Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today Communications

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mtcomm

Modified GRNN based atomic modeling approach for nanoscale devices and
TFET implementation
Abdurrahman Özgür Polat a, *, Mutlu Avcı b
a
Electrical-Electronic Engineering Department, Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Turkey
b
Biomedical Engineering Department, Cukurova University, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The simulation of realistic device models in quantum transport requires an extreme amount of memory and
Quantum transport computation time. The computational burden in quantum transport is caused by the recursive numerical solution
TFET requirement of the Schrödinger equation with non-equilibrium Green’s function formalism. Ever decreasing
NEGF
device size increases the domination of the quantum mechanical effects such as scattering. Considerations of the
Neural network
quantum mechanical effects are crucial for emerging nanoscale devices. The solutions must consider the in­
teractions between electron-electron, electron-phonon for qualified device modeling. In this work, a modified
version of General Regression Neural Network and Non-Equilibrium Green’s Function hybrid modeling approach
is proposed to overcome the mentioned computational burden. Through proposed computation processing, a
pattern layer node is assigned for each atom in the atomic layer. In modified GRNN, pattern layer neuron values
were extracted from NEGF calculation of three atomic layers. Higher atomic layer potential function calculation
for Schrödinger equation is estimated by modified GRNN with dynamic pattern layer extension ability. A
regression neuron is added to the output of the modified GRNN. Proposed modified GRNN topology is applied to
model and solve atomic layer potential functions of Tunnel Field Effect Transistor in the range of seven to twenty-
three atomic layers. Each atomic layer contains a hundred atoms in a row. Training data are obtained from the
first three atomic layers of Tunnel FET. These training data are used for the estimation of test results for seven to
twenty-three atomic layers. Results are compared with that of the incoherent NEGF model of Datta. Approxi­
mately 40 % simulation convergence time decrease is observed during implementations. Simulation results
proved the importance and efficiency of the proposed approach.

1. Introduction
Since the beginning of the integrated circuit (IC) production, device
modeling has a significant role in IC realization’s success. Ever
decreasing device sizes cause more detailed modeling approaches with
complex topologies. Up to date, IC designers must try their circuits
before the fabrication process to observe operation accuracy and per­
formance. All design and functionality and parasitic extraction simula­
tions are crucial for product design. The simulation study of electrical
properties in semiconductor devices provides an important contribution
to the circuit synthesis. By considering the physical attitudes of nano­
scale devices, quantum transport of charge carriers is consider [1–5].
The methods used for defining the carrier behavior have been trans­
formed from classical methods to quantum mechanics [6–20]. The
quantum mechanical method has complex calculations with high
memory and high computational time [21]. These requirements of the
quantum mechanical method have been tried to be reduced.
Non-Equilibrium Green’s Function (NEGF) [22] is one of the most
popular approaches to the reduction. However, NEGF Formalism utili­
zation, memory requirements, and calculation complexity are too high
to be done by personal computers in many cases [23,24]. Hybrid
CPU-GPU based parallel computing is one of the proposed solutions to
overcome the limitations [25]. The neural network approach, a black
box solution, is another method to model the I-V characteristic of sub­
micron devices [26]. Generally, the device’s input and output fitting is
correlated in the neural network utilized approaches [27–30]. Atomistic
parameters such as lattice parameters, cohesive energies, elastic con­
stant, and surface energies were used for neural network training
[31–33]. While there exist many different artificial neural network
models for OFET [34,35], ISFET [36], graphene FET [37,38], dynaFET

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ozgrpolat@kmu.edu.tr (A.Ö. Polat).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102294
Received 18 December 2020; Received in revised form 26 March 2021; Accepted 26 March 2021
Available online 3 April 2021
2352-4928/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

Fig. 1. An n-type TFET device with a p-type source and an n-type drain.

[39], finFET [40–45], CNTFET [46–50], MOSFET [51–58], artificial

neural network-based TFET device model has not found in the literature.
Although TFET based overall systems were modeled by ANN in [59] and
[60] previously, those works used classical TFET models.
The proposed model is based on a specially improved version of
GRNN [61] with a multi-pattern later and fixed polynomial function
approximation realizing the output layer. This output layer is called a
renormalization layer. Fitting in this renormalization layer is done by a
third-order polynomial expression with constant coefficients. These
coefficients were obtained by using the least mean squares method.
Since the atomic layer numbers do not affect the polynomial expres­
sion’s coefficients, it is used with fixed constant coefficients for all
different sized atomic layer implementations. Since GRNN is one pass
learning neural network, train data are directly put into a pattern later
without any repetitive training or error minimization approach. Unlike
existing GRNN methods, the pattern layer of the proposed modified
GRNN (MGRNN) is built dynamically according to layer numbers and Fig. 3. (a) Energy Band Diagram of OFF-state of n-type TFET (b) Energy Band
numbers of atoms in a layer. Training data for MGRNN is extracted by Diagram of ON-state of n-type TFET.
utilizing NEGF solution for three atomic layers. Potential functions of
further layers are estimated by MGRNN, considering only the first three
2. Tunnel field effect transistor
sequential atomic layers. The developed neural network is built with
Schrödinger Equation’s potential function biased by Gaussian distrib­
In up to date technologies, high power consumption and leakage
uted gate potential.
current are the main drawbacks. While decreasing the MOSFET size,
Full quantum solutions are used for defining the transport equations
these drawbacks dominate the production limitations. Since decreasing
of nanoscale devices. Electronic Hamiltonian that contains the multi-
size means faster switching with more transistors in the unit area, new
atomic multi-electron system, is built by Tight-Binding Method. Up to
solutions with the alternative device to MOSFET are investigated.
date solution approaches for many-body systems are based on Non-
TFET is one of the most important alternatives to MOSFET with low
Equilibrium Green’s Functions (NEGF) formalism. NEGF based solu­
leakage current and acceptable power consumption. Especially in sub­
tions are hard to be computed without a high-performance workstation
threshold operation, TFETs are energy-efficient devices concerning
for speed and memory requirements. The convergence of high atomic
MOSFET. The subthreshold swing (SS) of a TFET could be less than
layer expressions is not guaranteed. This problem also limits the number
60 mV/decade [62]. In TFETs, the band-to-band tunneling mechanism
of atomic layers to be computed. In this study, MGRNN model is pro­
overcomes the main drawbacks of MOSFET. IC design and realization
posed to overcome device size limitations. Since the computation
using either TFET&MOSFET with up to 50 % energy benefit [63–68] or
complexity is decreased effectively, high computation performance
TFET only [69–72] are given in literature with better efficiency than that
concerning existing classical NEGF formalism approaches is obtained.
of MOSFET based implementations.
Performance results of proposed and classical solutions are tested and
An introductory schematic cross-section of the TFET structure is
concluded in detail. Test results showed the improvement and impor­
given in Fig. 1.
tance of the proposed approach.
In Fig. 1, the gate, drain, and source terminal are shown. Unlike
In the other sections, Tunnel Field-Effect Transistors, NEGF
MOSFETs, drain and source terminals are doped with n-type and p-type
formalism, and classical GRNN are briefly expressed. The proposed
dopant atoms, respectively. Channel is an either intrinsic or lightly
approach and TFET implementations with different sizes are given.
doped semiconductor.
Validity and performance improvement ability of the proposed
In p-type TFET, drain and source terminals doped with acceptor and
approach is concluded according to test results.
donator dopant, respectively. In Fig. 2, n-type and p-type TFET forward
switch ON-state voltage and ground connections are illustrated.
In Fig. 3, energy band diagrams for OFF and ON states of n-type TFET

Fig. 2. (a) n-type Basic TFET Structure (b) p-type Basic TFET Structure.

