{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04483430799220273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01364522417153996, 'mean_word_length': 4.908045977011494, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Sensitivity of ENRZ to Crosstalk - In Comparison to NRZ, PAM3, and PAM4

In this article the performances of ENRZ (Ensemble NRZ) under the interferences of crosstalk, in conjunction with NRZ (Non-Return-to-Zero), PAM4 (Pulse Amplitude Modulation of 4-level), and PAM3 are investigated. Two typical crosstalk patterns with varying levels of crosstalk are studied. The simulation results and the underlying causes are analyzed. Overall, ENRZ shows more robustness than NRZ, PAM3, and PAM4 in terms of crosstalk.