optical parametric oscillators are one of the most interesting and well characterized devices in nonlinear quantum optics .
novel discoveries made with them include demonstrations of large amounts of squeezing@xcite , significant quantum intensity correlations@xcite together with a quadrature correlation measurement that provided the first experimental demonstration @xcite of the original epr paradox .
practical applications include their use as highly efficient and tunable frequency converters . in the present paper ,
we focus on the optimum below - threshold squeezing results , which determine the limits to squeezing obtained near the critical point , where nonlinear corrections start to dominate . in a companion paper@xcite
, the related question of critical fluctuations at threshold is treated .
the theory of quantum squeezing in the linear parametric oscillator is now well - developed@xcite-@xcite .
excellent agreement between theory and experiment is obtained@xcite-@xcite , in the region below threshold .
however , the usual theory is linearized , and therefore can not be used in the near - threshold region where the squeezing is largest .
the drawback with linearized theories is that they predict that zero quantum noise levels are achievable at threshold .
this is clearly unrealistic , since ( by the heisenberg uncertainty principle ) it necessarily requires an infinite energy in the conjugate mode .
more significantly , this would imply an infinite amount of phase information - which is also impossible , since the coherent pump which drives the parametric oscillator can only supply a finite quantity of phase information .
while present experiments are limited by technical noise from approaching the critical point too closely , it is reasonable to expect that progress in integrated optics will lead to more stable , highly miniaturized devices which could well operate at the quantum limit , even near threshold .
accordingly , there have been a number of investigations as to the ultimate limits to the squeezing spectrum of a parametric amplifier / oscillator .
this has often involved using keldysh diagrams or wyld - keldysh techniques @xcite-@xcite to extend the linear theory @xcite-@xcite , using a many - body theory analog of feynman diagrams .
the two - mode hilbert space involved in these problems typically has a minimum dimension @xmath0 , even with only @xmath1 photons , and therefore would be difficult to solve using other methods that involve number - state expansions - either using a direct solution of the master equation , or stochastic wave - function methods .
the hamiltonian matrix would have @xmath2 coefficients , unless simplified , with a density matrix of similar size .
more typical experimental photon numbers have at least @xmath3 , with a corresponding density matrix dimension of @xmath4 - which appears completely inaccessible with number state techniques .
another drawback of number - state techniques is that they usually do not permit analytic approximations , which can give more physical insight .
we therefore treat these questions using the coherent - state positive p - representation @xcite , combined with an expansion technique valid below the critical point .
results are also verified by the use of direct numerical stochastic equation simulations .
we find an @xmath5 scaling law for the optimal squeezing predicted by plimak and walls@xcite is obtained here as well , but with a different spectrum , owing to the use of more systematic expansion techniques that result from using the positive p - representation method .
our analytic results for optimal squeezing , which occurs below the critical threshold , give excellent agreement with accurate numerical simulations for the same parameter values .
however , even larger noise reductions are predicted to occur simply by reducing the losses of the second - harmonic , in which case the @xmath5 scaling law no longer holds . in a companion paper
we consider the related problem of the critical region , where the narrow - band squeezing is less than optimal due to the effects of critical fluctuations .
we also compare the above results with a semiclassical approach , that is , a truncated wigner phase - space equation .
this equation corresponds to a classical theory with added vacuum fluctuations . a comparison between the positive p - representation ( fully quantum mechanical ) and semiclassical theories permits us to see how far one can go and what is the limitation of this extended classical point of view .
we find that the nonlinear corrections in the semiclassical theory are in strong disagreement with the full quantum theory far below threshold , but agree near threshold .
this tells us that the semiclassical theory works surprisingly well in the threshold region , indicating that the large quantum fluctuations near threshold have a rather classical character .
the model considered here is the degenerate parametric oscillator .
the system of interest is an idealized interferometer , which is resonant at two frequencies , @xmath6 and @xmath7 .
it is externally driven at the larger of the two frequencies .
both frequencies are damped due to cavity losses .
down conversion of the pump photons to resonant sub - harmonic mode photons occurs due to a @xmath8 nonlinearity present inside the cavity .
the heisenberg picture hamiltonian that describes this open system@xcite is @xmath9 where the intra - cavity or system hamiltonian is given by : @xmath10    here @xmath11 represents the external driving field at frequency @xmath12 .
the term @xmath13 describes the free evolution of the extra - cavity modes that are the loss - reservoirs of the cavity .
the term @xmath14 is the coupling parameter due to a @xmath8 nonlinear medium internal to the cavity , and @xmath15 are reservoir operators that create and destroy photons in the loss - reservoir coupled to the internal mode of frequency @xmath16 .
next , we wish to consider an interaction picture , obtained with the definition that @xmath17 in other words , the operators will evolve according to the relevant mode frequency , while the states evolve according to the rest of the system hamiltonian .
the interaction hamiltonian used here then reduces to the the standard one@xcite for a non - degenerate , single - mode parametric amplifier or oscillator : @xmath18 + \frac{i\chi } { 2}\left [ \widehat{a}_{2}\widehat{a}_{1}^{\dagger2 } -\widehat{a}_{2}^{\dagger } \widehat{a}_{1}^{2}\right ] \ , \ , .\ ] ] here @xmath19 are now time - independent operators representing the fundamental and second - harmonic modes respectively . for simplicity
, we have chosen the field mode - functions so that @xmath11 , @xmath14 are real .
using standard techniques @xcite to eliminate the heat bath , we obtain the following master equation for the reduced density operator of the system in the interaction picture : @xmath20 + \gamma _ { 1}\left ( 2\widehat{a}_{1}\widehat{\rho } \widehat{a}_{1}^{\dagger } -\widehat{a}_{1}^{\dagger } \widehat{a}_{1}\widehat{\rho } -\widehat{\rho } \widehat{a}_{1}^{\dagger } \widehat{a}_{1}\right ) \nonumber \\   & + & \gamma _ { 2}\left ( 2\widehat{a}_{2}\widehat{\rho } \widehat{a}_{2}^{\dagger } -\widehat{a}_{2}^{\dagger } \widehat{a}_{2}\widehat{\rho } -\widehat{\rho } \widehat{a}_{2}^{\dagger } \widehat{a}_{2}\right ) \ , \ , , \label{a5 } \end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath21 are the internal mode amplitude damping rates and we assume that @xmath22 , where @xmath23 are the mean numbers of thermal photons in the input reservoir modes .
using reservoir theory , it is possible to identify the coherent driving field with a corresponding input photon flux from an external coherent laser , with @xmath24 in @xmath25 , where @xmath26 is the input coupler decay rate . for optimum performance
, we will assume that @xmath27 , and similarly for the fundamental mode - which will be assumed to only decay through its output coupling mirror . if these conditions are not satisfied , then the coupling efficiency and maximum squeezing are reduced .
at this point , we note that in the classical limit , the system has the well - known classical equations of intra - cavity parametric oscillation , where we define : @xmath28 , and hence obtain , in the interaction picture :    @xmath29 \ , , \nonumber \\
\frac{d\alpha _ { 2}}{dt } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}\alpha _ { 2}+{\mathcal{e}}-\frac{1}{2}\chi \alpha _ { 1}^{2}\right ] \end{aligned}\ ] ]    these equations are valid in the limit of large photon number .
they are obtained by the use of a classical decorrelation in which all operator products are assumed to factorize , so that @xmath30 , and @xmath31 .
the solution of these equations is immediate classically , and has the property that there is a phase transition at the critical driving field of : @xmath32 . for driving fields below this value ,
one has : @xmath33 for fields above this value , the signal field @xmath34 is bistable , with :    @xmath35    the intra - cavity photon number at the critical point is @xmath36 .
classically , there are only second - harmonic photons present at this driving field , and the input photon flux is @xmath37
. however , a squeezed field - with finite intensity - is actually emitted as well .
this is not taken into account in the classical theory .
in order to treat the full quantum evolution , we now turn to the methods of operator representation theory .
these techniques can be used to transform the density matrix equations of motion to c - number fokker - planck or stochastic equations .      in the positive p - representation ,
the density matrix is expanded in terms of multi - mode coherent state vectors @xmath38 : @xmath39    following standard procedures , the assumption of vanishing boundary terms allows the master equation to be re - written as a fokker - planck equation in @xmath40 and hence as a stochastic equation@xcite with real noise .
the assumption of vanishing boundary terms is critical to this procedure , and we note here that this is generally valid when the ratio of nonlinearity to damping is small@xcite , ( i.e. @xmath41 ) .
the stochastic procedure is best regarded as being generally an asymptotic procedure , valid for small @xmath42 - in which case the boundary terms are exponentially suppressed .
we check this assumption numerically here as well , and point out that the required ratio of nonlinearity to damping is extremely well - satisfied in current experiments , where the ratio is typically 10@xmath43 or less .
further analysis of this problem has been given elsewhere@xcite .
given this assumption , the following stochastic equations are obtained from ( [ a5 ] ) and ( [ a6 ] ) , for any driving field @xmath11 , that is , either below or above threshold : @xmath44 dt+\sqrt{\chi \alpha _ { 2}}dw_{1}(t)\ , \ , , \nonumber
\\ d\alpha _ { 1}^{+ } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 1}\alpha ^{+}_{1}+\chi \alpha _ { 1}\alpha _ { 2}^{+}\right ] dt+\sqrt{\chi \alpha _ { 2}^{+}}dw_{2}(t)\ , \ , , \nonumber \\ d\alpha _ { 2 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}\alpha _ { 2}+{\mathcal{e}}-\frac{1}{2}\chi \alpha _ { 1}^{2}\right ] dt\ , \ , , \nonumber \\ d\alpha _ { 2}^{+ } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}\alpha _ { 2}^{+}+{\mathcal{e}}-\frac{1}{2}\chi \alpha _ { 1}^{+2}\right ]
dt\ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] the stochastic correlations are given by : @xmath45    this means that @xmath46 represent two real gaussian and uncorrelated stochastic processes , and the amplitude of the stochastic fluctuations that act on the signal mode are dependent on the pump field dynamics .
our derivation is formally based on the it stochastic calculus .
however , in this case , either it or stratonovic stochastic calculus gives identical results@xcite .
we can also write a c - number phase space equation using an approximate form of the wigner representation@xcite , which is equivalent to stochastic electrodynamics
. the characteristic function of the wigner representation is written as @xmath47 and the wigner distribution can be written as fourier transform of the characteristic function @xmath48 in the wigner representation , the phase space equation that corresponds to the master equation ( [ a5 ] ) is @xmath49    if we truncate the third derivative of the phase space equation we get a genuine fokker - planck type equation with positive definite diffusion constant .
this can be mapped into the following it stochastic differential coupled equations ( for simplicity we let @xmath50 , as before ) .