2
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

are shown. Typically n-type TFET is in OFF state while the conduction to modeling approaches, Dyson’s Equation [11]. All the mentioned ap­
band of the channel is placed above the source’s valance band. Ac­ proaches have shown success in a limited range. None of them has
cording to the figure, during ON state, valance and conduction band overcome the burden with complicated device models.
energy levels between channel and source close enough to each other for
tunneling occur. Charge carrier transport based on tunneling is the 3. NEGF formalism
primary transport mechanism for the drain-source current [73].
TFET has band-to-band tunneling transport mechanisms expressed The Schrödinger equation defines the state of the system. According
by Kane’s BTBT semiclassical models as given in [74–80], by the ballistic to Schrödinger equation, the device’s electronic behavior is procured by
models considering noneffective phonon scattering as in [81–84] and by solving the Schrödinger equation concerning boundary conditions.
full quantum solution approaches as given in [85–91]. These approaches need many sources for bigger than one-electron sys­
In a semiclassical view, local or non-local BTBT models are used for tems. NEGF formalism provides an advantage in calculating many-body
device transport simulations. In most studies, mentioned models are systems include scattering effects by matrix form. According to these
preferred to perform attitudes of novel TFET devices. In the simulation reasons, NEGF Formalism is commonly used to define the carrier density
methods, Kane’s model is the most used approach for calculating the in nanoscale devices [101–109]. The Green’s function can be derived as
device current through the volume (v) as given in Eq. 1.
∫ G = [EI − H − Σlead (E) − ΣPhonon (E) ]− 1
(8)
ID = q GBTB dv (1) The system’s Hamiltonian is built by Tight-Binding(TB) Method
[110] to investigate the electrical properties. A is an n-dimensional
Where GBTB is the generation rate of carriers that can be derived from matrix-matched the device size.
Kane’s model [92]. A = EI − H − Σlead (E) − ΣPhonon (E) (9)
[ ]
GBTB (E) = Ak EDk exp −
Bk
(2) The relationship between A and the electron correlation function Gn
E defines as:
Ak and Bk are electron effective mass-dependent parameters, Dk is the
AGn = Σ in
lead G
ϯ
material bandgap type related parameter, and E is the electric field.
Therefore, the drain current resulted from carrier tunneling can be Gn = GΣ in ϯ
lead G
expressed as in Eq. 3.
( )
∫
Bk Σ in in in
lead is defined with edges of Σ L and Σ R where
ID = q Ak Eexp − dv (3)
E
Σ in
L = − 2Im[Σ L (E) ]fL (E)
In ballistic transport, the carriers flow between the source and drain
contacts without any scattering. The ballistic current density in the Σ in
R = − 2Im[Σ R (E) ]fR (E)
channel is modeled [93] as in below
ΣL and ΣR are the self energies of semi-infinite left and right contacts
∫ +∞ ∫ +∞ of the device. Electron-Phonon scattering is defined with the self-energy
q
J= 2 dkz x [f (E, ES ) − f (E, ED ) ]T(Ex )dEx (4) element for point “q” [11] as:
πh −∞ 0
∑ [ ( ) ( ) ( ) (
Where f(E, ES) and f(E, ED) are the Fermi Functions of source and drain Σ in
Phonnon (E) = Dηq nB ћwphonon Gn E − ћwphonon + (nB ћwphonon +1)Gn E
η
contacts, kz is the wave vector component of the electron in the z-di­ )]
rection, T is the tunneling transparency, and E is the total energy. − ћwphonon
In quantum transport, the system’s electron behavior is defined by (10)
the wavefunction - ѱ(r) achieved by solving Schrödinger equation.
[ ] Where Dq is the strength of electron-phonon scattering at point q, η is the
η

ℏ2 2 → → → phonon mode. Now, Green’s function is evaluated into included Σin sum
− ∇ + V(r) ψ (r) = Eψ (r) (5)
2m self energies according to leads and electron-phonon scattering as:

Where E is the energy. [EI − H − Σ(E) ]Gn (E) = Σ in (E)Gϯ (E) (11)
Due to the most realistic device model, energy, momentum, and
phase relaxation interactions must be considered. According to this 4. General Regression Neural Network (GRNN)
phenomenon, Green’s function of the system is evolved to cover the
scattering as in Eq. 6. GRNN is an Artificial Neural Network (ANN) executing the
nonparametric regression with Gaussian Kernel. GRNN is a one-pass
[EI − H − Σlead (E) − ΣPhonon (E) ]G = I (6) learning ANN with input, pattern, summation, and output layers.
Learning of GRNN means placing of train data into the pattern layer.
Where H is the Hamiltonian of the system. The electron density of the
There is no repetitive or error minimization-based learning algorithm
point “q” in the system is defined [11] as:
for GRNN. GRNN learns faster than the ANNs training with many
∫ [ ]
dE epochs. It is implemented for prediction, modeling, mapping, and
nq = 2 G(E)Σin † in †
lead (E)G (E) + G(E)Σphonon (E)G (E) (7)
2π interpolating applications. GRNN can be defined as a Watson-Nadaraya
kernel with radial bases distance calculating topology. It can build very
Where Σin in
lead (E) and Σphonon are the lead and phonon self energies. tolerable regression with a few samples. The estimation performance is
However, a more realistic device model includes scattering effects, related to the boundary of the measurements. The local minima
multidimensional analytical function over a large device geometry leads convergence problem does not occur as in the iterative learning
the calculation burden. This calculation burden is tried to be solved by methods. GRNN can be easily implemented in analog and mixed-signal
hardware or software-based approaches. GPU based CUDA utilization hardware description languages.
[94–97], parallel computing [25,98–100] on workstations are the most Let f(x,y) be the known joint probability density function. X is a
popular hardware-based solution trials. On the software side, in addition mainly measured random value of x. The regression of y on X is derived

3
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

Fig. 4. GRNN Block Diagram.

by mapping interatomic attractions, GRNN is chosen for nanoscale device

∫∞ modeling. The attractions of the neurons fit the topology of attractions
yf (X, y)dy
⃓
E[yX] = ∫− ∞∞ among the atoms compose the device. Due to this similarity, GRNN
− ∞
f (X, y)dy approach simulates the atomic attractions in high accuracy.
If the density f(x,y) is unknown, it could be estimated from the
5. Proposed work
observed samples as proposed by Parzen [111]. Desired Y(X) ̂ is derived
as in Eq. 12.
In the literature, LookUp Table(LUT) based models for TFET have
[ ] [ ]
∑n
(X− Xi ) (X− Xi ) ∫ ∞
T
(y− Y i )
2 been widely proposed to simulate emerging nanoscale device circuits in
i=1
exp − 2σ 2 − ∞
yexp − 2σ2 dy high-level hardware description languages such as Verilog-A [112–116].
̂ (X) =
Y [ ] [ ] (12) Experimental works obtain LUT data representing TFET. Drain current,
(X− Xi ) (X− Xi ) ∫ ∞ Gate-Source and Gate-Drain Capacitances are defined by VGS and VDS
T 2
∑n
(y− Y i )
exp − 2σ 2
exp − 2σ 2
dy
depending on two-dimensional functions given in the following
− ∞
i=1

equations:
Eqn. 12 is evolved into the numerical problems involving the sum­
mations over the observations as the Eq. 13. IDS = fcurrent (VGS , VDS )
[ ]
∑n
D2 CGS = fCGS (VGS , VDS )
Yi exp − 2σi2
̂ (X) = i=1
Y [ ] (13)
∑n
D2 CDS = fCGD (VGS , VDS )
exp − 2σi2
In semiempirical modeling approaches, SPICE models of TFET are
i=1

