Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français |

**|**Europe PMC Author Manuscripts**|**PMC2933826

Formats

Article sections

Authors

Related links

Phys Rev Lett. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 September 6.

Published in final edited form as:

Published online 2006 March 3. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.083903

PMCID: PMC2933826

EMSID: UKMS31811

I.A. Khovanov,^{1} N.A. Khovanova,^{1} E.V. Grigorieva,^{2} D.G. Luchinsky,^{1} and P.V.E. McClintock^{1,}^{*}

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Phys Rev Lett

Continuous and pulsed forms of control of a multistable system are compared directly, both theoretically and numerically, taking as an example the switching of a periodically-driven class-B laser between its stable and unstable pulsing regimes. It is shown that continuous control is the more energy-efficient. This result is illuminated by making use of the close correspondence that exists between the problems of energy-optimal control and the stability of a steady state.

Ensuring the stability and effective control of a lasing mode represents an important problem in the applied theory of lasers [1]. It can be mapped onto analyses of spiking behavior in population dynamics [2] and neurons [3] and, in a more general context, appears as a fundamental problem in the theory of nonlinear dynamical systems [4, 5]. It is potentially of relevance wherever switching takes place between distinct regimes of behaviour, e.g. in cardiac and cortical systems. While the topic is thus of broad interdisciplinary interest, laser systems can provide especially reliable and convincing tests of the new theoretical concepts. In general, the problem can be analyzed within either one of two distinct theoretical and experimental frameworks: using either continuous or discrete time, with corresponding descriptions of the system dynamics in terms of either continuous flows or maps. Both methods have been extensively tested in application to laser systems. For example, a special protocol has been developed for the feedback control of Nd lasers [6]. To reduce uncertainty in switching, methods based on stochastic resonance have been proposed [7, 8], with addition of a weak periodic modulation. The targeting of stable and saddle orbits has been discussed [9] and achieved experimentally by the use of a single impulse in a loss-modulated CO_{2} laser [10, 11] paying special attention to minimization of the duration of the transient processes. Optimization of switch-on properties in semi-conductor lasers has been considered by exploring phase space [12] and via the minimal-time control problem [13]. That no direct comparison between these two general approaches for control has yet been made is perhaps surprising, given its broad interdisciplinary implications.

In this Letter we consider, both theoretically and numerically, a direct comparison between continuous and discrete time approaches to control the lasing mode in class-B lasers. In particular, we show that the continuous method is the more energy-efficient: the activation “energies” and the energies of the control functions differ by an order of magnitude. We use the duality of the control and stability problems discussed previously [14, 15] to provide insight into the origin of this difference.

Coexistence of nonstationary states can be realized in lasers by e.g. periodic modulation of intracavity loss [10] or pumping rate [16]. Here we study the latter, which is more suitable for class-B solid-state lasers. We start from the single-mode rate equations [16, 17]

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{.}{u}=vu(y-1),\hfill \\ \stackrel{.}{y}=q+k\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\omega t\right)-y-yu+f\left(t\right),\hfill \end{array}\phantom{\}}$$

(1)

where *u* and *y* are proportional to the density of radiation and carrier inversion respectively, *v* is the ratio of the photon damping rate in the cavity to the rate of carrier inversion relaxation, and the cavity loss is normalized to unity. The pumping rate has a constant term *q* plus an external periodic modulation of amplitude *k*, frequency *ω*; *f(t)* is an additive unconstrained control function.

For class-B lasers *v* is large, *v* ~ 10^{3}–10^{4}, and spiking regimes occur under deep modulation of the pumping rate. Solutions can be obtained from the corresponding two-dimensional Poincaré map [18]:

$$\{\begin{array}{c}{c}_{i+1}=q+G({C}_{i},{\psi}_{i}){e}^{-T}+K\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega T+{\psi}_{i})+{f}_{i},\hfill \\ {\phi}_{i+1}={\phi}_{i}+\omega T,\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{mod}\phantom{\rule{thickmathspace}{0ex}}2\pi ,\hfill \end{array}\phantom{\}}$$

