# Honesty-Based Social Technique to Enhance Cooperation in Social Internet of Things
## 3 Proposed Model
### Decision Module
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Simulation field & 1000 m\({}^{2}\) \\ Transmission radius & 50 m \\ Base protocols & AODV \\ Pause time & 10–100 s \\ Ratio of selfish nodes & 25\% \& 50\% \\ Threshold value used & Credible community, node selfishness \\ Comparison protocols & CAIS, HBDS, SSAR \\ Nodes distribution & Random \\ Packet size & Random \\ Type of channel & Wireless \\ Simulation duration & 100 s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Parameters used in the simulation. Figure 2: Network throughput with 25% selfish nodes. The comparisons of routing overhead are shown in Figure 2--the nodes first exchange redundant control information to create the communities and their heads. More routing traffic is also required for tasks' assignments. As a result, HBST initially has a higher routing overhead than CAIS, HBST, and SSAR protocols. When a community is first put up, nodes may quit it, and there is less frequent node interaction. The results show that by 10 s of pause time, HBST has an approximately 50% larger overhead than CAIS, 35.30% larger overhead than HBDS, and 27.46% lesser overhead than HBST for the SSAR protocol. Given how the configuration was set up, the overhead of the HBST dramatically declined by the pause time of 30 s. The proposed mechanism's overhead values are marginally better than its rivals. The overhead ratio of the HBST was 45.30% less than that of SSAR, 32.55% less than that of the HBDS, and 21.62% less than that of the CAIS at pause time 60. Similarly, at pause time 100, the overhead of the HBST dropped by around 20.60% compared to CAIS, 27.30% compared to HBST, and 44.90% less than SSAR. The findings show that the overhead of the HBST lowers as soon as the communities are established, nodes begin interacting with one another, and there is a rise in community interest. The isolation of selfish nodes also results in a lower overhead. The overhead ratio is reduced, since these nodes are separated and are not forwarded any communications. Figure 3 shows routing overhead ration for the network having 25% selfish nodes. Figure 4 compares the proposed HBST's PDR results to those of the CAIS, HBDS, and SSAR protocols. Over time, the PDRs of the experimented protocols rise. The performance of the proposed protocol is slightly worse than CIAS until pause time 30. At pause time 10, HBST's PDR is 15.68% higher than that of the SSAR protocol, 3.77% less than that of the CAIS, and equal to that of the HBDS. After the first setups were complete at pause time 30, the HBST performed at its best. The PDR of the HBST was 3.17% more than that of the CAIS, 14.28% more than that of the HBDS, and 18.46% more than that of the SSARat pause time 50. The PDR of the HBST was considerably increased at pause time 100 and was 10% better than that of the CAIS, 14.28% better than that of the HBDS, and 21% better than that of SSAR. The PDR of the HBST was initially somewhat smaller or equivalent to those of other protocols, as shown in the figure. However, as the community grows and more nodes show interest in it, the PDR of the HBST is improved. The reason for the higher PDR of the HBST at pause time 100 is that selfish nodes were separated from the main network and given time to enhance the qualities of the honesty parameter. Figure 3: Routing overhead ratio for the network having 25% selfish nodes. The network's packet-delivery delays also influence the performance of a network. Network performance decreases as packet-delivery delays increase. Figure 5 compares the end-to-end delays of the proposed protocol with those of its competitors. The findings indicate that once the community is established, nodes begin to show interest in it, and nodes engage in more interactions to create a credible community; HBST experiences the minimum delays. At stop time 10, the CAIS packet delay was 6.25% longer than that of the HBST, the HBDS's delay was 9.10% longer, and the SSAR protocol's delay was 12.54% longer.