A New Read Scheme for Alleviating Cell-to-Cell Interference in Scaled-Down 3D NAND Flash Memory
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is trying to propose a new read scheme for mitigating the cell-to-cell interference in 3D NAND Flash memory. Majority part of the manuscript is in good shape, I only have some minor questions for the authors to improve.
- What is the typical ERS Vth and PGM Vth assumed in this work? Are they fixed from simulation to simulation?
- What is CSL in the Figure 1 (a)?
- In page 3, line 88, "In Fig. 3 (a), ..... B is relatively higher than that of pattern A." Would the authors circle out this differences in the figure?
- In page 3, line 92, "In the case of patterns E and F, it is identified the same." This sentence is confusing. Could the author further clarify what is same? E and F cases are same?
- In page 4, line 123, "Lastly, in Fig. 5 (e) and (f)", it seems Fig. 5 only has (a), (b) and (c).
- In the last, please illustrate whether Lg = 30nm and Ls = 10nm at the same time is feasible? Also, how about Lg= 20nm and Ls = 10nm?
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
We appreciate the reviewer’s reasonable and thoughtful comments.
I attached the file for reply to the comments.
thank you.
Best regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors proposed a work in which a new read scheme is considered to reduce the cell-to-cell interference in 3D NAND Flash memories. Despite the work has potential for publication, I do not see a clear novelty compared to the state of the art. Therefore, I urge the authors to answer the following comments:
- Could you please identify a clear difference between your work and DOI:10.1109/LED.2017.2765078; Corpus ID: 20405256. A Novel Read Scheme for Read Disturbance Suppression in 3D NAND Flash Memory? It is important to differentiate your contribution from the state-of-the-art.
- It would be interesting to see the impact of your scheme on the reliability of TLC 3D NAND Flash products. Do you think your model can be easily scaled for these kind of analysis?
- You have cited the Down-Coupling Phenomenon in the references. Have you ever analyzed if your read scheme can be beneficial also in reducing Temporary Read Errors (TRE)? C. Zambelli, R. Micheloni, S. Scommegna and P. Olivo, "First Evidence of Temporary Read Errors in TLC 3D-NAND Flash Memories Exiting From an Idle State," in IEEE Journal of the Electron Devices Society, vol. 8, pp. 99-104, 2020, doi: 10.1109/JEDS.2020.2965648.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
We appreciate the reviewer’s reasonable and thoughtful comments.
I attached the file for reply to the comments.
thank you.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper describes the impact of interference from adjacent cells on Vt and the proposal for read voltages. The followings needs to be addressed.
1) "PGM" conditions are not shown in detail. It is recommended to add explanations on the program order such as WL(n-1) => WL(n) => WL(n+1) and how much VT is shifted from "ERS" to "PGM" which can vary the Vt of adjacent cells as well.
2) In "Conclusion", the authors mention the scheme 3 is the best choice for the purpose whereas that conclusion is not well written in section 3. It is recommended to update the description in section 3.
3) It is recommended to review the draft such as "Fig. 4 (b) is -0.761" in line 116 and "Fig. 4 (d) is -1.8602" in line 122, "Fig. 5 (f) is 2.540" in 126, "which is as low as ΔV than Vread" in 187 et al.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
We appreciate the reviewer’s reasonable and thoughtful comments.
I attached the file for reply to the comments.
thank you.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is now acceptable for pubblication. The only advice is to improve the references section and including the answer to the reviewer.
Author Response
We appreciate the reviewer’s reasonable and thoughtful comments.
I attached the file for reply to the comments.
thank you.
Best regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
