OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: Andrew M. Weiner
  • Vol. 22, Iss. 6 — Mar. 24, 2014
  • pp: 7222–7228
« Show journal navigation

Strong optical injection and the differential gain in a quantum dash laser

Luke F. Lester, Nader A. Naderi, Frederic Grillot, Ravi Raghunathan, and Vassilios Kovanis  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 22, Issue 6, pp. 7222-7228 (2014)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.22.007222


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (1578 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

By optically injecting a quantum dash laser and simultaneously producing a significant lowering of the device threshold, a large enhancement in the differential gain is realized. This effect is observed by way of a dramatic reduction in the linewidth enhancement factor and a large increase in the 3-dB modulation bandwidth, especially as the injection wavelength is blue-shifted. Compared to its free-running value, a 50X improvement in the laser’s differential gain is found.

© 2014 Optical Society of America

1. Introduction

Quantum dot (QD) and quantum dash (QDash) lasers, so-called nanostructure lasers, have been shown to have superior dynamic properties such as low transparency current density [1

1. G. T. Liu, A. Stintz, H. Li, K. J. Malloy, and L. F. Lester, “Extremely low room-temperature threshold current density diode lasers using lnAs dots in In0.15Ga0.85As quantum well,” Electron. Lett. 35(14), 1163–1165 (1999). [CrossRef]

] and temperature-insensitivity of the threshold current [2

2. O. B. Shchekin, J. Ahn, and D. G. Deppe, “High temperature performance of self-organized quantum dot laser with stacked p-doped active region,” Electron. Lett. 38(14), 712–713 (2002). [CrossRef]

] compared to Quantum-Well (QW) and bulk lasers, which makes them attractive candidates as optical transmitters [3

3. M. T. Crowley, N. A. Naderi, H. Su, F. Grillot, and L. F. Lester, Semiconductors and Semimetals: Advances in Semiconductor Lasers (Academic, 2012), vol. 86, Chap. 10.

]. In addition nanostructure lasers have been touted to exhibit an increased differential gain [4

4. M. Asada, Y. Miyamoto, and Y. Suematsu, “Gain and the threshold of three-dimensional quantum-box lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 22(9), 1915–1921 (1986). [CrossRef]

], and therefore reduced linewidth enhancement factor (LEF) [5

5. T. C. Newell, D. J. Bossert, A. Stintz, B. Fuchs, K. J. Malloy, and L. F. Lester, “Gain and linewidth enhancement factor in InAs quantum-dot laser diodes,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 11(12), 1527–1529 (1999). [CrossRef]

] and larger modulation bandwidth, which would make them very suitable for implementation in ultrafast and chirp-free transmitter modules. In reality, it is well known that the latter properties are not necessarily accessible in the same device in nanostructure gain media. In another words, achieving a simultaneous high 3-dB modulation bandwidth (f3dB) and small LEF in conventional, directly-modulated nanostructure lasers, if theoretically possible, is still very challenging in practice.

Typically, the differential gain in a semiconductor laser is improved through the use of strain [6

6. K. Y. Lau, S. Xin, W. I. Wang, N. Bar-Chaim, and M. Mittelstein, “Enhancement of modulation bandwidth in InGaAs strained-layer single quantum well lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 55(12), 1173–1175 (1989). [CrossRef]

], quantum confinement [7

7. Y. Arakawa and A. Yariv, “Theory of gain, modulation response, and spectral linewidth in AlGaAs quantum well lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 21(10), 1666–1674 (1985). [CrossRef]

], or p-type doping [8

8. K. J. Vahala and C. E. Zah, “Effect of doping on the optical gain and the spontaneous noise enhancement factor in quantum well amplifiers and lasers studied by simple analytical expressions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 52(23), 1945–1947 (1988). [CrossRef]

] in the active region of the device. These methods have been applied to quantum dot or dash materials to raise the differential gain [9

