1

Experimental Demonstration of Array-level Learning with Phase Change
Synaptic Devices
S. Burc Eryilmaz1, Duygu Kuzum2, Rakesh G. D. Jeyasingh1, SangBum Kim3, Matthew BrightSky3,
Chung Lam3 and H.-S. Philip Wong1
1

2

Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, e-mail: eryilmaz@stanford.edu,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, 3 IBM Research, T.J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY

Abstract
The computational performance of the biological brain has long attracted significant interest and has led to inspirations in
operating principles, algorithms, and architectures for computing and signal processing. In this work, we focus on hardware
implementation of brain-like learning in a brain-inspired architecture. We demonstrate, in hardware, that 2-D crossbar arrays of
phase change synaptic devices can achieve associative learning and perform pattern recognition. Device and array-level studies
using an experimental 10×10 array of phase change synaptic devices have shown that pattern recognition is robust against
synaptic resistance variations and large variations can be tolerated by increasing the number of training iterations. Our
measurements show that increase in initial variation from 9 % to
60 % causes required training iterations to increase from 1 to 11.
I. Introduction
Synaptic electronics is an emerging field of research aiming to
build electronic systems that mimic computational energyefficiency and fault tolerance of biological brain in a compact
space [1]. To date, synaptic electronics research has primarily

Figure 1: Left figure is a DSI (diffusion spectrum imaging) scan
Figure 2. Memory array schematic shown as a 10-neuron recurrent neural
network. The resistors represent the phase change memory cells (PCM).
showing a fabric-like 3-D grid structure of connections in the
monkey brain (Credit: Van Wedeen, M.D., Martinos Center and
Dept. of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard
University Medical School) [6]. Right figure is an electronic focused on device level implementations of synaptic plasticity
implementation of 3D crossbar array with synaptic devices inspired and array or chip level simulations [2-4]. Studies that involve onfrom grid-like structure of neuronal fibers.
chip demonstration of brain-like computation with synaptic

devices and integration of synaptic devices in a compact, massively parallel architecture remain to be the next big challenge [5].
Recent brain imaging studies suggest that neural connections are in the form of folding 2D sheets of parallel neuronal fibers that
cross paths at right angles [6]. The grid-like connectivity of the brain can be best emulated using a 2-D or layered 3-D crossbar
array architecture with two terminal synaptic devices (Figure 1). In this work, we experimentally demonstrate that brain-like
pattern recognition can be implemented using 2-D crossbar arrays of phase change synaptic devices. First we present individual
synaptic device characteristics for the phase change devices in the 10×10 array (section II), and then we explain array level
operation and programming scheme and algorithms used for learning (section III). Finally, analysis on resistance variation and
its effect on array level learning and pattern completion are discussed (section IV).

2
II. Synaptic Array
Nanoscale devices based on phase change memory, PCM (Ge2Sb2Te5), have been shown to mimic biological synapses [2-4]. In
the experiments, 10-by-10 PCM cell arrays with selection transistors were used (Fig. 2) [7,8]. Ten bitlines (BL) and ten
wordlines (WL) are connected to the top electrode of the device and the gate of the selection transistors, respectively.
Microscope image of the array and TEM image of a single device [7,8] are shown in Figure 3(left) and (right), respectively.
Typical DC switching and pulse switching characteristics of a single device arbitrarily chosen from one of the arrays are shown
in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. Set and reset pulses with
amplitudes of 1 V and 1.5 V and with (50 ns/300 ns/1 µs) and
(20 ns/50 ns/5 ns) rise/width/fall time used at WL node results
in a uniform distribution across the array (Fig. 6). Gradual
programming to achieve analog storage is implemented by

Figure 6. Binary resistance
distribution of the memory
array.

Figure
7.
Gradual
SET
characteristics of a single cell.

Figure 3. Array pad microscope image (left) and single memory cell
schematic and TEM image (right) [7,8].

applying multiple pulses to the same PCM cells (Fig. 7). By
adjusting pulse amplitudes and widths, it is possible to
implement more gradual switching using PCM cells [2,3].

Figure 8. Single neuron and its connections to WL and BL for a firing
neuron. If a neuron is not firing at an iteration, spike mode signals and read
mode WL signals are not applied at that neuron, only BL read pulse is
applied.

Figure 4.
switching.

Single

cell

DC

Figure 5.

Single cell pulse
switching
between
high
resistance and low resistance
states.

III. Array-level Learning
The crossbar array consists of 100 synaptic devices and 10
recurrently connected neurons (Fig. 2). Integrate-and-fire
neurons are implemented by computer control and PCM cells
were used as synaptic devices between neurons. The input
Figure 9. Algorithm flowchart for one iteration. Left shows a
terminal of each neuron is connected to a BL node, whereas
firing neuron and right shows a non-firing neuron.
the output terminal of each neuron is connected to a WL node
(Fig. 8). In the learning phase, synaptic weights are updated via
a simple form of Hebbian plasticity. The synapses between
coactive neurons that fire in the same 100 µs time window, get stronger. Otherwise, synaptic weight does not change. At each
learning iteration (epoch), if a neuron is not firing, it integrates the current from all the inputs due to the spiking neurons at that
iteration. This is achieved by applying a 0.1 V read pulse at input node (BL) of a non-firing neuron. If the total current through

