HfO2 consistent wi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [5]

    Scale-free ferroelectricity induced by flat phonon bands in HfO 2,

    H.-J. Lee, M. Lee, K. Lee, J. Jo, H. Yang, Y . Kim, S. C. Chae, U. Waghmare, and J. H. Lee, “Scale-free ferroelectricity induced by flat phonon bands in HfO 2,” Science, vol. 369, no. 6509, pp. 1343–1347, Sep. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba0067

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aba0067 2020

  2. [21]

    Direction-Dependent Lateral Domain Walls in Ferroelectric Hafnium Zirconium Oxide and their Gradient Energy Coefficients: A First Principles Study

    T. K. Paul, A. K. Saha, and S. K. Gupta, “Direction-Dependent Lateral Domain Walls in Ferroelectric Hafnium Zirconium Oxide and their Gradient Energy Coefficients: A First Principles Study,” 2022, publisher: arXiv Version Number: 3. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.11029

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  3. [22]

    Atomic-Scale Scanning of Domain Network in the Ferroelectric HfO 2 Thin Film,

    K. Park, D. Kim, K. Lee, H.-J. Lee, J. Kim, S. Kang, A. Lin, A. J. Pattison, W. Theis, C. H. Kim, H. Choi, J. W. Cho, P. Ercius, J. H. Lee, S. C. Chae, and J. Park, “Atomic-Scale Scanning of Domain Network in the Ferroelectric HfO 2 Thin Film,” ACS Nano, p. acsnano.4c08721, Sep. 2024. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsnano.4c08721

    work page doi:10.1021/acsnano.4c08721 2024

  4. [1]

    Ferroelectricity in hafnium oxide thin films,

    T. S. B ¨oscke, J. M ¨uller, D. Br ¨auhaus, U. Schr ¨oder, and U. B ¨ottger, “Ferroelectricity in hafnium oxide thin films,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 99, no. 10, p. 102903, Sep. 2011. [Online]. Available: http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3634052

    doi:10.1063/1.3634052 2011

  5. [2]

    The fundamentals and applications of ferroelectric HfO2,

    U. Schroeder, M. H. Park, T. Mikolajick, and C. S. Hwang, “The fundamentals and applications of ferroelectric HfO2,” Nature Reviews Materials, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 653–669, Mar. 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41578-022-00431-2

    work page 2022

  6. [3]

    Ferroelectricity in Simple Binary ZrO 2 and HfO 2,

    J. M ¨uller, T. S. B ¨oscke, U. Schr ¨oder, S. Mueller, D. Br ¨auhaus, U. B¨ottger, L. Frey, and T. Mikolajick, “Ferroelectricity in Simple Binary ZrO 2 and HfO 2,” Nano Letters, vol. 12, no. 8, pp. 4318–4323, Aug

    work page

  7. [4]

    The origin of ferroelectricity in Hf1 −xZrxO2: A computational investigation and a surface energy model,

    R. Materlik, C. K ¨unneth, and A. Kersch, “The origin of ferroelectricity in Hf1 −xZrxO2: A computational investigation and a surface energy model,” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 117, no. 13, p. 134109, Apr. 2015. [Online]. Avail- able: https://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/117/13/134109/568535/The-origin- of-ferroelectricity-in-Hf1-xZrxO2-A

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    Ferroelectric hafnium oxide: A CMOS-compatible and highly scalable approach to future ferroelectric memories,

    J. Muller, T. S. Boscke, S. Muller, E. Yurchuk, P. Polakowski, J. Paul, D. Martin, T. Schenk, K. Khullar, A. Kersch, W. Weinreich, S. Riedel, K. Seidel, A. Kumar, T. M. Arruda, S. V . Kalinin, T. Schlosser, R. Boschke, R. Van Bentum, U. Schroder, and T. Mikolajick, “Ferroelectric hafnium oxide: A CMOS-compatible and highly scalable approach to future ferr...

    work page arXiv 2013

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    Hafnium oxide based ferroelectric devices for memories and beyond,

    T. Mikolajick, U. Schroeder, and S. Slesazeck, “Hafnium oxide based ferroelectric devices for memories and beyond,” in 2018 International Symposium on VLSI Technology, Systems and Application (VLSI-TSA) , Apr. 2018, pp. 1–2. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/doc...