9. Z. Mi and P. Bhattacharya, “DC and dynamic characteristics of P-doped and tunnel injection 1.65-μm InAs quantum-dash lasers grown on InP (001),” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 42, 1224–1232 (2006). [CrossRef]

,10

10. A. Martinez, Y. Li, L. F. Lester, and A. L. Gray, “Microwave frequency characterization of undoped and p-doped quantum dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 90(25), 251101 (2007). [CrossRef]

], but unfortunately these low-dimensional systems have relatively small maximum gain to start with due primarily to inhomogeneous gain broadening [11

11. M. Bayer and A. Forchel, “Temperature dependence of the exciton homogeneous linewidth in In0.60Ga0.40As/GaAs self-assembled quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B 65(4), 041308 (2002). [CrossRef]

] and hot carrier effects [12

12. D. R. Matthews, H. D. Summers, P. M. Smowton, and M. Hopkinson, “Experimental investigation of the effect of wetting-layer states on the gain-current characteristic of quantum-dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 81(26), 4904–4906 (2002). [CrossRef]

]. The consequence is that the laser cavity has to be relatively low-loss, which might make the LEF smaller, but comes at the expense of the modulation bandwidth since the photon cavity lifetime is longer. As a result, f3dB of conventional separate confinement heterostructure (SCH) QD lasers has been limited to only 12 GHz [3

3. M. T. Crowley, N. A. Naderi, H. Su, F. Grillot, and L. F. Lester, Semiconductors and Semimetals: Advances in Semiconductor Lasers (Academic, 2012), vol. 86, Chap. 10.

]. Moreover, the ultra-low LEF benefit intrinsic to nanostructure gain media is no longer available at the high current densities where large modulation bandwidths are generally accessible. Although below-threshold measurements on QDs [13

13. P. M. Smowton, E. J. Pearce, H. C. Schneider, W. W. Chow, and M. Hopkinson, “Filamentation and linewidth enhancement factor in InGaAs quantum dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 81(17), 3251–3253 (2002). [CrossRef]

,14

14. A. V. Uskov, E. P. O’Reilly, D. McPeake, N. N. Ledentsov, D. Bimberg, and G. Huyet, “Carrier-induced refractive index in quantum dot structures due to transitions from discrete quantum dot levels to continuum states,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 84(2), 272–274 (2004). [CrossRef]

] have reported LEFs that are less than 1 and even negative, the above-threshold values are found to be much larger as a result of the carrier density being unclamped at threshold, which is due to the inhomogeneous gain broadening in dots. In addition, at higher current densities, the LEF becomes more power dependent due to strong gain saturation and carrier filling in both lasing and non-lasing QD states [15

15. J. Muszalski, J. Houlihan, G. Huyet, and B. Corbett, “Measurement of linewidth enhancement factor in self-assembled quantum dot semiconductor lasers emitting at 1310nm,” Electron. Lett. 40(7), 428–430 (2004). [CrossRef]

,16

16. A. Markus, J. X. Chen, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, J. Provost, C. Paranthoen, and A. Fiore, “Impact of intraband relaxation on the performance of a quantum-dot laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 9(5), 1308–1314 (2003). [CrossRef]

].

2. Results and discussion

The injection-locking experimental setup for measuring the LEF using the FM/AM technique and the modulation response is systematically covered in ref [28

28. L. F. Lester, F. Grillot, N. A. Naderi, and V. Kovanis, “Differential gain enhancement in a quantum dash laser using strong optical injection,” Proc. SPIE 8619, 861907 (2013). [CrossRef]

]. From the small-signal modulation analysis, the ratio of the FM/AM modulation indices provides a direct measurement of the above-threshold LEF for modulation frequencies well above the slave laser’s relaxation frequency [24

24. C. Harder, K. Vahala, and A. Yariv, “Measurement of the linewidth enhancement factor α of semiconductor lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 42(4), 328–330 (1983). [CrossRef]

]. Using this method, the AM index, was modified through the ratio of the ac and dc components of the detected modulated signal using an electrical spectrum analyzer (ESA) and a 50 Ω terminator connected to a high-speed photo-detector. While the external power ratio was varied, the AM index was kept constant at 6% for all injection-locking cases by adjusting the RF power output from the amplifier. The FM index was obtained by measuring the ratio between amplitudes of the nearest sidebands to the peak frequency using a high resolution spectrometer.

