{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019393939393939394, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006060606060606061, 'mean_word_length': 5.661290322580645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Optimization metrics for Phase Change Memory (PCM) cell architectures

We reported here a comparative study of PCM cell architectures. The developed architectures are considered in a program/read efficiency framework and in an integration context. The Self-Heating approach is slightly more efficient, owing to heat generation happening directly within GST, but shows hazardous technology implementation with Ge2Sb2Te5, due to high aspect ratios. The heater-based Wall architecture represents the best and easiest solution for PCM from the technology standpoint: it features relaxed aspect ratios and benefits from lots of geometry-based knobs for optimization with slightly higher process complexity and slightly lower efficiency. Strengths and drawbacks of the different architectures are schematically reported in Fig. 14.