@xmath51 dt+\sqrt{\gamma _ { 1}}\ ; dw_{1}(t)\ , \ , , \nonumber \\ d\alpha _ { 1}^ { * } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 1}\alpha _ { 1}^{*}+\chi { \alpha } _ { 1}\alpha _ { 2}^{*}\right ] dt+\sqrt{\gamma _ { 1}}\ ; dw_{1}^{*}(t)\ , \ , , \nonumber \\ d{\alpha } _ { 2 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}{\alpha } _ { 2}-\frac{\chi } { 2}{\alpha } _ { 1}^{2}+{\mathcal{e}}\right ]
dt+\sqrt{\gamma _ { 2}}\ ; dw_{2}(t)\ , \ , , \nonumber \\ d\alpha _ { 2}^ { * }
& = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}\alpha _ { 2}^{*}-\frac{\chi } { 2}\alpha _ { 1}^{*2}+{\mathcal{e}}\right ] dt+\sqrt{\gamma _ { 2}}\ ; dw_{2}^{*}(t)\ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here @xmath46 is now a _ complex _ gaussian white noise whose mean and variance are given by @xmath52    the above equation is identical to the equation derived in positive p - representation when one discards the noise terms .
this corresponds to the nonlinear classical equation for the opo system .
the main difference between the two sets of equations is the noise terms . in the semiclassical theory
the noise is universal for all modes and comes from to the vacuum fluctuations , while in the positive - p equation the pump has a noiseless amplitude and the signal noise comes from the nonlinear coupling .
however , we note that the wigner equation after truncation is no longer completely equivalent to quantum mechanics , since it always leads to a positive wigner function - thus , not all quantum states can be represented .
the positive - p stochastic method directly reproduces the normally ordered correlations and moments , while the wigner representation reproduces the symmetrically ordered moments
. we also have to distinguish the internal and external operator moments , since measurements are normally performed on output fields that are external to the cavity . the technique for treating external field spectra
was introduced by yurke@xcite , and by collett and gardiner@xcite .
these external field measurements are obtained from the input - output relations of : @xmath53 where @xmath54 and @xmath55 are the input and output photon fields respectively , evaluated at the output - coupling mirror .
the most efficient transport of squeezing is obtained if we assume that all the signal losses occur through the output coupler , so that @xmath56 .
we will assume this to be the case .
the crucial quadrature variables of the system have the definitions : @xmath57    there are also corresponding external quadrature field variables , defined as :    @xmath58    similarly , we can define c - number stochastic quadrature variables within the relevant representations , thus giving :    @xmath59    of especial interest is @xmath60 since this is the low - noise , squeezed quadrature . here
we note that the instantaneous correlation functions of the intra - cavity field operators are called the moments .
typically , they are not easily measurable , when compared to output moments or spectra , but they are useful in that they provide a check on the accuracy of the calculation of measurable spectra .
the squeezing in terms of the intra - cavity quadrature variances corresponds to an instantaneous measurement of the field moments .
if such a measurements were possible , it would include contributions from all frequencies . for measurements averaged over a long time @xmath61 , it is the low frequency part of the spectrum that is the relevant quantity , and we shall focus on this , as it usually determines the maximum squeezing possible .
the output measured spectral variance @xmath62 of a general quadrature @xmath63 can be written    @xmath64    where the fluctuations @xmath65 are defined as @xmath66 and the frequency argument denotes a fourier transform : @xmath67    since the p - representation is normally ordered , it automatically provides the normally - ordered moments : @xmath68 also , the + p spectral correlations correspond to the normally ordered , time - ordered operator correlations of the measured fields .
we therefore define fourier components of the normalized quadratures as : @xmath69    this leads to the following well - known result for the general squeezing spectrum , as measured in an external homodyne detection scheme : @xmath70 note that vacuum ( input ) field terms do not contribute directly to this spectrum , as they have a vanishing normally - ordered spectrum , and are not correlated with the coherent amplitudes in the + p representation .    in the case of the wigner representation
, the correlations and moments are given with symmetric ordering .
thus , for example , @xmath71 _ { + } /2\right\rangle = 1/2 $ ] in the vacuum state .
the normally - ordered internal field moments are easily calculated , by using equal - time commutators to change the ordering from symmetric to normally - ordered : @xmath72    similarly , the normally - ordered squeezing spectrum , as measured in an external homodyne detection scheme is : @xmath73 it is essential here to include the vacuum field contributions from reflected input fields , as these are correlated with the internal wigner amplitudes , and hence have a significant contribution to the spectrum .
in fact , these input fields can be shown to correspond directly to the noise terms in the relevant wigner equations , leading to the identification : @xmath74 where @xmath75 is a c - number amplitude corresponding ( in the wigner representation ) to the quantum vacuum input field .
the fundamental property of the wigner function is that the ensemble average of any polynomial of the random variable @xmath76 and @xmath77 weighted by the wigner density exactly corresponds to the hilbert - space expectation of the corresponding symmetrized product of the annihilation and creation operators .
therefore , the truncated theory with a positive wigner function can be viewed as equivalent to a hidden variable theory , since one can obtain quadrature fluctuation predictions by following an essentially classical prescription ; in which even the noise terms have a classical interpretation as corresponding a form of zero - point fluctuation .
this can not be equivalent to quantum mechanics in general , but may provide similar results to quantum mechanics under some circumstances .
next we wish to rescale the equations . this has the merit of showing explicitly how a small noise expansion can permit us to use a type of perturbation theory
whose zero - th order solution is the classical solution , rather than the feynman approach where the zero - th order solution is the free - particle case . in order to show this systematically , a formal perturbation expansion in powers of @xmath78
is now introduced , where the scaling parameter @xmath78 is given by : @xmath79 where @xmath80 is the threshold pump photon number , and a dimensionless decay ratio , @xmath81 is introduced .
an equivalent definition is :    @xmath82    this clearly determines the ratio of nonlinear to linear rates of change .
next , we introduce a scaled time @xmath83 and a dimensionless driving field @xmath84 , so that the equations can be expressed in terms of the three dimensionless parameters @xmath85 .
finally , we expand the scaled coordinates in a power series in @xmath78 , to give : @xmath86    the expansion given here has the property that the zero - th order term corresponds to the large classical fields of order @xmath87 , while the first order term corresponds to the quantum fluctuations of order @xmath88 , and the higher order terms correspond to nonlinear corrections to the quantum fluctuations , of order @xmath78 and greater . for a given fundamental decay rate @xmath89 , the expansion coefficient @xmath90 is inversely proportional to the input photon flux required to obtain the threshold condition . thus , the smaller @xmath90 is , the larger the required input field
.      here we will first be interested in the analysis of the steady state moments .
subsequently we will calculate the spectral correlations of the solutions using fourier transforms of the calculation done in the time domain .
the equations for the quadrature variables in the positive p - representation are @xmath91 dt+\sqrt{\frac{\chi } { 2}}\ ; \left [ \sqrt{x_{2}+iy_{2}}dw_{1}(t)+\sqrt{x_{2}^{\dagger } -iy_{2}^{\dagger } } dw_{2}(t)\right ] \ ; \ ; , \nonumber \\
dy_{1 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 1}y_{1}+\frac{\chi } { 2}\left ( x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1}\right ) \right ] dt - i\sqrt{\frac{\chi } { 2}}\ ; \left [ \sqrt{x_{2}+iy_{2}}dw_{1}(t)-\sqrt{x_{2}^{\dagger } -iy_{2}^{\dagger } } dw_{2}(t)\right ] \ ; \ ; , \nonumber \\
dx_{2 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}x_{2}-\frac{\chi } { 4}\left ( x_{1}^{2}-y_{1}^{2}\right ) + 2{\mathcal{e}}\right ] dt\nonumber \\ dy_{2 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}y_{2}-\frac{\chi } { 2}x_{1}y_{1}\right ] dt\ ; \ ; .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the stochastic equations are now solved by the technique of matching powers of @xmath78 in the corresponding time - evolution equations .
this technique can be analyzed diagrammatically , and so can be termed the ` stochastic diagram ' method@xcite .
the zero - th order solution is : @xmath92 d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } & = & \left [ -y_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } + \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } x_{2}^{\left ( 0\right ) } -x_{2}^{\left ( 0\right ) } y_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } \right ) \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ dx_{2}^{\left ( 0\right ) } & = & -\gamma _
{ r}\left [ x_{2}^{\left ( 0\right ) } + \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } x_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } -y_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } y_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } \right ) -2\mu \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{2}^{\left ( 0\right ) } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ y_{2}^{\left ( 0\right ) } + x_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } y_{1}^{\left ( 0\right ) } \right ] d\tau \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    these equations are the classical nonlinear equations for the cavity , expressed in terms of the quadrature amplitudes of dimensionless scaled fields .
the steady - state solution below threshold is well - known , and is given by :    @xmath93    with no loss of generality , we can set all odd orders of @xmath94 , and all even orders of @xmath95 to zero , since one can set these to zero initially , and these orders do not change in time . to first order ,
the equations are given by : @xmath96 where , @xmath97 .
these equations are the ones that are normally used to predict squeezing .
they are non - classical , but correspond to a very simple form of linear , non - classical fluctuation which has a gaussian quasi - probability distribution .
in other words , if no higher - order terms existed , the result would be an ideal squeezed state in the sub - harmonic , together with an ideal coherent state in the pump .
of more interest to the present paper , is the behaviour to the next order .
this is the first order where nonlinear corrections to ideal squeezed - state behaviour will occur .
we find the following :    @xmath98 d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ dy_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ y_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } + x_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } y_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } \right ] d\tau \ , \ , .\label{8 } \end{aligned}\ ] ] while we do not wish to include any effects beyond the first nonlinear corrections , it is not possible to consistently neglect the third - order in perturbation theory .
this is because the first non - trivial correlations arise in terms like @xmath99 ^{2}\right\rangle , $ ] which have the same formal order as terms of the type @xmath100 therefore , to obtain a consistent expansion for the correlations that are of interest , we must compute the third - order terms as well .
these satisfy the following equations : @xmath101 d\tau + \nonumber \\   & + & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\mu } } \left [ x_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } dw_{x}(\tau ) + iy_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } dw_{y}(\tau ) \right ] \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ dy_{1}^{\left ( 3\right ) } & = & \left [ -\left ( 1+\mu \right ) y_{1}^{\left ( 3\right ) } + \frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } y_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } -x_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } y_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } \right ) \right ] d\tau \nonumber \\   & + & \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2\mu } } \left [ y_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } dw_{x}(\tau ) -ix_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } dw_{y}(\tau ) \right ] \ , \ , .\label{10 } \end{aligned}\ ] ] the equations of this order have a non - trivial noise term , which depends on the second order pump quadrature solution .
we now wish to calculate the operator moments .
to proceed further , we use it calculus to derive stochastic equations for quantities of interest , which in the present calculation are @xmath102 and @xmath103 .
these equations contain quantities involving variables lower down in the hierarchy , as well as terms generated from the noise correlations . finally , we compute the the steady state averages of the quantities of interest , so that the noise terms vanish . in the present case ,
this yields , @xmath104 \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ \left\langle x_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } y_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } y_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } \right\rangle   & = & \frac{\gamma _ { r}}{\left ( \gamma _ { r}+2\right ) } \left ( \frac{\mu ^{2}}{1-\mu ^{2}}\right ) \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]
the first quantity above is related to the depletion of the pump that supplies the energy for the sub - harmonic mode .
the follow two quantities are the squeezed and enhanced quadratures normally obtained in the linearized theory , while the fourth one is the first correction to the linearized calculation .
the last one is the steady state triple quadrature correlation .
this quantity has been suggested previously as a way to test quantum mechanics against a local hidden variable theory  @xcite .
the steady state intra - cavity squeezed quadrature fluctuations are obtained as : @xmath105 \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the intra - cavity squeezing quadrature near threshold is not perfectly squeezed , as the nonlinear correction is divergent near this point .
this is shown in fig .
