## 4 Simulation Results  
In this section, the numerical results on the secrecy rate performance of the proposed network are presented. To this end, unless stated otherwise, the parameter values in Table 2 are used. The channel power gains are modeled as \(g=10^{-1}\)x \(d^{-y}\), where x and y represent channel short-term fading and path-loss exponent, respectively. It is assumed that x = y = 1, and all channel gains have found depending on the distance \(d\). In addition, the channel gains are modeled as quasi-static flat fading, which remains constant over the period \(T\) seconds, but may vary in different periods [12; 23]. In this study, the performance of proposed scenario is evaluated by comparing it with other three baseline schemes, i.e., a symbiotic scenario without sensing errors, a nonsymbiotic scenario with sensing errors, and a nonsymbiotic scenario without sensing errors. In Figure 6, where the change in secrecy rate is given according to the signal transmission power of the BS, it is seen that there is an increase in performance in all scenarios. The reason why \(R_{\text{sec}}\) increases slowly in response to the increase in \(P_{\text{BS}}\) is that the system performance is limited by the ED. As \(P_{\text{BS}}\) increases, the BS reaches the number of bits it needs to deliver to the IR faster and \(\beta_{1}\) decreases. By reducing the \(z\) value, HT reduces its support for BS, and can harvest more energy for active data transmission. In the nonsymbiotic scenario, the power reflection coefficient is \(z=0\) and HT does not help the BS transfer information to the IR. By setting \(z=0\), the energy harvested by HT from the BS increases. Mutualism scenario and silent BS-active HT scenario are situations where the sensing error is assumed to be zero. Therefore, the equations in these two scenarios constitute the optimization problem. The best performance is seen in the symbiotic scenario without sensing errors, while the worst performance is seen in the nonsymbiotic scenario with sensing errors. Although taking into account the sensing error reduces the system performance, the results obtained are more accurate in terms of the real-life applicability of the proposed system. The symbiotic scenario gave better performance than the nonsymbiotic scenario. This means that cooperative use of the channel between BS-HT increases physical layer security. In the nonsymbiotic state, the HT is assumed to put itself in energy harvesting mode for the idle scenario. Even though there is no BS signal around, energy is harvested from the signal emitted by the jammer and the WiFi access point. As a result, the \(P_{\text{active}}^{4}\) and \(R_{\text{sec}}^{4}\) expressions given for the silent BS-active HT scenario are also valid for the idle scenario of nonsymbiotic. The only difference is that \(R_{\text{sec}}^{2}\) is added to the system throughput with probability \(P(H_{0})(P_{f})\). Figure 7 shows the change in the secrecy rate according to the power reflection coefficient of the HT. \(R_{\text{sec}}\) is maximized by finding the optimal \(\beta_{1}\) and \(\beta_{2}\) values for the values of \(z\) from 0 to 1. Since \(z=0\) is accepted in the nonsymbiotic scenario, the performance of this scenario is not discussed in Figure 7. At \(z=1\), the HT reflects the entire BS signal via backscattering. As the \(P_{\text{BS}}\) value decreases, the \(\beta_{1}\) time increases due to the number of bits that the BS must deliver to the IR. This causes a decrease in the \(R_{\text{sec}}\) value. As seen in Figure 7, the presence of HT and BS in the symbiotic scenario shows that the system gives better results in terms of PLS. In all cases, very small decreases in performance were observed after the \(z\) value that maximized \(R_{\text{sec}}\). From \(z=0\) to \(z=0.1\), \(R_{\text{s}_{1}}\) shows a significant increase and \(R_{\text{sec}}\) increases.