( )T ( )
With D2i = X − Xi X − Xi . defined by utilizing the tunneling behavior of the reverse-biased Zener
diode. The mentioned behavioral model achieves an accuracy of 10 % in
The educated guess Y(X) ̂ could be envisioned with a weighted
modeling I-V characteristics [117]. A Kane-Sze formula based analytic
average of all observed values, Yi. When the source distribution is not
model is hybridized with curve fitting by using experimentally measured
known, it should be computed on an empirical basis.
data. This approach is used for defining the current-voltage character­
Y(X)
̂ is estimated from a measurement vector X with a feedforward
istics of TFET. The accuracy of the LUT model depends on and is limited
network in Fig. 4. Static cluster topology provides an advantage to
by the experimental work [118].
determine the educated guess in nanoscale devices.
Previously introduced Artificial Neural Network-based models
Where Y(x) is the prediction value of input x, yi is the target or
expressing the interactions among atoms are used for observing the
desired output value for the ith input pattern.
mechanical and electrical properties of the physical and biological sys­
All the inputs of the network are represented by radial basis neuron
tems [119–125]. Deep learning toolboxes are introduced for modern
in the pattern layer. Gradient of the inputs indicates the prediction of the
quantum chemistry, condensed matter physics, and material science to
network. This ability is useful for predicting the interatomic attractions
determine the characteristics of materials [126,127].
in the nanoscale systems.
In this study, the Artificial Neural Network-based hybrid nanoscale
Since the distance calculations in the pattern layer can be used for

4
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

Fig. 5. TFET Device Illustration.

Fig. 6. The multiple atomic layered nanoscale device with contacts and illustration of GRNN topology on the device’s atoms.

device model is proposed to simulate TFET device with a multi atomic
layer, as seen in Fig. 5. Each atomic layer of the physical device is
mapped to a pattern layer of GRNN with the same atom and neuron
numbers. In other words, each atom of the physical device is represented
by a neuron in GRNN, considering the corresponding layer. The device is
layered at the atomic level as neuron layers to imitate neural network
topology. In the study, the layer range is limited from 7 to 23. In the 25
atomic layer simulation, the ordinary simulation could not converge
after 24 h at three times. However, the proposed hybrid model achieved
simulation in less than 30 min.
GRNN is applied to the multiple atomic layered nanoscale device
shown in Fig. 6.
Simulation is initiated by building the model and the meshes. Then,
the potential is guessed the first time in order to solve the NEGF equa­
tions. Electron density and the Green’s function are calculated due to the
NEGF equation to procure the scattering rate and self energies. Aim to
calculate the potential profile affected by Gaussian distributed for the
atomic layer level, Poisson’s equations are derived. The comparison of
the potential profile recursive approach is decided to continue. The data
that educate the neural network is built after the third atomic layer.
Least mean square fitting is applied to the educated data. (Fig. 7)
Σs depend on the density matrix related to the potential U(x) and
must be derived self-consistently. U(x) is also related to electron density
with poison’s equation that defines the system’s electrostatic distribu­
tion. In nanoscale systems, scattering effects also change the state of the
system. Aim to include the scattering process for more accurate device
models, NEGF procedure an easy way to calculate the mentioned effects.
In NEGF, the scattering process is represented as another contact.
1
G = [EI − H − Σlead (E) − ΣPhonon (E) ]−

5
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

Fig. 7. Flowchart of the hybrid neural network implementation of simulation 2D TFET Device.

Fig. 8. Potential profile(eV) of the device versus length (nm) Blue-cyan-red-yellow lines are the results of NEGF approach, and marked blue-cyan-red-yellow orange
lines are the result of MGRNN. The simulation belongs to 9, 13, 19, and 23 atomic layer devices.

Illustrated TFET device shown in Fig. 6 is addressed for the capaci­
tance investigation. The device features 20 Silicon crystal lattice-long
channel and 5 silicon crystal lattice long source/drain regions. Doping
levels are pinned to 1x1019 cm− 3 . Unit cross sectional area have been
fixed to 5.43 nm x 5.43 nm.
Capacitances are extracted with the definition given by E. Gnani
et al. [128]. The method proposed to calculate the change of the gate
charge Qg respect to a small change in the terminal voltages. Method
derived as:

6
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294

Fig. 9. Potential profile (eV) of the device versus length (nm) Blue-cyan-red-yellow lines are the results of NEGF approach, and marked blue-cyan-red-yellow orange
lines are the results of Fitted MGRNN. The simulation belongs to 9, 13, 19, and 23 atomic layer device.

Fig. 10. Time-consuming table of NEGF simulation (red) and fitted MGRNN (blue) simulation.

⃒ ⃒ ⃒
∂Qg ⃒⃒ ∂Qg ⃒⃒ ∂Qg ⃒⃒ 6. Test and results
Cgg = Cgd = Cgs = −
∂Vg ⃒Vs,Vd ∂Vd ⃒Vs,Vg ∂Vs ⃒Vd,Vg
The simulation studies have been designed on Datta’s Non-coherent
In all calculations the source voltage is 0 V. A 1 nm thick dielectric is transport model [22]. Gaussian distribution of external potential is
fixed. 1 nm ticked. added to simulate the real device ON state. The model has been imple­
mented in MATLAB R2015a version. All computations were performed
on Intel Core i5 CPU 2.27 GHz with 4 Gb memory.
To analyze the new approach’s computational time benefits,