( [ sqmom ] ) .
it is clear that the nonlinear corrections to the overall moment scale as @xmath106 , and hence only give large corrections extremely close to threshold , with @xmath107 .
considerations related to optimal squeezing will be treated later , in the frequency domain .
we can scale the quadratures variables in in semiclassical theory in the same way as before .
firstly , the equations for the quadratures are :    @xmath91 dt+\sqrt{\gamma _ { 1}}\ ; \left [ dw_{1}(t)+dw_{1}^{*}(t)\right ] \ ; \ ; , \nonumber \\
dy_{1 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 1}y_{1}+\frac{\chi } { 2}\left ( x_{1}y_{2}-x_{2}y_{1}\right ) \right ] dt - i\sqrt{\gamma _ { 1}}\left [ dw_{1}(t)+dw_{1}^{*}(t)\right ] \ ; \ ; , \nonumber \\
dx_{2 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}x_{2}-\frac{\chi } { 4}\left ( x_{1}^{2}-y_{1}^{2}\right ) + 2{\mathcal{e}}\right ] dt+\sqrt{\gamma _ { 2}}\ ; \left [ dw_{2}(t)+dw_{2}^{*}(t)\right ] \ ; \ ; , \nonumber \\ dy_{2 } & = & \left [ -\gamma _ { 2}y_{2}-\frac{\chi } { 2}x_{1}y_{1}\right ] dt - i\sqrt{\gamma _ { 2}}\ ; \left [ dw_{2}(t)-dw_{2}^{*}(t)\right ] \ ; \ ; .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    in the new scaled time , the correlation function of the noise terms is : @xmath108 where we have written the wiener increment as @xmath109 .
next , we redefine the white noise that drives the stochastic semiclassical equations as @xmath110 } { \sqrt{2}}\ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dw_{y1(2)}(\tau ) & = & \frac{\left [ dw_{1(2)}(\tau ) -dw_{1(2)}^{*}(\tau ) \right ] } { i\sqrt{2}}\ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the dimensionless driving field @xmath111 is introduced as before , and the wiener increments @xmath112 have the same properties as defined in ( [ a8 ] ) , except for changing @xmath113 to the dimensionless scaled time @xmath114 .
next , we use the same technique of matching the powers of g in the corresponding time - evolution equations .
the zero - th order equations are : @xmath115 d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{1}^{(0 ) } & = & \left [ -y_{1}^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{(0)}y_{2}^{(0)}-x_{2}^{(0)}y_{1}^{(0)}\right ) \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dx_{2}^{(0 ) } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ x_{2}^{(0)}+\frac{1}{2}\left ( { x_{1}^{(0)}}{x_{1}^{(0)}}-{y_{1}^{(0)}}{y_{1}^{(0)}}\right ) -2\mu \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{2}^{(0 ) } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ y_{2}^{(0)}+x_{1}^{(0)}y_{1}^{(0)}\right ] d\tau \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] as in the positive - p case , the steady state solution below threshold is given by : @xmath116 to first order , the equations are given by : @xmath117    while the zero - th order equations are essentially classical , in this first order set the noise appears as a quantum effect .
this is still a linear approximation , as all nonlinear corrections come from the next orders .
the second order equations are : @xmath118 d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{1}^{(2 ) } & = & \left [ -\left ( 1+\mu \right ) y_{1}^{(2)}+\frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{(1)}y_{2}^{(1)}-x_{2}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(1)}\right ) \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dx_{2}^{(2 ) } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ x_{2}^{(2)}+\frac{1}{2}\left ( { x_{1}^{(1)}}{x_{1}^{(1)}}-{y_{1}^{(1)}}{y_{1}^{(1)}}\right ) \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{2}^{(2 ) } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ y_{2}^{(2)}+x_{1}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(1)}\right ] d\tau \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we need to go beyond this order in perturbation theory to compute the first nonlinear corrections .
the third order equations are : @xmath119 d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dy_{1}^{(3 ) } & = & \left [ -\left ( 1+\mu \right ) y_{1}^{(3)}+\frac{1}{2}\left ( x_{1}^{(1)}y_{2}^{(2)}+x_{1}^{(2)}y_{2}^{(1)}-x_{2}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(2)}-x_{2}^{(2)}y_{1}^{(1)}\right ) \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
dx_{2}^{(3 ) } & = & -\gamma _
{ r}\left [ x_{2}^{(3)}+\left ( { x_{1}^{(1)}}{x_{1}^{(2)}}-{y_{1}^{(1)}}{y_{1}^{(2)}}\right ) \right ] d\tau \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ \frac{dy_{2}^{(3)}}{d\tau } & = & -\gamma _ { r}\left [ y_{2}^{(3)}+x_{1}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(2)}+x_{1}^{(2)}y_{1}^{(1)}\right ] d\tau \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]      the steady state averages of the quantities of interest can now be using the truncated wigner distribution , therefore obtaining the symmetrically ordered correlation functions : @xmath120}\ , \ , , \nonumber \\
\langle y_{1}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(3)}\rangle   & = & \frac{\mu } { 4(1+\mu ) ( 1-\mu ^{2})}\left [ \frac{-\gamma _ { r}}{\gamma _ { r}+2}+\frac{\gamma _ { r}(2-\mu ) + 2(1+\mu ) } { ( 1+\mu ) [ \gamma _ { r}+2(1+\mu ) ] } \right ] \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ \langle x_{1}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(1)}y_{2}^{(2)}\rangle   & = & -\left ( \frac{\gamma _ { r}}{\gamma _ { r}+2}\right ) \left ( \frac{1}{1-\mu ^{2}}\right ) \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ \langle
x_{1}^{(1)}y_{1}^{(1)}y_{2}^{(2)}\rangle + \langle
x_{1}^{(2)}y_{1}^{(1)}y_{2}^{(1)}\rangle   & = & \left ( \frac{2\gamma _ { r}}{\gamma _ { r}+2}\right ) \left ( \frac{1}{1-\mu ^{2}}\right ) \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the main difference in these calculation compared with the positive - p result , appears in the nonlinear correction for the sub - harmonic squeezed quadrature .
up to second order in @xmath78 we have @xmath121 \nonumber \\   & = & \frac{1}{1+\mu } + \nonumber \\   & + & \frac{g^{2}}{2(1+\mu ) ( 1-\mu ^{2})}\left [ \frac{\gamma _ { r}}{\gamma _ { r}+2}+\frac{\gamma _ { r}(1 + 2\mu -2\mu ^{2})+2\mu ( 1+\mu ) } { ( 1+\mu ) [ \gamma _ { r}+2(1+\mu ) ] } \right ] \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the similarities and disagreement between this result and the positive - p expression for the same quantity deserve further comments given in the conclusion section . in particular
, we notice that while the linear term agrees , the nonlinear term is not in agreement well below threshold .
this comparison is shown in fig([nlsqmom ] ) , which compares the nonlinear parts of the moment in the two representations .    just below threshold
both theories give nonlinear corrections which are essentially identical .
there is also good agreement in the limit of @xmath122 , where @xmath123 ; but for @xmath124 and driving fields below threshold , there is substantial disagreement in the nonlinear corrections to the squeezing between the two representations .
this can be attributed to the neglect of third - order quantum correlations in the truncated wigner representation , which results in the appearance of nonlinear squeezing effects even in the limit of zero driving field .
such effects are due to the semiclassical vacuum inputs , which do not appear in the positive p - representation .
next , we proceed to analyze the problem in the frequency space by taking the fourier decomposition of the fields in order to understand the role of the first nonlinear correction in the squeezing spectrum .
it is important to stress that most of the measurements performed are done in fourier space .
the nonlinear corrections to the spectrum have a strikingly different behaviour to the case of the squeezing moments .
the reason for this is that the nonlinear corrections are due to low - frequency , narrow - band critical fluctuations .
these have a very small effect on the moments , which correspond to an integral of the spectrum over all frequencies , unless extremely close to threshold .
however , they can have a very large and disruptive effect on the very important zero frequency component of the squeezing spectrum , where the quantum noise is at its lowest level .
the spectrum can be calculated directly from the fourier transform of the stochastic equations .
we also represent the white noise that drives the stochastic equations by its fourier transform @xmath125 , where the spectral moments of the stochastic processes are : @xmath126 it is also useful to introduce a standard convolution notation , where :    @xmath127(\omega ) = \int \frac{d\omega ^{\prime } } { \sqrt{2\pi } } a(\omega ^{\prime } ) b(\omega -\omega ^{\prime } ) \ , \ , .\ ] ]    the stochastic equations may now be rewritten in the frequency domain as -    * first order : @xmath128 * second order : @xmath129 \left ( \omega \right ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + \gamma _ { r}\right ) } \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ { \tilde{y}}_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } \left ( \omega \right )   & = & -\frac{\gamma _ { r}\left [ \tilde{x}_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } \star \tilde{y}_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } \right ] \left ( \omega \right ) } { \left ( i\omega + \gamma _ { r}\right ) } \ , \ , .\label{19 } \end{aligned}\ ] ] * third order :    @xmath130 \left ( \omega \right ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + 1-\mu \right ) } \ , \ , , \nonumber \\ { \tilde{y}}_{1}^{\left ( 3\right ) } \left ( \omega \right )   & = & \frac{\left [ \tilde{y}_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } \star \left ( \tilde{x}_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } + \xi _ { x}/\sqrt{2\mu } \right ) -\tilde{x}_{2}^{\left ( 2\right ) } \star \left ( \tilde{y}_{1}^{\left ( 1\right ) } + i\xi _ { y}/\sqrt{2\mu } \right ) \right ] \left ( \omega \right ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + 1+\mu \right ) } \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]      we now calculate the spectrum of the squeezed field @xmath131 , which is given by @xmath132 .