    2018

  2. [8]

    The Past, the Present, and the Future of Ferroelectric Memories,

    T. Mikolajick, U. Schroeder, and S. Sesazeck, “The Past, the Present, and the Future of Ferroelectric Memories,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 1434–1443, Apr. 2020

    2020

  3. [9]

    A perspective on the physical scaling down of hafnia-based ferroelectrics,

    J. Y . Park, D. H. Lee, G. H. Park, J. Lee, Y . Lee, and M. H. Park, “A perspective on the physical scaling down of hafnia-based ferroelectrics,” Nanotechnology, vol. 34, no. 20, p. 202001, Feb. 2023, publisher: IOP Publishing. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1...

    2023 doi

  4. [10]

    Polarization switching in thin doped HfO2 ferroelectric layers,

    M. Materano, P. D. Lomenzo, H. Mulaosmanovic, M. Hoffmann, A. Toriumi, T. Mikolajick, and U. Schroeder, “Polarization switching in thin doped HfO2 ferroelectric layers,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 117, no. 26, p. 262904, Dec. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2020 doi

  5. [11]

    Thickness-dependent crystal structure and electric properties of epitaxial ferroelectric Y2O3-HfO2 films,

    T. Mimura, T. Shimizu, H. Uchida, O. Sakata, and H. Funakubo, “Thickness-dependent crystal structure and electric properties of epitaxial ferroelectric Y2O3-HfO2 films,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 113, no. 10, p. 102901, Sep. 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1...

    2018 doi

  6. [12]

    Study on the size effect in Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 films thinner than 8 nm before and after wake-up field cycling,

    M. H. Park, H. J. Kim, Y . J. Kim, Y . H. Lee, T. Moon, K. D. Kim, S. D. Hyun, and C. S. Hwang, “Study on the size effect in Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 films thinner than 8 nm before and after wake-up field cycling,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 107, no. 19, p. 192907, Nov

  7. [13]

    Material perspectives of HfO2-based ferroelectric films for device applications,

    A. Toriumi, L. Xu, Y . Mori, X. Tian, P. D. Lomenzo, H. Mulaosmanovic, M. Materano, T. Mikolajick, and U. Schroeder, “Material perspectives of HfO2-based ferroelectric films for device applications,” in 2019 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) , Dec. 2019, pp. 1...

    2019

  8. [14]

    Polarization switching behavior of Hf–Zr–O ferroelectric ultrathin films studied through coercive field characteristics,

    S. Migita, H. Ota, H. Yamada, K. Shibuya, A. Sawa, and A. Toriumi, “Polarization switching behavior of Hf–Zr–O ferroelectric ultrathin films studied through coercive field characteristics,” Japanese Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 57, no. 4S, p. 04FB01, Mar. 2018, publisher:...

    2018 doi

  9. [15]

    Thickness dependence of the coercive electric field of laser ablated niobium-doped lead-zirconium-titanate films,

    C. Bj ¨ormander, K. Sreenivas, M. Duan, A. M. Grishin, and K. V . Rao, “Thickness dependence of the coercive electric field of laser ablated niobium-doped lead-zirconium-titanate films,” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 66, no. 19, pp. 2493–2495, May 1995. [Online]. Available: ht...

    1995 doi

  10. [16]

    Coercive field of ultrathin Pb(Zr0.52Ti0.48)O3 epitaxial films,

    N. A. Pertsev, J. Rodriguez Contreras, V . G. Kukhar, B. Hermanns, H. Kohlstedt, and R. Waser, “Coercive field of ultrathin Pb(Zr0.52Ti0.48)O3 epitaxial films,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 83, no. 16, pp. 3356–3358, Oct. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1621731

    2003 doi

  11. [17]

    On the theory of the coercive field of single-domain crystals of BaTiO3,

    V . Janovec, “On the theory of the coercive field of single-domain crystals of BaTiO3,” Cechoslovackij fiziceskij zurnal , vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 3–15, Jan. 1958. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01688741

    1958 doi

  12. [18]

    Thickness dependence of the nucleation field of triglycine sulphate,

    H. F. Kay, , and J. W. Dunn, “Thickness dependence of the nucleation field of triglycine sulphate,” The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics , vol. 7, no. 84, pp. 2027–2034, Dec. 1962, publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi...

    2027 doi

  13. [19]

    Scaling of the Coercive Field with Thickness in Thin-Film Ferroelectrics,

    P. CHANDRA, D. , M., L. , P. B., , and J. F. SCOTT, “Scaling of the Coercive Field with Thickness in Thin-Film Ferroelectrics,” Ferroelectrics, vol. 313, no. 1, pp. 7–13, Jan. 2004, publisher: Taylor & Francis eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/00150190490891157. [Online]. Availa...