(2)

where *G*(*c _{i}*,

For each iteration of the map one can find characteristics directly comparable with experiment: * _{i}* is the phase of the modulation signal at the instant of the spike and

We now set *v* = 10000, *q* = 1.9, *k* = 0.75 and *ω* = 71.6 and consider controlled migration from stable cycles to saddle cycles of the same amplitude and period: specifically, from the stable cycle *C*_{3} to the saddle cycle *S*_{3}, i.e. where both cycles are of period 3 relative to the external modulation. We consider two different forms of control force *f(t)*: one is continuous *f _{c}*(

We wish to solve the following energy-optimal control problem: How can the system (1) with unconstrained control function *f _{c}*(

$${J}_{c}=\underset{f\in F}{\mathrm{inf}}\frac{1}{2}{\int}_{{t}_{0}}^{{t}_{1}}{f}^{2}\left(t\right)dt,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{J}_{d}=\underset{f\in F}{\mathrm{inf}}\frac{1}{2}\sum _{i=1}^{N}{f}_{i}^{2}$$

(3)

is minimized? Here *t*_{1} (or *N*) is unspecified and *F* is the set of control functions.

The solution of this problem is in general a very complicated task. But, if a solution exists, it can [14, 15, 19] be identified with the solution of the corresponding problem of optimal fluctuational escape: Pontryagin’s Hamiltonian [20] in control theory can be identified with the Wentzel-Freidlin Hamiltonian [5] of the theory of fluctuations, and the optimal control force can be identified with one of the momenta of the Hamiltonian system [14, 15, 19]. It was therefore suggested that the optimal control function *f _{c}*(

*For continuous control*, it is useful to change variables *ε* = *v*^{−1/2}, τ = *ε*^{−1}*t*, Ω = ε*ω*, *z* = *ε*^{−1}(*y* – 1), *x* = ln *u*. Following Pontryagin’s theory of optimal control, we then reduce the energy-minimal migration task to boundary problems for the Hamilton equation (cf. [14, 15, 19]).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \stackrel{.}{x}& =z,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\stackrel{.}{z}=q-1+k\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\Omega \tau \right)-{e}^{x}(1+\u220az)-\u220az+{p}_{2},\hfill \\ \hfill {\stackrel{.}{p}}_{1}& ={p}_{2}{e}^{x}(1+\u220az),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}{\stackrel{.}{p}}_{2}=-{p}_{1}+{p}_{2}\u220a(1+{e}^{x}),\hfill \end{array}$$

(4)

with the boundary conditions [26]

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\left(x\right({\tau}_{s}),z({\tau}_{s}),{p}_{1}({\tau}_{s}),{p}_{2}({\tau}_{s}\left)\right)\in {\mu}^{u},\hfill \\ \left(x\right({\tau}_{e}),z({\tau}_{e}),{p}_{1}({\tau}_{e}),{p}_{2}({\tau}_{e}\left)\right)\in {\mu}^{s},\hfill \end{array}\phantom{\}}$$

(5)

where *μ ^{u}* is an unstable manifold of

The solution of the boundary problem (4)-(5) for the transition *C*_{3} → *S*_{3} was found by the shooting method starting from a guess derived from the prehistory approach [30]. The corresponding solution (*x*(τ), *p*_{2}(τ)) is shown in Fig. 1(b)-(c). Numerical simulations confirm that the control function *f*(τ) = *p*_{2}(τ) thus obtained does indeed induce migration from the cycle *C*_{3} to the cycle *S*_{3} in the optimal regime. Similar results are obtained for transition *C*_{2} → *S*_{2}.

