# Honesty-Based Social Technique to Enhance Cooperation in Social Internet of Things
## 3 Proposed Model
### Decision Module
As a credible community is formed, the HBST delays get shorter, and the network's performance gets better. The end-to-end delays of the HBST were 20% shorter than those of the CAIS, 36.7% shorter than those of the HBDS, and 42.86% shorter than those of the SSAR protocol at the end of the simulation. Reducing HBST end-to-end delays is attributable to excluding selfish nodes from communication. ### Comparison of Results with 50% Selfish Nodes in the Network

The results for an environment having 50% selfish nodes--100 selfish ones out of a total of 200 nodes--are covered in this section. The rise in the number of selfish nodes

Figure 4: Packet delivery ratio for the network having 25% selfish nodes. Figure 5: End-to-end delays for a network having 25% selfish nodes. also impacts throughput, overhead ratio, PDR, and packet delays. The current experiment followed the same protocols as the prior one. The results for the network having 50% selfish follow the same trends that are somewhat reminiscent of the first experiment. However, the values and performances have slightly declined because there are more selfish nodes. Figure 6 compares the proposed protocol's throughput results to those of the selected competitors. At pause time 10, HBDS and SSAR approaches outperformed HBST by about 15% and 10.52%, respectively, whereas CAIS's throughput was approximately 19.05% higher than that of the HBST. At pause time 20, all three protocols--CAIS, HBDS, and SSAR--outperformed HBST's throughput by roughly 17.40%, 9.52%, and 5%, respectively. At the initial stage, the throughput of the HBST was lower because the community was still growing, and nodes are not interacting frequently. The throughput of the HBST increased, as seen in the figure, and surpassed those of other approaches after establishing the credible community after pause time 20. The throughput of the HBST was 20% higher than that of the CAIS, 11.12% higher than that of the HBDS, and 37.78% higher than that of the SSAR at pause time 60. Similarly, the data reveal that HBST performs better than CAIS, HBDS, and SSAR at pause time 100. The impact of the overhead ratio on network performance is depicted in Figure 7. The results show that HBST initially carries a greater overhead. The increased overhead is caused by the need to establish a trustworthy community, give nodes enough time to begin interactions with one another, and encourage nodes to take an interest in the community. As a legitimate community is established and grows, the overhead falls. At pause time 10, the overhead ratio of the HBST was 48.96% higher than that of the CAIS, 43.75% higher than that of the HBDS, and 41.67% higher than that of the SSAR. The other three approaches, CAIS, HBDS, and SSAR, have demonstrated a lower overhead ratio than the HBST at pause time 20. After establishing a credible community, the overhead ratio of the HBST began to improve. As seen in the results at pause time 60, the overhead ratio is 16.21% lower than that of the CAIS, 20.51% lower than that of the HBDS and 27.90% lower than that of the SSAR. Similarly, it improved further at pause time 100, achieving a lower overhead ratio. Figure 6: Throughput for the network with 50% selfish nodes. The isolation of 50% of nodes from the main network also contributed to the improvement in the overhead ratio, as no communication was performed with the selfish nodes, decreasing the overhead ratio. Figure 8 compares the PDR results of the proposed protocol to those from the CAIS, HBDS, and SSAR. At pause time 10, the PDR of the HBST was 17.5% lower than that of the SSAR method, 6.97% lower than that of the CAIS, and 2.43% lower than that of the HBDS. A lower PDR indicates that a credible community is developing. Results show that the PDR increases after developing a reliable community and once the nodes begin to show interest in the community. The PDR of the HBST was 10.34% lower than that of the CAIS, 15.51% lower than that of the HBDS, and 25% lower than that of the SSAR at pause time 60.