thus , we obtain    @xmath133\right\rangle + \cdots \end{aligned}\ ] ]    the contribution from the first order perturbation theory is the usual linearized squeezing result , given in this case by : @xmath134 } \ , \ , .\ ] ] similarly , the complementary ( unsqueezed ) spectrum is : @xmath135 } \ , \ , .\ ] ] also , we can obtain the next order contribution to the squeezing , by calculating @xmath136 . to check the results ,
we can compare with the moment calculations , since : @xmath137 using these results , we find that the internal spectrum of the squeezed quadrature , to this order , is given by @xmath138 and the squeezing spectrum is calculated to be : @xmath139^{2}}\nonumber \\   & \times   & \left [ \frac{(\omega ^{2}+1-\mu ^{2})}{2\mu \gamma _ { r}(1-\mu ^{2})}+\frac{(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})(1+\mu ) -\omega ^{2}}{(1-\mu ) [ \omega ^{2}+(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}]}\right . \nonumber \\   &   & \left . -\frac{(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})(1+\mu ) -\omega ^{2}}{(1+\mu ) [ \omega ^{2}+(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}]}\right ] \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    the corresponding external squeezing spectrum is then :    @xmath140^{2}}\nonumber \\   & \times   & \left [ \frac{(\omega ^{2}+1-\mu ^{2})}{2\mu \gamma _ { r}(1-\mu ^{2})}+\frac{(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})(1+\mu ) -\omega ^{2}}{(1-\mu ) [ \omega ^{2}+(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}]}\right
. \nonumber \\   &   & \left . -\frac{(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})(1+\mu ) -\omega ^{2}}{(1+\mu ) [ \omega ^{2}+(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}]}\right ] \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this equation gives the complete linear and nonlinear squeezing spectrum , including all the nonlinear correction terms that contribute to order @xmath90 or @xmath141 .
an illustration of the behaviour of the total spectrum is given in fig ( [ totalspec ] ) .
fig ( [ nlspec ] ) shows how the nonlinear contribution changes with driving field , giving just the portion of the spectrum proportional to @xmath90 .
next , we can calculate the triple spectral correlations , giving as in the moment calculations :    @xmath142    solving for @xmath143 , we have @xmath144(\omega _ { 3})\right\rangle } { \left ( i\omega _ { 3}+\gamma _ { r}\right ) } \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    substituting from the first order spectrum , the final result to this order is obtained to be : @xmath145 \left [ \omega _ { 2}^{2}+\left ( 1+\mu \right ) ^{2}\right ] } \ , \ , .\ ] ]    to check this result , we can evaluate moments : @xmath146 on integrating , we obtain the same result as in our moment calculation , given above
.      we will now compare these results with the corresponding results calculated in the semiclassical theory .
some differences between them could be an interesting test comparing quantum mechanical predictions with a hidden variable theory .
again , the spectral correlations are calculated from the fourier transform of the stochastic equations . in the frequency domain ,
the equations are written as    * first order @xmath147 * second order @xmath148 ( \omega ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + 1-\mu \right ) } \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
\tilde{y}_{1}^{(2)}(\omega ) & = & \frac{\left [ \tilde{x}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{y}_{2}^{(1)}-\tilde{y}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{x}_{2}^{(1)}\right ] ( \omega ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + 1+\mu \right ) } \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
\tilde{x}_{2}^{(2)}(\omega ) & = & -\frac{\gamma _ { r}\left [ \tilde{x}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{x}_{1}^{(1)}-\tilde{y}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{y}_{1}^{(1)}\right ] ( \omega ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + \gamma _ { r}\right ) } \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
\tilde{y}_{2}^{(2)}(\omega ) & = & -\frac{\gamma _ { r}\left [ \tilde{x}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{y}_{1}^{(1)}\right ] ( \omega ) } { \left ( i\omega + \gamma _ { r}\right ) } \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ] * third order ( sub - harmonic field )    @xmath149 ( \omega ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + 1-\mu \right ) } \ , \ , , \nonumber \\
\tilde{y}_{1}^{(3)}(\omega ) & = & \frac{\left [ \tilde{x}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{y}_{2}^{(2)}+\tilde{x}_{1}^{(2)}\star \tilde{y}_{2}^{(1)}-\tilde{y}_{1}^{(2)}\star \tilde{x}_{2}^{(1)}-\tilde{y}_{1}^{(1)}\star \tilde{x}_{2}^{(2)}\right ] ( \omega ) } { 2\left ( i\omega + 1+\mu \right ) } \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]      the spectrum of the fields are given , for instance for the squeezed quadrature @xmath131 , by @xmath150    the first order perturbation theory generates the usual linearized squeezed result as in quantum theory @xmath151 and , similarly , for the amplified fluctuation quadrature @xmath152 and for the pump quadratures , there is no first order squeezing @xmath153    the next contribution to the squeezing field quadrature is : @xmath154 } + \right .
\nonumber \\   & + & \left .
\frac{1+\mu + \gamma _ { r}}{(1+\mu ) \left [ \omega _ { 1}^{2}+(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } \right\ } \ , \ , , \end{aligned}\ ] ]    and @xmath155 ^{2}}\nonumber \\   & \times   & \left\ { -\frac{(1+\mu ) ( 1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})-\omega _ { 1}^{2}}{(1-\mu ) \left [ \omega _ { 1}^{2}+(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } \right .
\nonumber \\   &   & \left .
+ \frac{(1+\mu ) ( 1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})-\omega _ { 1}^{2}}{(1+\mu ) \left [ \omega _ { 1}^{2}+(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } + \frac{(1+\mu ) } { \gamma _ { r}(1-\mu ^{2})}\right\ } \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    and the internal ( symmetrically ordered ) squeezing spectrum is @xmath156 ^{2}}\left\ { \frac{2\mu ( 1+\mu ) } { \gamma _ { r}(1-\mu ^{2})}\right .
\nonumber \\   & + & \left .
\frac{(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})\omega ^{2}+\left [ ( 1+\mu ) ^{2}+2\mu ( 1+\mu ) \right ] ( 1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})}{(1+\mu ) \left [ \omega ^{2}+(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } \right .
\nonumber \\   & + & \left .
\frac{(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})\omega ^{2}+(1-\mu ^{2})(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})}{(1-\mu ) \left [ \omega ^{2}+(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } \right\ } \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    of greater interest is the external squeezing spectrum , which is obtained by including both internal fields and the correlated reflected vacuum noise terms :    @xmath157 ^{2}}\left\ { \frac{\mu ( 1+\omega ^{2}-\mu ^{2})}{\gamma _ { r}(1-\mu ^{2})}\right .
\nonumber \\   & + & \left . \frac{\left
[ ( 1-\mu ) ( 1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})-2\mu ^{2}\right ] \omega ^{2}+\left[1-\mu + \gamma _ { r}\right]\left [ 1+\mu + \mu ^{2}+\mu ^{3}\right ] } { ( 1-\mu ) \left [ \omega ^{2}+(1-\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } \right .
\nonumber \\   & + & \left . \frac{\left
[ ( 1+\mu ) ( 1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})+2\mu ^{2}\right ] \omega ^{2}+\left[1+\mu + \gamma _ { r}\right]\left [ 1 + 3\mu + \mu ^{2}-\mu ^{3}\right ] } { ( 1+\mu ) \left [ \omega ^{2}+(1+\mu + \gamma _ { r})^{2}\right ] } \right . \ , \ , .\end{aligned}\ ] ]    this semi - classical spectrum is quite different from positive - p calculation when @xmath158 but gives a compatible result near threshold , that is in the limit @xmath159 . a detailed comparison of the zero - frequency behaviour is shown in fig ( [ nl2pwspec ] ) .
this means that even when the pump is off , semiclassical theory gives a distorted vacuum spectrum due to the presence of the nonlinear crystal .
this happens because in this theory the vacuum fluctuations are taken as real , and then two vacuum modes can interact inside the crystal as real fields . in the limit of @xmath122 , the two spectra become compatible again , as the semiclassical theory decouples the second - harmonic mode from its vacuum input in this limit . in the case of threshold fluctuations , we can interpret the agreement as due to the large photon numbers involved - which means that the truncation approximation used for the semiclassical calculation is more reliable .
it is interesting to evaluate the squeezing or low - noise quantum correlations in the limit of zero frequency , that is in the resonance regime which is generally the frequency of maximum squeezing .
we obtain from the positive - p result :    @xmath160}\right ] \ , \ , .\ ] ]    near threshold , where @xmath161 , we can set @xmath162 , and expand in powers of @xmath163 . minimizing this result with respect to @xmath164 , we find that , to leading order in @xmath78 , the optimal driving field is the solution to the following equation:@xmath165    this is a quintic equation , but it has simple closed form solutions in two limits , depending on whether @xmath166 or @xmath167 . in the first case , the variance can be rewritten as :    @xmath168 \ , \ , .\ ] ]    minimizing this result with respect to @xmath164 , we find that the minimum level of internal fluctuations occurs in a narrow frequency range near @xmath169 , at a driving field just below threshold , with @xmath170 so that :    @xmath171    to leading order in @xmath78 , the corresponding spectral variance is :    @xmath172    this result of an @xmath5 scaling confirms an approximate calculation of plimak and walls @xcite , although the self - consistent method used by these authors makes it difficult to obtain the relevant driving field .
the physics of this is clearly that the onset of critical fluctuations starts to spoil the noise - reduction even before the critical point is reached at @xmath173 .
for example , with @xmath174 and @xmath175 , we find that @xmath176 , or about @xmath177 below shot noise , as predicted from the analytic theory .
this can also be seen from the way that the third order term includes contributions from the critical fluctuations in @xmath178 .
a direct calculation from the full spectrum shows that this is a true minimum for all frequencies , even including @xmath179 .
however , the situation clearly changes as @xmath122 , in which case much greater levels of spectral noise - reduction are possible .
this is plotted in fig ( [ opt2dpspec ] ) :    analytically , this limit gives the following result , provided that @xmath180 :    @xmath181 \ , \ , .\ ] ]    minimizing this result with respect to @xmath164 , we find that the minimum level of internal fluctuations occurs at a driving field very close to threshold , with :    @xmath182    the corresponding variance is therefore :    @xmath183    this result can be much smaller than predicted by the calculation of plimak and walls @xcite , since the damping ratio can be reduced ( at least in principle ) to an arbitrarily low level - although still bounded below by @xmath90 , in order for perturbation theory to be applicable , so that we do not expect to obtain @xmath184 . of course , there are experimental limitations on this , due to absorption losses in the nonlinear medium at short wavelengths .
thus , for example , with the same value of @xmath185 as previously , but with @xmath186 , we find that the minimum spectral noise is predicted to occur at a driving field of @xmath187 , with a squeezing variance of @xmath188 , or about @xmath189 below shot noise - about @xmath190 lower than before .
this operating regime also has the property that the optimum frequency of noise reduction moves away from zero frequency as the driving field is increased above the optimum value , towards threshold . at
slightly higher driving fields than the optimum point , a bifurcation to a spectrum with two minima occurs , although with similar levels of noise reduction , as shown in fig ( [ tot2dp01spec ] ) . in this regime the results of the perturbation theory need to be checked by a full simulation of the stochastic equations .
we have carried this out ( see next section ) , and find that the full simulations do agree very well with the analytic predictions , even with this small damping ratio .
the value of the nonlinear correction to the spectrum of the squeezed quadrature @xmath191 can be worked out from a full numerical simulation@xcite of the relevant nonlinear stochastic equations .
the optimal squeezing in the zero frequency part of the squeezing spectrum is predicted to scale as @xmath5 with roughly equal values of decay rates . for the simulations , we chose values of @xmath192 , @xmath193 .
the simulations used a total dimensionless time - interval of @xmath194 . to ensure equilibrium ,
only the last @xmath195 time units were utilized in the fourier transforms .
time steps of @xmath196 and @xmath197 were compared to ensure convergence .
the algorithmic technique is described elsewhere @xcite , and uses a semi - implicit central partial difference technique . to obtain the small nonlinear corrections near the optimum squeezing , we simulated the difference between the linear and nonlinear forms of the stochastic equation , in order to minimize sampling errors .
it was also useful to initialize the @xmath198 quadratures with a gaussian ensemble close to the known steady - state variance , in order to reduce the time taken to achieve equilibrium .
typically , the relative error in the correlations due to finite step - size was around @xmath199 with these step - sizes .    for these parameters the optimal driving field
is predicted to occur at @xmath175 , or approximately @xmath200 of the critical intensity .
we used @xmath201 trajectories to improve the relative error due to sampling with a finite trajectory population , giving relative sampling errors of less than @xmath202    the calculated squeezing moment from the sde simulations was : @xmath203 .
this is in excellent agreement with the below - threshold expansion , which gives @xmath204 , as this is just outside the critical region .
we find that the spectral predictions are also well verified by the simulations .
these resulted in a value for the nonlinear correction to the zero - frequency spectrum , of @xmath205 . by comparison ,
the analytic theory , worked to fourth order in @xmath78 , gives the prediction that @xmath206 .
the residual difference of about @xmath207 - which is significant compared to sampling error - can be attributed to the fact that there are higher order corrections that are not included in the analytic theory , and these are more significant in the zero - frequency spectrum than they are in the moment calculation .