*For a discrete time system* the Pontryagin theory of optimal control can be extended to obtain an area-preserving map:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill {c}_{i+1}& =q+G({c}_{i},{\psi}_{i}){e}^{-T}+K\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega T+{\psi}_{i})+{p}_{i+1}^{c}\hfill \\ \hfill {\phi}_{i+1}& ={\phi}_{i}+\omega T,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{mod}2\pi ,\hfill \\ \hfill & \left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {p}_{i+1}^{c}\hfill \\ \hfill {p}_{i+1}^{\phi}\hfill \end{array}\right)={\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{\partial {c}_{i+1}}{\partial {c}_{i}}\hfill & \hfill \frac{\partial {c}_{i+1}}{\partial {\phi}_{i}}\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{\partial {\phi}_{i+1}}{\partial {c}_{i}}\hfill & \hfill \frac{\partial {\phi}_{i+1}}{\partial {\phi}_{i}}\hfill \end{array}\right)}^{-1}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {p}_{i}^{c}\hfill \\ \hfill {p}_{i}^{\phi}\hfill \end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

(6)

with the boundary conditions:

$$({c}_{s},{\phi}_{s},{p}_{s}^{c},{p}_{s}^{\phi})\in {\mu}^{s},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}({c}_{e},{\phi}_{e},{p}_{e}^{c},{p}_{e}^{\phi})\in {\mu}^{u},$$

(7)

where *s* and *e* are the initial and final instants of time, *μ ^{u}* and

We have calculated directly the dependence of the energy (3) of the pulsed control function *f _{d}*(

*A direct comparison* between the continuous and different pulsed methods of control is given in Table I. It shows that continuous control is energetically far more efficient then pulsed control. That can be explained by the short duration τ of impulses of the pulsed force. In turn, a pulsed control function consisting of a sequence of impulses (multi-pulsed force) is more effcient than a single-pulse control function. It is evident that the energies of the pulsed control functions can be decreased by orders of magnitude by optimization of the impulse duration. Even so, the optimized energy of the pulsed control function still exceeds the energy of the continuous force by two orders of magnitude.

We have also investigated the influence of the phase relationship between the single control impulse and the laser oscillations, i.e. the different Poincaré sections when the single control impulse acts [30]. We have found: that the control energy ${J}_{c}^{i}$ changes with phase by a factor of up to 2×; and that the map (2) is close to the optimal phase relationship (cf. values of ${J}_{c}^{\text{in}}$ and ${J}_{\mathit{opt}}^{i}$ in Table. 1).

Although the continuous and discrete laser models describe the system dynamics well on long time scales, and yield quantitatively similar basins of attractions for the stable limit cycles (cf. Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 2(a)), estimates of stability and of the energies of optimal control functions may differ by a large factor. A possible reason lies in the particular form of control function *f _{i}* in the map (2): we choose a force that is additive in the map. So we might expect a different conclusion for another form of control function

$$\{\begin{array}{c}{c}_{i+1}={q}_{i}+G({c}_{i},{\psi}_{i},{q}_{i}){e}^{-T}+K\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{cos}(\omega T+{\psi}_{i}),\hfill \\ {\phi}_{i+1}={\phi}_{i}+\omega T,\phantom{\rule{thinmathspace}{0ex}}\mathrm{mod}\phantom{\rule{thickmathspace}{0ex}}2\pi ,\hfill \\ {q}_{i+1}={q}_{i}+{f}_{i},\hfill \end{array}\phantom{\}}$$

(8)

where *q* remains constant between Poincaré sections and changes at each cross-section. For (8) we formulate the same boundary problem as for (2), and we use the same method to determine the control function. The results of a prehistory analysis, and for a single impulse, are presented in two last columns of Table I. The energy of the control function is significantly decreased but it is still nearly twice as large as that of the continuous function.

Summarizing, we have found the energy-optimal control function for effecting migration of a class-B laser from its stable limit cycle to a saddle cycle, for both continuous and discrete descriptions of the laser. This allows us to compare the effciency of the two techniques directly, for the first time, showing that continuous control is the more energy-effcient and provides more accurate estimates of the stability of quasi-stable states. The fact that the optimal form of continuous force (Fig. 1(c)) is closer to a sequence of impulses than to a harmonic force allows us to suggest a pulsed control function approaching continuous effciency. We note that specific targeting of periodic orbits has been achieved experimentally by single-shot perturbation of intracavity losses in a CO_{2} laser [31, 32] that can be described by the continuous and discrete laser equations used in this paper. The results obtained can be verified directly in experiment, therefore, and applied e.g. to phase coding information schemes.

We acknowledge gratefully support from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK) and the Wellcome Trust.

