# Secure Information Transmission with Self Jamming SWIPT
## 3 Numerical Results
The results also illustrated the BER difference between the  
Figure 4: BER performance of \(\xi\) in all the scenarios with \(\epsilon_{E1R}=0.02\) in Scenario B.  
Figure 3: BER performance of \(R(a)\) and \(R(b)\). ZF, zero-forcing. best performance of \(\xi(c)\), i.e., \(\xi(c)\) with \(\beta=1\) and \(\rho_{E1}=\rho_{E2}=0.99\) versus the performance of \(R_{i}\) with \(\beta=13\). In Figure 6, we compare the BER performance of \(R_{i}\) in Rician fading and Rayleigh frequency flat fading channel conditions. For the simulation of Rician fading, we set \(T=4\times 10^{-6}\) for 256 symbols; the multipath gain range was \(0:-3:-45\); the Doppler shift was 50; and the \(k\)factor was 10. The results of Figure 6 demonstrate that the BER performance of \(R_{i}\) under both fading conditions had similar effects on the signal performance. The fading effects were relatively low due to the application of SC-FDMA, and the BER performance improved with the IB-DFE receiver. Figure 7 demonstrates the secrecy rate of \(R(a)\) and \(R(b)\) based on (17) and (18), respectively. Since \(\xi(a)\) was always in the negative SINR region, \(\mathbb{C}_{(a),A}\) had the best performance over \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\), \(\mathbb{C}_{(a),B}\) and  
Figure 5: BER performance of \(R(b)\) and \(R_{i}\) with \(\varepsilon_{E1R}=0.02\), where \(R_{i}\) denotes \(R(b)\) with an improved feedback loop in the IB-DFE receiver. Figure 6: BER performance of \(R_{i}\) in Rician fading and Rayleigh fading conditions. \(\mathbb{C}_{(b),B}\). For any given \(\beta\) value, \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\) always performed better than \(\mathbb{C}_{(b),B}\) because in \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\), neither \(\xi(\epsilon)\) nor \(R(a)\) experienced channel estimation error. The performance of \(\mathbb{C}_{(a),B}\) and \(\mathbb{C}_{(b),B}\) did not improve when the SINR was greater than 20 dBm because \(R(b)\) experienced precoding error due to the channel estimate error of the EH signals, which was \(\epsilon_{E1R}=0.02\), and it was independent of the SINR of the information signal as observed in (15) and (16). The results of \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\) and \(\mathbb{C}_{(a),B}\) proved that, at high SINR (i.e., greater than 20 dBm), \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\) could perform better than \(\mathbb{C}_{(a),B}\), irrespective of \(\xi\)'s condition. At low SINR (i.e., less than 20 dBm), the performance of \(\mathbb{C}_{(a),B}\) as compared to \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\) was better because \(R(b)\) took advantage of \(\xi(a)\)'s poor performance, and this characteristic validated (15) and (16). Similar to the BER results, the secrecy rate performance of \(\mathbb{C}_{(c),A}\) and \(\mathbb{C}_{(b),B}\) was better when \(\rho_{E1}=0.98\) than their performance when \(\rho_{E1}=0.99\). The secrecy rate of \(R(a)\) improved with the increase in \(\beta\), but in the case of \(R(b)\), contrary to the BER results, the secrecy rate degraded with the increase in \(\beta\) due to the channel estimate error. Unlike the secrecy rate results of \(R(b)\), the impact of channel estimate error on the BER of \(R(b)\) was reduced due to the implementation the IB-DFE receiver.