( [ otsim9 ] ) shows the detailed results of the simulation .    in the analytic theory
, we found that a smaller decay rate for the second - harmonic is predicted to yield a better squeezing optimum , as a function of driving field . in fig .
( [ optsim01 ] ) we verify this to be the case , by carrying out a full numerical simulation for @xmath208 , @xmath209 , with @xmath210 , time steps of @xmath211 and @xmath196 for error - checking , and @xmath212 trajectories .
the results show that the analytic predictions and numerical simulations are almost indistinguishable in this regime .
the sampling error was relatively larger , possibly due to the fact that the absolute noise levels are lower here .
the agreement indicates that the perturbation theory is an excellent approximation to the full nonlinear equations with these parameters .
we have calculated the nonlinear quantum fluctuations in a parametric oscillator below the classical threshold , using a nonlinear stochastic positive - p theory , with both asymptotic approximations and a numerical technique .
there is excellent agreement between numerical and analytic calculations .
corresponding results for the keldysh diagram method require a summation over infinite sets of diagrams , in order to fully include the reservoirs .
the advantage of the present method is due to the fact that the coherent state basis is a more natural basis set for an open system , since it allows the damping reservoirs to be treated non - perturbatively .
optimal squeezing in the output spectra corresponding to these moments were estimated .
we found that the best squeezing in the zero frequency part of the squeezing spectrum scales like @xmath5 just below threshold , _ provided the two fields have similar damping rates . _ in other words , at the true critical threshold - where the linear squeezing is optimized - the nonlinear corrections are too large to give the lowest overall zero - frequency squeezing . instead
, one should operate below the critical point to optimize the spectral squeezing . using an entirely different method ,
a calculation by plimak and walls @xcite also predicted that the optimum zero frequency squeezing spectrum scales like @xmath5 , or equivalently , as @xmath213 for a given input flux @xmath214 .
our general scaling results agree with theirs , except with a different spectrum .
we attribute the difference to the systematic + p stochastic diagram procedure used here to calculate the spectrum , rather than the feynman diagram method - which involves additional approximations .
we also found a new regime in which the lower limit to the spectral noise - reduction depends on the decay rate of the second - harmonic field , which can be reduced to an arbitrarily low level .
this has a reasonable physical interpretation , since the second - harmonic losses are essentially parasitic losses , which do not contribute to the desired squeezing output .
the ultimate limit to squeezing in this regime is set by even higher order terms in perturbation theory .
we conjecture that optimization of both the driving field and the relative decay rate may result in a final squeezing variance scaling as @xmath215 .
a calculation with the truncated wigner method , or semiclassical technique , was also carried out .
well below threshold , we found that while the linear terms agreed with full quantum calculation , nonlinear corrections and higher order correlations tended to disagree , especially for high second - harmonic losses .
however , near the critical point , the situation changed . here , even though the dominant terms are nonlinear , we found excellent agreement between the two methods .
l. a. wu , h. j. kimble , j. l. hall , h. wu , phys .
57 * , 2520 ( 1986 ) .
a. heidmann , r. j. horowicz , s. reynaud , e. giacobino , c. fabre , g. camy , phys .
lett . * 59 * , 2555 ( 1987 ) . z. y. ou , s. f. pereira , h. j. kimble , phys .
lett . * 68 * , 3663 ( 1992 ) .
p. d. drummond , k.  dechoum and s.  chaturvedi  , submitted to phys .
a. p. d. drummond , k. j. mcneil and d. f. walls , optica acta * 27 * , 321 - 335 ( 1980 ) ; p. d. drummond , k. j. mcneil and d. f. walls : optica acta 28 , 211 - 225 ( 1981 ) .
b. yurke , phys .
a * 32 * , 300 ( 1985 ) . c. w. gardiner and m. j. collett , phys .
a * 31 * , 3761 ( 1985 ) ; m. j. collett and d. f. walls : phys .
a * 32 * , 2887 ( 1985 ) .
p. kinsler and p. d. drummond , phys .
rev a * 43 * , 6194 ( 1991 ) .
p. d. drummond and p. kinsler , quantum and semiclass .
opt * 7 * , 727 ( 1995 ) ; p. kinsler and p.d .
drummond , phys .
a * 52 * , 783 ( 1995 ) .
j. schwinger , j. math . phys . * 2 * , 407 ( 1961 ) .
l. v. keldysh , sov .
jetp * 20 * , 1018 ( 1965 ) . h. w. wyld jr , ann
* 14 * , 143 ( 1961 ) . c. j. mertens , t. a. b. kennedy and s. swain , phys .
lett . * 71 * , 2014 ( 1993 ) ; c. j. mertens , t. a. b. kennedy and s. swain , phys . rev .
a * 48 * , 2374 ( 1993 ) ; c. j. mertens , j. m. hasty , h. h. roark iii , d. nowakowski and t. a. b. kennedy , phys . rev . a * 52 * , 742 ( 1995 ) ; c. j. mertens and t. a. b. kennedy : phys .
a * 53 * , 3497 ( 1996 ) .
l. i. plimak and d.f .
walls , phys .
a * 50 * , 2627 ( 1994 ) .
o. veits and m. fleischhauer , phys .
a * 52 * , r4344 ( 1995 ) ; phys .
rev a * 55 * , 3059 ( 1997 ) .
s. chaturvedi , p. d. drummond and d. f. walls , j. phys .
a * 10 * , l187-l192 ( 1977 ) ; p. d. drummond and c. w. gardiner , j. phys .
a * 13 * , 2353 ( 1980 ) .
h. j. carmichael , _ statistical methods in quantum optics 1 _ , ( springer , berlin , 1999 )
. l. arnold , _ stochastic differential equations : theory and applications _ , ( john wiley and sons , new york , 1974 ) ; c. w. gardiner , _ handbook of stochastic methods _ ( springer , berlin , 1983 ) .
a. gilchrist , c. w. gardiner and p. d. drummond , phys .
a**55 * * , 3014 - 3032 ( 1997 )
. s. chaturvedi and p. d. drummond : eur .
j. b**8 * * , 251 ( 1999 ) . s. chaturvedi and p. d. drummond : physical review a**55 * * , 912 ( 1997 ) ; d. t. pope , p. d. drummond , w. j. munro , phys . rev .
a * 62 * , 042108 ( 2000 ) .
d. drummond : phys . rev . a**33 * * , 4462 ( 1986 ) .
h. j. carmichael , j. s. satchell , s. sarkar : phys .
rev . * a34 * , 3166 ( 1986 ) .
p. d. drummond , i. k. mortimer : j. comput .
* 93 * , 144 ( 1991 ) .


this paper is devoted to the survival analysis of a system subject to competing failure modes within an external stressing environment .
the external environment is assumed to stress the system at random and isolated times according to a random shock model .
such a model can represent external demands e.g. , which put some stress on the system at their arrivals .
shock models have been the subject of an extensive literature .
following @xcite , shock models may be classified into different categories , according to whether arrival times and shock magnitudes are correlated @xcite , or independent @xcite , and according to the assumption put on the shocks arrival process : homogeneous or non - homogeneous poisson process @xcite , renewal process @xcite or non - stationary pure birth process @xcite .
according to the influence of shocks on the system , shock models may be further classified into three types : extreme shock models ( a shock can cause the system immediate failure , see @xcite ) , cumulative shock models ( a shock increases some intrinsic characteristic of the system such as its deterioration , failure rate , age , number of already endured shocks , ... , see @xcite ) and mixed shock models ( a shock can either cause the system immediate failure or increase some intrinsic characteristic , see @xcite ) .
more references can be found in @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite ; @xcite .    in this paper , a shock model with mixed effects
is considered , where the occurrence of shocks is classically modelled through a non - homogeneous poisson process and where each shock may result in the system immediate failure through a bernoulli trial , independent of the system intrinsic behaviour .
apart from shocks , the system suffers from competing soft and sudden failures , where soft failures refer to the reaching of some given threshold for the degradation level , and sudden failures to accidental failures , characterized by a failure rate .
a possible representation corresponds to a two - component series system , where the first component is subject to soft failures and the second one to sudden failure .
the system may hence fail through three different competing modes : traumatic failure due to a fatal shock ; soft failure ; sudden failure .
each non fatal shock induces some increase of both deterioration level and failure , with possible dependence in - between .    in the oldest literature , most models considered one single possible type of failures for the system : e.g. soft failures in @xcite or traumatic failures due to shocks in @xcite , both in the multivariate setting .
more recently , different models have been developed , which consider two different types of failures .
for instance , competition between soft and sudden failures is studied in @xcite .
several application cases are proposed in the paper ( see also references therein ) .
an industrial example is also provided in @xcite , which studies the reliability of an aircraft engine .
note that @xcite assumes soft and sudden failures to be independent whereas the stressing environment of the present paper makes them dependent .
competition between soft failures and occurrence of a traumatic event are considered in degradation - threshold - shock models ( dts - models , denomination of @xcite ) which have been proposed by @xcite and further studied by @xcite .
a case study is provided in @xcite for the analysis of fatigue crack growth , where the effects of shocks on the degradation are put into evidence .
note that , contrary to the present paper , dts - models consider some possible influence of the deterioration level of the system on the shocks arrival rate .
however , the first shock of a dts - model is always fatal to the system ( leading to a single shock possibly endured by the system ) , whereas successive non fatal shocks are here envisioned .
we could not find any paper which takes into account three competing failure modes , as in the present paper .
however , based on the case studies from the previous literature , one can think that our model can reflect lots of systems subject to competing soft and hard failures , within a stressing environment .
