## 3 Experiment
### Detailed Analysis and Comparison
This results in the generation of a new multipath for redundant transmission. The figure illustrates that the red line (MOMTA-HN) is considerably higher than the blue (SPFA) and green (Dijkstra) lines. Furthermore, the number of successful transmissions of the MOMTA-HN algorithm exceeds that of the other two algorithms at all stages of  
Figure 9: Comparison of results of different algorithms. (**a**) Reliability comparison of different algorithms; (**b**) delay comparison of different algorithms. the attack. The MOMTA-HN algorithm effectively avoids single points of failure through first-class simplification, thereby enhancing the robustness and reliability of the network. In contrast, the SPFA and Dijkstra algorithms do not have the same nodes traversed by their calculated paths due to differing path computation principles. Consequently, the green and blue lines in Figure 11a do not overlap. This indicates that while all algorithms have analogous objectives in path selection, the MOMTA-HN algorithm is capable of greater flexibility in adjusting paths when the network is under attack, thus ensuring the success rate of transmission. Figure 10: Transmission success rate of MOMTA-HN, SPFA, and Dijkstra algorithms encountering attacks with different types of simplifications. (**a**) Comparison of the number of successful transmissions from node 9 to node 18 encountering an attack; (**b**) comparison of the number of successful transmissions from node 18 to node 22 encountering an attack; (**c**) comparison of the number of successful transmissions from node 1 to node 9 encountering an attack. In Figure 9(b), the source and destination nodes are node 18 and node 22, respectively. The figure shows that the red line (MOMTA-HN) is significantly higher than the blue (SPFA) and green (Dijkstra) lines. The number of transmission successes of the MOMTA-HN algorithm is superior to those of the other two algorithms, both in the pre-attack period and in the later stages when there are fewer remaining nodes. At this juncture, the initial type of simplification employed by the MOMTA-HN algorithm is rendered ineffective, necessitating the implementation of a second type of simplification, namely the deletion of all nodes belonging to the initial link. With this simplification, the MOMTA-HN algorithm can recalculate the multipath for transmission. The SPFA and Dijkstra algorithms yield identical results in Figure 9(b), resulting in the two lines overlapping. In Figure 9(c), the source and destination nodes are node 1 and node 9, respectively. The experimental results demonstrate that the red line (MOMTA-HN) is significantly higher than the blue (SPFA) and green (Dijkstra) lines. Furthermore, the number of successful transmissions of the MOMTA-HN algorithm outperforms the other two algorithms in both the pre-attack period and the later period when there are fewer remaining nodes. At this point, the first transmission path used for source and destination node transmission contains unique links. When both the Type I and Type II simplification methods of the MOMTA-HN algorithm prove ineffective, the algorithm employs a multipath computation strategy for Type III simplification methods, which it then compares with the other algorithms. This advanced simplification strategy enables the MOMTA-HN algorithm to identify and utilize new redundant paths, thereby preventing transmission interruptions caused by network attacks. The experimental results demonstrate that the MOMTA-HN algorithm is still capable of effectively guaranteeing the success rate of data transmission in this complex network environment, whereas the SPFA and Dijkstra algorithms are less adept at doing so. The results of the above comparison experiments demonstrate that the MOMTA-HN algorithm exhibits a significantly higher success rate in information transmission than the SPFA and Dijkstra algorithms, particularly in the context of network attacks.