# Spectrum Decision-Making in Collaborative Cognitive Radio Networks
## 3 Results
### Percentage Analysis of the Collaboration  
To establish a collaboration criterion in terms of the number of failed handoffs, a percentage-based analysis is carried out for each metric. The objective is to use 100% of the shared information as the base criterion, as shown in Section 3.1. This level has the lowest indicators.  
Figure 19 shows the relation for the number of failed handoffs with FFAHP with real-time (RT) service. The increments rates for each collaboration level are presented in percentage form. For high traffic (HT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min FFAHP) was 87. The average rate of these increments was 16.1% (14 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 20% and 50%. For low traffic (LT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min FFAHP) was 83. The average increase rate corresponds to 22.9% (19 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 20% and 50%.  
Figure 20 shows the relation for the number of failed handoffs with FFAHP with best-effort (BE) service. The increments rates for each collaboration level are presented in percentage form. For high traffic (HT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min FFAHP) was 2286. The average rate of these increments is 11.5% (263 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 10% and 20%. For low traffic (LT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min FFAHP) was 906. The average increase rate corresponds to 15.1% (137 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 10% and 20%.  
Figure 19: Relation of failed handoffs for FFAHP: (**a**) Real time (RT) and high traffic (HT); (**b**) Real time (RT) and low traffic (LT).  
Figure 21 shows the relation for the number of failed handoffs with SAW with real-time (RT) service. The increments rates for each collaboration level are presented in percentage form. For high traffic (HT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min SAW) was 107. The average rate of these increments is 5.1% (6 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 20% and 50%. For low traffic (LT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min SAW) was 75. The average increase rate corresponds to 6.7% (5 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 20% and 50%.  
Figure 21: Relation failed handoffs for SAW: (**a**) Real time (RT) and high traffic (HT); (**b**) Real time (RT) and low traffic (LT).  
Figure 20: Relation failed handoffs for FFAHP: (**a**) Best effort (BE) and high traffic (HT); (**b**) Best effort (BT) and low traffic (LT).  
Figure 22 shows the relation for the number of failed handoffs with SAW with best-effort (BE) service. The increments rates for each collaboration level are presented in percentage form. For high traffic (HT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min SAW) was 105. The average rate of these increments is 11.7% (12 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 10% and 20%. For low traffic (LT), the minimum number of failed handoffs (min SAW) was 66. The average increase rate corresponds to 7.6% (137 failed handoffs), which corresponds to a collaboration level between 50% and 80%.  
Based on the percentage relations obtained, the level of information shared, and the average increase rates, it is determined that for a given the number of failed handoffs, the collaboration range that enables efficient results varies between 10% and 20%, where 20% of the shared information is considered the representative limit of the range. For best effort (BE), the range from 20% to 50% delivers the highest efficiency according to the average increase rates.