for instance , one can think of an aerial cabin hooked to a cable : the supporting cable is deteriorating due to corrosion and fatigue ; the linking pulley is subject to sudden failures ( and maybe also to deterioration ) ; both cable and pulley endure shocks at each cabin travel , which increase jointly their respective deterioration level and failure rate .
the present paper consider several kinds of dependence between the three competing failure modes : at each non fatal shock , the increase of deterioration and failure rate is simultaneous .
this induces a first type of dependence between soft and sudden failures .
each shock may induce a failure , either because the shock is fatal , or because the deterioration is suddenly increased beyond the threshold level .
this induces a second type of dependence between soft and traumatic failures , which may be simultaneous .
also , some possible dependence is envisioned between the increments of failure rate and of deterioration at each non fatal shock .
this induces a third type of dependence between soft and sudden failures . finally , following @xcite , the probability for a shock to be fatal depends on the shock arrival time , which induces a last type of dependence . up to our knowledge , all these kinds of dependence have not been yet considered altogether and , as will be seen all along the text , this model enlarges several ones from the previous literature .
the paper is organized as follows : the model is specified in section [ model ] .
the system reliability is computed through different methods in section 3 .
sufficient conditions are provided in section 4 * *  * * for the system lifetime to be new better than used .
the influence of various parameters of the shock environment on the lifetime is studied in section 5 .
numerical experiments are proposed in section [ section num ] and concluding remarks end the paper in section [ concl ] .
to make the model clear , a two - component series system is considered , where the first component is subject to sudden failure and the second one to soft failure .
this two - unit system is just a representation for the competing soft and sudden failure modes , with no restriction . in the ideal condition ( for example in a laboratory environment ) , the lifetime of the first component is characterized by its intrinsic hazard rate @xmath0 , @xmath1 while the second one is subject to some accumulative deterioration modeled by an increasing stochastic process @xmath2 ( e.g. a gamma process ) .
the second component fails once its deterioration level exceeds a failure threshold @xmath3 .
the lifetimes of the two components are made dependent by their common stressing environment .
this environment is modelled by a random shock process , where the shocks arrive according to a non - homogeneous poisson process @xmath4 with intensity @xmath5 ( or cumulated intensity @xmath6 ) . to avoid useless technical details , we assume that @xmath7 for all @xmath8 .
more generally , one might consider that @xmath7 only for @xmath9 greater than some @xmath10 , which would mean that the shocks would arrive only after time @xmath11 .
the points of the poisson process are denoted by @xmath12 , ... , @xmath13 , ... with @xmath14 almost surely . a shock at time @xmath9 may cause the system immediate failure ( fatal shock ) with probability @xmath15 $ ] , which depends on the age @xmath9 of the system at the shock arrival .
a shock at time @xmath9 is non fatal with probability @xmath16 . a non fatal shock at time @xmath17 increases the deterioration of both components in a different way :    * for the first component , its hazard rate is increased of a non negative random amount @xmath18 , * for the second one
, its accumulated deterioration is increased of a non negative random amount @xmath19 .
the random vectors @xmath20 , @xmath21 , @xmath22 , ... are assumed to be independent and identically distributed ( i.i.d . ) with common distribution @xmath23 , and independent of the shocks arrival times @xmath24 ( and hence independent of the poisson process @xmath4 ) . at each shock ,
the increments @xmath18 and @xmath19 are possibly dependent .
when subscript @xmath25 is unnecessary , we drop it and set @xmath26 to be a generic copy of @xmath20 . for @xmath27 , the distribution of @xmath28
is denoted by @xmath29 .
we set @xmath30 to be the bivariate compound poisson process defined by @xmath31 with@xmath32where @xmath33 .    the processes @xmath34 and @xmath2 are assumed to be independent .
provided that the system is functioning up to time @xmath9 , the random variables @xmath35 and @xmath36 stand for the cumulated increments on @xmath37   $ ] of the failure rate of the first component and of the deterioration of the second component due to the external environment , respectively . setting @xmath38 to be the @xmath39field generated by @xmath40 and provided that the system is still up at time @xmath9 , the conditional hazard rate of the first component given @xmath41 is@xmath42 and the conditional deterioration of the second component given @xmath41 is@xmath43    to make it clearer , we introduce @xmath44 , @xmath45 to be the lifetime of the @xmath46 component under the external environment , without taking into account the possibility of fatal shocks for the system . to simplify the writing , we denote by @xmath47 the conditional expectation @xmath48 for any measurable set @xmath49 , where @xmath50 stands for the indicator function ( @xmath51 if @xmath52 , 0 elsewhere ) .
we then have:@xmath53 where @xmath54 is the cumulated intrinsic failure rate of the first component and where @xmath55 stands for the cumulative distribution function ( c.d.f . ) of @xmath56 .
( recall that @xmath57 is independent of @xmath41 ) .
we now let @xmath58 to be the time to the first fatal shock for the system with @xmath59 and we assume that the bernoulli trials ( fatal shocks or not ) which happen at each shock arrival are independent one with each other , and that they depend on @xmath41 only through the @xmath60 s , that is : @xmath61   } \left (   t_{i}\right ) = \prod_{i=1}^{n_{t}}q\left (   t_{i}\right ) \label{tau3}\ ] ] where @xmath62 .
the system failure is induced either by a fatal shock or by a component failure ( soft or sudden failure ) , whatever arrives first .
the lifetime of the system hence is @xmath63    we finally make the additional assumption that @xmath64 , @xmath65 and @xmath58 are conditionally independent given @xmath66@xmath67    to sum up , the whole model is specified by :    * @xmath68 the ( generic ) random increments in failure rate ( first component , @xmath69 ) and deterioration ( second component , @xmath70 ) , * @xmath71 the intensity of the non - homogeneous poisson process , * @xmath72 the intrinsic failure rate of the first component ( sudden failure ) , * @xmath73 the intrinsic deterioration of the second component ( soft failure ) , * @xmath74 the probability for a shock at time @xmath9 to be fatal at the system level ,    ( plus some independence assumptions ) .    by taking special cases for these five ingredients
, we can see that our model extents some well - known models from the literature .    for instance
, taking @xmath75 ( no fatal shocks ) , @xmath76 constant , @xmath77 and @xmath78 all @xmath1 ( no second component ) , one gets the `` stochastic failure model in random environment '' from @xcite .
taking @xmath77 and @xmath78 all @xmath1 ( one single component ) , one gets the `` stochastic survival model for a system under randomly variable environment '' from @xcite .
taking @xmath78 all @xmath1 , @xmath79 , the model resumes to a classical extreme shock model ( one single component ) , where system failures are only due to shocks arriving according to a non - homogeneous poisson process , with probability @xmath80 for a shock to be fatal ( and @xmath81 to be harmless ) .
this model is interpreted as the brown - proschan model by @xcite ; see also @xcite where various properties of the model are explored .
taking @xmath75 ( no fatal shocks ) , @xmath82 ( one single component ) , @xmath83 ( homogeneous poisson process ) , @xmath78 all @xmath1 ( no intrinsic deterioration for the second - and single - component ) , one gets the `` cumulative damage threshold model '' from ( * ? ? ?
* section 4 , case of i.i.d .
damage increments ) .
taking @xmath84 ( constant ) , @xmath85 ( one single component ) , @xmath78 all @xmath1 , one gets the `` cumulative damage model with two kinds of shocks '' from ( * ? ? ?
* case of i.i.d .
damage increments ) .
taking @xmath86 , @xmath70 exponentially distributed , @xmath87 , all @xmath1 , one gets the model from subsection * 3.b * in @xcite .
all these models are summed up in table [ table1 ] .
note that we do not pretend at any exhaustibility and our model will include lots of other previous models which are not provided here .
[ c]ccbrown - proschan model from @xcite & @xmath88 , + & @xmath78 , @xmath89 + deterministic boundary in @xcite & @xmath90 , @xmath87 + & @xmath70 exponentially distributed + @xcite & @xmath91 , @xmath92 is a constant , + & @xmath77 , @xmath78 , @xmath89 + @xcite & @xmath77 , @xmath78 , @xmath93 + cumulative damage threshold models & @xmath91 , @xmath77 , @xmath94 is a constant + in section 4 of @xcite & @xmath95 , @xmath78 , @xmath96 + @xcite & @xmath97 is a constant , @xmath98 , + & @xmath78 , @xmath89 +
the objective of this section is to calculate the reliability @xmath99 of the system at time @xmath9 , with@xmath100 where we recall that the system lifetime @xmath101 is defined by @xmath102 .
a first way to compute @xmath99 is to use classical monte - carlo simulations and to simulate a large number of independent histories for the system up to time @xmath9 ( * method 1 * ) .
this method will serve as a comparison tool in the numerical experimentations in section [ section num ] .
this method requires the simulation of a random variable with conditional hazard rate @xmath103 ( see algorithm [ algo ] in section [ section num ] for details ) and may imply long computational times for the system reliability .
we provide below a few alternate methods which may be quicker and also easier to implement .
[ method 2][prop1]the reliability is given by @xmath104 where @xmath105 is provided by @xmath106 and where @xmath107    due to the conditional independence of @xmath64 , @xmath65 and @xmath58 given @xmath41 , we have : @xmath108 using @xmath109 , we get:@xmath110 which provides @xmath111 and next @xmath112 , due to @xmath113 and @xmath114    based on the previous result , the only point to get the reliability @xmath115 is to compute @xmath116 .
the remaining of the section is hence devoted to the computation of @xmath116 . starting from @xmath111 ( or @xmath117 ) , a possibility is to compute @xmath116  through monte - carlo simulations of @xmath118 and @xmath30 , which is simpler and quicker than simulating trajectories of the system according to the initial model .
this method is called * method 2 * in section [ section num ] .    following @xcite and @xcite ,
one may also use a series expansion of @xmath116 , as provided by the following proposition .    [
method 3 , general case][prop2 ] @xmath119 where@xmath120 and @xmath121 are i.i.d .
random variables with probability density function ( p.d.f . ) @xmath122}(x)$ ] and independent of @xmath123 .
conditioning on the poisson process
@xmath124 , we have:@xmath125 with@xmath126 now , given that @xmath127 , the conditional joint distribution of @xmath128 is the same as the joint distribution of the order statistics @xmath129 of @xmath130 i.i.d .
random variables @xmath131 with p.d.f .
@xmath132}(x)$ ] ( see @xcite e.g. )
. using the fact that @xmath133 is independent of @xmath124 , we get:@xmath134 noting that the expression within the expectation is invariant through permutation of the @xmath135 s , we derive that:@xmath136 which provides the result .
based on the previous result , one can see that our model is equivalent to a classical shock model , where the shocks arrive according to a non - homogeneous poisson process with intensity @xmath137 and with conditional probability of survival at time @xmath9 equal to @xmath138 , given that there has been @xmath130 shocks up to time @xmath9 .
