## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Room size (length \(\times\) width \(\times\) height) & \(5\) m \(\times\) \(5\) m \(\times\) \(3\) m \\ \hline Transmit power per lamp (except for Figure 5) & 25 Watt \\ \hline Locations of LED1, LED2, LED3, and LED4 & (1, 1, 3), (1, 4, 3), (4, 1, 3), (4, 4, 3) \\ \hline Initial locations of PD1 and PD2 (for Routes 1 and 3) & (1.11, 2.61, 0.85), (0.89, 2.39, 0.85) \\ \hline Initial locations of PD1 and PD2 (for Routes 2 and 4) & (1.11, 3.61, 0.85), (0.89, 3.39, 0.85) \\ \hline Modulation index & 0.25 \\ \hline Height of receiving plane & 0.85 m \\ \hline Physical area of PDs & \(10^{-4}\) m\({}^{2}\) \\ \hline Refractive index & 1.5 \\ \hline PDs’ field of view & 85 deg. \\ \hline Responsivity of PDs & 0.35 A/W \\ \hline Receiver velocity (except for Figures 6, 11, and 12) & 1 m/s \\ \hline Effective data rate for the MISO/MIMO scenario & 51.2 Mbps/38.4 Mbps \\ \hline Observation block length (except for Figure 10) & 35 or 20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Configuration parameters of mobile VLCP system. Figure 5: Comparison of system BER performance with and without DFCE under varying LED transmit power levels: (**a**) MISO scenario; (**b**) MIMO scenario. Figure 6: Comparison of system BER performance with and without DFCE at different receiver moving velocities: (**a**) MISO scenario; (**b**) MIMO scenario. We first evaluate the communication performance of the mobile VLCP systems. Figure 5 compares the BERs for the MISO and MIMO systems under different LED transmit powers. In Figure 5a, we observe a significant improvement in BER with the implementation of DFCE in the mobile MISO system. For instance, at a transmit power of 25 W, the BERs without DFCE are 1.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) and 2.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) for receiver movement along Route 1 and Route 2, respectively. After using DFCE, the BERs improve to 3.8 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) and 1.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) for Route 1 and Route 2, respectively. This enhancement is attributed to the increased channel estimation accuracy of DFCE, enabling effective tracking of the time-varying channel and improved signal recovery. Additionally, we observe a slight reduction in BER as the transmit power increases, although the effect is not significant. However, the influence of different routes on BER is more evident. Route 1 exhibits notably better performance than Route 2, primarily due to its closer proximity to the room center, resulting in higher SNRs. In Figure 5b, the MIMO system exhibits similar trends to the MISO system in Figure 5a. For example, in Route 1 at a transmit power of 25 W, the BER improves from 2.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) to 3.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-4}\) with the adoption of DFCE. Thus, DFCE demonstrates its capability to enhance the communication quality of the mobile MIMO system as well. Figure 6 compares the BER performance of the MISO and MIMO systems at varying receiver moving velocities. As illustrated in Figure 6a, increased velocity leads to BER degradation across all schemes for MISO. For instance, with the velocity increasing from 1 m/s to 4 m/s, the BER without DFCE rises from 1.5 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) to 9.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) and from 2.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) to 9.3 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\) for receiver movement along Route 1 and Route 2, respectively. This deterioration is a result of higher velocities inducing quicker channel variations, which negatively impact channel estimation accuracy, particularly in scenarios without feedback. However, after using DFCE, the BER of the MISO system is improved. For example, at velocities of 1 m/s and 4 m/s in Route 1, the BER improves to 3.8 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-3}\) and 3.2 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-2}\), respectively. In Figure 6b, similar trends are observed for the MIMO scenario.