PACS numbers: 02.30.Yy, 05.40.-a, 42.65.Pc, 02.50.Fz

[1] Petermann K. Laser Diode Modulation and Noise. Tokyo; Kluwer Academic Publisher: 1991.

[2] Schwartz IB, Billings L. Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 2004;5471:266.Earn D, Rohani P, Bolker B, Grenfell B. Science. 2000;287:667. [PubMed]

[3] Izhikevich EM. Int. J. Bif. Chaos. 2000;10:1171.

[4] Boccaletti S, et al. Phys. Rep. 2000;329:103.

[5] Freidlin M, Wentzel AD. Random Perturbations in Dynamical Systems. Springer; New-York: 1984.

[6] Joly N, Bielawski S. Opt. Commun. 2003;220:171.

[7] Yang W, Ding M, Gang H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995;74:3955. [PubMed]

[8] Pecora LM, Carroll TL. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1991;67:945. [PubMed]

[9] Barreto E, et al. Phys. Rev. E. 1995;51:4169. [PubMed]

[10] Chizhevsky VN, Grigorieva EV, Kashchenko SA. Opt. Commun. 1997;133:189.

[11] Chizhevsky VN. J. Opt. B: Quant. Semiclass. Optics. 2000;2:711.

[12] Lippi GL, et al. J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 2000;2:1.

[13] Kim J-HR, Lippi GL, Maurer H. Physica D. 2004;191:238.

[14] Khovanov IA, Luchinsky DG, Mannella R, McClintock PVE. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000;85:2100. [PubMed]

[15] Luchinsky DG, et al. Int. J. Bif. Chaos. 2002;12:583.

[16] Klische W, Telle HR. Opt. Lett. 1984;9:561. [PubMed]

[17] Haken H. Laser Theory. Springer-Verlag; Berlin: 1984.

[18] Gaisyonok AV, Grigorieva EG, Kashchenko SA. Opt. Commun. 1996;124:408.

[19] Luchinsky DG. Contem. Phys. 2002;43:379.

[20] Whittle P. Optimal Control Basics and Beyond. John Wiley; Chichester: 1996.

[21] Luchinsky DG. J. Phys. A. 1997;30:L577.

[22] Luchinsky DG, McClintock PVE, Dykman MI. Rep. Prog. Phys. 1998;61:889.

[23] Silchencko AN, Beri S, Luchinsky DG, McCLintock PVE. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003;91:174104. [PubMed]

[24] Dykman MI, et al. Phys. Rev. Let. 1992;68:2718. [PubMed]

[25] Luchinsky DG, et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1997;79:3109.

[26] The boundary conditions **q**(τ_{s}) and **q**(τ_{e}), where **q** = (*x, z, p*_{1}; p_{2}) and **q** = **q**_{0} + δ**q**, were set on the unstable (stable) manifold of the cycle *C*_{3} (*S*_{3}) of (4) by linearization about the points **q**_{0} = (−24.5387, 9.1501, 0, 0) on *C*_{3} and **q**_{0} = (−11.8911, 10.1058, 0, 0) on *S*_{3}; the deviations δ**q** of the momenta (δ*p*_{1}, δ*p*_{2}) and of the coordinates (δ*x*, δ*z*) are related to each other by linearization of (4) near **q**_{0} as described in [28]; τ_{s} = 2π*n*; τ_{e} = 2π*m*; where *m* > *n, m* and *n* are integer.

[27] Hales J, Zhukov A, Roy R, Dykman MI. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000;85:78. [PubMed]

[28] Beri S, et al. Phys. Rev. E. 2005;72:036131. [PubMed]

[29] Maier RS, Stein DL. SIAM J. Appl. Math. 1997;57:752.

[30] Khovanov IA, et al. (in preparation)

[31] Chizhevsky VN, Turovets SI. Phys. Rev. A. 1994;50:1840. [PubMed]

[32] Chizhevsky VN, Glorieux P. Phys. Rev. E. 1995;51:R2701. [PubMed]

PubMed Central Canada is a service of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) working in partnership with the National Research Council's national science library in cooperation with the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine(NCBI/NLM). It includes content provided to the PubMed Central International archive by participating publishers. |