Open Access
Add to BibSonomyAbstract
A scheme to realize all-optical Boolean logic functions AND, XOR and NOT using semiconductor optical amplifiers with quantum-dot active layers is studied. nonlinear dynamics including carrier heating and spectral hole-burning are taken into account together with the rate equations scheme. Results show with QD excited state and wetting layer serving as dual-reservoir of carriers, as well as the ultra fast carrier relaxation of the QD device, this scheme is suitable for high speed Boolean logic operations. Logic operation can be carried out up to speed of 250 Gb/s.
©2010 Optical Society of America
1. Introduction
In future high-speed optical communication systems, logic gates will play important roles, such as signal regeneration, addressing, header recognition, data encoding and encryption [1]. In recent years, people have demonstrated optical logic using different schemes, including using dual semiconductor optical amplifier (SOA) Mach-Zehnder interferometer(MZI) [2, 3], semiconductor laser amplifier (SLA) loop mirror [4], ultrafast nonlinear interferometer (UNI) [5], four-wave mixing (FWM) in SOA [6] and cross gain (XPM)/cross phase (XPM) modulation in nonlinear devices [7]. Among above schemes, the SOA based MZI has the advantage of being relatively stable, simple and compact. To the author’s knowledge, however, operation speed of these schemes are limited by no more than 40 Gb/s. In order to realize higher speed data processing, faster device and schemes are needed.
The emergence of quantum-dot (QD) SOAs in recent years provided a better device for signal processing at communication band. Up till now, such device has experimentally demonstrated high saturated output power and low noise figure [8, 9], ultrafast carrier relaxation between QD energy states [10, 11] and a much smaller carrier heating (CH) impact on gain and phase recovery [12]. In recent years, rate equations approach is widely used to simulate XOR logic operation based on QD-SOAs [13]. However, [13]’s simulation is only based on inter-band carrier transitions, while neglecting gain saturation and nonlinear effects, which dominate the device’s gain dynamics above certain input power level [11].
In this work, we present a model to simulate optical logic operations using QD-SOA-MZI. The model supposes two discrete QD energy levels acting in carrier dynamics and nonlinear effects affecting the gain and phase dynamics of the device. Results show with nonlinear effects (especially the ultrafast recovering spectral hole burning (SHB) effect) expediting the gain recovery dynamics, this logic gate can have an improved output quality at high speed operation. For example, the calculated quality Q factor is 7.6 using input pulse with 0.5pJ pulse energy and 1.5ps pulse width and pump current density 1.8kA/cm2 (compared to Q factor ~4.8 under the same operating condition as reported in [13]).
2. QD-SOA structures and rate equations
The device we study here is the commonly discussed InAs/GaAs QD-SOA, with InAs Stranski-Krastanov (SK) quantum dots embedded in GaAs layer [14, 15]. This type of device can provide ~15dB gain at wavelength 1550nm with noise figure as low as 7 dB [9]. The active layer of the device consists of alternately stacked InAs island layers and GaAs intermediate layers. This configuration can significantly increase areal dot density and the modal gain of the SOA [14] and the gain is nearly polarization independent [16]. In this work we used the 2-level QD model to simulate the carrier transitions in the device [17–19]. The transition between the wetting layer, the QD excited state (ES) and the QD ground state (GS) is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1 .
We used rate equations to describe gain and phase dynamics in QD device [20]. The carrier density dynamics can be described as:
where w, h and f are the occupation probabilities of the wetting layer, the QD excited state and ground state, respectively; Nwm, Nesm and Ngsm are the maximum possible carrier densities of each state; Гd is the active layer confinement factor, I is the injected current, V is the effective volume of the active layer, a is differential gain, S(t) is photon density in the active region.The gain of QD-SOA is come from both carrier density dynamics and nonlinear processes like CH and SHB effects [12, 21], expressed in (4) as:
where εCH and εSHB are the gain suppression factors of carrier heating and spectral hole burning effects, respectively.The injected light and carrier heating effect both contribute to the cross-phase modulation between probe and data signal, thus a phase change to the probe is [20]:
where Gl(t)=exp[g(t)l] is the gain factor of the device with l being the effective length of the active layer, α and αCH are the linewidth enhancement factors of the waveguide and carrier heating process, respectively.3. Operation Principles of all-optical logic gates using QD-SOA-MZI
A QD-SOA MZI is used to realize all-optical XOR, AND, NOT operations. As is shown in Fig. 2 , two identical QD-SOAs form the two arms of the interferometer, three optical data streams centered at different wavelengths are coupled into the two arms, where the control beam at λ3 is evenly split into two branches at port 3 and guided into the two QD-SOAs respectively. The two branches each interact with data stream A or B in QD-SOA and experience modulated gain and phase due to XGM and XPM processes.