LEF values can also be extracted from modulation response data for comparison, and zero optical detuning is an especially simplifying case. Next, we describe that process and the necessary equations. The modulation response HR of an injection-locked coupled system is described by the following set of equations [25

25. N. A. Naderi, M. Pochet, F. Grillot, N. B. Terry, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Modeling the injection-locked behavior of a quantum dash semiconductor laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 15(3), 563–571 (2009). [CrossRef]

]:
|HR|2=10log[(CZ)2(ω2+Z2)(CAω2)2+(Bωω3)21(1+(ω/γc)2)]
(1)
A=(γfrγN)RFE2+γN+γth
(2)
B=(ωr2+γNγth)+(η0/RFE)2+γth[(γfrγN)RFE2+γN]
(3)
C=(η0/RFE)2[(γfrγN)RFE2+γN](ωr2+γNγth)Z
(4)
where ωr, γfr, γN, and γc are the free-running relaxation frequency, free-running damping rate, inverse differential carrier lifetime and inverse RC parasitic roll-off, respectively, and are known parameters of the QDash slave laser that have been reported previously [25

25. N. A. Naderi, M. Pochet, F. Grillot, N. B. Terry, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Modeling the injection-locked behavior of a quantum dash semiconductor laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 15(3), 563–571 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. The non-linear gain has been implicitly incorporated into the model through the free-running relaxation oscillation and damping rate. The parameter η0, which is a known quantity, denotes the maximum injection strength, which depends on the coupling efficiency, ηc, the external power ratio, Rext, cavity length, L, and front facet reflectance, r, of the FP slave laser [25

25. N. A. Naderi, M. Pochet, F. Grillot, N. B. Terry, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Modeling the injection-locked behavior of a quantum dash semiconductor laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 15(3), 563–571 (2009). [CrossRef]

]. The external field ratio, RFE, is the slave field enhancement factor that takes into account the deviation of the steady-state field magnitude at high injection ratios compared to its free-running value. The frequency detuning is defined as Δω = ωslave -ωmaster. The steady-state phase offset between the master and slave under the zero-detuning case is given by ϕ0 = -tan−1(α), which reduces Z and γth, the threshold gain shift, to:
Z=η0RFE1+α2γth=2η0RFE1+α2
(5)
where α is the LEF. When using these equations to curve-fit measured response data, the number of fitting parameters is vastly reduced using the known free-running terms and by recognizing that γth cannot exceed the inverse cavity photon lifetime, γp, of 312 GHz (or a cavity loss of 36 cm−1). Furthermore at zero detuning, RFE follows a quadratic expression:
RFE4[(1/γp)(2η0/(1+α2)12)+1]RFE2(γN/ωr2)(2η0/(1+α2)12)=0
(6)
Using the measured FM/AM values as a guide, the LEF is allowed to fluctuate between zero and a positive number such that γth does not exceed γp. Thus, the LEF is the only free parameter and can be directly extracted from modulation response data. This is the unique situation zero detuning affords.

Fig. 2 Small-signal modulation response of the slave diode laser at zero optical detuning for three injection wavelengths. The data for the free-running laser is also included. Notice that at 1535 nm the modulation response is flat, spanning a 16.5 GHz bandwidth.
Figure 2 shows the zero-detuning, small-signal modulation response at the three different injection wavelengths indicated in Fig. 1. In all cases, the external power ratio was held fixed at Rext = 9.3 dB.

A comparison of the response curves shows that the f3dB systematically improves as the injection wavelength is blue-shifted from 1580 to 1535 nm. Whereas the responses at 1550 and 1580 are over-damped, the behavior at 1535 nm is nearly flat over a wide frequency range, and the f3dB is pushed out to 16.5 GHz. Compared to the free-running case, where no flat response was observed and the f3dB was found to be 4.5 GHz, injection locking at 1535 nm achieved a 3.7X bandwidth enhancement.

