## 6 Results, Analysis and Discussion
### Statistical Analysis of Performance Metrics
#### 6.1.1 Retransmissions with Box and Whiskers Representation  
Figure 4 shows the average retransmissions for the AODV, DSR and MPH protocols for each of the attacks studied in this work; random (\(\rho=50\), \(80\) packets/s) and reactive. The figure presents the position when the jammer node is in the middle of the topology.  
For the retransmissions metric with no jamming activity, the MPH protocol has a smaller box, which means that the values of average retransmissions are below the values that present the AODV and DSR protocols. Then, the MPH protocol has 15% less average retransmissions than AODV and 13% less than DSR. We observe that when there is no presence of a jammer node, the bottom of the box is smaller than the top. This means that average retransmissions values between 50% and 75% of the data population are more dispersed than data between 25% and 50%.  
Figure 4 describes the three different attacks for each of the studied protocols with the jammer node in the middle of the network topology. Note that in the three jamming types, the boxes are short in size, so that we can infer that when the jammer node is in the middle of the topology, it affects more nodes, because it can cause an attack that spreads in the concentric circles form. However, boxes for MPH indicate that the WSN can be resistant to this wave of attack, because their values are significantly lower than AODV and DSR. With respect to the random jamming with \(\rho=50\) packets/s, MPH has averagevalues of 23% lower than AODV and DSR. Regarding the random jamming with \(\rho=80\) packets/s, MPH shows an improvement of 20.5% over AODV and 21.7% over DSR. Under reactive jamming, MPH reacts 16.7% better than the other two studied protocols, and we note again that under the most aggressive network attack, the lowest number of nodes affected by the jamming is when the MPH is used.  
In what follows, we explain the results for both cases, when the jammer node is near and far from the coordinator. For the near case, we obtained that over the network nodes, there are significant differences in the values of this metric. Moreover, the distance or proximity of the nodes with respect to the coordinator influences collisions, packet loss and, therefore, retransmissions. This is because the nodes that are closer to the coordinator node forward more traffic than the distant nodes. Furthermore, the presence of the jammer node close to these nodes can cause bottlenecks and more collisions. However, the MPH protocol has an average of retransmissions of 28% less than AODV and DSR, for random (\(\rho=50\), \(80\) packets/s) and reactive jamming. One possible explanation for this fact is that the AODV and DSR protocols affect more nodes under the most aggressive type of jamming (reactive), while in MPH, fewer nodes note the attack.  
For the far case, we obtained that for a random jamming with \(\rho=50\) packets/s, we notice that MPH has 30% lower average retransmissions than AODV and DSR. With respect to a random jamming with \(\rho=80\) packets/s, MPH has 15% lower average retransmissions than AODV and DSR. With respect to reactive jamming, the average retransmissions values are still lower for MPH; for instance, the average for MPH is less than 13% against AODV and 15.4% with respect to DSR.