7
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı
Fig. 11. Total gate and gate-drain capacitances are derived by small changes in the terminal voltage. Voltage steps is chosen 20 mV to compute Cgd .
different device sizes and parameters were conserved for benchmarks. In
order to observe the effectiveness of the approach, different sizes and
parameters were tested.
Potential energy values of source contact meet with little differences.
On the other hand, potential energy values of drain contact miss the
match. The accumulated charge [129] between the contact and the
channel is observed for both NEGF and GRNN simulations, as seen in
Fig. 8.
The potential energy function of NEGF changes with respect to the
atomic layer. The difference in potential energy for atomic layers could
be observed clearly in Fig. 8. Conversely, this change cannot be observed
in GRNN simulations. The change of GRNN is too small to be distin­
guished in Fig. 8.
3rd-degree polynomial fitting is applied to the output of GRNN, as
shown in Fig. 9. Potential energy values of NEGF and fitted MGRNN are
mismatched after fitting implementation, as given in Fig. 9. In the
channel, energy potential values of fitted MGRNN fluctuates because of
the 3rd-degree polynomial fitting. At the end of the device, the
mentioned potential functions are matched at a drain contact.
The time consuming of both methods are given in Fig. 10. The time
consumption of NEGF is varied from 5700 s to 8300 s. Conversely, the
time consumption of fitted MGRNN varies from 2500 s to 2800 s while
the device size increases concerning depth. The time consumption of
NEGF changes %40 while the time consumption change of fitted
MGRNN is %12 with increasing device size.
For the mentioned simulation environment, NEGF method did not
converge the result for 27 atomic layer device. Conversely, fitted
MGRNN continued to simulate the device with the mentioned change
ratio.
Extracted capacitances shown in Fig. 11 were compared with Gnani
et al. work. The results are similar in magnitude but concave signal
shape in Gnani et al. work was not observed in this study. The reason of
8
Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294
this difference could be sourced by neural network nature.
7. Conclusion
Simulation tools are getting important in the research of quantum
transport. The transport model is generally derived from the self-
consistent analysis between the attractions of particles. While the de­
vices’ dimensions decrease, the quantum effects play a critical role in the
device characteristics. To obtain more realistic device models, phonon-
electron attractions and dissipative effects must be taken into consid­
eration for decreasing the size of devices. According to the calculation
burden and the waste of time, neural network implementation is a new
approach to overcome the full quantum simulation disadvantages. In the
neural network approach, all the atomic layer attractions are defined by
the network, not full quantum calculations. In our study, a 2D TFET
device was simulated. The time-consuming table of NEGF simulation
and hybrid neural network simulation were compared in Fig. 10. NEGF
simulation of 23 layered atomic device did not converge the solution
after 24 h. However, the hybrid neural network approach is achieved
after one more step. The proposed model’s learning time is about 40 % of
the incoherent simulation model running time for given atomic layers,
and the results are efficient to calculate the current of homojunction
device.
In this study, Watson-Nadaraya Kernel was used for modeling the
homojunction structure. The model must be evolved for heterostructure
devices in order to implement heterojunction structures. Contrasting
types of the kernel will be applied to handle new attractions like a strain
at the junctions of different types of material.
Funding
No funding was received for this work.
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı
Intellectual Property
We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of
intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no
impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with
respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have
followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual
property.
Research Ethics
We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this
manuscript that has involved human patients has been conducted with
the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are
acknowledged within the manuscript.
Authorship
All listed authors meet the ICMJE criteria.
We attest that all authors contributed significantly to the creation of this
manuscript, each having fulfilled criteria as established by the ICMJE.
We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all
named authors.
We confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has
been approved by all named authors.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors report no declaration of interest.
Acknowledgments
This study is based on Ph.D. Thesis work.
References
[1] Y. Jiang, H. Geng, W. Li, Z. Shuai, Understanding carrier transport in organic
semiconductors: computation of charge mobility considering quantum nuclear
tunneling and delocalization effects, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 15 (2019)
1477–1491, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00779.
[2] H.W. Hsiao, Y.R. Wu, 3D self-consistent quantum transport simulation for GaAs
gate-all-around nanowire field-effect transistor with elastic and inelastic
scattering effects, Phys. Status Solidi Appl. Mater. Sci. 216 (2019) 1–9, https://
doi.org/10.1002/pssa.201800524.
[3] O. Simonetti, L. Giraudet, Transport models in disordered organic
semiconductors and their application to the simulation of thin-film transistors,
Polym. Int. 68 (2019) 620–636, https://doi.org/10.1002/pi.5768.
[4] K. Tamersit, Performance assessment of a new radiation dosimeter based on
carbon nanotube field-effect transistor: a quantum simulation study, IEEE Sens. J.
19 (2019) 3314–3321, https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2019.2894440.
[5] D. Rossi, F. Santoni, M. Auf Der Maur, A. Di Carlo, A multiparticle drift-diffusion
model and its application to organic and inorganic electronic device simulation,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 66 (2019) 2715–2722, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TED.2019.2912521.
[6] S. Adachi, M. Kawashima, K. Kumabe, K. Yokoyama, M. Tomizawa, Electron
transport in GaAs n+-p–n+ submicron diodes, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 3
(1982) 409–411, https://doi.org/10.1109/EDL.1982.25617.
[7] W. Van Roosbroeck, Theory of current-carrier transport and photoconductivity in
semiconductors with trapping, Bell Syst. Tech. J. 39 (1960) 515–613, https://doi.
org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1960.tb03934.x.
[8] G. Golan, M. Azoulay, J. Bernstein, On the ballistic transport in Si nano-devices,
2019 IEEE 31st Int. Conf. Microelectron. MIEL 2019 - Proc. (2019) 55–58,
https://doi.org/10.1109/MIEL.2019.8889599.
[9] X. Wen, A. Arabhavi, O. Ostinelli, C. Bolognesi, T. Zimmer, C. Maneux, M. Luisier,
C. Mukherjee, C. Raya, B. Ardouin, M. Deng, S. Fregonese, V. Nodjiadjim, M. Riet,
W. Quan, A multiscale TCAD approach for the simulation of InP DHBTs and the
extraction of their transit times, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 66 (2019)