Further evidence of the large increase in the differential gain is seen in the modulation bandwidth results. Note that the f3dB for the 1535 nm case at Rext = 9.3 dB as shown in Fig. 2 corresponds to a 3.7X improvement compared to the free-running case. Given the damped, nearly flat response of the injected laser under this condition, only a significant increase in differential gain and a resultant increase in the free-running relaxation frequency could account for this improvement. Since the LEF is essentially zero for these strong injection cases, the equations for Z, γth and RFE further simplify and the free-running relaxation frequency is very easy to extract from the optically-injected response data. In turn, the differential gain, which varies as the square of the relaxation frequency, can be found. The injection-induced increase in differential gain is shown for several cases in Table 1.

Table 1. Differential Gains of Quantum Dash Laser Comparing the Free-running Case to Strong Injection Cases at 1550 and 1535 nm for which the LEF is Essentially Zero

table-icon
View This Table
As shown in the table, as the injection strength is increased and the wavelength is blue-shifted, the increase in the differential gain is more apparent. The maximum observed value of 5.9 × 10−14 cm2 represents a more than 50 times enhancement compared to the free-running laser value of 1.1 × 10−15 cm2.

4. Conclusions

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the United States Air Force Research Laboratory under grant numbers FA8750-06-1-0085 and FA9550-10-1-0276 managed by Dr. Gernot Pomrenke. Vassilios Kovanis’ work was supported via the AFOSR Electromagnetics Portfolio of Dr. Arje Nachman.

References and links

1.

G. T. Liu, A. Stintz, H. Li, K. J. Malloy, and L. F. Lester, “Extremely low room-temperature threshold current density diode lasers using lnAs dots in In0.15Ga0.85As quantum well,” Electron. Lett. 35(14), 1163–1165 (1999). [CrossRef]

2.

O. B. Shchekin, J. Ahn, and D. G. Deppe, “High temperature performance of self-organized quantum dot laser with stacked p-doped active region,” Electron. Lett. 38(14), 712–713 (2002). [CrossRef]

3.

M. T. Crowley, N. A. Naderi, H. Su, F. Grillot, and L. F. Lester, Semiconductors and Semimetals: Advances in Semiconductor Lasers (Academic, 2012), vol. 86, Chap. 10.

4.

M. Asada, Y. Miyamoto, and Y. Suematsu, “Gain and the threshold of three-dimensional quantum-box lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 22(9), 1915–1921 (1986). [CrossRef]

5.

T. C. Newell, D. J. Bossert, A. Stintz, B. Fuchs, K. J. Malloy, and L. F. Lester, “Gain and linewidth enhancement factor in InAs quantum-dot laser diodes,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 11(12), 1527–1529 (1999). [CrossRef]

6.

K. Y. Lau, S. Xin, W. I. Wang, N. Bar-Chaim, and M. Mittelstein, “Enhancement of modulation bandwidth in InGaAs strained-layer single quantum well lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 55(12), 1173–1175 (1989). [CrossRef]

7.

Y. Arakawa and A. Yariv, “Theory of gain, modulation response, and spectral linewidth in AlGaAs quantum well lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 21(10), 1666–1674 (1985). [CrossRef]

8.

K. J. Vahala and C. E. Zah, “Effect of doping on the optical gain and the spontaneous noise enhancement factor in quantum well amplifiers and lasers studied by simple analytical expressions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 52(23), 1945–1947 (1988). [CrossRef]

9.

Z. Mi and P. Bhattacharya, “DC and dynamic characteristics of P-doped and tunnel injection 1.65-μm InAs quantum-dash lasers grown on InP (001),” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 42, 1224–1232 (2006). [CrossRef]

10.

A. Martinez, Y. Li, L. F. Lester, and A. L. Gray, “Microwave frequency characterization of undoped and p-doped quantum dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 90(25), 251101 (2007). [CrossRef]

11.