[ method 3 , independent case][cor1]in the special case where @xmath69 and @xmath139 are independent , we get:@xmath140 with @xmath141 and @xmath142 where @xmath143 stands for the convolution operator , @xmath144 , all @xmath145 , and @xmath146 stands for the laplace transform of the distribution @xmath147 of @xmath148 , with@xmath149    starting from @xmath150 and using the independence of all @xmath151 s , @xmath152 s and @xmath135 s , and the identical distributions of all @xmath151 s and of all @xmath135 s , we get:@xmath153 with@xmath154 substituting this expression into eq .
@xmath155 and next into eq .
@xmath150 provides the result .
[ ex1]let @xmath139 be an exponentially distributed with mean @xmath156 and @xmath148 an independent random variable . in that case
, @xmath157 is gamma distributed with parameter @xmath158 .
this provides@xmath159 using @xmath160 and eq .
@xmath161 , we get:@xmath162 taking @xmath87 for all @xmath1 , @xmath163 and @xmath164 as a special case , we get@xmath165 and , for @xmath166@xmath167 using successive integrations by parts for the last integral . this last expression is the result of theorem 2 in @xcite , which hence appears as a special case of the previous results .    from proposition [ prop2 ] and corollary [ cor1 ]
, one may derive the following approximation for @xmath168 .
[ method 3 , approximation][cor method3]for @xmath169 , let @xmath170 be defined by @xmath171 in the general case , and by @xmath172 in case @xmath148 and @xmath139 are independent , where @xmath138 and @xmath173 are provided by @xmath150 and @xmath174 , respectively .
then , for all @xmath1 , the sequence @xmath175 increases to the limit @xmath116 when @xmath176 and for all @xmath169 , we have @xmath177 where@xmath178 @xmath179 is defined by @xmath180 and @xmath181 is poisson distributed with mean @xmath179 .
we just look at the general case . from proposition
, we have @xmath182 due to @xmath183 , we get:@xmath184 based on the proof of corollary [ cor1 ] .
this provides:@xmath185 and the result .
the previous proposition provides numerical bounds for @xmath116 , which may be adjusted as tight as necessary , taking @xmath186 large enough .
also , the required number of terms in the truncated series is given , to get a specified precision .
this method is quite adapted as soon as it is possible to compute the @xmath138 s ( or the @xmath187 s ) .
this mostly requires the distribution of @xmath188 to be known in full form , which is the case e.g. when the @xmath189 s are constant or gamma distributed .
an example is provided in example [ ex1 ] , in the special case of an exponential distribution . in the most general case
, the computation of the @xmath138 s ( or of the @xmath173 s ) may be as difficult as the initial problem of computing @xmath168 , so that the previous method is not always adapted .
we finally present another method based on laplace transform , which does not suffer from the same restriction .    [
method 4][prop3]we have:@xmath190 or equivalently @xmath191 where @xmath192 is provided by its laplace transform @xmath193 with @xmath194 the bivariate laplace transform of the distribution @xmath195 of @xmath68@xmath196 and @xmath197 , all @xmath198.in the special case where @xmath148 and @xmath139 are independent , @xmath199 may be simplified into:@xmath200 where @xmath179 is provided by @xmath180 and where @xmath201 is the univariate laplace transform of @xmath202 .    remembering that @xmath203 , we get from @xmath117 that:@xmath204   ~dl\nonumber\\ &   = \mathbb{e}\left [   \left (   \int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-sl}f_{g_{t}}\left ( l - a_{t}^{(2)}\right )   ~dl\right )   e^{-\sum_{i=1}^{n_{t}}v_{i}^{(1)}(t - t_{i})}\prod_{i=1}^{n_{t}}q(t_{i})\right ] \label{lap fi}\ ] ] with@xmath205 because @xmath57 is non negative . setting @xmath206
, we obtain @xmath207 substituting this expression into @xmath208 provides:@xmath209 with@xmath210 \\ &   = \mathbb{e}\left [   e^{-\sum_{i=1}^{n_{t}}\left (   v_{i}^{(1)}(t - t_{i})+sv_{i}^{(2)}-\ln q(t_{i})\right )   } \right ]   .\end{aligned}\ ] ] because @xmath211 is equivalent to @xmath212 , we get:@xmath213 with@xmath214 noting that the sequence @xmath215 are the points of a poisson random measure @xmath216 with intensity @xmath217 , the function @xmath218 may be interpreted as a laplace functional with respect of @xmath219 @xmath220    the formula for laplace functionals of poisson random measures ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 2.9 ) next provides:@xmath221 with@xmath222 substituting @xmath223 by its expression @xmath224 , we get:@xmath225   ( t).\end{aligned}\ ] ] substituting this expression into @xmath226 and next into @xmath227 provides @xmath228 with @xmath199 given by @xmath229 .
equation @xmath230 is a direct consequence .    finally , in case @xmath148 and
@xmath231 are independent , we have:@xmath232 and@xmath233 which ends this proof .    based on the previous result
, one can compute @xmath116 by inverting its laplace transform with respect of @xmath3 .
looking at equation @xmath234 , the key point is the inversion of the laplace transform @xmath199 .
we next provide an example where the inversion is possible in full form . in the most general case , this can be done numerically using some laplace inversion software .
let @xmath95 , @xmath78 ( all @xmath1 ) , @xmath94 and @xmath97 constant , @xmath235 identically exponentially distributed with mean @xmath156 ( so that @xmath148 and @xmath70 are completely dependent ) .
then:@xmath236 where @xmath237 stands for the dirac mass at @xmath238 .
we easily get:@xmath239 and@xmath240 for @xmath241 , we have @xmath242 where @xmath243 inverting the laplace
transform @xmath199 , we obtain : @xmath244 as @xmath245 , we get the following full form for the reliability:@xmath246 where @xmath247 is the cumulative distribution function of a gamma distributed random variable with parameter @xmath248 .    in the special case where @xmath148 and @xmath139 are independent
, the laplace inversion of @xmath199 is reduced to inverting @xmath249 , or equivalently to inverting @xmath250 , where @xmath251 is a constant .
this is hence easier than in the most general case of correlated @xmath69 and @xmath139 .    to sum up the section
, we have at our disposal four different methods for computing the reliability :    * method 1 * ( direct mc simulations ) : :    the main drawbacks of this method are that it suffers from long    computation times and that its implementation is less direct than for    the other methods .
* method 2 * ( computing @xmath168 through formula @xmath117 and mc simulations ) : :    this method is much quicker and much easier to implement than method    1 . besides , it is always possible to use it . however , method 3 ( when    possible ) and method 4 are quicker . *
method 3 * ( truncated series expansion + control of the truncation error through corollary [ cor method3 ] ) : :    this method provides very good results as soon as the    @xmath138 s ( or the    @xmath173 s ) are available in full form . *
method 4 * ( laplace transform inversion ) : :    this method is the best when it is possible to inverse the laplace    transform @xmath252 in full form .
numerical    laplace inversion also provides quite good results .
let us recall that a random variable @xmath253 ( or @xmath254 ) is new better than used ( nbu ) if @xmath255 all @xmath256 .
we here provide sufficient conditions under which @xmath101 is nbu .
[ propnbu]assume that the intrinsic lifetimes of both components are nbu , which means that : @xmath257 where the second condition is true as soon as @xmath2 is a univariate non negative lvy process .
then , @xmath101 is nbu if one among the two following conditions is satisfied :    1 .
@xmath97 is non increasing and @xmath94 is constant , 2 .
@xmath97 is constant and @xmath258 is super - additive ( @xmath259 , all @xmath260 ) .
let us first note that , in case @xmath2 is a univariate non negative lvy process , we have:@xmath261 due to the independent and homogenous increments of @xmath2 for the third line .
assumption @xmath262 is hence true .
starting again from @xmath263 and based on the nbu assumption @xmath264 , it is sufficient to show that @xmath116 is nbu . now : @xmath265    due to the second nbu assumption @xmath262 .    under each of the two provided conditions ,
@xmath97 is non increasing so that @xmath266 , all @xmath267 . using @xmath268 and splitting the exponential and the product into two parts , one gets:@xmath269   .\label{edfi}\ ] ] setting @xmath270 then @xmath271 are points of the poisson process @xmath272 with admits @xmath273 for intensity .
equation @xmath274 now writes:@xmath275   , \end{aligned}\ ] ] or equivalently:@xmath276   .\end{aligned}\ ] ] as @xmath277 is independent on @xmath278 and as the @xmath279 s are i.i.d . and independent on @xmath278 , one gets:@xmath280 with@xmath281 \\ b_{n } &   = \mathbb{e}\left [   f_{g_{s}}\left (   l-\sum_{j=1}^{n_{s}^{\left ( t\right )   } } v_{j+n}^{(2)}\right )
e^{-\sum_{j=1}^{n_{s}^{\left (   t\right )   } } v_{j+n}^{(1)}(s - t_{j}^{\left (   t\right )   } ) } \prod_{j=1}^{n_{s}^{\left ( t\right )   } } q(t_{j}^{\left (   t\right )   } ) \right ]   \text{.}\ ] ] noting that @xmath282 is independent on @xmath130 ( @xmath283 , all @xmath284 ) and that @xmath285 , we finally have@xmath286 where @xmath287   .\ ] ] the point now is to prove that @xmath288 under the two different assumptions .    1 .
if @xmath94 is a constant , then @xmath289 is identically distributed as @xmath290 .
we hence have@xmath291 and
the result is clear .
2 .   if @xmath97 is constant , then:@xmath292   , \ ] ] where @xmath293 for @xmath294 .
moreover , the respective cumulated intensities of @xmath290 and @xmath295 are @xmath296 and @xmath297 , with@xmath298 due to the super - additivity of @xmath296 .
we derive from ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 6.b.40 , example 6.b.41 ) that @xmath299 for all @xmath300 , where @xmath301 stand for the standard stochastic order .
as @xmath302 is non decreasing with respect to each @xmath303 , we get that:@xmath304   \geq\mathbb{e}\left [   f_{n}\left (   \left (   t_{i}^{(t)}\right ) _ { i=1}^{n}\right )   \right]\ ] ] for each @xmath305 . setting @xmath306
, we derive by lebesgue s dominated convergence theorem that@xmath307   = \phi_{s}\left (   l\right )   \geq \lim\limits_{n\rightarrow+\infty}\mathbb{e}\left [   f_{n}\left (   \left ( t_{i}^{(t)}\right )   _ { i=1}^{n}\right )   \right ]   = \phi_{s}^{\left (   t\right ) } \left (   l\right )   , \ ] ] which achieves the proof .
the conditions of the previous theorem means that    1 .   the probability for a shock to be non fatal decreases with time ( and @xmath94 is constant ) , 2 .
the cumulated rate of shocks arrivals is larger at time @xmath9 than at time @xmath308 ( and @xmath97 is constant ) .
such conditions hence mean that the environment is more and more stressing , or that it is more stressing after a while than at the beginning .
such conditions are quite natural .
we here study the influence on the lifetime @xmath101 of different parameters of the stressing environment : we study the influence of probability @xmath309 , of the dependence between @xmath148 and @xmath139 and of the cumulated intensity function @xmath258 .
we hence look at the influence on the lifetime @xmath101 of all characteristics of the stressing environment which make the components dependent .
the influence of @xmath310 is straightforward .
