## 6 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Between the Stego Nodes** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dijkstra’s Algorithm**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Modified Dijkstra’s Algorithm**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Increase in Secrecy**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Decrease in Probability of**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**(Representing the Sender and** & \(P_{con\;knee}\) & \(P_{dis\;knee}\) & \(P_{con\;knee,1}\) & \(P_{dis\;knee,1}\) & \(P_{dis\;knee,1}\) & **Index (Iteration)** & **Vialative Secretory (Iteration)** \\ \hline A\(\rightarrow\)B & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.89 & 0.11 & 2 & 5 \\ A\(\rightarrow\)C & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.86 & 0.14 & 3 & 5 \\ A\(\rightarrow\)E & 0.3 & 0.7 & 0.84 & 0.16 & 3 & 5 \\ A\(\rightarrow\)D & 0.15 & 0.75 & 0.81 & 0.19 & 5 & 4 \\ Average for the entire system & 0.31 & 0.69 & 0.85 & 0.15 & 3 & 5 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Secrecy index calculation results (using one backup path \(\alpha_{base}=\alpha_{1}=0.5\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & \(P_{con\;c}=0.1\) & & & \\ \hline n & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 6 & 8 \\ \(P_{con}\) & 0.1 & 0.19 & 0.27 & 0.34 & 0.49 & 0.56 \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} & \(P_{con\;c}=0.2\) & & & \\ \hline n & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 6 & 8 \\ \(P_{con}\) & 0.2 & 0.36 & 0.49 & 0.59 & 0.73 & 0.8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} & \(P_{con\;c}=0.4\) & & & \\ \hline n & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 6 & 8 \\ \(P_{con}\) & 0.4 & 0.64 & 0.78 & 0.87 & 0.95 & 0.98 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{} & \(P_{con\;c}=0.5\) & & & \\ \hline n & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 6 & 8 \\ \(P_{con}\) & 0.5 & 0.75 & 0.875 & 0.9375 & 0.984 & 0.996 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Dependency of \(P_{con}\) on n and \(P_{con\;c}\). Alternating the use of groups consisting of \(N\) transmission routes out of the total \(M\) routes (Case 3). Assuming that there are \(M\) transmission routes with the same and equal secrecy index \(P_{con\;c}\), alternating the use of groups consisting of \(N\) transmission routes out of the total \(M\) routes implies that the frequency of using these groups of \(N\) routes is the same and equal to \(\alpha=\frac{1}{\left\lfloor\frac{M}{N}\right\rfloor}=\frac{1}{L}\). Thus, we obtain Formula (7), as described in the previous section:  
\[P_{con\;M}=1-\prod_{i=1}^{L}\alpha(1-P_{con\;N})=1-\left[\alpha(1-P_{con\;N}) \right]^{L}=1-\frac{1}{L^{L}}(1-P_{con\;c})^{N\times L}\]  
Table 10 shows some values of \(P_{con\;M}\) depending on the assumed values of \(M\), \(N\), and \(P_{con\;c}\), according to Formula (7): \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & & & & & \(P_{con\;c}=0.1\) & & & & & & \\ \hline M & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ N & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 2 & 3 & 6 & 2 & 3 & 8 \\ \(P_{con\;M}\) & 0.7975 & 0.19 & 0.997 & 0.83 & 0.3439 & 0.98 & 0.86 & 0.46 & 0.998 & 0.867 & 0.57 \\ \hline  & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline M & 2 & 2 & 4 & 4 & 4 & 6 & 6 & 6 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\ N & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 4 & 2 & 3 & 6 & 2 & 3 & 8 \\ \(P_{con\;M}\) & 0.81 & 0.27 & 0.997 & 0.86 & 0.48 & 0.986 & 0.9 & 0.62 & 0.998 & 0.906 & 0.73 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Dependency of \(P_{con\;M}\) on M, N, and \(P_{con\;c}\). Figure 14: Some graphs illustrating the dependence of the secrecy index of the message in the system on the number of parallel routes used in the system. The graphs in Figure 15 represent the dependency graphs of the secrecy index of the message on \(N\), \(M\), and the secrecy index \(P_{con\ c}\) on each channel, based on Formula (6):  
\[P_{conc}=0.1\]  
The graphs indicate that as \(N\) and \(M\) increase, the secrecy index of the message also increases. The graphs also show that the practice of alternating the use of groups of \(N\) parallel routes among the total of \(M\) routes also leads to an increase in the secrecy index of the message compared to using a single dedicated transmission route.