The two beams recombine at port 4, the phase shifters give the two arms an additional π phase difference, after a band-pass filter which screens out wavelength component of λ1 and λ2, the interference result (at λ3) can be expressed as [3]:
Where Pcb(t) is the time-dependent power of control beam. ϕ1 and ϕ1 are phases experienced by control beam in each arm expressed in (5).Similar to the reported schemes of SOA-MZI based optical logic XOR operation [3], we put data streams A and B into port 1 and 2 respectively and a much weaker clock as control beam. When A=B, then G1=G2, ϕ1=ϕ2, output will be 0 according to (6); if A≠B, Pout(t)≠0, and its temporal shape similar to the input control beam pulse as a result of fast gain response.
Similar to XOR, we used a similar MZI scheme [22] to realize logic AND operation. By putting data A to port 1 and using data B as control beam, we can get gain modulated pattern of data B out of port 4 resembling logic function A AND B. To make results better in quality, a low power CW light goes into port 2 to cancel out the background noise of data stream A.
If we use a clock as data B, and optical CW as control beam, we will get out of port 4 data pattern of A XOR “1”, which is the same in terms of truth value as “NOT A”.
The QD device’s amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) can degrade the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of transmitted signal by SNRin=F∙SNRout, where F is the device’s noise figure. For QD-SOA with short active region (~1mm), the ASE produced are usually much smaller compared to the saturation output power [11], so it’s impact on SOA’s XGM and XPM processes are totally negligible. For this reason, we only added an additional gain factor of F to the control beam’s input noise power through the device amplification.
4. Simulation results and output quality evaluation
We solved rate Eqs. (1-3) under different conditions. Parameters used are experimental results on QD-SOAs for central wavelength 1.55μm: τwr=τesr=200ps, τgsr=50ps, τw-e=3ps, τe-w=300ps [20], τg-e=10ps, Гd=10%, linewidth enhancement factors α=4, αCH=0.2 [23, 24], QD energy levels’ densities of states nw=5.4×1017cm−3, nw:ne:ng≈15:2:1 [18], QD areal density is 7.5×1010cm−2, saturated output power is 18dBm at 1.55μm wavelength[8], device differential gain a=8.6×10−15cm2 [15], effective length l=1.0mm, noise figure F=7dB [8], transparency pump current density is~0.2kA/cm2 [12], gain suppression factors are εCH =0.5×10−23m3, εSHB=7.5×10−23m3 [25], which correspond to threshold input pulse energy for both nonlinear effects~0.47 pJ. Value of time constant τe-g has been measured in many experiments, the smallest reported value is ~0.1ps [12] and the largest measured value goes up to several picoseconds [18].
231-1 PRBS signals are used as input signals, input data SNR is 20dB. Results of XOR, AND, NOT logic are shown in Fig. 3 and 4 , the output eye-diagram is also plotted to show output quality. Quality of output can also be quantitatively evaluated by calculating quality factor, which is defined as Q=(S1-S0)/(σ1+σ0) [1]. Here S0 and S1 are the average peak powers of output “1”s and “0”s, respectively; σ0 and σ1 are their standard deviations. The output bit-error rate (BER) is related with quality factor by [1]: BER≈(2π)-1/2exp(-Q2/2)/Q.
Fig. 3 Simulation results of XOR gates operating at different bit-rates: (a) 40 Gb/s, (b) 250 Gb/s, inset is the simulated eye-diagram of each output wave form. J=1.8 kA/cm2, pulse width=2.5ps, pulse energy=0.5pJ.
Fig. 4 Simulated result of AND gate and NOT gate operating at 250 Gb/s. J=1.8 kA/cm2, pulse width=2.5ps, pulse energy=0.5pJ.
At fixed operation condition, the output qualities are the same according to simulation result. This is because the three gates use the same scheme and share the same noise origin.
