## 4 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of PRV**} & **PAPR Before** & **CM Before** & **PAPR After** & **CM After** & **PAPR** & **CM** \\  & **Reduction in** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** \\  & **dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** \\ \hline
4 & 12 & 4 & 11 & 3.5 & 1 & 0.5 \\
6 & 12 & 4 & 11 & 3.25 & 1 & 0.75 \\
8 & 12 & 4 & 10.75 & 3.25 & 1.25 & 0.75 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Simulation results for the first scenario (QPSK/4-QAM), SLM-UFMC, and conventional UFMC. Figure 8: The 16-QAM and 4-PRV results of scenario 2. Figure 7: The 4-QAM and 8-PRV results of scenario 1.  
change in the PAPR and CM, as shown in Table 3. The SLM-CP-OFDM in both cases has a greater reduction in the PAPR and CM, but it is impossible to use CP-OFDM for different numerologies, which is why we are seeking other waveforms. Figure 10a,b are the simulation results for the last case in the second scenario, which conducts 16-QAM with 8-PRV for the PAPR and CM, respectively. In Figure 10a, the PAPR is reduced from 12.29 dB, by 1.47 dB, while the CM is reduced by 0.8 dB. Eventually, increasing the number of PRV decreases the PAPR, but at the cost of increasing the complexity. The third scenario further increases the baseband mapping to 64-QAM. The first case of this scenario is the 4-PRV, which results in a PAPR of 12.25 dB and CM of 4.6 dB for the conventional UFMC. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No. of PRV**} & **PAPR Before** & **CM Before** & **PAPR After** & **CM After** & **PAPR** & **CM** \\  & **Reduction in dB** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** & **Reduction** \\  & **dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** & **in dB** \\ \hline
4 & 12 & 4 & 10.75 & 3.5 & 1.25 & 0.5 \\
6 & 12.25 & 4.25 & 11 & 3.5 & 1.25 & 0.75 \\
8 & 12.29 & 4.2 & 10.82 & 3.4 & 1.47 & 0.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Simulation results of the second scenario (16-QAM), SLM-UFMC, and conventional UFMC. Figure 10: The 16-QAM and 8-PRV results of scenario 2. Figure 9: The 16-QAM and 6-PRV results of scenario 2. The SLM-UFMC achieves less PAPR than 11 dB and CM of 3.4 dB form the conventional UFMC and SLM-UFMC, as shown in Figure 11a,b. Yet again, the SLM-CP-OFDM shows better results than the rest. The simulation with 6-PRV generally enhances the PAPR, in which it is reduced from 12.4 to 11.1 dB, as shown in Figure 11a. The CM has no improvement as compared with the 4-PRV, in which the same result of 1.2 dB is obtained, as shown in Figure 12b. Increasing the number of PRV to eight did not improve the PAPR and MC, as shown in Figure 13a,b. Thus, it is meaningless to increase the computational complexity by increasing the PRV. As shown in Table 4, the same behaviour of SLM-CP-OFDM is significantly shown, in which the CM is reduced by more than SLM-UFMC. In the last scenario, where the modulation order increased to 256-QAM, in which there are 8-binary bits incorporated in each subcarrier, the PAPR is reduced by 1.2 dB, 1.75 dB, and 1.9 dB for 4-PRV, 6-PRV, and 8-PRV, as shown in Figures 14-16 respectively. The CM is improved by 0.5, 0.6, and 0.8 dB. In particular, in the case of 4-PRV, the PAPR is reduced from 12.4 to 11.2 dB, and it is reduced from 12.5 to 10.75 dB in the case of 6-PRV. Finally, in the 8-PRV case, the PAPR of the UFMC is reduced from 12.3 to 10.4 dB after employing the SLM scheme. On the other hand, the CM is reduced from 4 to 3.5 dB in the 4-PRV case. For 6-PRV, the CM of the UFMC is reduced from 4 to 3.4 dB. In all of the cases of the last scenario, the SLM-CP-OFDM outperforms the other signals, but as stated previously,  
Figure 11: The 64-QAM and 4-PRV results of scenario 3. Figure 12: The 64-QAM and 6-PRV results of scenario 3.  
at the expense of the spectrum efficiency degradation and the usage of different numerology cannot be employed using CP-OFDM.