5084–5090, https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2019.2946514.
[10] G. Fiori, G. Iannaccone, Simulation of graphene nanoribbon field-effect
transistors, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 28 (2007) 760–762, https://doi.org/
10.1109/LED.2007.901680.
[11] M.P. Anantram, M.S. Lundstrom, D.E. Nikonov, Modeling of nanoscale devices,
Proc. IEEE. 96 (2008) 1511–1550, https://doi.org/10.1109/
JPROC.2008.927355.
9
Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294
[12] S.O. Koswatta, S. Hasan, M.S. Lundstrom, M.P. Anantram, D.E. Nikonov,
Nonequilibrium Green’s function treatment of phonon scattering in carbon-
nanotube transistors, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 54 (2007) 2339–2351,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2007.902900.
[13] R.R. Shah, Theory of Conduction in Polysilicon: Drift-Diffusion Approach in
Crystalline-Amorphous-Crystalline Semiconductor System-Part II: General, 1984.
[14] I.C. Kizilyalli, K. Hess, Simplified device equations and transport coefficients for
GaAs device modeling, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 34 (1987) 2352–2354,
https://doi.org/10.1109/T-ED.1987.23244.
[15] B.R, E.S.C. Mantilli, F. Venturi, A Monte Carlo approach to the study of the drift-
diffusion transport model, in: 17th Eur. Solid State Device Res. Conf., IEEE,
Bologna, Italy, 1987, pp. 173–176. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/documen
t/5436637.
[16] P.A. Blakey, X.-L. Wang, C.M. Maziar, A generalized formulation of augmented
drift-diffusion transport suitable for use in General purpose device simulators, in:
Work. Numer. Model. Process. Devices Integr. Circuits, IEEE, 2005, pp. 37–38,
https://doi.org/10.1109/nupad.1990.748265.
[17] J. Frey, Ballistic transport in semiconductor devices, Tech. Dig. - Int. Electron
Devices Meet. (1980) 613–617, https://doi.org/10.1109/iedm.1980.189908.
[18] P.E. Schmidt, M. Octavio, P.D. Esqueda, Single-carrier space-charge controlled
conduction vs. ballistic transport in GaAs devices at 77◦ K, IEEE Electron Device
Lett. 2 (1981) 205–207, https://doi.org/10.1109/EDL.1981.25403.
[19] A.J. Holden, B.T. Debney, Improved theory of ballistic transport in one
dimension, Electron. Lett. 18 (1982) 558, https://doi.org/10.1049/el:19820378.
[20] S.H. Rasouli, C. Xu, N. Singh, K. Banerjee, A physical model for work-function
variation in ultra-short channel metal-gate mosfets, IEEE Electron Device Lett. 32
(2011) 1507–1509, https://doi.org/10.1109/LED.2011.2166531.
[21] S. Datta, The non-equilibrium Green’s function (NEGF) formalism: An elementary
introduction, in: Dig. Int. Electron Devices Meet., IEEE, n.d.: pp. 703–706. htt
ps://doi.org/10.1109/IEDM.2002.1175935.
[22] S. Datta, Nanoscale device modeling: the Green’s function method, Superlattices
Microstruct. 28 (2000) 253–278, https://doi.org/10.1006/spmi.2000.0920.
[23] S. Steiger, M. Povolotskyi, H.H. Park, T. Kubis, G. Klimeck, NEMO5: A parallel
multiscale nanoelectronics modeling tool, IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol. 10 (2011)
1464–1474, https://doi.org/10.1109/TNANO.2011.2166164.
[24] S. Ahmed, N. Kharche, R. Rahman, M. Usman, S. Lee, H. Ryu, H. Bae, S. Clark,
B. Haley, M. Naumov, F. Saied, M. Korkusinski, R. Kennel, M. McLennan, T.
B. Boykin, G. Klimeck, Multimillion Atom Simulations With NEMO 3-D, 2009.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1890.
[25] M. Poljak, M. Glavan, S. Kuzmi, Accelerating simulation of nanodevices based on
2D materials by hybrid CPU-GPU parallel computing, 2019 42nd Int. Conv. Inf.
Commun. Technol. Electron. Microelectron. MIPRO 2019 - Proc. (2019) 47–52,
https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO.2019.08756964.
[26] M. Hayati, A. Rezaei, M. Seifi, CNT-MOSFET modeling based on artificial neural
network: application to simulation of nanoscale circuits, Solid. Electron. 54
(2010) 52–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sse.2009.09.027.
[27] S. Koziel, L. Leifsson, I. Couckuyt, T. Dhaene, Fourth order hybrid implicit and
explicit FDTD method, Int. J. Numer. Model. 26 (2013) 493–505, https://doi.org/
10.1002/jnm.
[28] R.A. Mohamed, Modeling electrical properties of nanofluids using artificial neural
network, Phys. Scr. 94 (2019), 105222, https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/
ab1939.
[29] M. Abdelkrim, Modeling and simulation of single-electron transistor (SET) with
aluminum island using neural network, Carpathian J. Electron. Comput. Eng. 12
(2019) 23–28, https://doi.org/10.2478/cjece-2019-0005.
[30] Z.H. Aitken, V. Sorkin, Y.W. Zhang, Atomistic modeling of nanoscale plasticity in
high-entropy alloys, J. Mater. Res. 34 (2019) 1509–1532, https://doi.org/
10.1557/jmr.2019.50.
[31] H. Chan, B. Narayanan, M.J. Cherukara, F.G. Sen, K. Sasikumar, S.K. Gray, M.K.
Y. Chan, S.K.R.S. Sankaranarayanan, Machine learning classical interatomic
potentials for molecular dynamics from first-principles training data, J. Phys.
Chem. C. 123 (2019) 6941–6957, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b09917.
[32] V.I. Yamakov, G. Jost, D. Kokron, Y. Mishin, E.H. Glaessgen, High-Performance
Computing Optimization for Aladyn – Adaptive Neural Network Molecular
Dynamics Mini-application, 2019. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=201900
32135.
[33] J. Lederer, W. Kaiser, A. Mattoni, A. Gagliardi, Machine learning–based charge
transport computation for pentacene, Adv. Theory Simulations. 2 (2019),
1800136, https://doi.org/10.1002/adts.201800136.
[34] I. Benacer, Z. Dibi, Extracting parameters of OFET before and after threshold
voltage using genetic algorithms, Int. J. Autom. Comput. 13 (2016) 382–391,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11633-015-0918-6.
[35] I. Benacer, Z. Dibi, Modeling and simulation of organic field effect transistor
(OFET), Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. Eng. Manag. Sci. 66 (2014) 79–88.
[36] E. Akbari, M. Mir, M.V. Vasiljeva, A. Alizadeh, M. Nilashi, A computational model
of neural learning to predict graphene based ISFET, J. Korean Inst. Electr.
Electron. Mater. Eng. 48 (2019) 4647–4652, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11664-
019-07247-x.
[37] G. Cheng, H. Wu, X. Qiang, Q. Ji, Q. Zhao, Graphene Field-effect Transistor
Modeling Based on Artificial Neural Network, 2015, pp. 1479–1483, https://doi.
org/10.2991/meic-15.2015.339.
[38] K. Tamersit, F. Djeffal, A computationally efficient hybrid approach based on
artificial neural networks and the wavelet transform for quantum simulations of
graphene nanoribbon FETs, J. Comput. Electron. 18 (2019) 813–825, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10825-019-01350-2.
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı
[39] J. Xu, R. Jones, S.A. Harris, T. Nielsen, D.E. Root, Dynamic FET model - DynaFET
- for GaN transistors from NVNA active source injection measurements, IEEE
MTT-S Int. Microw. Symp. Dig. (2014) 2–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/
MWSYM.2014.6848293.
[40] Z. Marinković, G. Crupi, D.M.M.P. Schreurs, A. Caddemi, V. Marković, Microwave
FinFET modeling based on artificial neural networks including lossy silicon
substrate, Microelectron. Eng. 88 (2011) 3158–3163, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
mee.2011.06.019.
[41] Z. Marinković, G. Crupi, D.M.M.P. Schreurs, A. Caddemi, V. Marković. Artificial