The calculated quality factor shows significant dependence on injected current density, pulse width, τe-g and single pulse energy. Figure 5 shows the output quality’s dependence on injected current density and input pulse width. From the results we find that at low injected current density level (J<1.8 kA/cm2), the Q factor is lower and increases as current density increases. This can be explained as: with increased current density, more carriers are fed to the wetting layer, each QD energy level can recover faster to initial carrier density level after depletion following pulse injection and amplification. This reduces the pattern effect considerably. For higher current density (J>1.8 kA/cm2), the increase in J will have a smaller impact on the gain recovery process because of carrier saturation. Also, narrower the input pulse (less energy and hence less carrier depletion) also results in better performance (higher Q).
Fig. 5 The dependence of quality factor Q’s on pulse width and injected current density, single pulse energy is 0.5 pJ. (a): 250 Gb/s XOR operation (b): 160 Gb/s operation
Figure 6 shows the calculated Q factor dependence on single pulse energy and carrier relaxation time between QD excited state and ground state. From the results we see a decrease in output quality when increasing single pulse energy of the input data and τe-g. As single pulse energy increases, the carrier density of the active region of the device is depleted more and takes longer time to recover to initial level, thus lead to bigger patterning effect and degrade the quality. The transition lifetime τe-g determines the speed of gain and phase recovery in the active region, thus Q-factor is higher for shorter transition times at high operation speed.
Fig. 6 Calculated Q factor dependence on (a): single pulse energy (b): ES to GS transition lifetime operation bit-rate is 250 Gb/s and current density J=1.8 kA/cm2
5. Conclusion
In this paper we presented a model to simulate high speed all-optical logic gates using QD-SOA based Mach-Zehnder Interferometer. Results show that QD-SOA based MZI can perform logic operations such as AND, XOR and NOT at high bit-rate up to 250 Gb/s. The impact on the high speed output quality (Q-factor) by a number of parameters, including injected current density, transition lifetime τe-g, input pulse width and single pulse energy, are also studied and discussed. Results show that for operation speed as high as 250 Gb/s, the Q factor is typically above 7 and can reach 11 under best conditions. For best output quality, the logic system requires injected current to be sufficiently high (>1.8 kA/cm2) and single pulse energy not be too big (<1.0 pJ), narrower input pulse width (FWHM ~1.0ps) can also lead to better output quality.
References and links
1. G. P. Agrawal, Fiber-Optic Communication Systems, 3rd ed. (Wiley, (2002).
2. J. Kim, Y. Jhon, Y. Byun, S. Lee, D. Woo, and S. Kim, “All-optical XOR gate using semiconductor optical amplifiers without additional input beam,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 14(10), 1436–1438 (2002). [CrossRef]
3. Q. Wang, G. Zhu, H. Chen, J. Jaques, J. Leuthold, A. B. Piccirilli, and N. K. Dutta, “Study of all-optical XOR using Mach-Zehnder interferometer and differential scheme,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40(6), 703–710 (2004). [CrossRef]
4. T. Houbavlis, K. Zoiros, A. Hatziefremidis, H. Avramopoulos, L. Occhi, G. Guekos, S. Hansmann, H. Burkhard, and R. Dall’Ara, “10 Gbit/s all-optical Boolean XOR with SOA fiber Sagnac gate,” Electron. Lett. 35(19), 1650 (1999). [CrossRef]
5. C. Bintjas, M. Kalyvas, G. Theophilopoulos, T. Stathopoulos, H. Avramopoulos, L. Occhi, L. Schares, G. Guekos, S. Hansmann, and R. Dall’Ara, “20Gb/s all optical XOR with UNI gate,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 12(7), 834–836 (2000). [CrossRef]
6. K. Chan, C. Chan, L. Chen, and F. Tong, “Demonstration of 20 Gb/s all-optical XOR gate by four-wave mixing in semiconductor optical amplifier with RZ-DPSK modulated inputs,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 16(3), 897–899 (2004). [CrossRef]
7. Z. Li, Y. Liu, S. Zhang, H. Ju, H. de Waardt, G. D. Khoe, H. J. S. Dorren, and D. Lenstra, “All-optical logic gates using semiconductor optical amplifier assisted by optical filter,” Electron. Lett. 41(25), 1397 (2005). [CrossRef]
8. T. Akiyama, M. Sugawara, and Y. Arakawa, “Quantum-dot semiconductor optical amplifiers,” Proc. IEEE 95(9), 1757–1766 (2007). [CrossRef]
9. T. Berg and J. Mork, “Saturation and noise properties of quantum-dot optical amplifiers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 40(11), 1527–1539 (2004). [CrossRef]
10. P. Reithmaier, and G. Eisenstein, “Semiconductor optical amplifiers with nanostructured gain material,” in Frontiers in Optics, OSA Technical Digest (CD) (Optical Society of America, 2008), paper FTuN1. http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?URI=FiO-2008-FTuN1
11. P. Borri, W. Langbein, J. M. Hvam, F. Heinrichsdorff, M. H. Mao, and D. Bimberg, “Ultrafast gain dynamics in InAs-InGaAs quantum-dot amplifiers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 12, 594 (2000).