M. Bayer and A. Forchel, “Temperature dependence of the exciton homogeneous linewidth in In0.60Ga0.40As/GaAs self-assembled quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B 65(4), 041308 (2002). [CrossRef]

12.

D. R. Matthews, H. D. Summers, P. M. Smowton, and M. Hopkinson, “Experimental investigation of the effect of wetting-layer states on the gain-current characteristic of quantum-dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 81(26), 4904–4906 (2002). [CrossRef]

13.

P. M. Smowton, E. J. Pearce, H. C. Schneider, W. W. Chow, and M. Hopkinson, “Filamentation and linewidth enhancement factor in InGaAs quantum dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 81(17), 3251–3253 (2002). [CrossRef]

14.

A. V. Uskov, E. P. O’Reilly, D. McPeake, N. N. Ledentsov, D. Bimberg, and G. Huyet, “Carrier-induced refractive index in quantum dot structures due to transitions from discrete quantum dot levels to continuum states,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 84(2), 272–274 (2004). [CrossRef]

15.

J. Muszalski, J. Houlihan, G. Huyet, and B. Corbett, “Measurement of linewidth enhancement factor in self-assembled quantum dot semiconductor lasers emitting at 1310nm,” Electron. Lett. 40(7), 428–430 (2004). [CrossRef]

16.

A. Markus, J. X. Chen, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, J. Provost, C. Paranthoen, and A. Fiore, “Impact of intraband relaxation on the performance of a quantum-dot laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 9(5), 1308–1314 (2003). [CrossRef]

17.

T. B. Simpson, J. M. Liu, and A. Gavrielides, “Small-signal analysis of modulation characteristics in a semiconductor laser subject to strong optical injection,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 32(8), 1456–1468 (1996). [CrossRef]

18.

E. K. Lau, H. K. Sung, and M. C. Wu, “Frequency response enhancement of optical injection locked lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 44(1), 90–99 (2008). [CrossRef]

19.

B. Riou, N. Trenado, F. Grillot, F. Mallecot, V. Colson, M. F. Martineau, B. Thédrez, L. Silvestre, D. Meichenin, K. Merghem, and A. Ramdane, “High performance strained-layer InGaAsP/InP laser with low linewidth enhancement factor over 30 nm,” in Proceedings of IEEE European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC) (2003), paper We4.P.85, Rimini, Italy.

20.

T. B. Simpson, J.-M. Liu, M. AlMulla, N. G. Usechak, and V. Kovanis, “Tunable photonic microwave oscillator self-locked by polarization- rotated optical feedback,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Freq. Control Symp., May 2012, pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]

21.

S.-Z. Chan, “Analysis of an optically injected semiconductor laser for microwave generation,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 46(3), 421–428 (2010). [CrossRef]

22.

S. Chan and J.-M. Liu, “Tunable narrow-linewidth photonic microwave generation using semiconductor laser dynamics,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 10(5), 1025–1032 (2004). [CrossRef]

23.

D. J. Bossert and D. Gallant, “Improved method for gain/index measurements of semiconductor lasers,” Electron. Lett. 32(4), 338–339 (1996). [CrossRef]

24.

C. Harder, K. Vahala, and A. Yariv, “Measurement of the linewidth enhancement factor α of semiconductor lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 42(4), 328–330 (1983). [CrossRef]

25.

N. A. Naderi, M. Pochet, F. Grillot, N. B. Terry, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Modeling the injection-locked behavior of a quantum dash semiconductor laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 15(3), 563–571 (2009). [CrossRef]

26.

M. Pochet, N. A. Naderi, N. Terry, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Dynamic behavior of an injection-locked quantum-dash Fabry-Perot laser at zero-detuning,” Opt. Express 17(23), 20623–20630 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

27.

M. Pochet, N. A. Naderi, Y. Li, V. Kovanis, and L. F. Lester, “Tunable photonic oscillators using optically injected quantum-dash diode lasers,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 22(11), 763–765 (2010). [CrossRef]

28.