    2004 doi

  14. [20]

    Surface and grain boundary energy as the key enabler of ferroelectricity in nanoscale hafnia-zirconia: a comparison of model and experiment,

    M. H. Park, Y . H. Lee, H. J. Kim, T. Schenk, W. Lee, K. D. Kim, F. P. G. Fengler, T. Mikolajick, U. Schroeder, and C. S. Hwang, “Surface and grain boundary energy as the key enabler of ferroelectricity in nanoscale hafnia-zirconia: a comparison of model and experiment,” Nanos...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Epitaxial Ferroelectric HfO2 Films: Growth, Properties, and Devices,

    I. Fina and F. S ´anchez, “Epitaxial Ferroelectric HfO2 Films: Growth, Properties, and Devices,” ACS Applied Electronic Materials , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1530–1549, Apr. 2021, publisher: American Chemical Society. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acsaelm.1c00110

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Growth Window of Ferroelectric Epitaxial Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 Thin Films,

    J. Lyu, I. Fina, R. Solanas, J. Fontcuberta, and F. S ´anchez, “Growth Window of Ferroelectric Epitaxial Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 Thin Films,” ACS Applied Electronic Materials , vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 220–228, Feb. 2019, publisher: American Chemical Society. [Online]. Available: https://doi.o...

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    Epitaxial Ferroelectric La-Doped Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 Thin Films,

    T. Song, R. Bachelet, G. Saint-Girons, R. Solanas, I. Fina, and F. S ´anchez, “Epitaxial Ferroelectric La-Doped Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 Thin Films,” ACS Applied Electronic Materials , vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 3221– 3232, Oct. 2020, publisher: American Chemical Society. [Online]. Available: ht...

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    A rhombohedral ferroelectric phase in epitaxially strained Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 thin films,

    Y . Wei, P. Nukala, M. Salverda, S. Matzen, H. J. Zhao, J. Momand, A. S. Everhardt, G. Agnus, G. R. Blake, P. Lecoeur, B. J. Kooi, J. ´I˜niguez, B. Dkhil, and B. Noheda, “A rhombohedral ferroelectric phase in epitaxially strained Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 thin films,” Nature Materials, vol...

    2018

  19. [27]

    Distinguishing the Rhombohedral Phase from Orthorhombic Phases in Epitaxial Doped HfO2 Ferroelectric Films,

    A. Petraru, O. Gronenberg, U. Sch ¨urmann, L. Kienle, R. Droopad, and H. Kohlstedt, “Distinguishing the Rhombohedral Phase from Orthorhombic Phases in Epitaxial Doped HfO2 Ferroelectric Films,” ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, vol. 16, no. 32, pp. 42 534–42 545, Aug. 2024, ...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Non-Kolmogorov-Avrami switching kinetics in ferroelectric thin films,

    A. K. Tagantsev, I. Stolichnov, N. Setter, J. S. Cross, and M. Tsukada, “Non-Kolmogorov-Avrami switching kinetics in ferroelectric thin films,” Physical Review B , vol. 66, no. 21, p. 214109, Dec. 2002, publisher: American Physical Society. [Online]. Available: https://link.ap...

    2002 doi

  21. [29]

    Phase-field simulations of polarization variations in polycrystalline Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 based MFIM: V oltage dependence and dynamics,

    R. Koduru, I. Ahmed, A. K. Saha, X. Lyu, P. Ye, and S. K. Gupta, “Phase-field simulations of polarization variations in polycrystalline Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 based MFIM: V oltage dependence and dynamics,” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 134, no. 8, p. 084104, Aug. 2023. [Online]. Ava...

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Electrostatic Considerations in BaTiO3 Domain Formation during Polarization Reversal,

    R. Landauer, “Electrostatic Considerations in BaTiO3 Domain Formation during Polarization Reversal,” Journal of Applied Physics , vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 227–234, Feb. 1957. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1722712

    1957 doi

  23. [31]

    Depolarization corrections to the coercive field in thin-film ferroelectrics,

    M. Dawber, P. Chandra, P. B. Littlewood, and J. F. Scott, “Depolarization corrections to the coercive field in thin-film ferroelectrics,” Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter , vol. 15, no. 24, p. L393, Jun. 2003. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/15/24/106

    2003 doi

  24. [2012]

    Available: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nl302049k

    [Online]. Available: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/nl302049k

    doi

  25. [2015]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4935588

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4935588

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.