## 4 Results and Discussion  
This work presents four scenarios that are carried out according to constellation order M. Table 1 lists briefly the utilized parameters in the consequent simulations. As shown in Table 1, there are 20 PRBs, each PRB contains 14-subcarriers, and each subcarrier is modulated with QPSK,16-QAM, 64_QAM, and 256-QAM i.e., there are 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-binary bits of a message in the four scenarios, respectively. These parameters are chosen according to the LTE standards [47]. Moreover, there is 4-, 6-, and 8-PRV in each scenario. Figure 5a,b shows the simulation results according to the first line entries of Table 1, in which 4-PRV and QPSK mapping are used. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**N Size of IFFT** & **No. of Subcarriers** & **No. of PRB** & **M Constellation Order** & **No. of PRV** \\ \hline
512 & 14 & 20 & 4 & 4, 6, and 8 \\
512 & 14 & 20 & 16 & 4, 6, and 8 \\
512 & 14 & 20 & 64 & 4, 6, and 8 \\
512 & 14 & 20 & 256 & 4, 6, and 8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation parameters for SLM-CP-Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), SLM-UFMC, and conventional UFMC. From Figure 4(a), it is obvious that the QPSK or 4-QAM mapping does not take shape in the results. This behavior is due to the QPSK/4-QAM mapping has already low PAPR or CM, thus, after implementing the SLM method, the PAPR of the CP-OFDM vanished. While the conventional UFMC has a higher PAPR than the conventional CP-OFDM, it is 12 dB. Interestingly, after selected mapping, the SLM-UFMC experiences lower PAPR of 11 dB, in which there is a 1 dB reduction in the PAPR when using 4-PRV. On the other hand, the cubic metric, which is shown in Figure 4(b), shows the same outcomes as that of the PAPR in Figure 4(b) with respect to SLM-CP-OFDM QPSK/4-QAM mapped signals. However, the conventional UFMC produces a higher CM value, 4 dB, while the SL-UFMC acts better with 4-PRV, at 3.5 dB, thus a reduction in 0.5 dB in the CM is achieved. For this scenario, the SLM-UFMC shows better performance and consumes less power than the SLM-CP-OFDM and conventional UFMC. In Figure 5(a),b, the PAPR and CM of 6-PRV Rotation Vectors (PRV) are compared using the settings of the same signal of the previous configuration. The SLM-UFMC achieves a 1 dB and 0.75 dB reduction in the PAPR and CM, respectively. For the 8-PRV, the SLM-UFMC reduces the PAPR from 12 to 10.75 dB and enhances the CM by 0.75 dB. As a result, the CM with 8-PRV does not improve too much compared with the 6-PRV rotation vectors, as shown in Figure 6(a),b. Thus, for this scenario, it is recommended to use a maximum of 6-PRV rotation vectors, as shown in Table 2. Although the PAPR is reduced by 1.25 dB, the effect of the third intermodulation, which causes the ACLR, can be accurately captured by the CM approach. Figure 5: The 4-Quadrature Amplitude Modification (QAM) and 4-Phase Rotation Vector (PRV) results of scenario 1. Figure 6: The 4-QAM and 6-PRV results of scenario 1. In the second scenario of Table 1, the modulation order is increased to four binary bits in each subcarrier, and hence the 16-QAM mapping is conducted in its simulations. With 16-QAM and 4-PRV, the conventional UFMC reduces the PAPR and CM from 12 and 4 dB to 10.75 and 3.5 dB, respectively. Subsequently, the SLM-UFMC reduces the PAPR and CM to 1.25 dB and 0.5 dB as shown in Figure 8a,b. The SLM-CP-OFDM shows better PAPR performance than SLM-UFMC, but at the cost of spectrum deficiency. In the same scenario of 16-QAM, the number of PRV increased to six (6-PRV). Figure 9a shows that the PAPR of the conventional UFMC is 12.25 dB. The PAPR is reduced to 11 dB, with a reduction of 1.25 dB. The CM in Figure 9b of the conventional UFMC is 4.25 dB, while in the SLM-UFMC, it drops to 3.5 dB, with a reduction of 0.75 dB. It can be seen that using 4- or 6-PRV does not make a significant