L. F. Lester, F. Grillot, N. A. Naderi, and V. Kovanis, “Differential gain enhancement in a quantum dash laser using strong optical injection,” Proc. SPIE 8619, 861907 (2013). [CrossRef]

OCIS Codes
(140.3520) Lasers and laser optics : Lasers, injection-locked
(250.5960) Optoelectronics : Semiconductor lasers
(250.5590) Optoelectronics : Quantum-well, -wire and -dot devices

ToC Category:
Optical Devices

History
Original Manuscript: January 21, 2014
Revised Manuscript: March 3, 2014
Manuscript Accepted: March 3, 2014
Published: March 20, 2014

Virtual Issues
Physics and Applications of Laser Dynamics (2014) Optics Express

Citation
Luke F. Lester, Nader A. Naderi, Frederic Grillot, Ravi Raghunathan, and Vassilios Kovanis, "Strong optical injection and the differential gain in a quantum dash laser," Opt. Express 22, 7222-7228 (2014)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-22-6-7222


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. G. T. Liu, A. Stintz, H. Li, K. J. Malloy, L. F. Lester, “Extremely low room-temperature threshold current density diode lasers using lnAs dots in In0.15Ga0.85As quantum well,” Electron. Lett. 35(14), 1163–1165 (1999). [CrossRef]
  2. O. B. Shchekin, J. Ahn, D. G. Deppe, “High temperature performance of self-organized quantum dot laser with stacked p-doped active region,” Electron. Lett. 38(14), 712–713 (2002). [CrossRef]
  3. M. T. Crowley, N. A. Naderi, H. Su, F. Grillot, and L. F. Lester, Semiconductors and Semimetals: Advances in Semiconductor Lasers (Academic, 2012), vol. 86, Chap. 10.
  4. M. Asada, Y. Miyamoto, Y. Suematsu, “Gain and the threshold of three-dimensional quantum-box lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 22(9), 1915–1921 (1986). [CrossRef]
  5. T. C. Newell, D. J. Bossert, A. Stintz, B. Fuchs, K. J. Malloy, L. F. Lester, “Gain and linewidth enhancement factor in InAs quantum-dot laser diodes,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 11(12), 1527–1529 (1999). [CrossRef]
  6. K. Y. Lau, S. Xin, W. I. Wang, N. Bar-Chaim, M. Mittelstein, “Enhancement of modulation bandwidth in InGaAs strained-layer single quantum well lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 55(12), 1173–1175 (1989). [CrossRef]
  7. Y. Arakawa, A. Yariv, “Theory of gain, modulation response, and spectral linewidth in AlGaAs quantum well lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 21(10), 1666–1674 (1985). [CrossRef]
  8. K. J. Vahala, C. E. Zah, “Effect of doping on the optical gain and the spontaneous noise enhancement factor in quantum well amplifiers and lasers studied by simple analytical expressions,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 52(23), 1945–1947 (1988). [CrossRef]
  9. Z. Mi, P. Bhattacharya, “DC and dynamic characteristics of P-doped and tunnel injection 1.65-μm InAs quantum-dash lasers grown on InP (001),” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 42, 1224–1232 (2006). [CrossRef]
  10. A. Martinez, Y. Li, L. F. Lester, A. L. Gray, “Microwave frequency characterization of undoped and p-doped quantum dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 90(25), 251101 (2007). [CrossRef]
  11. M. Bayer, A. Forchel, “Temperature dependence of the exciton homogeneous linewidth in In0.60Ga0.40As/GaAs self-assembled quantum dots,” Phys. Rev. B 65(4), 041308 (2002). [CrossRef]
  12. D. R. Matthews, H. D. Summers, P. M. Smowton, M. Hopkinson, “Experimental investigation of the effect of wetting-layer states on the gain-current characteristic of quantum-dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 81(26), 4904–4906 (2002). [CrossRef]
