## 5 Results and Discussion
This represents a significant improvement, highlighting the importance of pairing within the system. In real-time scenarios, HWD and SIC errors arise. Considering iSIC and HWD conditions, the performance of the average outage probability of SW-SW pairing is evaluated. SIC error, \(\epsilon\ =\ 0.01\), is fixed, and varying values of HWD conditions for the SUE and WUE have been evaluated, as shown in Figures 9 and 10, respectively. The figures reveal that with HWDs, there is a considerable degradation in the outage probabilities for both the SUE and WUE. As \(L\) increases, the outage performance of the SUE and WUE improves even under iSIC and HWD conditions. It is also noted that as \(L\) increases, the target outage falls into the negative SNR region. Table 6 compares the outage probabilities of the SUE and WUE under iSIC and HWD conditions for different values of \(L\). Table 6 shows that the performance of the WUE in terms of outage is better than that of the SUE. This is due to only a small fraction of power being allocated to the SUE, which must perform the complex SIC process. Eventually, there exists iSIC in real-time systems, which consumes more power to reach the target outage. In contrast, the WUE is allocated a larger fraction of power, although the equipment may suffer from blockage and weak signal reception. By using cooperative relaying for the WUE, the outage performance of the WUE surpasses that of the SUE. From Table 6, HWD conditions in the system affect the average outage performance of both the SUE and WUE. An increase in HWD raises the SNR requirements needed to achieve the target outage probability. These constraints due to iSIC and HWDs can be mitigated by increasing \(L\) in the system. With 1% iSIC and 15% HWD, the SUE can achieve \(\sim\)16.55 to \(\sim\)30.49 dB SNR gains with \(L\) = 256 compared to \(L\) = 64 and 32 to reach an average outage probability of \(10^{-5}\). For the WUE with 15% HWD, \(\sim\)14.74 to \(\sim\)23.87 dB of SNR gain is achieved with \(L\) = 256 compared to \(L\) = 64 and 32 to reach the target outage. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(L\)} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**SUE (\(\epsilon\ =\ 0.01\))**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**WUE**} \\  & \(\mathbf{d=0.08}\) & \(\mathbf{d=0.09}\) & \(\mathbf{d=0.15}\) & \(\mathbf{d=0.08}\) & \(\mathbf{d=0.09}\) & \(\mathbf{d=0.15}\) \\ \hline
32 & \(\sim\)\(-8.05\) & \(\sim\)\(-4.22\) & \(\sim\)\(-1.18\) & \(\sim\)\(-22.65\) & \(\sim\)\(-19.54\) & \(\sim\)\(-16.36\) \\
64 & \(\sim\)\(-22.03\) & \(\sim\)\(-18.17\) & \(\sim\)\(-15.12\) & \(\sim\)\(-31.77\) & \(\sim\)\(-28.68\) & \(\sim\)\(-25.49\) \\
256 & \(\sim\)\(-38.67\) & \(\sim\)\(-34.71\) & \(\sim\)\(-31.67\) & \(\sim\)\(-46.52\) & \(\sim\)\(-43.43\) & \(\sim\)\(-40.23\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: SNR requirement for the SUE and WUE to reach outage of \(10^{-5}\) under various \(L\) and HWDs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Pairing**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SUE**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**WUE**} \\  & **SNR (dB) Required** & \begin{tabular}{c} **SNR Gain (dB) w.r.t** \\ **SW-SW Scheme** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **SNR Gain (dB) Required** \\ **SW-SW Scheme** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **SNR Gain (dB) w.r.t** \\ **SW-SW Scheme** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline NN-FF & \(\sim\)\(-8.10\) & \(\sim\)\(3.81\) & \(\sim\)\(-15.41\) & \(\sim\)\(3.89\) \\ OO-EE & \(\sim\)\(-9.56\) & \(\sim\)\(2.35\) & \(\sim\)\(-16.62\) & \(\sim\)\(2.68\) \\ SW & \(\sim\)\(-9.80\) & \(\sim\)\(2.11\) & \(\sim\)\(-17.57\) & \(\sim\)\(1.73\) \\ RP-1 & \(\sim\)\(-10.68\) & \(\sim\)\(1.23\) & \(\sim\)\(-17.65\) & \(\sim\)\(1.65\) \\ RP-2 & \(\sim\)\(-11.43\) & \(\sim\)\(0.48\) & \(\sim\)\(-18.33\Throughput is evaluated in Figure 11 for various pairing schemes with \(L=16\) under ideal conditions \((\varepsilon~{}=~{}0\) and \(d=0)\). From Figure 11, the expression for throughput, as in (28), exactly matches the simulations.