Neural Network Based Modeling of FinFET Forward Transmission Coefficient,
2011 10th Int. Conf. Telecommun. Mod. Satell. Cable Broadcast. Serv. TELSIKS
2011 - Proc. Pap. 1, 2011, pp. 238–241, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TELSKS.2011.6112042.
[42] Z. Marinkovic, G. Crupi, D.M.M.P. Schreurs, A. Caddemi, V. Markovic, Artificial
neural network modeling for transistors and varactors in FinFET technology, in:
2013 11th Int. Conf. Telecommun. Mod. Satell. Cable Broadcast. Serv. TELSIKS
2013, 1, 2013, pp. 188–191, https://doi.org/10.1109/TELSKS.2013.6704917.
[43] M. Abtin, P. Keshavarzi, K. Jaferzadeh, A. Naderi, Modeling double gate FinFETs
by using artificial neural network, IEEE Int. Conf. Semicond. Electron.
Proceedings, ICSE (2010) 38–40, https://doi.org/10.1109/
SMELEC.2010.5549475.
[44] A. Gaurav, S.S. Gill, N. Kaur, M. Rattan, Density gradient quantum corrections
based performance optimization of triangular TG bulk FinFETs using ANN and
GA, 2016 20th Int. Symp. VLSI Des. Test, VDAT 2016 (2017) 1–5, https://doi.
org/10.1109/ISVDAT.2016.8064854.
[45] R. Florencio Díaz, R. Rodríguez Boix, F. Carrasco Yépez, J. Encinar Garcinuño,
M. Barba Gea, G. Pérez Palomino, Broadband reflectarrays made of cells with
three coplanar parallel dipoles, Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett. 56 (2014) 748–753,
https://doi.org/10.1002/mop.
[46] A.F. Abo-Elhadeed, Modeling carbon nanotube transistors using neural networks
approach, 2012 Int. Conf. Synth. Model. Anal. Simul. Methods Appl. to Circuit
Des. SMACD 2012 (2012) 125–128, https://doi.org/10.1109/
SMACD.2012.6339433.
[47] R.A. Badelbo, F. Farokhi, A. Kashaniniya, Efficient parameters selection for
CNTFET modelling using artificial neural networks, Int. J. Smart Electr. Eng. 2
(2013) 217–222.
[48] S.Y. Liao, C. Maneux, V. Pouget, S. Frégonèse, T. Zimmer, Compact modeling of
optically gated carbon nanotube field effect transistor, Phys. Status Solidi Basic
Res. 247 (2010) 1858–1861, https://doi.org/10.1002/pssb.200983818.
[49] J. Zhang, S. Chang, H. Wang, J. He, Q.J. Huang, Artificial neural network based
CNTFETs modeling, Appl. Mech. Mater. 667 (2014) 390–395, https://doi.org/
10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.667.390.
[50] M. Acı, M. Avcı, Artificial neural network approach for atomic coordinate
prediction of carbon nanotubes, Appl. Phys. A Mater. Sci. Process. 122 (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00339-016-0153-1.
[51] V.B. Litovski, J.I. Radjenovié, Z.M. Mrčarica, S.L. Milenkovié, MOS transistor
modelling using neural network, Electron. Lett. 28 (1992) 1766, https://doi.org/
10.1049/el:19921124.
[52] M. Avci, T. Yildirim, Neural Network Based MOS Transistor Geometry Decision
for TSMC 0.18μ Process Technology, 2006, pp. 615–622, https://doi.org/
10.1007/11758549_84.
[53] F. Djeffal, Z. Dibi, M.L. Hafiane, D. Arar, Design and simulation of a
nanoelectronic DG MOSFET current source using artificial neural networks,
Mater. Sci. Eng. C. 27 (2007) 1111–1116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
msec.2006.09.005.
[54] F. Djeffal, M.A. Abdi, Z. Dibi, M. Chahdi, A. Benhaya, A neural approach to study
the scaling capability of the undoped Double-Gate and cylindrical Gate all around
MOSFETs, Mater. Sci. Eng. B Solid-State Mater. Adv. Technol. 147 (2008)
239–244, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mseb.2007.08.034.
[55] M. Sarvaghad-Moghaddam, A.A. Orouji, Z. Ramezani, M. Elhoseny, A. Farouk,
N. Arun kumar, Modelling the spice parameters of SOI MOSFET using a
combinational algorithm, Cluster Comput. 22 (2019) 4683–4692, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10586-018-2289-6.
[56] S. Hatami, M.Y. Azizi, H.R. Bahrami, D. Motavalizadeh, A. Afzali-Kusha, Accurate
and efficient modeling of SOI MOSFET with technology independent neural
networks, IEEE Trans. Comput. Des. Integr. Circuits Syst. 23 (2004) 1580–1587,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TCAD.2004.836725.
[57] N. Li, X.P. Li, S.G. Quan, An ANN-based small-signal equivalent circuit model for
mosfet device, Prog. Electromagn. Res. 122 (2012) 47–60, https://doi.org/
10.2528/PIER11092103.
[58] X. Li, Y. Li, J. Zhao, ANN-based pad modeling technique for MOSFET devices,
Prog. Electromagn. Res. 118 (2011) 303–319, https://doi.org/10.2528/
PIER11042702.
[59] D. Rajasekharan, S.S. Chauhan, A.R. Trivedi, Y.S. Chauhan, Energy and Area
efficient tunnel FET-based spiking neural networks, 2018 IEEE Electron Devices
Technol. Manuf. Conf. EDTM 2018 - Proc. (2018) 59–61, https://doi.org/
10.1109/EDTM.2018.8421527.
[60] A.R. Trivedi, S. Datta, S. Mukhopadhyay, Application of silicon-germanium
source tunnel-fet to enable ultralow power cellular neural network-based
associative memory, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 61 (2014) 3707–3715, https://
doi.org/10.1109/TED.2014.2357777.
[61] M. Gholamrezaei, K. Ghorbanian, Rotated general regression neural network, in:
IEEE Int. Conf. Neural Networks - Conf. Proc., 2, 2007, pp. 1959–1964, https://
doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN.2007.4371258.
[62] A.M. Ionescu, H. Riel, Tunnel field-effect transistors as energy-efficient electronic
switches, Nature 479 (2011) 329–337, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10679.
10
Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294
[63] M. Lanuzza, S. Strangio, F. Crupi, P. Palestri, D. Esseni, Mixed tunnel-FET/
MOSFET level shifters: a new proposal to extend the tunnel-FET application
domain, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 62 (2015) 3973–3979, https://doi.org/
10.1109/TED.2015.2494845.
[64] V. Saripalli, A. Mishra, S. Datta, V. Narayanan, An energy-efficient heterogeneous
CMP based on hybrid TFET-CMOS cores, Proc. - Des. Autom. Conf. (2011)
729–734, https://doi.org/10.1145/2024724.2024889.
[65] W.Y. Choi, J.Y. Song, J.D. Lee, Y.J. Park, B.G. Park, 70-nm impact-ionization
metal-oxide-semiconductor (I-MOS) devices integrated with tunneling field-effect
transistors (TFETs), Tech. Dig. - Int. Electron Devices Meet. IEDM. 2005 (2005)
955–958, https://doi.org/10.1109/iedm.2005.1609519.
[66] A. Mishra, M. Pattanaik, V. Sharma, Double gate vertical tunnel FET for hybrid
CMOS-TFET based low standby power logic circuits, 2013 Annu. Int. Conf.
Emerg. Res. Areas, AICERA 2013 2013 Int. Conf. Microelectron. Commun.
Renew. Energy, ICMiCR 2013 - Proc. (2013) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/
AICERA-ICMiCR.2013.6575992.
[67] M. Hemmat, M. Kamal, A. Afzali-Kusha, M. Pedram, Hybrid TFET-MOSFET
circuits: an approach to design reliable ultra-low power circuits in the presence of
process variation, 2016 IFIP/IEEE Int. Conf. Very Large Scale Integr. VLSI-SoC
2016 (2016) 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/VLSI-SoC.2016.7753578.
[68] M. Hemmat, M. Kamal, A. Afzali-Kusha, M. Pedram, Hybrid TFET-MOSFET
circuit: a solution to design soft-error resilient ultra-low power digital circuit,
Integr. VLSI J. 57 (2017) 11–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vlsi.2016.11.001.
[69] S. Strangio, F. Settino, P. Palestri, M. Lanuzza, F. Crupi, D. Esseni, L. Selmi, Digital
and analog TFET circuits: design and benchmark, Solid. Electron. 146 (2018)
50–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sse.2018.05.003.
[70] Mallikarjunarao, R. Ranjan, K.P. Pradhan, L. Artola, P.K. Sahu, Spacer engineered
Trigate SOI TFET: an investigation towards harsh temperature environment