  13. P. M. Smowton, E. J. Pearce, H. C. Schneider, W. W. Chow, M. Hopkinson, “Filamentation and linewidth enhancement factor in InGaAs quantum dot lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 81(17), 3251–3253 (2002). [CrossRef]
  14. A. V. Uskov, E. P. O’Reilly, D. McPeake, N. N. Ledentsov, D. Bimberg, G. Huyet, “Carrier-induced refractive index in quantum dot structures due to transitions from discrete quantum dot levels to continuum states,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 84(2), 272–274 (2004). [CrossRef]
  15. J. Muszalski, J. Houlihan, G. Huyet, B. Corbett, “Measurement of linewidth enhancement factor in self-assembled quantum dot semiconductor lasers emitting at 1310nm,” Electron. Lett. 40(7), 428–430 (2004). [CrossRef]
  16. A. Markus, J. X. Chen, O. Gauthier-Lafaye, J. Provost, C. Paranthoen, A. Fiore, “Impact of intraband relaxation on the performance of a quantum-dot laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 9(5), 1308–1314 (2003). [CrossRef]
  17. T. B. Simpson, J. M. Liu, A. Gavrielides, “Small-signal analysis of modulation characteristics in a semiconductor laser subject to strong optical injection,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 32(8), 1456–1468 (1996). [CrossRef]
  18. E. K. Lau, H. K. Sung, M. C. Wu, “Frequency response enhancement of optical injection locked lasers,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 44(1), 90–99 (2008). [CrossRef]
  19. B. Riou, N. Trenado, F. Grillot, F. Mallecot, V. Colson, M. F. Martineau, B. Thédrez, L. Silvestre, D. Meichenin, K. Merghem, and A. Ramdane, “High performance strained-layer InGaAsP/InP laser with low linewidth enhancement factor over 30 nm,” in Proceedings of IEEE European Conference on Optical Communication (ECOC) (2003), paper We4.P.85, Rimini, Italy.
  20. T. B. Simpson, J.-M. Liu, M. AlMulla, N. G. Usechak, V. Kovanis, “Tunable photonic microwave oscillator self-locked by polarization- rotated optical feedback,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Freq. Control Symp., May 2012, pp. 1–5. [CrossRef]
  21. S.-Z. Chan, “Analysis of an optically injected semiconductor laser for microwave generation,” IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 46(3), 421–428 (2010). [CrossRef]
  22. S. Chan, J.-M. Liu, “Tunable narrow-linewidth photonic microwave generation using semiconductor laser dynamics,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 10(5), 1025–1032 (2004). [CrossRef]
  23. D. J. Bossert, D. Gallant, “Improved method for gain/index measurements of semiconductor lasers,” Electron. Lett. 32(4), 338–339 (1996). [CrossRef]
  24. C. Harder, K. Vahala, A. Yariv, “Measurement of the linewidth enhancement factor α of semiconductor lasers,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 42(4), 328–330 (1983). [CrossRef]
  25. N. A. Naderi, M. Pochet, F. Grillot, N. B. Terry, V. Kovanis, L. F. Lester, “Modeling the injection-locked behavior of a quantum dash semiconductor laser,” IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 15(3), 563–571 (2009). [CrossRef]
  26. M. Pochet, N. A. Naderi, N. Terry, V. Kovanis, L. F. Lester, “Dynamic behavior of an injection-locked quantum-dash Fabry-Perot laser at zero-detuning,” Opt. Express 17(23), 20623–20630 (2009). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. M. Pochet, N. A. Naderi, Y. Li, V. Kovanis, L. F. Lester, “Tunable photonic oscillators using optically injected quantum-dash diode lasers,” IEEE Photonics Technol. Lett. 22(11), 763–765 (2010). [CrossRef]
  28. L. F. Lester, F. Grillot, N. A. Naderi, V. Kovanis, “Differential gain enhancement in a quantum dash laser using strong optical injection,” Proc. SPIE 8619, 861907 (2013). [CrossRef]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited