in the field of coding theory , calculations of good upper and lower bounds on the size of a code serves as a benchmark for code design . techniques of constructing subspace codes for error correction in random network coding ( also called ` projective space codes ' ) are similar to the techniques used to construct binary codes .
a projective space code is defined as a subset of subspaces of a vector space .
the viewpoint of lattice theory for projective space codes has already been suggested @xcite .
a lattice is a partially ordered set in which any two elements have a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound .
the set of all subspaces of a vector space is called a projective space and the set of all subsets of a set is called a power set . both the power set and the projective space form lattices under inclusion order .
a ` lattice scheme ' is defined as a subset of a lattice .
it has already been observed in @xcite that binary codes and projective space codes are lattice schemes .
binary codes are power set schemes and projective space codes are projective space schemes .
the lattice framework common to projective space codes and binary codes have also been observed in @xcite and @xcite .
the authors of @xcite establish that the projective space codes are analogs of classical binary codes .
they also investigate the notions of linearity and complements of a code . in @xcite ,
the relationship between binary codes and projective space codes is investigated thoroughly using the framework of lattices and a generalized notion of orthogonal complement is introduced for lattices .
one of the ways to generate a bound on the code size is to capture a bare minimum structure for the bound through an appropriate mathematical abstraction and generalize the approach .
for example , the introduction of ` association schemes ' captured the notion of sphere packing and sphere covering arguments in traditional coding theory @xcite and strengthened the bounds by a linear programming approach . in our paper , the notion of singleton bound is generalized using the framework of lattices .
since error correcting codes for random network coding was proposed in @xcite , there has been a lot of activity in the theory of projective space codes .
the authors of @xcite consider projective space codes in which all the subspaces are of the same dimension .
such codes are called constant dimension codes .
the koetter - kschischang singleton bound ( kks bound ) for constant dimension codes was derived and achieved asymptotically in @xcite .    in the case of binary codes , hamming distance between two binary vectors is a metric on the binary coding space .
similarly the subspace distance , introduced in @xcite , between two subspaces of a vector space is a metric on the projective space . in a projective space ,
the number of elements in a sphere of a particular radius depends on the center of that sphere @xcite .
however , in the case of binary codes , the number of elements in a sphere depends only on the radius of the sphere and not on the center of the sphere .
so the subspace distance on the projective space behaves differently from the hamming distance on the usual binary vectors .
as noted in @xcite , the anticode bound introduced in @xcite gives a setting in which one can get tighter sphere packing bounds for constant dimension codes .
a close look at the bounds for subspace distance and non - existence of nontrivial perfect codes has been given in @xcite .
an appropriate generalization for singleton bounds ( analogous to association scheme for sphere packing / covering bounds ) is not known yet . in this paper , we propose that the lattice framework is appropriate for generalizing singleton bounds .
we derive an upper bound on the size of a lattice scheme , which will be called lattice singleton bound ( lsb ) for the remainder of the paper .
we get the kks bound and the classical singleton bound as special cases of the lsb .
while most results in projective space codes assume that the dimensions of the subspaces in the code are constant , a few papers in literature have considered codes with non - constant dimension . in particular
, the authors of @xcite derive a gilbert - varshamov type bound , which we will term as ` etzion vardy- gilbert varshamov bound ' ( ev - gvb ) , for non - constant dimension codes .
we derive a _
new _ upper bound on the code size for non - constant dimension codes by applying the lsb to the projective lattice . to the best of our knowledge ,
our singleton bound is the first upper bound for non - constant dimension codes .
the construction of constant dimension codes have been the main focus in the field of code constructions for projective spaces .
the first constant dimension subspace codes introduced in @xcite achieve the kks bound asymptotically .
and there is no known code constructions that exactly achieve the singleton bound proposed in @xcite .
the question of achieving that singleton bound is an open question .
a large class of constant and non - constant dimension codes using ferrer s diagrams and lifted rank metric codes are constructed in @xcite .
the authors of @xcite report marginal improvements over the size of the code compared to the codes of @xcite . a plot of code sizes of the codes reported in @xcite compared to a plot of our upper bound shows that both the reported codes have code sizes that are close to optimal .
this also establishes that our upper bound is tight for atleast certain coding parameters .
the contributions of this paper are as follows :    1 .
we derive a singleton bound in the framework of lattices .
we recover the singleton bound for binary codes and the singleton bound for constant dimension subspace codes ( kks bound ) as special cases of our lsb .
we obtain a new singleton bound for non - constant dimension subspace codes .
we compare our bound on the code size with the code sizes of non - constant dimension codes found in the literature .
we also compare our upper bound with a gilbert - varshamov type lower bound .
the plots reveal that our bound is tight for certain parameters of the code .
the paper is organized as follows : we introduce the preliminaries of lattices in section [ sec_lat_prelims ] .
section [ sec_lat_sch ] introduces the idea of lattice schemes where it is shown that classical codes and subspace codes are both lattice schemes .
section [ sec_main_res ] introduces the singleton bound in the framework of lattice schemes and contains the main theorem of this paper .
section [ sec_main_res ] contains the main distinguishing feature of projective space codes which we believe make singleton type bounds weak in projective spaces . in section [ sec_upp_bou ]
, we obtain a new upper bound for non - constant dimension codes and plot our upper bound with ev - gvb along with different codes constructed in the literature .
finally , in section [ sec_conc ] , we conclude by summarizing our contributions and discussing the scope for future work .    _
notations : _ a set is denoted by a capital letter and its elements will be denoted by small letters ( for example , @xmath0 ) .
the set @xmath1 is defined as @xmath2 . all the sets considered in this paper
will be finite . given a set @xmath3 , @xmath4 denotes the number of elements in the set and for a subset @xmath5 of @xmath3 , @xmath6 denotes the complement of the set @xmath5 in @xmath3 . for two sets @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath8 denotes the cartesian product of the two sets , i.e. @xmath9 .
@xmath10 represents the symmetric difference of sets , i.e. @xmath11 .
a lattice will be denoted by @xmath12 and sometimes we will drop the join and the meet notation , simply calling it @xmath13 .
@xmath14 denotes the finite field with @xmath15 elements where @xmath15 is a power of a prime number .
@xmath16 denotes all the non zero elements of @xmath14 .
the symbol @xmath17 denotes a vector space ( generally over @xmath14 ) . for a subset @xmath18 of @xmath17
, @xmath19 denotes the linear span of all the elements in @xmath18 . given two subspaces @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath20 denotes the smallest subspace containing both @xmath5 and @xmath7 .
let @xmath17 be a @xmath21 dimensional space over @xmath14 .
then the symbol @xmath22 denotes the grassmanian , i.e. the set of all @xmath23 dimensional subspaces of @xmath17 .
the number of elements in @xmath22 is denoted as @xmath24 .
@xmath25 denotes the @xmath21 dimensional vector space of @xmath21-tuples over @xmath14 .
given a vector @xmath26 , @xmath27 denotes the @xmath28-th co - ordinate of @xmath29 .
the support of @xmath26 ( denoted by @xmath30 ) is defined as the set of indices where the vector is non - zero .
@xmath31 denotes the vector space @xmath25 with the hamming metric , i.e. @xmath32 .
this section serves as a quick introduction to lattice theory .
all the lattice theory definitions and theorems required for the rest of the paper are given in this section .
we follow notations and definitions from @xcite .
[ def_poset_order ] a _ poset _ is a pair @xmath33 , where @xmath34 is a set and @xmath35 is a binary relation ( called the _ order relation _ ) on the set @xmath34 satisfying :    1 .
( reflexivity ) for all @xmath36 2 .
( antisymmetry ) if @xmath37 , then @xmath38 3 .
( transitivity ) if @xmath39 , then @xmath40    for the remainder of the paper , @xmath34 denotes a poset with @xmath35 as the order relation .
if @xmath41 and @xmath42 , then we use the shorthand @xmath43 .
@xmath41 is read as `` x is less than y '' or `` x is contained in y '' .    an _ upper bound _
( _ lower bound _ ) of a subset @xmath3 of @xmath34 is an element @xmath44 containing ( contained in ) every @xmath45 .
the _ least upper bound _ ( _
greatest lower bound _ ) of @xmath3 is the element of @xmath34 contained in ( containing ) every upper bound ( lower bound ) of @xmath3 .
if a least upper bound , or a greatest lower bound of a set exists , it is unique due to the antisymmetry property of the order relation ( definition [ def_poset_order ] ) .
the least upper bound of a set @xmath3 is denoted by sup @xmath3 and the greatest lower bound is denoted by inf @xmath3 .    a _ lattice _
@xmath13 is a poset which has the property that @xmath46 , the sup@xmath47 exists and inf@xmath47 exists .
the sup@xmath47 is denoted by @xmath48 ( read as `` a _ join _ b '' ) and the inf@xmath47 is denoted by @xmath49 ( read as `` a _ meet _ b '' ) .
the lattice itself is denoted by @xmath12 .
we will assume , for the purposes of the paper , that all the lattices are finite and have a unique greatest element denoted by @xmath50 , and a unique least element denoted by @xmath51 .
a _ sublattice _ of a lattice @xmath13 is a subset @xmath52 of @xmath13 that satisfies the following condition : @xmath53    a map @xmath54 from @xmath13 to @xmath52 is said to be a _ lattice homomorphism _ if it satisfies the following conditions :    1 .
@xmath55 2 .
@xmath56    further , if @xmath54 is bijective , then we say that @xmath13 and @xmath52 are _
let @xmath57 and @xmath58 denote the power set of @xmath3 .
we can view @xmath59 as a poset where set inclusion is the order relation . the power set under
this order is a lattice . for any subsets @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath60 and @xmath61 .
further , the lattice generated by subsets of @xmath62 is a sublattice .
notice that @xmath63 and @xmath64 .
@xmath65    one can completely specify an order of a poset ( finite ones ) by a _
hasse diagram _ , like the one shown in fig .
[ fig_power_set ] .
if @xmath66 and there is no @xmath67 such that @xmath68 , we say that `` @xmath69 _ covers _
@xmath70 '' . in the hasse diagram of a lattice , @xmath70 and @xmath69
are joined iff @xmath69 covers @xmath70 or @xmath70 covers @xmath69 .
the diagram is drawn in such a way that if @xmath69 covers @xmath70 , then @xmath69 is written above @xmath70 .
clearly , @xmath66 iff there exists a path from @xmath70 moving up to @xmath69 .
the order relation is completely specified by such a diagram .
naturally , @xmath50 will be the topmost element and @xmath51 will be the lowest element .    ): a lattice of subsets ]    for a set @xmath3 , @xmath71__pow(@xmath3)__@xmath72 will denote lattice of the power set of @xmath3 with union and intersection as join and meet of the lattice respectively .
a lattice @xmath12 is _ distributive _ if the following conditions hold :    1 .   for all @xmath73 2 .   for all @xmath74
it is immediate that for any set @xmath3 , @xmath71__pow__(@xmath3)@xmath72 is a distributive lattice .
however all lattices are not distributive , as seen in the examples below .
let @xmath17 be a vector space of dimension @xmath21 over a field @xmath75 .
the class of all the subspaces of @xmath17 , denoted by @xmath76 , can be ordered under inclusion in a manner similar to a set .
the join of two subspaces @xmath5 and @xmath7 will then be the smallest subspace containing both @xmath5 and @xmath7 .
this means that @xmath77 and the largest subspace contained in both @xmath5 and @xmath7 is @xmath78 .
so the meet of @xmath5 and @xmath7 is @xmath78 .
such a lattice will be denoted as @xmath79 .
clearly @xmath80 and @xmath81 .
this lattice will be called the _ projective lattice_.    this lattice is not distributive . to see this
, we consider the vector space @xmath82 over @xmath83 .
the hasse diagram of @xmath84 is shown in fig .
[ fig_subspace ] . here , @xmath85 , @xmath86 and @xmath87 .
clearly , @xmath88 and thus @xmath84 is not distributive .
@xmath84 is identified by the name _
m@xmath89_. @xmath65    : a lattice of subspaces , also called @xmath90    the above lattice is not distributive , i.e. @xmath91 fails for three distinct subspaces @xmath92 .
if @xmath93 , one can prove that @xmath94 and thus it behaves partly distributively .
this property is captured in the following definition :    a lattice @xmath12 is _ modular _ if the following condition holds : + ( modularity ) if @xmath95 , then @xmath96    if the lattice is distributive , the modularity condition holds .
this means that _ any distributive lattice is modular_. however @xmath79 is a modular lattice that is non distributive .
the observation that for @xmath71__pow(@xmath3)__@xmath72 , any two elements @xmath97 satisfy @xmath98 , and in an analogous fashion , for @xmath79 , any two elements @xmath97 satisfy @xmath99 , seems to suggest that modular lattices must satisfy an equation of the form @xmath100 for some real - valued function @xmath101 on the lattice .
this is indeed true and in turn , such a function helps characterise modular lattices .
we need the following few definitions and results to make the characterisation precise .
an _ isotone valuation _ on a lattice @xmath13 is a real valued function @xmath101 on @xmath13 that satisfies :    1 .
( valuation ) for all @xmath102 , @xmath103 2 .
( isotone ) @xmath104    additionally , the isotone valuation is called _ positive _ , if @xmath105 .
@xmath106 is said to be the distance induced by @xmath101 .
* pg.230 , th.1 ) [ thm_pseudo_metric ] given a lattice @xmath13 and an isotone valuation @xmath101 , the function @xmath107 is a metric iff @xmath101 is positive . in general
, @xmath108 is a pseudo metric .    in a lattice @xmath12 , a _ chain _
@xmath109 is a subset of @xmath13 with the property that for all @xmath110 , @xmath66 or @xmath111 .
we say that in a chain , any two elements are comparable . given two elements @xmath112 , a chain @xmath113 of @xmath13 with the property @xmath114 is called a _ chain between @xmath70 and @xmath69_. the _ length _ of the chain is defined as @xmath23 .
the _ height _ of an element @xmath29 in a lattice @xmath13 is the maximum length of a chain between @xmath51 and @xmath29 .
it is denoted by @xmath115 .    the number @xmath116 is called _ the height of the lattice _ @xmath13 or the _ dimension of _ @xmath13 .
note that the chain from @xmath51 to @xmath51 contains only one element , and thus @xmath117 .
we need an additional property to characterise modular lattices .
a lattice is said to have the _ jordan - dedekind property _ if all maximal chains between two elements have the same finite length .
all lattices need not have the jordan - dedekind property .
for example , in the @xmath118 lattice , shown in fig .
[ fig_hasse_diag_n_5 ] , there are two maximal chains from @xmath119 to @xmath120 . the maximal chain @xmath121 has three units of length and the other maximal chain @xmath122 has a length of two units .
thus @xmath118 does not satisfy the jordan dedekind property .
it turns out that modularity is closely related to this property .
lattice : a lattice without jordan - dedekind property ]    [ jd ] ( * ? ? ?
* pg.41 , th.16 ) let @xmath12 be a lattice of finite length with the height function @xmath123 , then the following conditions are equivalent :    1 .
@xmath13 is a modular lattice .
2 .   @xmath13 has the jordan - dedekind property and @xmath123 is a valuation .
the @xmath118 lattice shown in fig .
[ fig_hasse_diag_n_5 ] does not satisfy the jordan - dedekind property and therefore , due to theorem [ jd ] , @xmath118 is non - modular .
the height function @xmath123 is a positive isotone evaluation for modular lattices .
therefore from theorem [ thm_pseudo_metric ] , the distance function induced by @xmath123 is a metric on the modular lattice .
all the lattices , considered in this paper , will be modular .
we will use this observation in the next section to define a coding metric for the definition of lattice schemes .
we , therefore , have the following proposition which follows from theorem [ thm_pseudo_metric ] .    [ thm_height_metric ]
let @xmath13 be a modular lattice of finite length with the height function @xmath123 , then @xmath124 is a metric on @xmath13 .
clearly @xmath125=1 $ ] iff @xmath29 covers @xmath51 .
such elements are called _ atoms _ of the lattice .
the atoms of the lattice are analogues of the singletons in lattice of sets ( one dimensional spaces in the lattice of subspaces ) .
a _ geometric modular lattice _ is a modular lattice of finite height in which every element is a join of atoms .
further , if the geometric modular lattice is distributive , then it will be called _
geometric distributive_.    the lattice of subsets is a an example of a geometric distributive lattice and the lattice of subspaces is an example of a geometric modular lattice .
is shown . in part
( b ) , a non - geometric , non - distributive modular lattice @xmath126 is depicted . ]
however , all modular ( distributive ) lattices are not geometric .
for example , consider the sublattice ( in fact , a chain ) @xmath127 of @xmath71__pow(@xmath128)__@xmath72 ( shown in part ( a ) of fig .
[ fig_nongeometric ] ) .
@xmath129 is not geometric because @xmath128 can not be obtained as a join of atoms of @xmath130 ( since there is only one atom in @xmath129 ) .
@xmath129 is distributive since it is a sublattice of distributive lattice viz .
therefore @xmath130 is an example of non - geometric distributive lattice .    in order to construct a non - geometric non - distributive modular lattice
, we will consider a sublattice of @xmath131 .
for the sake of presentation , we will represent a vector @xmath132 by the natural number @xmath133 .
for example , @xmath134 will be represented as @xmath135 .
consider the sublattice @xmath136 of @xmath131 .
@xmath126 is modular since it is a sublattice of a modular lattice viz .
@xmath126 is not distributive because it contains a copy of @xmath137 as a sublattice ( @xmath137 is non - distributive ) .
it can be verified that @xmath138 can not be obtained as a join of atoms of @xmath126 and thus @xmath126 is non - geometric .
therefore @xmath126 is an example of non - geometric non - distributive modular lattice .
henceforth all the lattices are assumed to be geometric modular unless otherwise mentioned .
in order to develop a lattice based framework for singleton bounds , we need a definition of a code in this framework . in this section , we define ` lattice schemes ' which will serve as analogues of codes .
we will show that hamming space , rank metric space and the projective spaces are examples of lattice schemes .
although some of these observations have been mentioned in @xcite , we repeat it for the sake of continuity .    a lattice scheme , which is analogous to a code , is defined as follows :    let @xmath13 be a lattice and @xmath139 be the metric induced by the height function @xmath123 of the lattice @xmath13 .
a _ lattice scheme _ @xmath109 in @xmath140 is a subset of @xmath13 and the _ minimum distance of @xmath109 _ , denoted by @xmath119 is defined as @xmath141 the dimension of a lattice scheme is defined as @xmath142 .
a coding space @xmath143 is a metric space where @xmath3 is a set and @xmath144 is a metric on @xmath3 .
a code @xmath109 in a coding space @xmath143 is a subset of @xmath3 .
the connection between lattice schemes and codes is made precise in the following definition .
[ def_transform ] let @xmath109 be a lattice scheme in @xmath140 and @xmath145 be a code in a coding space @xmath146 .
we say that the _ code _
@xmath145 is _ equivalent to a lattice scheme _ @xmath109 , if there exists a function @xmath147 , that satisfies the following conditions :    1 .
@xmath148 2 .
@xmath149 for all @xmath150    @xmath151 is called a transform for the code @xmath145 .
a transform @xmath151 of a code is one - one . to prove this fact , assume @xmath152 , then @xmath153 . by 2 ) of definition [ def_transform ] , this would imply @xmath154 . and
since @xmath144 is a metric , we have @xmath155 .