applications, Superlattices Microstruct. 97 (2016) 70–77, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.spmi.2016.06.010.
[71] F. Ali Usmani, M. Hasan, Carbon nanotube field effect transistors for high
performance analog applications: an optimum design approach, Microelectronics
J. 41 (2010) 395–402, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mejo.2010.04.011.
[72] Y. Zhu, M.K. Hudait, Low-power tunnel field effect transistors using mixed As and
Sb based heterostructures, Nanotechnol. Rev. 2 (2013) 637–678, https://doi.org/
10.1515/ntrev-2012-0082.
[73] C. Zener, A theory of the electrical breakdown of solid dielectrics, in: Proc. R. Soc.
London. Ser. A, Contain. Pap. a Math. Phys. Character, 145, 1934, pp. 523–529,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1934.0116.
[74] K.H. Kao, A.S. Verhulst, W.G. Vandenberghe, B. Soree, G. Groeseneken, K. De
Meyer, Direct and indirect band-to-band tunneling in germanium-based TFETs,
IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 59 (2012) 292–301, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TED.2011.2175228.
[75] A. Ananda, S.S. Chauhan, A. Prakash, Comment on “an analytical model for
tunnel barrier modulation in triple metal double gate TFET”, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 66 (2019) 1123–1124, https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2018.2882524.
[76] K. Ganapathi, S. Salahuddin, Heterojunction vertical band-to-band tunneling
transistors for steep subthreshold swing and high on current, IEEE Electron
Device Lett. 32 (2011) 689–691, https://doi.org/10.1109/LED.2011.2112753.
[77] N. Bagga, S. Dasgupta, Surface potential and drain current analytical model of
gate all around triple metal TFET, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 64 (2017)
606–613, https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2016.2642165.
[78] H. Lu, D. Esseni, A. Seabaugh, Universal analytic model for tunnel FET circuit
simulation, Solid. Electron. 108 (2015) 110–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sse.2014.12.002.
[79] R. Jhaveri, V. Nagavarapu, J.C.S. Woo, Effect of pocket doping and annealing
schemes on the source-pocket tunnel field-effect Transistor, IEEE Trans. Electron
Devices 58 (2011) 80–86, https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2010.2089525.
[80] K.K. Bhuwalka, S. Sedlmaier, A.K. Ludsteck, C. Tolksdorf, J. Schulze, I. Eisele,
Vertical tunnel field-effect transistor, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 51 (2004)
279–282, https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2003.821575.
[81] U.E. Avci, I.A. Young, Heterojunction TFET scaling and resonant-TFET for steep
subthreshold slope at sub-9nm gate-length, Tech. Dig. - Int. Electron Devices
Meet. IEDM (2013) 4.3.1–4.3.4, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEDM.2013.6724559.
[82] U.E. Avci, S. Hasan, D.E. Nikonov, R. Rios, K. Kuhn, I.A. Young, Understanding
the feasibility of scaled III-V TFET for logic by bridging atomistic simulations and
experimental results, Dig. Tech. Pap. - Symp. VLSI Technol. (2012) 183–184,
https://doi.org/10.1109/VLSIT.2012.6242522.
[83] M. Visciarelli, E. Gnani, A. Gnudi, S. Reggiani, G. Baccarani, Design guidelines for
GaSb/InAs TFET exploiting strain and device size, Solid. Electron. 129 (2017)
157–162, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sse.2016.11.011.
[84] E. Gnani, M. Visciarelli, A. Gnudi, S. Reggiani, G. Baccarani, TFET inverter static
and transient performances in presence of traps and localized strain, Solid.
Electron. 159 (2019) 38–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sse.2019.03.051.
[85] W.J. Jeong, J. Seo, M. Shin, Efficient TB-NEGF simulations of ultra-thin body
tunnel FETs, Int. Conf. Simul. Semicond. Process. Devices, SISPAD (2016) 81–84,
https://doi.org/10.1109/SISPAD.2016.7605153.
[86] M.G. Pala, D. Esseni, Full-band quantum simulation of electron devices with the
pseudopotential method: theory, implementation, and applications, Phys. Rev. B
97 (2018) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.97.125310.
[87] Á. Szabó, C. Klinkert, D. Campi, C. Stieger, N. Marzari, M. Luisier, Ab initio
simulation of band-to-band tunneling FETs with single- and few-layer 2-D
materials as channels, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 65 (2018) 4180–4187,
https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2018.2840436.
A.Ö. Polat and M. Avcı
[88] A. Afzalian, T. Vasen, P. Ramvall, M. Passlack, An Efficient Tight-binding Mode-
space NEGF Model Enabling up to Million Atoms III-V Nanowire MOSFETs and
TFETs Simulations, 2017. http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00909.
[89] M.G. Pala, D. Esseni, Quantum transport models based on NEGF and empirical
pseudopotentials for accurate modeling of nanoscale electron devices, J. Appl.
Phys. 126 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5109187.
[90] A. Garcia-Lekue, M.G. Vergniory, X.W. Jiang, L.W. Wang, Ab initio quantum
transport calculations using plane waves, Prog. Surf. Sci. 90 (2015) 292–318,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progsurf.2015.05.002.
[91] H. Li, J. Lu, Sub-10 nm vertical tunneling transistors based on layered black
phosphorene homojunction, Appl. Surf. Sci. 465 (2019) 895–901, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2018.09.242.
[92] E.O. Kane, Theory of tunneling, J. Appl. Phys. 32 (1961) 83–91, https://doi.org/
10.1063/1.1735965.
[93] D. Munteanu, J.L. Autran, Two-dimensional modeling of quantum ballistic
transport in ultimate double-gate SOI devices, Solid. Electron. 47 (2003)
1219–1225, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-1101(03)00039-X.
[94] J. Hutter, M. Iannuzzi, F. Schiffmann, J. Vandevondele, Cp2k: Atomistic
simulations of condensed matter systems, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol.
Sci. 4 (2014) 15–25, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1159.
[95] J. Maassen, M. Harb, V. Michaud-Rioux, Y. Zhu, H. Guo, Quantum transport
modeling from first principles, Proc. IEEE. 101 (2013) 518–530, https://doi.org/
10.1109/JPROC.2012.2197810.
[96] M. Calderara, S. Brück, A. Pedersen, M.H. Bani-Hashemian, J. Vandevondele,
M. Luisier, Pushing back the limit of Ab-initio quantum transport simulations on
hybrid supercomputers, Int. Conf. High Perform. Comput. Networking, Storage
Anal. SC. 15-20-Nove (2015) 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1145/2807591.2807673.
[97] Z. Fan, A. Uppstu, T. Siro, A. Harju, Efficient linear-scaling quantum transport
calculations on graphics processing units and applications on electron transport
in graphene, Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 28–39, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cpc.2013.08.009.
[98] Y. Hong, Y. Wu, S. Wu, X. Wang, J. Zhang, Overview of computational
simulations in quantum dots, Isr. J. Chem. 59 (2019) 661–672, https://doi.org/
10.1002/ijch.201900026.
[99] T. Frederiksen, M. Paulsson, M. Brandbyge, A.P. Jauho, Inelastic transport theory
from first principles: methodology and application to nanoscale devices, Phys.
Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 75 (2007) 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1103/
PhysRevB.75.205413.
[100] J. Wang, E. Polizzi, M. Lundstrom, A three-dimensional quantum simulation of
silicon nanowire transistors with the effective-mass approximation, J. Appl. Phys.
