[Paper Review] Electromechanical Hysteresis in Phase Change Material Sb2S3

Jack Kaman, Evan J. Musterman+4 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Mar 13, 2026

Phase-change materials and chalcogenides0 citations

TL;DR

The study uses piezoresponse force microscopy on congruently crystallized Sb2S3 to show that observed hysteresis is not due to piezoelectricity but to non-piezoelectric, voltage-driven contributions, revealing differences between crystalline and amorphous Sb2S3.

ABSTRACT

Antimony sulfide is an emerging phase change material for optical and electrical memory and computation elements. It has additionally been reported as a ferroelectric, with recent evidence from hysteresis in piezoresponse force microscopy. Here, we complete a rigorous set of piezoresponse force microscopy experiments on a congruently crystallized Sb2S3 glass-ceramic, where piezoelectric coupling should be forbidden in glassy Sb2S3. We replicate previous results and reveal that the behavior is absent in glassy Sb2S3 but show that the response originates primarily from non-piezoelectric contributions to the signal caused by an applied voltage. This hysteretic behavior in piezoresponse force microscopy is quite similar to some electrochemically active non-ferroelectric oxides, but uniquely, it appears here with a very clear spatial contrast that is decoupled from surface topography. This shows that the electromechanical signal reflects bulk-like properties and reveals differences in electrical behavior of crystalline and amorphous phases of Sb2S3.

Motivation & Objective

• Motivate understanding of Sb2S3 as a phase change material for memory and computation.
• Test whether Sb2S3 exhibits ferroelectric/piezoelectric responses in glassy vs crystalline forms.
• Disentangle piezoelectric signals from non-piezoelectric, voltage-driven contributions.
• Establish spatial characteristics of electromechanical signals relative to surface topography.

Proposed method

• Perform piezoresponse force microscopy on a congruently crystallized Sb2S3 glass-ceramic.
• Compare responses with glassy Sb2S3 to determine whether observed effects are piezoelectric.
• Analyze spatial contrast of the electromechanical signal and its relation to topography.
• Attribute hysteretic response to non-piezoelectric contributions induced by applied voltage.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Does Sb2S3 exhibit intrinsic piezoelectric/polarization responses in its glassy or crystalline state?
• RQ2 Is the observed electromechanical hysteresis driven by piezoelectric effects or by non-piezoelectric contributions?
• RQ3 How does the electromechanical response differ between crystalline and amorphous Sb2S3?
• RQ4 What is the spatial relationship between the electromechanical signal and surface topography?

Key findings

• Hysteretic electromechanical response is absent in glassy Sb2S3.
• Observed hysteresis arises primarily from non-piezoelectric contributions caused by applied voltage.
• The electromechanical signal shows strong spatial contrast that is decoupled from surface topography.
• The signal reflects bulk-like properties and highlights differences between crystalline and amorphous Sb2S3.