we mention it for sake of completeness .
let us consider two different systems with identical parameters except from @xmath310 ( first system ) and @xmath311 ( second system ) and such that @xmath312 for all @xmath313 . then , adding a tilde ( @xmath314 ) to any quantity referring to the second system , we directly get from @xmath111 that @xmath315 or equivalently that @xmath101 is smaller than @xmath316 in the sense of the standard stochastic order @xmath317@xmath318 as expected , the lifetime @xmath101 is hence increasing with the probability @xmath310 for a shock to be non fatal .
we here study the influence of the dependence between the two marginal increments @xmath148 and @xmath139 on the lifetime @xmath101 . to measure the dependence level between @xmath148 and @xmath139 , we use the lower ( or upper ) orthant order , where we recall that @xmath319 is said to be smaller than @xmath320 in the lower orthant order ( @xmath321 ) if @xmath322 or equivalently if @xmath323    [ prop_dependence]let us consider two different systems , with identical parameters except from @xmath324 ( first system ) and @xmath325 ( second system ) . as previously , a tilde ( @xmath314 ) is added to any quantity referring to the second system .
assume that @xmath326 . then @xmath101 is smaller than @xmath316 in the sense of the standard stochastic order @xmath327 .
the point is to show that @xmath328 .
starting from @xmath117 and conditioning on @xmath329 , we have @xmath330 where @xmath331 for all @xmath332 , all @xmath333 , with @xmath334 based on the independence between @xmath324 and @xmath124 , it is sufficient to show that @xmath335 all @xmath332 , all @xmath333 to get @xmath328 .
as @xmath336 is non decreasing in @xmath337 and @xmath338 , we first know from ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 6.g.3 . ) that @xmath339 all @xmath340 .
as @xmath341 and @xmath342 are two sequences of independent random vectors , we derive from the same theorem that @xmath343 as both functions @xmath344 and @xmath345 are non decreasing , we derive ( same theorem ) that @xmath335 which achieves this proof .
the previous result shows that the more dependent @xmath148 and @xmath139 are , the larger the system lifetime is .
we finally study how the lifetime of the system depends on the frequency of shocks .
[ influence_lambda]let us consider two different systems , with identical parameters except from @xmath258 ( first system ) and @xmath346 ( second system ) .
as previously , a tilde ( @xmath314 ) is added to any quantity referring to the second system .
assume that @xmath347 , and that @xmath97 is non decreasing . then @xmath101 is smaller than @xmath316 in the sense of the standard stochastic order @xmath327 .
using a similar method as for the proof of theorem [ propnbu ] , we can write @xmath116 as @xmath348 where @xmath349 is non decreasing with respect to each @xmath303 , all @xmath340 . as @xmath347 , we derive in the same way that @xmath350 for all @xmath300 , which allows to conclude .
this result is very natural .
the more frequent the shocks occur , the shorter the lifetime is .
as already mentioned in subsection [ rel ] , a first possibility for computing the system reliability @xmath99 is to use classical monte - carlo ( mc ) simulations ( method 1 ) and simulate a large number of independent histories for the system up to time @xmath9 .
we here provide the algorithm that we have used , considering the case where @xmath351 , all @xmath1 and where @xmath148 is almost surely positive ( @xmath352 ) ( not essential assumptions ) .
[ algo]repeat @xmath216 times with @xmath216 large enough :    1 .
simulate @xmath57 with given distribution .
2 .   simulate @xmath353 according to the poisson distribution with parameter @xmath6 .
3 .   simulate @xmath353 i.i.d .
random variables @xmath354 with p.d.f .
@xmath122}(x)$ ] .
the shock arrival times are given by @xmath355 where @xmath356 is the order statistics of @xmath357 .
4 .   simulate @xmath135 as the result of a bernoulli trial between a fatal ( 0 ) and a non fatal shock ( 1 ) at time @xmath17 , with probability @xmath358 for a shock to be non fatal , all @xmath359 .
simulate @xmath353 i.i.d .
random vectors @xmath360 , @xmath359 according to distribution @xmath195 . 6 .
simulate the lifetime @xmath361 of the first component with conditional hazard rate @xmath362 given @xmath363 . with that aim , setting @xmath364 ( see @xmath365 ) , @xmath366 is a one - to - one increasing function from @xmath367 into @xmath368 and , for @xmath369 with @xmath370 , we have:@xmath371 it is then known that , if @xmath372 is uniformly distributed on @xmath373 $ ] , then @xmath374 is identically distributed as @xmath361 , see ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 1.20 ) . 7 .
compute @xmath375 where @xmath376 refers to the @xmath377th mc history , with @xmath378 .    at the end of the algorithm , symbol
@xmath379 stands for the realization of a bernoulli trial @xmath380 between an up ( 1 ) or down ( 0 ) system at time @xmath9 , with probability @xmath381 for the system to be up .
the reliability @xmath381 is then classically approximated by the empirical mean @xmath382 of the @xmath379 s and a 95% asymptotic confidence interval is computed .
method 2 is based on mc simulations of trajectories of @xmath383 and of @xmath124 ( see section [ rel ] ) . for both methods 1 & 2 ,
mc simulations are based on @xmath384 histories .
methods 3 & 4 are described in section [ rel ] .
the four methods are compared on a few specific examples . in all these examples ,
we compare the reliability at time @xmath385 ( @xmath386 ) and we suppose that the shock are due to a homogeneous poisson process with parameter @xmath387 , @xmath388 , @xmath95 and @xmath2 is a null process .
all other parameters are provided in table [ table4 ] , where @xmath389  means that the random variable @xmath390 is exponentially distributed with mean 1 .
[ c]cccccinput & @xmath391 & method & @xmath386 & 95 % ci + @xmath392 & & 1 & 0.5196 & [ 0.5181 0.5212 ] + @xmath393 , @xmath394 & independence & 2 & 0.5195 & [ 0.5184 0.5205 ] + & & 3 , 4 & 0.5198 & + @xmath395 & & 1 & 0.5049 & [ 0.5033 0.5064 ] + @xmath396 & complete dependence & 2 & 0.5049 & [ 0.5039 0.5059 ] + & & 4 & 0.5054 & + @xmath392,@xmath397 & & 1 & 0.4809 & [ 0.4793 0.4824 ] + @xmath92 , @xmath398 independent & dependence & 2 & 0.4813 & [ 0.4801 0.4825 ] + @xmath393 , @xmath399 & & & & +    methods 1 and 2 may be used in any case .
method 2 is more effective than method 1 ( shorter c.p.u .
time and tighter 95% confidence interval - ic - ) .
method 3 is more practical when @xmath92 and @xmath139 are independent with some specific distribution .
method 4 is adapted to the case where @xmath92 and @xmath139 are dependent .
we here illustrate several properties from a numerical point of view on a few examples .
examples parameters are provided in table [ table3 ] .
[ c]ccccccccc & @xmath3 & @xmath400 & @xmath57 & @xmath401 & @xmath94 & @xmath92 & @xmath139 & @xmath402 + ex.[ex9 ] & - & 0 & 0 & - & 1 & @xmath403 & @xmath403 & independent + ex.[ex8 ] & 2 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & @xmath403 & @xmath403 & - + ex.[ex6 ] & 2 & 0 & 0 & @xmath404 & - & 1 & @xmath403 & independent +    [ ex9 ] this example illustrates the nbu property of the lifetime when @xmath94 is constant and @xmath392 is non increasing , see theorem [ propnbu ] .
taking @xmath388 , fig .
[ fig7_1 ] indeed shows that the remaining lifetime of a system with age @xmath405 is stochastically smaller than the lifetime of a new system . on the contrary , when @xmath94 is still constant but @xmath406 is non decreasing
, the remaining lifetime of a system with age @xmath405 is not comparable with that of a new system , see fig .
[ fig7_2 ] with @xmath407 .
so the nbu property does not hold anymore in that case .    ,
nbu case ]    , not nbu case ]    [ ex8]we here consider two extreme cases for the dependency between @xmath148 and @xmath139 : independent or completely dependent ( here @xmath408 ) .
the reliability in the completely dependent case is always greater than in the independent case ( fig .
[ fig6 ] ) .
this result is coherent with proposition [ prop_dependence ] .     and
@xmath139 , example [ ex8 ] ]    [ ex6]this example shows the monotony of the reliability with respect to the intensity of the poisson process @xmath409 when @xmath97 is increasing , see proposition [ influence_lambda ] . the more frequently the shocks occur , the lower the reliability is ( fig .
[ fig3 ] ) .    ,
example [ ex6 ] ]
we here proposed a random shock model with competing failure modes , which enlarges several models from the previous literature .
the model takes into account different types of dependence between competing failures modes , where the dependence is induced by a common external shock environment .
the reliability has been calculated by several different methods and conditions have been provided under which the system lifetime is new better than used . due to this ageing property
, it might be of interest to propose and study some maintenance policy to enlarge the system lifetime .
several versions might be proposed , according to the available information .    also , the influence of the characteristics of the stressing environment on the lifetime @xmath101 has been studied . as expected
, we saw that the lifetime was stochastically increasing with the probability @xmath310 for a shock to be non fatal .
besides , and that result was not necessarily so clear at first sight , we saw that the lifetime was also stochastically increasing with the dependence between the two marginal shock sizes .
finally , in case of a non decreasing function @xmath310 , we saw that the lifetime was stochastically decreasing with the cumulated frequency of shocks .
this means that the more frequent the shocks occur , the shorter the lifetime is .
this result is natural but our proof is limited to the case of a non decreasing function @xmath310 . in the special case of @xcite ,
the survival function of @xmath101 is however given by @xmath410 and it is easy to check that if @xmath411 ( stronger assumption than @xmath347 ) then @xmath412 , without any special condition on @xmath310 .
so , the stochastic monotonicity of the lifetime with respect of the ( cumulated ? ) frequency of shocks might be true under a more general setting than in the present paper , without assuming any monotonicity condition on @xmath309 .
we however have not been able to conclude on this point , and whether it is true or not remains an open question .
both authors thank the referees for their carefull reading of the paper and their constructive remarks , which lead to a better introduction and justification of the model , and to a clearer paper .
this work has been initiated during hai ha pham s phd studies in pau ( france ) , and has been supported by the conseil rgional daquitaine ( france ) .
this work has also been supported for both authors by the french national research agency ( ammsi project , ref .
anr 2011 bs01 - 021 ) .
hao , c.  su , and z .- z .
reliability analysis for mechanical components subject to degradation process and random shock with wiener process . in _
19th international conference on industrial engineering and engineering management _ , pages 531543 , 2013 .
a.  lehmann .
joint modeling of degradation and failure time data .
_ journal of statistical planning and inference _ , 1390 ( 5):0 1693  1706 , 2009 . special issue on degradation , damage , fatigue and accelerated life models in reliability testing .                c.  qian , s.  nakamura , and t.  nakagawa .
cumulative damage model with two kinds of shocks and its application to the backup policy .
_ journal of the operations research society of japan - keiei kagaku _ , * * 42**0 ( 4):0 501511 , 1999 .