{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019157088122605363, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006385696040868455, 'mean_word_length': 5.6440677966101696, '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}}
Traffic capabilities of two rearrangeably nonblocking photonic switching modules

The architectures of two small switching networks are compared as potential implementations of a 4 × 4 photonic switching module. Such a module would be made by interconnecting several 2 × 2 photonic directional couplers on a single LiNbO3 substrate. While both networks are rearrangeably nonblocking, we investigate whether one network requires significantly more rearrangements than the other. The analysis includes transient, Monte Carlo simulation, and Markov steady-state techniques. We conclude that the traffic capabilities of the two structures are not significantly different, and that selection of an architecture can be based on other criteria, like loss, crosstalk, or ease of manufacture.