12. P. Borri, W. Langbein, J. M. Hvam, F. Heirichsdorff, M. Mao, and D. Bimberg, “Spectral hole-burning and carrier-heating dynamics in quantum-dot amplifiers: comparison with bulk amplifiers,” Phys. Stat. Solidi. B 224(2), 419–423 (2001). [CrossRef]
13. Y. B. Ezra, B. I. Lembrikov, and M. Haridim, “Ultrafast all-optical processor based on quantum-dot semiconductor optical amplifiers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 45(1), 34–41 (2009). [CrossRef]
14. K. Mukai, Y. Nakata, H. Shoji, M. Sugawara, K. Ohtsubo, N. Yokoyama, and H. Ishikawa, “Lasing with low threshold current and high output power from columnar-shaped InAs-GaAs quantum dots,” Electron. Lett. 34(16), 1588 (1998). [CrossRef]
15. T. Akiyama, O. Wada, H. Kuwatsuka, T. Simoyama, Y. Nakata, K. Mukai, M. Sugawara, and H. Ishikawa, “Nonlinear processes responsible for non-degenerate four-wave mixing in quantum dot optical amplifiers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 77(12), 1753 (2000). [CrossRef]
16. P. Ridha, L. Li, M. Rossetti, G. Patriarche, and A. Fiore, “Polarization dependence of electroluminescence from closely-stacked and columnar quantum dots,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 40(2-4), 239–248 (2008). [CrossRef]
17. T. Berg, S. Bischoff, I. Magnusdottir, and J. Mork, “Ultrafast gain recovery and modulation limitations in self-assembled quantum-dot devices,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 13(6), 541–543 (2001). [CrossRef]
18. J. Kim and S. Chuang, “Small-signal cross-gain modulation of quantum-dot semiconductor optical amplifiers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 18, 2538 (2006).
19. T. Berg and J. Mork, “Quantum dot amplifiers with high output power and low noise,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 82(18), 3083 (2003). [CrossRef]
20. S. Ma, H. Sun, Z. Chen, and N. K. Dutta, “High speed all-optical PRBS generation based on quantum-dot semiconductor optical amplifiers,” Opt. Express 17(21), 18469–18477 (2009), http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-17-21-18469. [CrossRef]
21. T. Akiyama, H. Kuwatsuka, T. Simoyama, Y. Nakata, K. Mukai, M. Sugawara, O. Wada, and H. Ishikawa, “Application of spectral-hole burning in the inhomogeneous broadened gain of self-assembled quantum dots to a multi-wavelength channel nonlinear optical device,” IEEE Photon. Technol. Lett. 12(10), 1301–1303 (2000). [CrossRef]
22. H. Dong, H. Sun, Q. Wang, N. K. Dutta, and J. Jaques, “All-optical logic AND operation at 80 Gb/s using semiconductor optical amplifier based on the Mach-Zehnder interferometer,” Microw. Opt. Technol. Lett. 48(8), 1672–1675 (2006). [CrossRef]
23. J. M. Vazquez, H. H. Nilsson, J. Zhang, and I. Galbraith, “Linewidth enhancement factor of quantum-dot optical amplifiers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 42(10), 986–993 (2006). [CrossRef]
24. O. Qasaimeh, “Linewidth enhancement factor of quantum-dot lasers,” Opt. Quantum Electron. 37(5), 495–507 (2005). [CrossRef]
25. A. Uskov, E. O’Reilly, M. Laemmlin, N. Ledentsov, and D. Bimberg, “On gain saturation in quantum dot semiconductor optical amplifiers,” Opt. Commun. 248(1-3), 211–219 (2005). [CrossRef]