96 (2004) 2192–2203, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1769089.
[101] O. Badami, S. Berrada, H. Carrillo-Nunez, C. Medina-Bailon, V. Georgiev,
A. Asenov, Surface roughness scattering in NEGF using self-energy formulation,
Int. Conf. Simul. Semicond. Process. Devices, SISPAD. 2019-Septe (2019) 1–4,
https://doi.org/10.1109/SISPAD.2019.8870526.
[102] Y. Guan, Z. Li, H. Carrillo-Nunez, V.P. Georgiev, A. Asenov, Quantum mechanical
simulations of the impact of surface roughness on nanowire tfet performance, Int.
Conf. Simul. Semicond. Process. Devices, SISPAD. 2019-Septe (2019) 4–7,
https://doi.org/10.1109/SISPAD.2019.8870385.
[103] M. Pala, D. Esseni, Full band quantum transport modelling with EP and NEGF
methods; Application to nanowire transistors, 2019 Int. Conf. Simul. Semicond.
Process. Devices, IEEE (2019) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/
SISPAD.2019.8870406.
[104] F.M. Yami, S.E. Hosseini, A New graphene nanoribbon based resonant tunneling
diodes using BN quantum Well, ICEE 2019 - 27th Iran. Conf. Electr. Eng. (2019)
315–317, https://doi.org/10.1109/IranianCEE.2019.8786464.
[105] H.H. Park, W. Choi, M.A. Pourghaderi, J. Kim, U. Kwon, D.S. Kim, Negf
simulations of stacked silicon nanosheet fets for performance optimization, Int.
Conf. Simul. Semicond. Process. Devices, SISPAD. 2019-Septe (2019) 1–3,
https://doi.org/10.1109/SISPAD.2019.8870365.
[106] S. Zhang, J.Z. Huang, A. Khaliq, H. Xie, W. Chen, W.Y. Yin, Quantum transport
study of Si ultrathin-body double-gate pMOSFETs: I-V, C-V, energy delay, and
parasitic effects, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 66 (2019) 655–663, https://doi.
org/10.1109/TED.2018.2881160.
[107] M.G. Pala, O. Badami, D. Esseni, Transport models based on NEGF and empirical
pseudopotentials: a computationally viable method for self-consistent simulation
of nanoscale devices, Tech. Dig. - Int. Electron Devices Meet. IEDM. 2018-Decem
(2019) 33.1.1–33.1.4, https://doi.org/10.1109/IEDM.2018.8614613.
[108] H.H. Park, W. Choi, M.A. Pourghaderi, J. Kim, U. Kwon, D.S. Kim, Toward more
realistic NEGF simulations of vertically stacked multiple SiNW FETs, Int. Conf.
Simul. Semicond. Process. Devices, SISPAD. 2018-Septe (2018) 206–209, https://
doi.org/10.1109/SISPAD.2018.8551692.
11
Materials Today Communications 27 (2021) 102294
[109] S. Berrada, J. Lee, H. Carrillo-Nunez, C. Medina-Bailon, F. Adamu-Lema,
V. Georgiev, P.A. Asenov, Quantum transport investigation of threshold voltage
variability in sub-10 nm JunctionlessSi nanowire FETs, Int. Conf. Simul.
Semicond. Process. Devices, SISPAD. 2018-Septe (2018) 244–247, https://doi.
org/10.1109/SISPAD.2018.8551638.
[110] C.Z. Wang, B.C. Pan, M.S. Tang, H. Haas, M. Sígalas, G.D. Lee, K.M. Ho,
Environment-dependent tight-binding potential model, MRS Proc. 491 (1997)
211, https://doi.org/10.1557/PROC-491-211.
[111] D.F. Specht, Series estimation of a probability density function, Technometrics 13
(1971) 409–424, https://doi.org/10.1080/00401706.1971.10488795.
[112] R.S. Rangel, P.G.D. Agopian, J.A. Martino, A tunnel-FET device model based on
verilog-a applied to circuit simulation, 33rd Symp. Microelectron. Technol.
Devices, SBMicro 2018 (2018) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/
SBMicro.2018.8511536.
[113] R.S. Rangel, P.G.D. Agopian, J.A. Martino, Performance evaluation of tunnel-FET
basic amplifier circuits, 2019 IEEE 10th Lat. Am. Symp. Circuits Syst. LASCAS
2019 - Proc. (2019) 21–24, https://doi.org/10.1109/LASCAS.2019.8667587.
[114] S. Datta, H. Liu, V. Narayanan, Tunnel FET technology: a reliability perspective,
Microelectron. Reliab. 54 (2014) 861–874, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
microrel.2014.02.002.
[115] A.D.M. Nogueira, P.G.D. Agopian, J.A. Martino, Silicon nanowire tunnel-FET
differential amplifier using verilog-a lookup table approach, SBMicro 2019 - 34th
Symp. Microelectron. Technol. Devices (2019) 1–4, https://doi.org/10.1109/
SBMicro.2019.8919270.
[116] J. Wang, N. Xu, W. Choi, K.H. Lee, Y. Park, A generic approach for capturing
process variations in lookup-table-based FET models, Int. Conf. Simul. Semicond.
Process. Devices, SISPAD. 2015-Octob (2015) 309–312, https://doi.org/10.1109/
SISPAD.2015.7292321.
[117] Y. Hong, Y. Yang, L. Yang, G. Samudra, C.H. Heng, Y.C. Yeo, SPICE behavioral
model of the tunneling field-effect transistor for circuit simulation, IEEE Trans.
Circuits Syst. II Express Briefs 56 (2009) 946–950, https://doi.org/10.1109/
TCSII.2009.2035274.
[118] H. Lu, J.W. Kim, D. Esseni, A. Seabaugh, Continuous semiempirical model for the
current-voltage characteristics of tunnel FETs, ULIS 2014 - 2014 15th Int. Conf.
Ultim. Integr. Silicon (2014) 25–28, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ULIS.2014.6813897.
[119] E.D. Cubuk, B.D. Malone, B. Onat, A. Waterland, E. Kaxiras, Representations in
neural network based empirical potentials, J. Chem. Phys. 147 (2017), https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.4990503.
[120] G.P.P. Pun, R. Batra, R. Ramprasad, Y. Mishin, Physically informed artificial
neural networks for atomistic modeling of materials, Nat. Commun. 10 (2019)
1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10343-5.
[121] B. Jiang, H. Guo, Permutation invariant polynomial neural network approach to
fitting potential energy surfaces, J. Chem. Phys. 139 (2013) 10–15, https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.4817187.
[122] J. Chen, X. Xu, D.H. Zhang, A global potential energy surface for the H2 + OH ↔
H 2O + H reaction using neural networks, J. Chem. Phys. 138 (2013), https://doi.
org/10.1063/1.4801658.
[123] B. Jiang, J. Li, H. Guo, Potential energy surfaces from high fidelity fitting of ab
initio points: the permutation invariant polynomial - neural network approach,
Int. Rev. Phys. Chem. 35 (2016) 479–506, https://doi.org/10.1080/
0144235X.2016.1200347.
[124] M. Rupp, A. Tkatchenko, K.R. Müller, O.A. Von Lilienfeld, Fast and accurate
modeling of molecular atomization energies with machine learning, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 108 (2012) 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.058301.
[125] N. Artrith, A. Urban, An implementation of artificial neural-network potentials for
atomistic materials simulations: performance for TiO2, Comput. Mater. Sci. 114
(2016) 135–150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.commatsci.2015.11.047.
[126] K.T. Schütt, P. Kessel, M. Gastegger, K.A. Nicoli, A. Tkatchenko, K.R. Müller,
SchNetPack: a deep learning toolbox for atomistic systems, J. Chem. Theory
Comput. 15 (2019) 448–455, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00908.
[127] K.T. Schütt, F. Arbabzadah, S. Chmiela, K.R. Müller, A. Tkatchenko, Quantum-
chemical insights from deep tensor neural networks, Nat. Commun. 8 (2017)
6–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13890.
[128] E. Gnani, E. Baravelli, A. Gnudi, S. Reggiani, G. Baccarani, Solid-state electronics
capacitance estimation for InAs tunnel FETs by means of full-quantum k Á p
simulation, Solid. Electron. 108 (2015) 104–109, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sse.2014.12.005.
[129] R. Vishnoi, M.J. Kumar, 2-D analytical model for the threshold voltage of a
tunneling FET with localized charges, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices 61 (2014)
3054–3059, https://doi.org/10.1109/TED.2014.2332039.