## 3 Experiment
### Detailed Analysis and Comparison  
Figure 9 presents a comparison of the MOMTA-HN algorithm with the SPFA and Dijkstra algorithms. Figure 9a depicts the comparison of reliability, while Figure 9b illustrates the comparison of delay. In the absence of attacks, we traversed the transmission paths between all nodes and computed the path transmission delay loss and the path reliability value for the three algorithms. The path reliability value is the product of the reliability of the different nodes. Minimum reliability is represented by the positive triangles in the figure. The minimum reliability for both the MOMTA-HN algorithm and the Dijkstra algorithm is 99.182%, while for the SPFA algorithm it is 99.004%. Maximum reliability is represented by the inverted triangles. The maximum reliability for all three algorithms is 99.999%. Mean reliability is represented by the star in the center of the box. The mean reliability values for the MOMTA-HN, Dijkstra, and SPFA algorithms are 99.69%, 99.666%, and 99.654%, respectively. Median reliability is represented by the tan solid line. The median reliability for all three algorithms is 99.6%. When calculating the path transmission delay loss, we disregarded the time required for policy formulation and focused on the transmission time, derived by multiplying the link relative value by the transmission delay loss through different media, assuming constant external environmental conditions. Minimum delay is represented by positive triangles. The minimum transmission delay for all three algorithms is 10 ms. Maximum delay is represented by inverted triangles. The maximum transmission delay for both the MOMTA-HN and Dijkstra algorithms is 495 ms, while for the SPFA algorithm it is 425 ms. Mean delay is represented by the star in the middle of the box. The average transmission delays for the MOMTA-HN, Dijkstra, and SPFA algorithms are 311.66 ms, 239.5 ms, and 250.06 ms, respectively. Median delay is represented by the tan solid line. The median transmission delay for the MOMTA-HN algorithm is 325 ms, for Dijkstra it is 270 ms, and for SPFA it is 290 ms.  
We can conclude through numerical analysis and comparison that the SPFA algorithm exhibited the lowest average delay (270 ms), while the MOMTA-HN algorithm exhibited the highest reliability. The MOMTA-HN algorithm selects the path with the highest reliability at the cost of slightly increased transmission delay as a result of multi-objective optimization. The algorithm enhances transmission security by calculating multiple redundant paths and ensuring that these redundant paths do not share any common links with the original paths in non-essential situations. Although the average delay of the MOMTA-HN algorithm is slightly higher than that of the SPFA algorithm, it has significant advantages in terms of network reliability. In particular, the MOMTA-HN algorithm is capable of selecting the path with the highest reliability for data transmission among multiple paths that can reach the destination during the process of multi-objective optimization. This strategy not only ensures the stability of data transmission but also improves the overall network quality of service and user experience to a certain extent. The following presents the results of transmission performance when encountering attacks, as evaluated by different algorithms. As illustrated in Figure 10, this study presents the results of transmission success comparisons among the MOMTA-HN algorithm, the SPFA algorithm, and the Dijkstra algorithm when encountering attacks. The experiments comprise three scenarios to demonstrate the performance of each algorithm and their path selection strategies under different source and destination node configurations. In Figure 10a, the source and destination nodes are node 9 and node 18, respectively. In this case, the MOMTA-HN algorithm performs the first type of simplification, which involves deleting all nodes of the sub-network where the first link transmitting node is located.