# On the Performance of LDPC-Coded Large Intelligent Antenna System
## 4 Simulation Results and Analysis
On the other hand, the MRC performs better than the EGC (whose performance is the worst), but these receivers present a high level of simplicity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Figure** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number of Antennas** \\ **per Four Panels** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number of Users** \\ **(including the Reference User)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Equalization** & **Slective LIS** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Number of** \\ **Antennas Used in** \\ **Slective LIS** \\ \end{tabular} & **LDPC** & **Objective** \\ \hline Figure 4 & 25 & 5 & With and without & No & - & No & \begin{tabular}{c} Absence of performance improvement with \\ the use of equalization \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Figure 5 & 225 & 5 & With and without & No & - & No & \begin{tabular}{c} Absence of performance improvement with \\ the use of equalization \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Figure 6 & 25 versus 225 & 2 & Without & No & - & No & \begin{tabular}{c} Performance of 4025 versus 40225 LIS system \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Figure 7 & 25 & 2, 5 and 10 & Without & No & - & No & \begin{tabular}{c} Loss of performance that occurred with the \\ increase of the number of users \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Figure 8 & 25 & 5 & Without & No & - & Yes and No & \begin{tabular}{c} Performance improvement with LDPC codes, \\ compared to the uncoded system, for 4025 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Figure 9 & 225 & 5 & Without & No & - & Yes and No & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Performance improvement with LDPC codes, \\ compared to the uncoded system, for 40225 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Figure 10 & 225 & 5 & Without & Yes and No & 20 and 100 & No &
\begin{tabular}{c} Performance degradation using Selective LIS, \\ varying the number of antennas \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The baselines used in Monte Carlo simulations. Figure 4: Results for 4X25 LIS System, with 5 users, without LDPC codes, with and without equalization. Figure 5: Results for 4X225 LIS System, with 5 users, without LDPC codes, with and without equalization. Figure 6: Results for 4X25 versus 4X225 LIS System, with 2 users, without LDPC codes. Figure 7: Results for 4X25 LIS System, with 2, 5, and 10 users, without LDPC codes. Figure 8: Results for 4X25 LIS System, with 5 users, with and without LDPC codes. Figure 9: Results for 4X225 LIS System, with 5 users, with and without LDPC codes. Figure 5 displays the effectiveness outcomes for 4X225 LIS system (four panels, each with 225 antennas, making a total of 900 antennas), with five users, without LDPC codes, with and without equalization. Similar to the results with 4X25 LIS system, and for the MRC and EGC receivers, the use of equalization does not bring any added value in terms of performance improvement. Moreover, the ZF and MMSE are those receivers that are closer to the MFB, whose curves are superimposed, while the EGC is the one that performs worst. Comparing the results of 4X25 LIS System against 4X225 LIS System, one can conclude that the latter achieves better performance, and the difference of performance between different receivers is minimized. Similar to this graphic, note that the MMSE curves superimpose the ZF ones, in the remaining graphics. Figure 6 shows the performance results 4X25 versus 4X225 LIS System, with two users (one reference user plus one interfering user), for four distinct receivers: the ZF, MRC, EGC, and MMSE, without LDPC codes. As before, the MMSE curve superimposes the ZF one. For all receiver types, the efficiency-obtained results with the 4X225 LIS system are better than those achieved with the 4X25 LIS system, as indicated. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the MRC, EGC, and MMSE are less computationally demanding than the ZF. Finally, it should be mentioned that the EGC achieves the worst performance. Figure 7 displays the operational outcomes for the 4X25 LIS System with two, five, and 10 users, without LDPC codes. As expected, increasing the number of users results in a decrease of performance.