3
the input node of a non-firing neuron is large enough to exceed the threshold, it fires in the next iteration. Firing can also occur
due to external stimulation of a neuron. If a neuron is in firing mode at an iteration, it sends a gating pulse to the output node
(WL) and a programming pulse to the input node (BL). This
network algorithm is explained in Figure 8 and 9. As an
illustration of this learning process, we choose two simple
patterns to be learned. The two patterns of 10 pixels are
shown in Fig. 10 (b) and (c), and the neuron number
associated to each pixel is shown in Figure 10(a).
IV. Resistance Variation
In order to explore the effect of resistance variation on pattern
recognition performance, two arrays with high (60 %) and
low (9 %) resistance variation are used. Figure 11 shows
Figure 10. Patterns fed into the network a) associated neuron # for
initial resistance distribution for Array I (high variation) and
each pixel b) pattern1 (neuron #1,2,3,4,6 are ON) c) pattern 2
Array II (low variation). High variation is obtained by initially
(neuron #5,7,8,9,10 are ON).
applying the same RESET pulse to every cell to bring them to
the partial RESET state, and low variation is obtained by carefully selecting pulse amplitudes individually for each cell and

Figure 11. Evolution of array resistance distribution after 11 training epochs of pattern 1 and 2, respectively. Experiments are performed on two
arrays, one with high initial resistance variation (60 % variation), and the other with low initial resistance variation (9 % variation). Synapses
getting stronger by presenting pattern 1 and 2 are shown with blue and red circles, respectively, after training with 11 epochs of each pattern.
Synaptic weight contrast in Array II is larger between weak and strong synapses, implying better accuracy of pattern recognition after the same
number of epochs.

bringing them to the fully RESET state. The neurons of both synaptic arrays are stimulated with patterns 1 and 2 during the
learning epochs. In Figure 11, darker cells show the synapses which get stronger after 11 training epochs. Note that after feeding
each input pattern into the network, synapses between the ON neurons get stronger (resistance decreases). Evolution of cell
resistance distribution for Array I (Figure 12) explains that the higher the initial resistance variation is, the more training epochs
are required for the network to learn the pattern. After the learning phase, the network is presented with an incomplete pattern.
Fig. 13 shows neuron input currents for non-firing neurons for Array I and II. For Array II with low initial resistance variation,
one training epoch is sufficient for firing neurons (1-4) to recruit neuron 6 and complete the pattern. Input current for non-firing
neurons seem to have more variation for array I, resulting in a higher firing threshold requirement and hence more epochs (11 for
array I) to recall original pattern (Figure 14). Both arrays with low and high initial resistance variation are able to recall original
pattern after ten epochs. Total energy consumed to learn the pattern is measured to be 199 pJ and 8.4 nJ for arrays with low and
high variation, respectively. Low energy consumption in Array II is due to smaller number of epochs required and the high

4
resistance regime the devices operate. Resistance variations as
high as 60% can be tolerated for pattern completion operation
at the expense of more learning iterations and energy
consumption.

Figure 14. Pattern recall. Red squares represent spiking neurons
for every epoch. Both arrays with low and high initial resistance
distribution were able to recall pattern 1 successfully (note the
recall of neuron #6). Array II recalls the original pattern after 1
epochs while Array I needs 11 epochs to recall the original
pattern.

V. Conclusion

Figure 12. Evolution of synaptic weights as pattern 1 and pattern
2 is presented. Resistance values are normalized to initial cell
resistances . Synapses between neurons #1,2,3,4,6 and #5,7,8,9,10
gradually get stronger as pattern 1 and 2 are presented,
respectively. 11 epochs are needed to get sufficient synaptic
weight contrast between weak and strong synapses, since initial
resistance variation is high.

We report brain-like learning, in hardware, of a small-scale 10
× 10 crossbar array with synaptic devices. We demonstrated in
hardware experiments that synaptic network can implement
robust pattern recognition through brain-like learning. Test
patterns were shown to be stored and recalled associatively via
Hebbian plasticity in a manner similar to the biological brain.
Initial resistance variations can be tolerated by adding more
training epochs and at the expense of more energy
consumption. Demonstration of robust brain-inspired learning
in a small-scale synaptic array is a significant step towards
building large-scale computation systems with brain-level
computational efficiency. Our work inspired from the grid-like
connectivity of the brain may lead to more biologicallyplausible brain prosthetics in future.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported in part by SONIC, one of six centers of
STARnet, a Semiconductor Research Corporation program
sponsored by MARCO and DARPA, the Nanoelectronics
Research Initiative (NRI) of the Semiconductor Research
Corporation (SRC) through the NSF/NRI Supplement to the
NSF NSEC Center for Probing the Nanoscale (CPN), and the
member companies of the Stanford Non-Volatile Memory
Technology Research Initiative (NMTRI).
References

Figure 13. Neuron firing threshold is selected to be at least twice
the initial state input current of neurons (input current before any
training) to prevent undesired pixel recall. Since Array I requires a
higher threshold for the same accuracy due to high initial
variation, it requires larger number of epochs to recall the original
pattern as shown.

[1] D. Kuzum, S. Yu, H.-S. Philip Wong, Nanotechnology, 24, 382001 (2013).
[2] D. Kuzum, R. G. D. Jeyasingh, B Lee, H. S. P. Wong, Nano Letters, pp.
2179-2186 (2012).
[3] D. Kuzum, R. G. D. Jeyasingh, S. Yu, H.-S. P. Wong, Trans. Elec. Dev., pp.
3489-3494, 2012
[4] M. Suri et al., IEDM, 4.4.1-4, 2011

5
[5] Y. Kaneko, Y. Nishitami, M. Ueda, A. Tsujimura, Symp. VLSI Tech., pp. T238-239, 2013
[6] V.J. Wedeen et al., Science, vol. 335, pp. 1628-1634, 2012.
[7] M. Breitwisch et al. Symp. VLSI Tech., pp 100-101, 2007.
[8] G. F. Close et al., IEDM, pp.29.5.1-4, 2010.