@xmath65    when a lattice scheme is equivalent to a code , we also say the code is equivalent to the scheme .
a transform for a code preserves the distance between any pair of codewords .
therefore whenever a lattice scheme is equivalent to a code , the lattice scheme will have the same minimum distance as the code .
the following proposition follows from definition [ def_transform ] ,    [ prop_dist_preserve ]    let @xmath109 be a lattice scheme with minimum distance @xmath119 that is equivalent to code @xmath145 with minimum distance @xmath156 , then    1 .
@xmath157 2 .   if @xmath158 , then there exists @xmath159 such that the lattice scheme @xmath5 is equivalent to the code @xmath160    since ` @xmath109 is equivalent to @xmath145 ' , the first part follows from the definition . for the second part , since @xmath109 is equivalent to @xmath145 , there exists a transform @xmath151 .
we define @xmath161 . clearly @xmath159 and the function @xmath151 still serves as a lattice transform for the code @xmath162 .
thus @xmath5 is equivalent to @xmath162 .    due to the above proposition , given a lattice scheme equivalent to a code
, we can talk of the minimum distance without specifying whether it is the minimum distance of the code or the minimum distance of the scheme . from the second part of the proposition [ prop_dist_preserve ]
, we can infer that the subsets of codes are equivalent to certain subsets of schemes .
therefore , if we prove that a coding space itself is equivalent to some lattice , then any code in the coding space is equivalent to a scheme in the lattice .
we use this observation to establish that every binary code is equivalent to a scheme in the power set lattice .
[ exmpl_binary_codes ]    let @xmath163 , @xmath164_pow(@xmath3)_@xmath72 and @xmath165 .
@xmath13 is a geometric distributive lattice and @xmath166 as seen in the previous section .
consider codes in the coding space @xmath167 where @xmath168 is the hamming distance between two vectors .
we claim that the entire coding space @xmath169 is equivalent to the power set lattice @xmath13 . to see this let , @xmath170
it can be verified that @xmath171 ( where @xmath172 represents the symmetric difference operator ) and that @xmath173 is onto .
further , @xmath174 . the number of elements in @xmath175 will be the hamming weight of @xmath176 .
thus @xmath177 .
therefore , @xmath173 is the power set lattice transform for the binary code .    since the map is onto
, @xmath173 is a bijective map . by application of the second part of proposition [ prop_dist_preserve ]
, we see that every binary code is equivalent to a power set lattice scheme .
@xmath65    the lattice of subspaces , discussed in the previous section , also provide examples of lattice schemes . in a projective lattice ,
the metric induced by the height function is the subspace distance .
therefore , any subspace code is equivalent to a lattice scheme in the projective lattice
.    let @xmath17 be a vector space over @xmath178 is a projective lattice with height function @xmath179 .
the coding space is @xmath180 where @xmath181 represents the subspace distance defined in @xcite . for any two subspaces @xmath5 and @xmath7 , @xmath182 .
since @xmath183 , the metric induced by the height function is the subspace distance . the identity map can be a transform in this case . and
thus , subspace schemes are equivalent to subspace codes.@xmath65    lattice schemes in the above lattice correspond to subspace codes in projective spaces @xcite .
certain constant dimension subspace code constructions , described in @xcite , make use of the rank distance gabidulin codes @xcite . the rank metric codes are actually equivalent to gabidulin codes since they are ` lifted ' from gabidulin codes .
we show that rank distance codes are equivalent to certain schemes in the projective lattice .
we also show that the lifting function is a transform .
let @xmath184 denote the space of @xmath185 matrices over @xmath14 .
for @xmath186 , define @xmath187 .
this coding space is the rank distance space .
we claim that the rank distance space is equivalent to a scheme in the projective lattice .
consider the projective lattice @xmath188 with the height function @xmath179 .
define a transform @xmath151 as follows : @xmath189 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    notice that @xmath190 for any @xmath5 in @xmath191 .
therefore subspaces whose dimension is not @xmath192 are not in the range of @xmath151 .
therefore @xmath151 is an example of a transform that is not onto .
the function @xmath151 defined above is called the lifting of @xmath5 in @xcite . the authors of @xcite
establish that @xmath193 .
thus rank metric codes are equivalent to schemes in the projective lattice and @xmath151 is the projective lattice transform for the rank metric code . @xmath65
all our main results on the bounds and their behavior are derived in this section .
we introduce the notion of puncturing a scheme and investigate the effects of puncturing on the minimum distance of a lattice scheme .
it will be proved that , after puncturing a scheme , the maximum drop in minimum distance will be two . however , if the lattice is known to be distributive , it is shown that the maximum drop in minimum distance is one .
this observation will be applied repeatedly until the minimum distance drops to zero .
we will need the following definition of _ whitney number of the second kind _
, from @xcite , to state the lattice singleton bound :    the _ whitney numbers _
@xmath194 of a lattice @xmath13 in a lattice with height @xmath123 and @xmath195 is defined as @xmath196    the whitney numbers of a lattice count the total number of elements in the lattice of a given height .    a scheme @xmath109 is said to be _ punctured to @xmath197 _ if @xmath198 for some @xmath199 .
if @xmath200 has a height of @xmath201 , the scheme @xmath109 is said to be _ punctured by a dimension_.    note that for a @xmath199 , @xmath202 is a sublattice of @xmath13 @xcite . for two lattice elements @xmath200 and @xmath203 of equal height , we have @xmath204 .
this means that the whitney numbers of two different punctured lattices remain the same , as long as the elements that puncture the scheme are of the same height .
we need the following lemma ( called the ` distance drop lemma ' ) to establish the proof of the main theorem later .
[ lem_drop_dist ]    let @xmath109 be a scheme in @xmath140 with minimum distance @xmath119 , and let @xmath109 be punctured by a dimension to @xmath197 , then    1 .   @xmath13 is distributive @xmath205 @xmath206 2 .   in general , @xmath207    proof of 1 ) : we assume @xmath13 is distributive .
let @xmath208 , @xmath209 and
@xmath210 . we have to show that @xmath211 for all @xmath212 . by the definition of @xmath139 , @xmath213 - h[\tilde{a } \wedge \tilde{b } ] .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] since the lattice is distributive , we can write it as , @xmath214 - h[a \wedge b \wedge w ]
. \end{aligned}\ ] ] the height function is a valuation and thus satisfies @xmath215 + h[x \wedge y ] = h[x ] + h[y]$ ] .
we use this in the above equation to obtain , @xmath216 + h[w ] - h[a \vee b \vee w ] - h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] .
\end{aligned}\ ] ] since @xmath217 , it must be that @xmath218 \leq h[i ] = n$ ] .
using this inequality and @xmath219 = n-1 $ ] , we get @xmath220 + ( n-1 ) - n - h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] clearly @xmath221 and therefore @xmath222 \leq h[a \wedge b]$ ] . using this , the definition of @xmath223 and the fact that @xmath119 is the minimum distance of the scheme @xmath109
, we finally get @xmath224    proof of 2 ) : we have to show that @xmath225 for all @xmath212 . again by the definition of @xmath139 , @xmath226 - h[\tilde{a } \wedge \tilde{b}].\end{aligned}\ ] ] repeatedly using the fact that the height function is a valuation and thus satisfies @xmath215 + h[x \wedge y ] = h[x ] + h[y]$ ] , we get , @xmath227 + h[b ] + 2h[w ] - h[a \vee w ]
\\ - h[b \vee w ] - 2h[a \wedge b \wedge w ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] clearly @xmath221 and therefore @xmath222 \leq h[a \wedge b]$ ] .
additionally @xmath228 and @xmath229 , which means @xmath230 , h[\tilde{b } ] \leq h[i ] = n$ ] . using this inequality and @xmath219 = n-1 $ ] , we get the following : @xmath231 + h[b ] + 2(n-1 ) - 2n - 2h[a \wedge b ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] using the definition of @xmath223 and the fact that @xmath119 is the minimum distance of the scheme @xmath109 , we finally get , @xmath232    the distance drop lemma states that in a non - distributive lattice , the drop in the minimum distance after puncturing a dimension , can be at most two units .
so it would be interesting to know if it is possible that the drop of two units is exhibited by some scheme in a non - distributive lattice .
the following example constructs such a scheme .
[ example_proj_space ] let @xmath17 be a three dimensional space , over @xmath233 , spanned by @xmath234 .
let @xmath235 @xmath236 , @xmath237 @xmath238 and @xmath239 @xmath240 .
we have @xmath241 but @xmath242 .
note that @xmath243 ( that is , the sublattice generated by @xmath244 , @xmath245 and @xmath246 is not distributive ) as expected .
if our scheme contained @xmath247 and @xmath246 , then puncturing the scheme with @xmath246 would have left @xmath246 as it is and punctured only the remaining two subspaces .
the above example clearly illustrates that the lack of distributivity in a lattice can drop the distance of a punctured scheme by two units .
we will now derive a singleton bound for lattice schemes , that establishes an upper bound on the cardinality of the scheme , for a given minimum distance for geometric modular lattices .
[ theorem_lsb ] if @xmath248 is a geometric modular lattice with height @xmath123 and @xmath249 , @xmath139 is the metric induced by the height function , and @xmath109 is a scheme of @xmath13 with minimum distance @xmath119 , then @xmath250 where    1 .
@xmath251 , when @xmath13 is _ distributive _ , 2 .
@xmath252 , when @xmath13 is _
modular_.    given the lattice @xmath13 , pick an element @xmath200 of height @xmath253 ( which always exists in a geometric modular lattice ) .
now puncture the lattice by a dimension to get a new geometric modular lattice @xmath129 with height @xmath253 and suppose that drop in minimum distance of the scheme , after puncturing a dimension , is at most @xmath254 .
if @xmath255 is the minimum distance of the punctured scheme @xmath197 , then @xmath256 .
if @xmath257 , then all elements in the punctured scheme @xmath197 are still distinct .
we repeat the puncturing operating on the new lattice .
the puncturing is repeated maximum number of times so that the minimum distance of the punctured scheme does not drop to zero . in other words , we keep puncturing the lattice , until the minimum distance of the punctured scheme is just short of zero .
let us say that the original lattice was punctured @xmath258 times .
since the minimum distance of the punctured scheme is still non zero , the punctured scheme contains exactly the same number of elements as @xmath109 . at this stage ,
the minimum distance of the scheme is non - zero and all the elements of the punctured scheme are in a lattice of height @xmath259 .
clearly the number of elements in the scheme @xmath109 is upper bounded by the total number of elements in the punctured lattice .
thus @xmath260 if the minimum distance of the scheme , after being punctured @xmath258 times , is @xmath261 , then @xmath262 and @xmath261 is the smallest number such that @xmath263 .
this implies that @xmath264 . from the lemma [ lem_drop_dist ] , we know that @xmath265 for a distributive lattice and @xmath266 for a modular lattice .
thus @xmath267 for a distributive lattice and for a modular lattice , @xmath252 .
this completes the proof .
we remark that the bound does not equal @xmath268 , for the case @xmath269 , which should yield only two elements .
the bound is weaker for large minimum distance because we have no information about the range of heights of the elements of the scheme .
we can tighten the bound by systematically puncturing and projecting a dimension as done in @xcite .
also , as noted in example [ example_proj_space ] , puncturing a dimension of a scheme does not reduce the heights of the elements of the scheme in a uniform manner .
so we need the following definition ,    given two elements @xmath270 and @xmath200 in a lattice @xmath13 , define @xmath271 to be equal to an element of height @xmath272 that is contained in @xmath273 .
in particular , if @xmath200 is fixed and @xmath274 , the set @xmath275 is said to be _ punctured and projected by a dimension_.    thus when @xmath276 , @xmath271 is arbitrarily chosen to be an element immediately below @xmath270 in the hasse diagram of the lattice . for all other cases , @xmath277 .
the following example illustrates that puncturing a dimension reduces the heights of different elements of a scheme by different amounts .
it also demonstrates that puncturing and projecting by a dimension equally reduces the heights of all elements of a scheme .
in example [ exmpl_punc_proj ] is shown here .
the dark arrow shows that after puncturing and projecting by @xmath246 both @xmath244 and @xmath245 can drop to the same subspace @xmath278 .
however , puncturing by @xmath246 alone drops @xmath245 to @xmath278 but not @xmath244 . ]
[ exmpl_punc_proj ] let @xmath17 be a three dimensional space , over @xmath233 , spanned by @xmath234 .
let @xmath235 @xmath279 , @xmath237 @xmath280 and @xmath239 @xmath279 .
[ fig_puncture ] shows how puncturing and projecting drops the heights of all elements by one unit .
thus the dimension of @xmath244 remains the same after puncturing by @xmath246 but the dimension of @xmath245 drops by one unit .
however , after puncturing and projecting the lattice by @xmath246 , both @xmath244 and @xmath245 drop by a height of one unit . to be precise ,
define @xmath281 and observe that @xmath282 .
but @xmath283 . to define @xmath284 we need to choose a one dimensional subspace of @xmath244 .
for instance , we can choose @xmath285 .
@xmath65    we can now establish that puncturing and projecting a dimension of a scheme can drop the minimum distance of the scheme by at most two units .
this lemma is useful since it tells us that every time we puncture and project by a dimension , all the elements in the scheme drop once in height .
[ lemma_punctured_drop ] let @xmath109 be a scheme in a lattice @xmath140 with minimum distance @xmath119 , and let @xmath249 and let @xmath199 such that @xmath286 . if the maximum height of @xmath109 was @xmath287 and the minimum height of @xmath109 was @xmath192 , then the maximum height of @xmath288 is @xmath289 and the minimum height is @xmath290 .
additionally @xmath291    by definition of @xmath288 , all the elements of @xmath288 have lost a unit of height .
so the only thing to establish is that @xmath292 .
the proof is very similar to the previous lemma .    by the definition of @xmath139 ,
@xmath293 + h[\overline{b \wedge w } ] - 2h[\overline{a \wedge w } \wedge \overline { b \wedge w } ] . \end{aligned}\ ] ] from the definition of @xmath294 , it follows that @xmath295 and thus @xmath296 \leq h[x \wedge w]$ ] for all @xmath297 and thus , @xmath298 - 1 ) + ( h[b ] - 1 ) - 2h[a \wedge b ] \end{aligned}\ ] ] and therefore from the formula for height we get , @xmath299    we will need lemma [ lemma_punctured_drop ] to get the following improvement on the code size ,    [ thm_tighter_bound ] let @xmath109 be a scheme in a geometric modular lattice @xmath13 with minimum distance @xmath119 .
let @xmath192 denote the smallest height of all the elements in @xmath109 and @xmath287 denote the largest height of all the elements in @xmath109 .
then , @xmath300    let @xmath200 be an element of height @xmath253 and @xmath301 .
by lemma [ lemma_punctured_drop ] , the punctured and projected scheme in @xmath129 has a maximum height of @xmath302 , a minimum height of @xmath290 and a minimum distance drop of at most two units .
now the proof proceeds in a manner similar to the proof of the theorem [ theorem_lsb ] . after puncturing @xmath303 times
, the elements of the scheme will have a maximum height of @xmath304 and a minimum height of @xmath305 and the theorem is proved
.    we will now apply theorem [ theorem_lsb ] and theorem [ thm_tighter_bound ] to two important lattice schemes ( namely the power set lattice and the projective lattice ) and derive the corresponding lsb .
the lsb that we obtain coincides with the singleton bound found in the literature .
first , we derive the classical singleton bound as a corollary to the lsb theorem .
let @xmath109 be a code in @xmath306 , with minimum distance @xmath119 , then @xmath307    in example [ exmpl_binary_codes ] , @xmath308 is the number of subsets of size @xmath309 in the scheme @xmath109 , given that @xmath310 . using the fact that @xmath13 is geometric and distributive , @xmath251 .
first we observe that , @xmath311 and @xmath312 applying the lsb theorem , we get ,    @xmath313 which is the singleton bound for @xmath306 .
now we derive the kks bound reported in @xcite .
it follows as a direct corollary to theorem [ thm_tighter_bound ] when the lattice is chosen to be the lattice of subspaces .    if @xmath314 and @xmath315 , then @xmath316    let @xmath317 where @xmath109 is chosen to be a subset of the grassmanian @xmath22
. then @xmath314 and the lattice coefficients @xmath318 .
now apply theorem [ thm_tighter_bound ] to @xmath109 .
the distance drop lemma , used in the main theorem , along with example [ example_proj_space ] clearly shows that at every step of puncturing the distance can drop by at most two units . on the other hand
, one can construct examples where distance drop is one unit .
now suppose some scheme achieves the lsb ( and thus the kks bound ) .
then that scheme has elements which consistently drop by a distance of two units _ irrespective _ of which element is puncturing it . and
this should happen at every puncturing step until the minimum distance drops to zero .
since this seems highly unlikely , we conjecture the following :    _ conjecture : _ there are no schemes that can achieve the lsb for projective spaces . in particular , there are no constant dimension codes that can achieve the kks bound .
it is clear that many examples fit into the framework of lattice schemes and the proposed lsb specializes to the known singleton bounds in literature . in this section
, we will show that the lsb gives a new upper bound when applied to projective spaces . a family of non - constant dimension code constructions in projective spaces
have been reported by @xcite and @xcite .
our lsb plots show that the code sizes , of both reported codes , are near optimal for certain fixed values of the coding parameters .
singleton bound in projective spaces will be specified using gaussian numbers ( they are the @xmath15-analogues of binomials @xcite ) . lower bounds on code sizes based on sphere covering methods can be found in @xcite .
upper bounds on code sizes for projective space codes , found in the literature , are for constant dimension codes .
the following bound is an upper bound on the code size of a non - constant dimension code in a projective space .
let @xmath109 be a code in @xmath319 ( where @xmath17 is vector space over @xmath14 ) , with minimum distance @xmath119 , then    @xmath320 where @xmath321 denotes the gaussian number .
the @xmath322 lattice with @xmath323 is a modular geometric lattice .
we note that    @xmath324 the gaussian number @xmath325 is the total number of @xmath52-dimensional subspaces of an @xmath326-dimensional space over @xmath14 and thus by theorem [ theorem_lsb ] ,    @xmath327 where @xmath328 .
the bound is weak when the minimum distance @xmath119 is comparable to the code dimension @xmath21 .
however when the minimum distance is smaller than code dimension , the tightness of the bound is not apparent
. therefore we investigate the behaviour of our bounds , at such ranges , by plotting it with other bounds in the literature .
we will compare our bound ( lsb ) to the gilbert varshamov bound ( ev - gvb ) proposed in @xcite for various values of the minimum distance .
further , we will plot points achieved by various codes in the literature .
the plot is shown in fig .
[ fig_drawing ] .
the minimum distance of the projective code and the finite field size has been fixed at @xmath329 and @xmath268 respectively , throughout this section .
the plot clearly shows our upper bound above the ev - gv lower bound .
the points marked etzsilb codes and khks code are the code parameters reported in @xcite and @xcite respectively , for @xmath330 and @xmath331 .
[ fig_drawing ] shows that the etzsilb codes and khks codes are close to optimal for @xmath330 and @xmath331 .
the khks code sizes are roughly @xmath332 bits away from the upper bound .
it has already been observed that the distance drop in projective spaces is variable and thus we believe that our bound is weak for larger values of @xmath119 .
in this paper , we introduced the notion of lattice schemes which serve as analogues of codes .
we derived a general notion of singleton bound for which the classical singleton bound for binary codes and the singleton - like bound for constant dimension subspace codes were special cases .
we proved that puncturing a dimension gives a tight bound for distributive lattices but not for projective lattices .
however , it was seen that puncturing and projecting a dimension gives a tighter bound , for projective lattices .
this leads us to conjecture that it is not possible to achieve the kks bound .
the upper bound derived in the paper seems to be tighter when the minimum distance is much smaller than the code dimension .
a next step would be to tighten the bounds for large minimum distances
. it would be interesting to investigate whether there exists lattice schemes that achieve the lsb with equality .
in particular , it would be very interesting to know if there exists a reed solomon - like scheme which specializes to the different counterparts in binary and subspace codes .
also , whether quantum codes are lattice schemes can be investigated .


since the observation and explanation of the gunn - effect in the early 60 s it has been known that traveling field inhomogeneities are generated by negative differential velocity ( ndv).@xcite the properties of these traveling gunn - domains have been studied extensively theoretically and experimentally @xcite leading to several proposals for applications .
the most important application is probably the frequency generator .
although oscillator devices based on the gunn - effect operating in the range of 100  ghz have been reported,@xcite gunn - oscillators have not led to the expected breakthrough in technology .
this is largely due to the difficulties in tuning the oscillation frequency .
furthermore , it is impossible to vary the drift velocity vs field characteristics ( @xmath0 curve ) except by using different bulk materials ( e.g. , gaas , ingaas or inp ) .
these problems may be overcome by using an entirely different class of ndv exhibiting materials formed by semiconductor superlattices . in an applied electric field perpendicular to the two - dimensional layers , several different transport mechanisms such as miniband transport , resonant
tunneling , and real - space transfer from well to barriers ( @xmath1 transport ) give rise to complex @xmath0 curves with several regions of ndv as shown in fig .
[ slwfield ] .
in contrast to the above mentioned materials , the tunability of the barrier and well thickness as well as the control over the barrier height in the superlattice can be used to tailor the drift velocity vs field @xmath0 characteristics . by proper engineering , samples with several ndv regions can be manufactured with control over previously inaccessible features such as the actual shape of the ndv ( cf .
[ slwfield ] ) .
the frequency of the oscillations also depends on the number of moving charges in the superlattice , which may be controlled by varying the doping in the quantum wells .
currently , three different types of superlattice oscillations due to ndv have to be distinguished :    * the most prominent type of oscillations is found , when carriers within the miniband are accelerated beyond the brillouin zone boundary , where their drift velocity becomes negative . in the absence of scattering ,
the electron wave packet then oscillates with the bloch frequency @xmath2 , where @xmath3  and @xmath4  denote the superlattice period and planck s constant , respectively.@xcite these so - called bloch oscillations were predicted for superlattices by esaki and tsu in 1970.@xcite inspired by the prospect of thz frequency generators based on superlattice bloch oscillators , a long series of investigations targeting the miniband regime followed leading to the observation of damped bloch oscillations in experiments with pulsed optical excitation a few years ago.@xcite * a different type of oscillations occurs in the miniband regime , when the scattering times are shorter than the tunneling times . in this case transient charge accumulations traveling through the superlattice
may lead to oscillations in the current .
experiments using pulsed optical excitation of carriers in superlattices with wide minibands showed damped oscillations with frequencies up to 20 ghz.@xcite more recently , reflection gain up to 60  ghz in doped superlattices with miniband widths of up to 80  mev was demonstrated.@xcite * very recently a third type of oscillations has been shown to exist in weakly coupled superlattices in field regions where tunneling into higher subbands takes place.@xcite as a consequence of domain formation , this type of oscillations may also be observed in field regions where the electrons tunnel between the lowest subbands .
while the first two oscillation types have never been observed under constant bias conditions , this new type is shown to operate over a broad frequency range practically independent of the external circuit and without any external triggering .    in this paper
we investigate experimentally and theoretically the third type of oscillations in lightly and moderately doped superlattices ( sl ) .
this type of oscillations may be generally observable in the ndv regime of the @xmath0 characteristics of such superlattices . in a companion paper ,
@xcite we have shown that self - sustained oscillations may exist if the dimensionless doping parameter , @xmath5 ( @xmath6 is the 3d sl doping , and @xmath7 is the field at the resonance we consider ) lies between two values @xmath8 which can be calculated numerically from the local @xmath0 characteristics ( @xmath9 is the number of sl periods ) . if several tunneling resonances exist ( cf . fig .  [ slwfield](a ) and ( b ) ) the frequency of the oscillations increases with increasing index of the subband involved in the tunneling resonance
. this observation is attributed to the larger drift velocities associated with the resonances involving higher subbands .
furthermore , several new oscillatory modes without the typically well - defined domains are shown to exist .
these oscillatory modes can be tuned in frequency simply by changing the applied voltage .
because the oscillations are observable even at room temperature , we suggest to use superlattice oscillators based on resonant tunneling into higher subbands as a tunable source for high frequencies .
four gaas / alas superlattice structures , grown by molecular beam epitaxy , are discussed in this paper . the samples are hereafter referred to as 9.0/4.0 ( doped and undoped ) , 9.0/1.5 , and 13.3/2.7 , where the first number refers to the gaas well width and the second to the alas barrier thickness in nm ( cf .
table  [ samples ] ) .
the superlattices are embedded between two highly doped al@xmath10ga@xmath10as contact layers with a doping density n@xmath11=2@xmath12  @xmath13 ( si for @xmath14- and be for @xmath15-type doping ) forming @xmath14-@xmath16-@xmath14 and @xmath15-@xmath17-@xmath14diodes .
after evaporating auge / ni contacts onto the top and substrate side and alloying them for ohmic connections , the samples are wet - etched into mesas of 120  @xmath18 m diameter .
the circular top contacts of 70  @xmath18 m diameter leave a large part of the mesas uncovered to allow for optical access .
all experiments are performed at 5  k in a he - flow cryostat using high - frequency coaxial cables with a bandwidth of 20  ghz .
the time - averaged current - voltage data are recorded with a keithley smu236 .
the time - resolved current is detected with a tektronix sampling oscilloscope csa  803 using the ghz sampling head sd-32 .
[ iv6750 ] shows the current - voltage ( i - v ) characteristics of the doped 9.0/4.0 sample in forward bias .
clearly visible are two plateau regions with almost constant current between 0.5 and 4  v and 6.5 and 8.5  v. to prove that these plateaus are related to the subband resonances , time - of - flight ( tof ) measurements were performed on an undoped 9.0/4.0 reference sample ( @xmath15-@xmath17-@xmath14 diode).@xcite the peak photocurrent is thereby taken as a measure for the inverse transport time , which at low excitation densities is directly proportional to the drift velocity for homogeneous fields .
note that for the presentation in fig .
[ iv6750 ] the built - in voltage ( @xmath19  v ) of the @xmath15-@xmath17-@xmath14 diode has been subtracted from the reverse bias voltage applied to the @xmath15-@xmath17-@xmath14 diode and the sign has been inverted .
the resonances for tunneling from the first into the second ( @xmath20 ) as well as into the third ( @xmath21 ) conduction subband are clearly observed at 6 and 15  v , respectively .
the low - field transmission maximum ( @xmath22 ) , which in the case of a strongly coupled superlattice corresponds to miniband conduction , is not resolved in this sample , because the transport time is too long in this field range to be resolved with this method .
however , it has been shown previously that even weakly coupled superlattices exhibit a negative differential drift velocity in this regime.@xcite in addition to the @xmath23 resonances due to @xmath24-subbands in the gaas wells and the exponential nonresonant background , a pronounced step - like increase of the peak photocurrent is observed at about 10  v , which is assigned to enhanced transport through the lowest @xmath25-level in the alas barriers .
the lowest @xmath25-states of the alas barriers are energetically located in such a way that transport through these @xmath25 states becomes possible at voltages between the @xmath20 and @xmath21 resonances . in the drift velocity vs field characteristics , this @xmath1 resonance leads to a step - like increase of the drift velocity as indicated by the dotted line in fig .
[ slwfield](b ) .
the voltages of the observed resonances can be compared to the calculated energy levels listed in table  [ samples ] .
for example , the bias voltages @xmath26 for @xmath27 resonances are calculated using @xmath28 where @xmath29 denotes the energy of the injecting conduction subband and @xmath30 the energy of the conduction subband , in which the carriers are tunneling into .
@xmath9 refers to the number of periods and @xmath31 to the electron charge . in the case of @xmath1 resonances , however , the distance between the levels is reduced to half the superlattice period .
therefore , an additional factor of 2 has to be included , i.e. , @xmath32 where @xmath33 denotes the energy of the receiving state in the barrier .
the voltages for the @xmath24 resonances @xmath20 and @xmath21 are calculated using eq .
( [ resonances1 ] ) resulting in 5.4 and 14.6  v for the 9.0/4.0 sample , respectively .
using eq .
( [ resonances2 ] ) , we obtain a resonance voltage of 8.2  v for the @xmath34 resonance in this sample .
all values agree well with the observed values .
note that all observed resonances appear at slightly higher voltages due to field inhomogeneities and screening effects .
to investigate the electric field inside the superlattice , photoluminescence ( pl ) measurements have been performed.@xcite due to the quantum - confined stark effect ( qcse ) , the pl from regions with strong electric fields is red - shifted with respect to the pl from low - field regions .
the experiments reveal that in both plateau regions of this sample the pl consists of two peaks with their respective intensity depending on the applied bias voltage .
this stark - splitting of the pl signal is taken as direct evidence for the existence of two distinct electric - field domains , which are formed because of ndv and current conservation . for the first plateau the consequence of this conservation law
is depicted by the dashed line in fig .
[ slwfield](b ) . clearly , the electric field of the low - field domain ( @xmath35 ) corresponds to the @xmath22 resonance peak , while the field strength of the high field domain ( @xmath36 ) lies on the next rising branch of the @xmath0 characteristics slightly below the @xmath20 resonance.@xcite applied to the second plateau , the current conservation law ( dashed lines in fig .
[ iv6750 ] ) shows that the high field domain in this voltage region forms as a consequence of resonant transport through the @xmath37 level in the barriers ( @xmath34 transport ) .
in contrast to previous work,@xcite where this new formation mechanism was considered for the first time , this measurements provide the first direct evidence relating @xmath25-levels in the barriers to domain formation .
however , it should be mentioned that it is not very surprising to observe domain formation due to transport through the @xmath37 level . for domain formation to occur , only a _ minimum of the @xmath0 curve _ is required in conjunction with a sufficiently high carrier density.@xcite in that sense the subject of domain formation and conditions for oscillations can be discussed simply by looking at the @xmath0 curve as discussed in a companion paper.@xcite    in the 13.3/2.7 sample the calculated @xmath34 resonance ( @xmath38v ) is located between the @xmath21 and @xmath39 resonances , which are calculated to be at 9.5 and 17.9  v , respectively .
consequently , the i - v characteristic exhibits three plateaus as can be seen in fig .
[ iv6173 ] .
the thin dashed line has been added to indicate the positions of the transport maxima for homogeneous fields .
unlike in the 9.0/4.0 sample , the pl in the plateau regions shows no stark splitting indicating that the field distribution inside the sl is less sharply defined . a possible explanation of this behavior is the existence of rather broad resonances in this weakly doped superlattice
. however , the i - v characteristics shows some clear signs of domain formation ( e.g. , current branches@xcite ) , but the differences between the electric field values of these domains seem to be rather small .
since the qcse is quadratic in the electric field , the peaks of the two domains can not be resolved in the pl experiments . because stable electric field domains have been investigated intensively over the last years
, we will not discuss the stationary regime any further .
we will rather focus on the non - stationary behavior instead .
the absence of a regular pattern of current branches in the plateaus is a first hint that the field distribution inside the sl may not always be stable .
indeed , the current , e.g. , in the lower plateau of the 9.0/4.0 sample ( fig .
[ trace6750 ] ) , shows a strongly time - dependent component , which has been attributed to an oscillatory instability of the field distribution inside the superlattice.@xcite during one cycle of the oscillation a monopole forms near the cathode , drifts through the superlattice towards the anode and dissolves , while a new monopole is formed.@xcite this type of oscillation is denoted the first oscillation mode .
it is interesting to note that the displayed trace also contains a number of small current spikes . supported by simulations , voltage turn - on measurements
have shown that these small spikes are due to well - to - well hopping of the domain boundary moving through the superlattice.@xcite thus , the number of current spikes indicates how many superlattice periods are involved in the oscillation . for the displayed oscillation
this leads to a number close to thirty , which allows to speculate that for this particular voltage the domain boundary crosses about three quarters of the superlattice during one cycle of the oscillation .    to analyze the oscillations in more detail ,
we have measured the voltage dependence of the oscillation frequency within the plateaus .
the fourier transform@xcite exhibits a series of frequency maxima , of which we take the fundamental frequency as the oscillation frequency of the field distribution .
the voltage dependence of the oscillation frequency in the two plateaus of the 9.0/4.0 sample is plotted in fig .
[ freq6750 ] showing that the observed frequencies in the first plateau are weakly voltage dependent , while in the second plateau there is no dependence on the applied voltage at all .
the noticeable increase of the frequency with voltage at the end of the first plateau is due to the charge monopole having less room to travel from the beginning of the superlattice to the position of the high field domain .
in both plateaus there are regions , where sinusoidal oscillations could not be observed . in these regions
the current contains a time dependent component , which is not periodic and therefore difficult to measure .
in particular the discontinuities in the frequency at the beginning of the first plateau suggest that the oscillations may become chaotic , when the charge monopole oscillates near the contacts .
while chaotic behavior has been shown to exist theoretically in the case of an external driving frequency , @xcite the boundary regions of the plateaus are still under investigation in this respect .
very recently driven and undriven chaos have been observed in this system.@xcite note that chaotic behavior has also been observed at the onset of trap - dominated gunn oscillations in ultra - pure p - ge.@xcite this behavior is due to intermittent switching between small and large amplitude current oscillations,@xcite although its theoretical interpretation remains uncertain.@xcite      in contrast to the 9.0/4.0 sample , the frequencies of the oscillations in the 13.3/2.7 sample exhibit a pronounced voltage dependence as shown in fig .
[ hf6173 ] for three different temperatures in the third plateau .
the oscillations begin to appear close to the resonance maximum and decrease monotonically with increasing voltage .
furthermore , in this sample oscillations are only detected near the beginning of the plateaus in the region of ndv .
this observation not only applies to the third plateau , but also to the first and second plateaus .
thus , there is a clear difference between the oscillations observed in these two samples . unlike in the 9.0/4.0 sample
, the time - resolved pl does not show an oscillating two - domain solution,@xcite but merely an intensity modulated broad line .
these two differences are taken as a signature for the existence of a different oscillatory mode in this sample , which is not related to well - defined electric field domains .    in fig .
[ ghz465 ] the experimental results on the 9.0/1.5 sample are shown . in this case
we used a 25  @xmath18 m mesa in order to keep the current at a reasonable level .
due to the stronger coupling , ghz oscillations are already observed in the lowest plateau .
in addition to a strong voltage dependence of the frequency , there is also an abrupt jump to lower values .
higher plateaus could not be measured due to the large increase in current at about 8  v. time - resolved pl spectra on a 120  @xmath18 m mesa do not show two well - separated lines . however , intensity oscillations with the same frequencies are clearly observed .
current oscillations on these large mesas are also measured using pulsed electric fields to avoid the heating of the sample .
[ iv6173 ] shows the current voltage characteristic of the 13.3/2.7 sample at room temperature .
from the fact that it still shows the plateau - like features related to resonant tunneling one can speculate that the oscillations may also be found at higher temperatures . in fig .
[ hf6173 ] the oscillations in the third plateau are observed up to 200  k , while in fig .
[ rt6173 ] tunable oscillations indeed exist even at 295  k in the case of the second plateau .
these results are very encouraging , because they prove that a device such as a frequency generator based on the recently found tunable oscillatory mode can in principle be manufactured . however , in order to obtain well - defined resonances even at room temperature , one probably has to switch to another material system with stronger confinement .
for example , superlattices based on ingaas / inalas material system exhibit pronounced plateaus even at room temperature.@xcite therefore , it is expected that with properly chosen parameters oscillators based on ingaas / inalas superlattices can be operated at room temperature .
in order to explain why the frequency depends in one case on the applied voltage , while it is voltage independent in the other case , the condition for the two oscillatory modes has to be investigated in more detail .
numerical calculations on the following discrete drift model have been performed for the electric field @xmath40 and 3d electron density @xmath41 of the @xmath42 sl period as well as for the total current density @xmath43 using the following equations,@xcite @xmath44 here @xmath45 is the period index , @xmath6 the 3d doping density , @xmath3 the sl period , @xmath46 the average permittivity , and @xmath47 the applied voltage between the two sl ends . eqn .
( [ poisson])-([bias ] ) have to be supplemented using the appropriate initial conditions for the field profile @xmath40 as well as with a boundary condition for @xmath48 , which we take as @xmath49 where @xmath50 denotes a dimensionless charge accumulation within the first sl period due to the excess doping outside the sl ( @xmath51-@xmath16-@xmath51 structure ) . we expect that the narrower the barriers are , the larger @xmath50 is , since the overlap between wavefunctions of adjacent quantum wells is larger for narrower barriers . to find a precise relation between the structure of the @xmath51 region before the sl and @xmath52 , microscopic modeling of the full @xmath51-@xmath16-@xmath51 structure ( characterized in ref .  )
is needed .
this is outside the scope of the present work .
however , we can estimate the values of @xmath52 by comparing experimental and calculated frequency versus voltage bias curves . thus comparing figs .
[ freq6750 ] , [ hf6173 ] and [ ghz465 ] with fig .  [ fig5.4](b ) , we obtain that @xmath52 should be very small ( @xmath53 ) for samples 9.0/4.0 and 13.3/2.7 , whereas @xmath52 should be from 10 to 100 times larger for sample 9.0/1.5 ( see the discussion below ) .
the @xmath54 function is a phenomenological electron velocity , which is proportional to the tunneling probability .
the main transport mechanism in weakly coupled superlattices is sequential resonant tunneling ( srt ) .
thus , @xmath54 has peaks at the applied voltages or electric field strengths corresponding to the alignment of the energy levels of adjacent quantum wells as given in eq .
( [ resonances1 ] ) , which are always separated by a region of ndv .
the experimentally observed voltage dependence of the frequency in samples 9.0/4.0 and 13.3/2.7 ( cf .
figs .  5 and 6 ) can be explained in terms of the actual shape of the @xmath54 curve , the doping density in the wells and the charge accumulation within the first period .
the crucial features in the @xmath54 curve are the separation between the peaks as well as their width .
the position of the peaks can be approximated by eq .
( [ resonances1 ] ) .
the width of the peaks and the values of the minima of @xmath54 depend on the particular scattering mechanisms , which are present in the samples .
however , it is reasonable to assume that the peaks of the @xmath54 curve for the 13.3/2.7 sample are wider than those of the 9.0/4.0 sample , since the narrower the barriers , the wider the energy intervals for resonant tunneling.@xcite therefore , we will compare simulations of the same model using two different @xmath54 curves and different doping densities .
we shall use curves @xmath54 with only one peak , corresponding to a @xmath55 resonance , with @xmath56 .
thus we are only dealing with the self - sustained oscillations occurring in the plateau after the chosen resonance . adding more peaks
does not appreciably change the self - sustained oscillations on each different plateau , although new features may appear for highly doped sls .
in fact , there are stationary nonuniform solution branches with electric field profiles presenting simultaneous coexistence of three or more domains if a @xmath54 curve with several peaks is considered.@xcite    to compare experimental results belonging to three different samples to our data , it is convenient to render the eqs .
( [ poisson])-([bc ] ) dimensionless .
suppose we want to analyze time - periodic current oscillations at a certain plateau of the current - voltage characteristic .
we adopt as the units of electric field and velocity the corresponding values at the peak of the velocity curve @xmath54 prior to the plateau , @xmath57 and @xmath58 , respectively .
thus , we have to scale the magnitudes in the figures by a different factor for each sample and plateau .
the time scale factors , @xmath59 , for the 9.0/4.0 ( second plateau , after the @xmath20 resonance ) , 13.3/2.7 ( second plateau , after the @xmath20 resonance ) , and 9.0/1.5 ( first plateau , after the @xmath22 peak ) , samples are 3.57 , 0.98 , and 0.30  ns , respectively .
the electric field scale factors , @xmath60 , are on the same order of magnitude , @xmath61 , @xmath62 , and @xmath63  v / cm .
we set@xcite @xmath64 where the dimensionless parameter @xmath65 is defined as @xmath66    a typical self - sustained current oscillation ( far from the voltage bias corresponding to the onset or the end of the instability ) is caused by the generation , motion and annihilation of domain walls , which are charge monopoles .
@xcite we want to estimate the dependence of the oscillation frequency or period @xmath67 on the bias @xmath68 .
there exist three different oscillation modes depending on the value of the bias :    * _ first mode : _ oscillation of the electric field profile around an almost uniform stationary state ( fig .
[ profiles](a ) ) .
it occurs when the bias is just above the onset of the instability .
it can be shown that the oscillation frequency decreases as the bias increases by numerically solving the problem of linear stability of the stationary electric field profile as discussed in a companion paper.@xcite * _ second mode : _ monopole recycling ( fig .
[ profiles](b ) ) , which typically occurs when the bias is larger . in this mode of oscillation ,
the period is the sum of the formation time of a monopole ( the time it takes each new charge accumulation injected at the first sl period to form a monopole ) plus the time elapsed until another charge accumulation is injected .
new monopoles are formed when the current is close to its maximum value ( @xmath69 , or @xmath70 in dimensional units ) and the monopole formation time is small compared to the period of the oscillation .
the bias interval , over which the second oscillatory mode exists , can be shown to increase with sample doping or with the number of sl periods . * _ third mode : _ oscillation of the electric field profile about a nonuniform stationary state containing two electric field domains ( fig .
[ profiles](c ) ) .
this mode is sometimes present in weakly doped samples , which oscillate for larger biases .
it then occurs near the end of the oscillatory branch . in this third mode of oscillation ,
a domain wall remains pinned at a given location and the field values at the low and high field domains oscillate in antiphase .
the shape of the current oscillation is almost sinusoidal and the maximum current is clearly below 1 ( where the accumulation layers were injected from the injecting contact for the mode discussed before ) .
a similar oscillation mode has been found in simulations of imperfect superlattices.@xcite    next we report the results of numerical simulations of the self - sustained oscillations of the current in the discrete model for different values of the dimensionless parameters .
the simulations yield self - sustained current - oscillations when the doping @xmath65 is such that the corresponding stationary field profile is clearly inhomogeneous , e.g. , as in fig .
[ fig5.3 ] .
the current on the middle branch of stationary solutions is significantly larger than @xmath71 . in these cases the bias has to be within a certain interval @xmath72 ( @xmath73 is on the ndv branch of @xmath74 , and @xmath75 may or may not be larger than the minimum @xmath76 ) to generate self - sustained current oscillations .
both @xmath77 and @xmath75 are increasing functions of @xmath52 . in fig .
[ fig5.3](a ) , the oscillatory behavior begins at @xmath78 via a supercritical hopf bifurcation .
the amplitude of the oscillation increases with bias following a square - root law and the frequency is almost constant . at @xmath79
the branch of oscillatory solutions disappears via a second hopf bifurcation . for longer sls with @xmath80 and the same doping , fig .
[ fig5.3](e ) , or for a 50-well sl with larger doping , [ fig5.3](c ) , the end of the oscillatory branch is different : a limit cycle collides with the unstable fixed point from the middle branch of the z - shaped current - voltage characteristics and disappears .
this bifurcation scenario results in a decrease of the frequency down to zero , when the collision takes place , while the amplitude is unchanged to lowest order .
the bias interval where the oscillatory branch exists , @xmath72 , shrinks as @xmath65 decreases , and for @xmath81 ( @xmath82 for @xmath83 , @xmath84 ) , there is no oscillatory solution .
close to the hopf bifurcations the first and third modes of oscillation are found .
we no longer see recycling and motion of domain walls .
instead , in all these examples , there is an interval of bistability between the self - sustained oscillations and the stable stationary lower branch of the z - shaped characteristic when @xmath85 .
the bistability may be hard to observe experimentally because the basin of attraction of the self - sustained current oscillations is very small and most initial field profiles evolve to stationary situations .
a similar type of bistability can be found when ( i ) wiggles in the static current - voltage characteristic @xmath86 appear , and ( ii ) the upper branch of a wiggle is unstable against oscillatory behavior while the lower branch is stable .
see fig .  1 of ref .
for @xmath87 .
[ fig5.3 ] shows the variation in magnitude and frequency of the current oscillations as a function of the bias for different doping values and number of sl periods .    to clarify the nature of the oscillations let us describe the _ second mode _ of oscillations , which occurs for most biases .
[ fig5.1](a ) shows the field profiles at different times of a given period of the current oscillations for a 50-well sl . we can identify a field profile consisting of two well - formed field domains at time ( 1 ) .
we define the field of the domain to be the electric field @xmath88 at the position where @xmath89 has a local minimum , i.e. , the variation in the field is minimal .
the domain wall between two domains is a charge monopole containing an excess of electrons ( @xmath90 ) .
its evolution towards the receiving contact ( until it disappears ) is captured by snapshots at times ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) in fig .
[ fig5.1](a ) .
let @xmath91 be the instantaneous position of the domain wall defined as the sl period for which @xmath89 is a local maximum .
except for the time intervals , in which two domain walls are present simultaneously , the constant voltage condition implies that @xmath92 where @xmath93 and @xmath94 are the values of the field in the low and high field domains , respectively . within the low field domain
there is a tiny inhomogeneity ( contact layer ) close to the injecting contact , which is due to the boundary condition.@xcite as long as the low field domain is in the region of positive differential velocity ( @xmath95 ) , the field profile is stable and the contact layer follows adiabatically the current .
the position @xmath91 of the domain wall moves to the right with a certain velocity @xmath96 , where @xmath97 is always significantly less than 1 ( the peak velocity in dimensionless units ) .
( [ eqel ] ) implies that @xmath93 , @xmath94 , and @xmath98 must increase with time in order to fulfill the fixed voltage condition .
when @xmath93 surpasses 1 , a small charge accumulation is injected at @xmath99 , which moves to the right and grows until it becomes a well - formed charge monopole .
see the snapshots at times ( 3 ) and ( 4 ) in fig .
[ fig5.1](a ) .
the process is repeated in time after the old monopole has disappeared and the new one is well established .
note that two different monopoles are present simultaneously during a certain part of the oscillation period . for a long sl
the displacement current is quite small during most of each oscillation period , and we have @xmath100 and @xmath101 [ @xmath102 are the three solutions of the equation @xmath103 for @xmath104 .
note that the solutions @xmath105 and @xmath106 disappear for @xmath107 .
see fig .
[ fig5.2 ] for a 200-period sl .
notice that now the domains are well - established at times for which the values of the current are different from those depicted in fig .
[ fig5.1](a ) . even for a smaller sl as the one in fig .
[ fig5.1 ] , the displacement current is small , when the current is near its maximum value for each period [ see the time intervals between ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) in fig .
[ fig5.1](b ) and between ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) in fig .
[ fig5.2](b ) ] . notice that the field value on the low field domain is near the peak of the @xmath74 curve during these time intervals
. this will be useful in what follows .
it is important to understand the bias dependence of the frequency which could be used to tune the frequency of an eventual device in agreement with the experimental observations of section ii
. the frequency might increase or decrease with bias depending on the sample parameters @xmath9 and @xmath65 , as shown in figs .
[ fig5.3](b , d , f ) .
let us start at the time @xmath108 when @xmath109 [ then @xmath110 , @xmath111 , the contact layer looses its stability , and a charge accumulation is injected at @xmath99 ( @xmath112 in fig .  [ fig5.2 ] ) .
one period of duration @xmath67 is completed at @xmath113 when the next charge accumulation is injected . at this instant ,
the position of the charge monopole is given by eq .
( [ eqel ] ) with @xmath114 and @xmath115 which yields @xmath116 thus , the charge accumulation has to travel a distance @xmath117 in the time @xmath67 . during the monopole formation time @xmath118 , @xmath119 , and
the mean velocity of the charge accumulation is @xmath120 . on the other hand ,
the same charge accumulation moves at a smaller mean velocity equal to @xmath96 ( with @xmath121 ) for the rest of the period , @xmath122 , once it has become a charge monopole .
we therefore have @xmath123 this gives @xmath124 we now estimate the monopole formation time @xmath118 .
the new charge accumulation @xmath125 travels with a velocity of the order of @xmath126 and is amplified in time via @xmath127 with an initial value @xmath128 . at time
( 3 ) of fig .
[ fig5.2 ] , @xmath129 , @xmath125 is so large that it separates two different well - formed field domains .
then we may consider that a new charge monopole has been born .
this charge monopole travels at the velocity @xmath96 mentioned above and it sharpens as it moves ; see the point marked by ( 4 ) in the fig .
[ fig5.2](a ) .
this stage lasts until the fields before and after the monopole reach the values @xmath130 and @xmath131 , respectively , and we are back to situation ( 1 ) having completed one period .
mathematically , this behavior can be well described by an asymptotic analysis in the continuum limit ( @xmath132 ) .
@xcite    in order to estimate @xmath118 , we note that it is determined by the condition @xmath133 where @xmath134 .
then eq .
( [ eqamplification ] ) yields @xmath135 now we obtain @xmath136 from eq .
( [ eqel ] ) with @xmath137 .
up to the first order in @xmath138 , this yields @xmath139}{\nu m^2 } \ , ( t - t_0 ) .\ ] ] linearizing @xmath140 , we obtain @xmath141}}\ , .\ ] ] now @xmath117 decreases as @xmath68 increases , which can be seen from eq .
( [ eqm ] ) . as @xmath121 , eq .
( [ eqperiod ] ) indicates that there are two competing mechanisms influencing the dependence of @xmath67 with @xmath68 . in general the monopole formation time @xmath118
is negligible compared to @xmath142 in the following cases : ( i ) for long sls ( @xmath117 in eq .
( [ eqperiod ] ) is then large ) , ( ii ) when the values of @xmath52 are large ( i.e. , @xmath143 small ) , ( iii ) for large doping @xmath65 . in these cases ,
@xmath142 should be a decreasing function .
we find that the frequency increases with @xmath68 for large values of the quantities @xmath144 and @xmath52 , while it decreases otherwise .
these behaviors are illustrated in figs .
[ fig5.3 ] and [ fig5.4 ] .
we can now interpret the experimental observations according to our theoretical results .    *
sample 9.0/4.0 has narrow peaks , high doping with respect to the others , and is short ( n=40 ) .
therefore , the second oscillation mode dominates for most biases with a short stage of monopole formation ( @xmath145 is quite large ) . during most of each oscillation period , the electric field on
the low field domain takes on values close to that of the resonant peak .
this makes it possible to distinguish two peaks in the pl data .
@xcite the frequency is practically independent on the bias.@xcite this sample is modeled by the velocity curve shown in the inset of fig .
[ depen](a ) .
the results of the numerical simulation for current oscillations and field profiles are also shown in fig .
[ depen](a ) . * sample 13.3/2.7 has wide peaks , low doping , and is also short ( @xmath83 ) .
we would expect the first mode of oscillation to dominate , which agrees with the experimental observation that the frequency is a decreasing function of the bias . in this mode
the high field domain is never well established , and the low field domain is off - resonance during most parts of each oscillation period ( cf .
[ depen](b ) ) .
this explains that no stark - splitting of the pl signal is observed in the experiments for this sample . *
sample 9.0/1.5 is similar to sample 13.3/2.7 , except that its doping is 2.5 times larger and the sl is shorter ( @xmath146 ) .
the velocity curve used in the simulations for this sample is shown in the inset of fig .
for this sample , fig .
[ ghz465 ] seems to indicate that the first two oscillation modes are important : for low bias the first mode dominates , whereas for larger bias the second mode does .
[ ghz465 ] also shows that the frequency increases with bias abruptly after reaching its minimum value .
numerical calculations suggest that this could correspond to having a larger excess charge in the first sl period than in the case of sample 9.0/4.0 .
this could be expected for a sl with narrower barriers ( cf .
[ fig5.4 ] ) .
until now we have studied eqs .
( [ poisson ] ) - ( [ bias ] ) with the boundary condition of eq .
( [ bc ] ) and @xmath52 being positive .
now we are going to describe what happens if @xmath147 , i.e. , there are less electrons in the first well than the doping density ( @xmath148 ; cf . fig .
[ fig6.2 ] ) .    as in the case of positive @xmath52 ,
the oscillations are due to the generation , motion and annihilation of domain walls connecting domains ( which are regions of almost uniform electric field approximately given by the zeros of @xmath149 ) .
the difference is that now the electric field profile is a monotone decreasing function of the qw index : the high - field domain is close to the beginning of the sl and the low - field domain extends to the end of the sl .
the domain walls are now charge - depletion layers , having less electrons than the doping density .
let us describe one period of the current oscillations for a long sl as the one in fig .
[ fig6.2 ] with @xmath80 .
we will assume that initially ( point marked with 1 in fig .
[ fig6.2](a ) ) the field profile has two domains connected by a domain wall ( @xmath150 to the left of the domain wall and @xmath151 to the right of the domain wall with an initial value of the current @xmath152 ) .
the domain wall is approximately centered at @xmath153 so that the voltage bias condition of eq .
( [ bias ] ) holds .
the domain wall then moves towards the end of the superlattice with a speed close to the instantaneous value of the current .
the current decreases until a certain minimum value slightly smaller than @xmath154 is reached .
then a new high - field domain is created ( close to the beginning of the sl ) and the current rises sharply as the two domain walls move towards the end of the sl .
when the current is near its maximum value , the old domain wall disappears as the values of the field in the intermediate and rightmost domains coalesce .
then one period of the oscillation is completed .
all these features can be understood by means of an asymptotic analysis to be reported elsewhere .
@xcite some of the basic ideas were sketched in ref .  .
clearly , a superlattice oscillator based on the above described types of oscillations may be exploited in a device , e.g. , by operating the superlattice as a frequency generator . in order to establish the use of the newly found oscillations ,
it is important to know what maximum frequency can be achieved .
while experimental investigations in this direction are still missing , it is clear that the ultimate frequency limit will be connected with the maximum drift velocity , which can be achieved without destroying the shape of the @xmath0 curve .
to first order we assume that the oscillation frequency is determined _ only _ by the transition time of the carriers through the sample .
this approach neglects a possible oscillation of the domain boundary over a few periods only , but allows to give an estimate for the oscillation frequencies from the current density @xmath155 , the 3d doping density @xmath156 , and the length @xmath157 of the sample using @xmath158 in fig .
[ frequencies ] the measured oscillation frequencies are plotted versus the frequencies calculated using eq .
( [ frequency ] ) . for each plateau in the 9.0/4.0 sample
only one measured frequency is shown , while for the 13.3/2.7 and 9.0/1.5 samples the measured minimum and maximum frequencies are plotted .
the figure shows a strong correlation between drift velocity and oscillation frequency over several orders of magnitude .
the highest observed _ miniband _ drift velocities are on the order of 10@xmath159  cm / s which , as sibille et al.@xcite pointed out , for a superlattice of 500@xmath160 nm length translates into a fundamental frequency of 200 ghz .
however , the electric fields in the reported case can not be increased arbitrarily without breaking up the miniband , while for the subband field - oscillator this limitation does not apply .
accordingly , the observed frequencies become larger for higher subband resonances , which for sufficiently thin barriers will push the drift velocities and the frequencies to new limits . looking at the oscillation frequency as a function of barrier width
, we note that a change of a factor of 2.67 in barrier width leads to a change in the oscillation frequency in the first plateau of a factor of about 4000 . projecting this behavior for other material systems to feasible barrier widths ,
we conclude that the frequencies could reach the 100  ghz range .
hence , in contrast to gunn - effect devices , the oscillation frequency of the superlattice oscillator is not only defined by the length of the sample , but also by the parameters of the heterostructure . in this respect
the superlattice oscillator leaves much more room for optimization .
additionally , a frequency generator based on a superlattice oscillator with several plateaus may cover several orders of magnitude with one device .
in particular the tunability _ within the plateaus _ at high frequencies allows to envision a tunable frequency generator based on resonant carrier transport covering the whole ghz regime , which to our knowledge no other device is capable of .
we have demonstrated that doped , weakly coupled semiconductor superlattices exhibit current self - oscillations with ghz frequencies , which can be tuned by simply changing the applied voltage .
the oscillations , which are observed in gaas - alas superlattices , are not limited to low temperatures , but in one case have been observed at room temperature .
they occur due to an unstable electric - field domain formation .
a theoretical modeling , both analytical and numerical , demonstrates that three different oscillatory modes can occur , which depend on the detailed shape of the drift velocity curve , the doping density , the boundary condition , and the length of the superlattice .
in contrast to the bloch - oscillator proposed by esaki and tsu,@xcite the self - oscillations of the field distribution are in most cases due to a formation , motion , and recycling of a charge accumulation layer inside the superlattice . in some cases
the domain boundary is localized over a few quantum wells , while the field strengths of the low and high field domain oscillate .
we would like to stress that the observed oscillations are also different from the damped miniband oscillations observed by le person et al.,@xcite because they occur only at field strengths , where the miniband is already destroyed by wannier - stark localization .
considered from a macroscopic point of view in the sense that a traveling charge accumulation layer generates the oscillation in the current , the oscillations in doped superlattices are similar to the moving field domains in gunn diodes . in both cases
the nonlinearity , which is responsible for the instability , is generated by negative differential velocity .
the microscopic origin , however , is entirely different with important consequences for the frequency limit and the tunability .    in conclusion
, the subband superlattice oscillator has great potential for applications as a tunable ghz oscillator . in order to achieve such a device ,
it is necessary to fully understand the origin of the oscillations and determine all possible oscillation modes .
furthermore , other material systems such as ingaas / inalas should be investigated in order to generate even higher ghz oscillations at room temperature .
the authors would like to thank d. bertram for the time - of - flight experiments , r. klann and s. venakides for valuable discussions , a. fischer for sample growth , and e. wiebecke and h. kostial for sample preparation .
the work was supported in part by the dfg within the framework of sfb 296 , by the dgicyt grant pb94 - 0375 , and by the eu human capital and mobility programme contract erbchrxct930413 .
one of us ( aw ) acknowledges financial support from the deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft ( dfg ) .
.parameters of the four investigated samples .
@xmath9 denotes the number of periods and @xmath161 the two - dimensional carrier density introduced by doping .
@xmath162 and @xmath163 indicate the energy positions of the lowest @xmath24-subbands in the wells and the lowest @xmath25-subbands in the barriers , respectively .
the width of the lowest conduction miniband is given by @xmath164 .
the energies of the subbands measured from the bottom of the gaas conduction band have been obtained by conventional envelope function calculations.[samples ] [ cols="^,^,^,^,^,^,^,^,^ " , ]