# Multi-Agent Modeling and Jamming-Aware Routing Protocols for Movable-Jammer-Affected WSNs
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Simulation Results and Analyze
#### 4.2.3 Simulation 3 and Simulation 4  
In the third simulation, we aimed to analyze the effect of the number of jammers on the WSN's reliability and performance. We designed four different cases for this experiment, with 1, 2, 3, and 4 jammers.  
The fourth simulation aimed to examine the impact of jammer deployment location (ground versus air) on WSN reliability and performance. To achieve this, we designed new jammer influence range data, with high and low values of 24 and 18, respectively. Electromagnetic wave propagation attenuation is weaker in the air than on the ground, resulting in significantly larger jamming signal coverage for air-based jammers. Research has shown that the coverage radius is approximately 75 for a jammer mounted on a UAS, compared to only 7.1 on a ground vehicle [43], indicating a substantial disparity in jamming performance. To avoid abrupt experimental results, we reduced the interference performance gap between the two cases to a ratio of 3:2 in the experimental design. However, it is important to note that this ratio would be much greater in real-world scenarios.  
Since Simulation 4 has only one set of experimental designs, we combined it with Simulation 3 for comparison purposes.  
From Figure 10a, it is evident that as the number of jammers increases, the number of sensor nodes capable of establishing a connection with the base station and uploading data gradually decreases, which is in line with expectations. Furthermore, the jammers mounted on the air platform demonstrated far stronger jamming performance than those mounted on the ground platform, and a single air jammer was more destructive than four ground jammers.  
Figure 10b shows that although the MCS is gradually decreasing with the increase in the number of jammers, the value of APL remains stable. However, there was one  
Figure 10: (**a**) MCS comparison of different numbers and locations of jammers; (**b**) APL comparison of different numbers and locations of jammers.  
unexpected result with the air jammer. We can attempt to explain this phenomenon through Figure 11a,b.  
From Figure 11a, it is evident that the MCS exhibits a platform trend during certain time periods when the air jammer moves far away from the base station. Although the jammer still interferes with the communication transmission of a large number of sensor nodes due to its broad coverage, it is not fatal. In other time periods, the MCS drops suddenly, and during this time, the air jammer moves to the vicinity of the base station. Although the jammer cannot destroy the communication function of the base station in the experimental design, it can disable the communication function of the sensor nodes around the base station, leaving no relay node to provide message relays for other sensor nodes in the periphery.  
The time period of the sudden rise of APL in Figure 11b coincides with the time period of the sudden decrease of MCS in Figure 11a, indicating that the air jammer destroys the communication transmission function of the sensor nodes around the base station, making them unable to undertake the task of information relay. The number of relay nodes is significantly reduced, and other sensor nodes can only choose fewer nodes next to the base station as relays, forcing many sensor nodes to take a detour to connect to these relay nodes, resulting in an overall increase in the APL value of the network.