## 4 Simulations and Results
### Case III  
In this case, we are considering the spectrum-sharing scenario consisting of a total of nine sub-bands mentioned as regions in Figures 8 and 9. We assume that regions I, III, V, VII, and IX are used by PU_s_,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Techniques used**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Sidelobe Power in Regions**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **I** & **III** & **V** & **VII** & **IX** \\ \hline Original & \(-\)33 dB & \(-\)28 dB & \(-\)28 dB & \(-\)28 dB & \(-\)33 dB \\ CCs (Brandes) & \(-\)47 dB & \(-\)42 dB & \(-\)42 dB & \(-\)42 dB & \(-\)47 dB \\ CCs (GA) & \(-\)59 dB & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)59 dB \\ CCs (DE) & \(-\)80 dB & \(-\)70 dB & \(-\)70 dB & \(-\)70 dB & \(-\)80 dB \\ ACCs & \(-\)38 dB & \(-\)33 dB & \(-\)33 dB & \(-\)33 dB & \(-\)44 dB \\ ASCW & \(-\)45 dB & \(-\)38 dB & \(-\)38 dB & \(-\)38 dB & \(-\)45 dB \\ Proposed technique & \(-\)152 dB & \(-\)130 dB & \(-\)130 dB & \(-\)130 dB & \(-\)152 dB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Comparison of sidelobe suppression between existing and proposed techniques.  
Figure 6: The PSD comparison between the proposed technique and existing techniques including ACC and ASW.  
Figure 7: The PSD comparison between the proposed technique and existing techniques including CC (Brandes), CC (GA), and CC (DE).  
while regions II, IV, VI, and VIII are used by SU_s_. An equal bandwidth is allocated to each PU, whereas it is unequal in the case of SU. The SU operating in region II has 16 subcarriers, region IV has 32, region VI has 64, and SU, operating in region VIII, has 128 subcarriers, modulated with BPSK, whose power is normalized to \(|d_{n}|^{2}=1\). The performance of the proposed technique is compared with different existing techniques including CC [14], CC using GA and DE [17], ACC [18], and ASW [21].  
In CC techniques, two C_s_ have been taken on either side of the data subcarriers, and in SW techniques all subcarriers are used for suppression. Figures 8 and 9 show that the proposed technique outclasses all these techniques and gives a significant suppression in all regions of the spectrum-sharing scenario.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Techniques used**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Sidelobe Power in Regions**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **I** & **III** & **V** & **VII** & **IX** \\ \hline Original & \(-\)31 dB & \(-\)30 dB & \(-\)28 dB & \(-\)30 dB & \(-\)30 dB \\ CCs (Brandes) & \(-\)45 dB & \(-\)43 dB & \(-\)42 dB & \(-\)44 dB & \(-\)43 dB \\ CCs (GA) & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)57 dB & \(-\)57 dB \\ CCs (DE) & \(-\)82 dB & \(-\)63 dB & \(-\)60 dB & \(-\)70 dB & \(-\)65 dB \\ ACCs & \(-\)36 dB & \(-\)34 dB & \(-\)34 dB & \(-\)35 dB & \(-\)34 dB \\ ASCW & \(-\)42 dB & \(-\)40 dB & \(-\)39 dB & \(-\)41 dB & \(-\)40 dB \\ Proposed technique & \(-\)142 dB & \(-\)135 dB & \(-\)130 dB & \(-\)140 dB & \(-\)136 dB \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Comparison of sidelobe suppression between existing and proposed techniques.  
Figure 8: The PSD comparison between the proposed technique and existing techniques including ACC and ASW.  
Figure 9: The PSD comparison between the proposed technique and existing techniques including CC (Brandes), CC (GA), and CC (DE).  
The performance comparison of reduction of OOB radiation in all PU regions between the existing and the proposed technique is given in Table 3. It clearly shows that the proposed technique gives significant reduction in sidelobes at all regions of PU and performs better than the rest.