## 2 Related Works
### CFO Case Studies in Multicarrier Modulations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Papers (Years)** & **Advantages** & **Limitations** \\ \hline
[16] (2011) & Comparison of OFDM and FBMC using Brazil A (channel with line of sight—LoS) and Brazil D (channel without LoS) in DVB-T & Case of mobile reception not considered. \\ \cline{2-3}  & BER vs. SNR evaluated when channel coding (Reed Solomon and Convolutional code) was considered or not & MER and EVM tools were not used. \\ \cline{2-3}  & FBMC 1-tap and 3-tap equalizers considered & Zero-forcing equalizer performance was not evaluated for FBMC; channel estimation method was not used. \\ \hline
[17] (2019) & Comparison of OFDM and FBMC using TU6 (urban environment) and 0 dB echo channel (Single-Frequency Network environment). & Case of mobile reception not considered. \\ \cline{2-3}  & BER vs. SNR evaluated when channel coding LDPC was considered or not. The system performance was evaluated using Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) only and using fading channels. & MER and EVM tools were not used. \\ \cline{2-3}  & Complex Finite Impulse Response (CFIR) 1-tap and 3-tap were considered for FBMC and zero-forcing equalizer is used for OFDM. & Zero-forcing equalizer performance was not evaluated for FBMC; channel estimation method was not used. \\ \hline
[9] (2020) & Comparison of OFDM with UFMC and FBMC using TU6 channel in DVB-T2 & Case of mobile reception not considered. \\ \cline{2-3}  & BER vs. SNR evaluated when channel coding (LDPC) was considered or not. At a BER of \(10^{-3}\), UFMC gain was 1.2 dB, FBMC gain was 1 dB in comparison with OFDM. & MER and EVM tools and BCH code were not used. \\ \cline{2-3}  & Spectral efficiency of UFMC and FBM evaluated. & Computational complexity not really evaluated. \\ \hline
[18] (2020) & Comparison of NUCs’ performance with QAM in DVB-T2. Comparison of UFMC and NUCs with OFDM and QAM using TU6 channel in DVB-T2. & Case of mobile reception not considered. \\ \cline{2-3}  & NUCs from ATSC 3.0 standard was considered. BER vs. SNR evaluated only when channel coding (LDPC) was considered. UFMC and NUCs jointly presented better performance than OFDM and QAM in DVB-T2. & MER and EVM tools and BCH code were not used. \\ \hline
[19] (2021) & Literature review on filter-based waveforms’ (FBMC and UFMC) implementation algorithms proposed for DTT systems. & The implementation of these algorithms was not performed in DVB-T2 but system parameters (number of subcarriers) were used to compute the complexity. \\ \cline{2-3}  & Compromise between computation complexity and spectral efficiency was determined in order to choose a suitable algorithm. & The simulation time of each modulation was not evaluated in order to perform a complete analysis. \\ \hline
[20] (2019) & Radiofrequency profile establishment on the basis of field measurement parameters in an urban environment in Indonesia. & There was no consideration about Single-Frequency Network environments. The impact of environmental parameters on the establishment of the radio profile was not specified. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline  & LDPC channel coding was not considered during simulation. Only BPSK modulation was used to validate performance. This modulation was more robust than DVB-T2 modulations such as 4-QAM, 16-QAM, 64-QAM, and 256-QAM. It was not really enough to conclude that the radio profiles generated were well suited to the DVB-T2 system. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Literature review (with advantages and limitations) on multicarrier modulations in DVB-T2.