## 4 Simulation and Results
### Analysis of Results  
In this section, we analyze the performance of our protocol using various experiments and scenarios to demonstrate its effectiveness in minimizing collisions.  
Figure 6 illustrates the significant improvement of DTS-AC compared to FTSMAC across various numbers of reader deployments. Since DTS-AC minimizes the RTI collisions affecting the FTSMAC protocol, its schema-based collision management consumes more Time Slots. As the number of readers increases, the system's reading efficiency experiences a significant improvement, with efficiency reaching 88% when 30 readers are present. Subsequently, as the number of readers continues to increase, the reading efficiency approaches almost 100%, indicating a near-perfect performance. The frequency and time resource distribution technique employed by both DTS-AC and FTSMAC demonstrates exceptional system performance, surpassing that of Pulse, MCMAC, and CORA protocols.  
Figure 7 confirms the superior performance of DTS-AC regarding the number of active readers, demonstrating that almost all readers in the simulation can be activated and utilize the data channel without collisions. Both protocols exhibit symmetrical evolution, with DTS-AC showing a slight advantage of three to nine drives. However, a notable deviation between DTS-AC and FTSMAC becomes apparent at 50 readers, indicating DTS-AC's more effective collision minimization while maintaining robust RRI processing and enhancing the RTI resolution process.  
In Figure 8, a study of a dense RFID network is conducted with varying numbers of readers (ranging from 50 to 250) across seven data channels and time slots. The results reveal a substantial disparity between the two protocols compared to the earlier sparse network scenario. In this denser deployment, DTS-AC has evolved significantly, facilitating the activation of up to 230 readers. The significant gap of 160 active readers between the two protocols underscores the effectiveness of DTS-AC's time slot management, highlighting its pivotal role in accommodating such an increase. This underscores DTS-AC's suitability for dense RFID systems.  
Figure 6: Average success reading vs. number of readers.  
Figure 9 illustrates the system's efficiency across various numbers of readers (ranging from 10 to 50) and the utilization of time slots (from one to seven TSs). DTS-AC consistently outperforms FTSMAC in all scenarios, with performance differentials ranging from 12% to 18%. Remarkably, even with the escalation in reader deployments, DTS-AC sustains its superiority, achieving a performance peak of 98% with 50 readers. This highlights the critical role of time slot control by DTS-AC in optimizing system efficiency amidst varying network densities and demands.  
Figure 8: Number of active readers vs. number of readers for dense network.  
Figure 7: Number of active readers vs. number of readers.  
Considering the cost of the solution, Figure 10 shows the number of failed reader interrogations. It is evident that DTS-AC minimizes the delays required for readers to interrogate all tags in the network, with delays ranging up to 5 s for 50 readers. In contrast, FTSMAC exhibits a longer delay of 1.5 s and an increased number of failed interrogations, reaching 120 for 50 readers. NFRA, a centralized algorithm, exhibits longer interrogation times due to control messages exchanged between the reader and server, but with no failed interrogations. MCMAC shows similar delays to FTSMAC initially but exhibits the highest number of failed interrogations, reaching 160 for 50 readers.  
These findings demonstrate the superior performance, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of DTS-AC compared to other protocols in various simulation scenarios.  
Figure 10: Total interrogation time vs. number of readers.  
Figure 9: Average success reading vs. number of TSs.