## 5 Result and Discussion
#### Comparative Analysis  
To strengthen the validation of our proposed hybrid detection method, we extended our comparisons beyond Watchdog and DSR by including other state-of-the-art solutions mentioned in the related work section. Specifically, we compared our approach with the methodologies presented in [1,3,5]. The results, summarized in Table 2, show that, while methods such as the dual-attack detection technique and collaborative detection are competitive in specific scenarios, our hybrid approach consistently outperformed these methods across multiple metrics, particularly in detection accuracy and false positive rates under both black hole and gray hole attack conditions. For example, our method achieved a detection accuracy of 97% for black hole attacks, compared to 92% for the dual attack detection technique and 90% for the collaborative detection method. Additionally, our approach demonstrated significantly lower system overhead and network latency, making it more suitable for deployment in resource-constrained MANET environments. These comparisons reinforce the significance of our hybrid approach in improving the security and reliability of MANETs against sophisticated attacks, offering a scalable and adaptable solution that can meet the evolving demands of MANET environments.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Scenario** & **Watchdog** & **DSR** & **Hybrid Approach** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Detection Accuracy (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 85 & 90 & 97 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 78 & 82 & 93 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{False Positive Rate (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 12 & 9 & 3 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 15 & 11 & 2 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Packet Delivery Ratio (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 72 & 78 & 88 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 75 & 79 & 87 \\ \cline{2-5}  & No Attack & 91 & 93 & 97 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Network Latency (ms)} & Black Hole Attack & 220 & 205 & 180 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 210 & 200 & 175 \\ \cline{2-5}  & No Attack & 100 & 95 & 90 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{System Overhead (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 18 & 15 & 10 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 20 & 16 & 9 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-5}  & No Attack & 5 & 4 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Overview of the result of our approach.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Scenario** & **Watchdog** & **DSR** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Dual Attack** \\ **Detection** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Collaborative** \\ **Detection** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Hybrid** \\ **Detection** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Detection Accuracy (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 85 & 90 & 92 & 90 & 97 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 78 & 82 & 88 & 85 & 93 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{False Positive Rate (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 12 & 9 & 8 & 7 & 3 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 15 & 11 & 10 & 9 & 2 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Packet Delivery Ratio (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 72 & 78 & 85 & 80 & 88 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 75 & 79 & 82 & 77 & 87 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Network Latency (ms)} & Black Hole Attack & 220 & 205 & 200 & 195 & 180 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 210 & 200 & 190 & 185 & 175 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{System Overhead (\%)} & Black Hole Attack & 18 & 15 & 14 & 12 & 10 \\ \cline{2-5}  & Gray Hole Attack & 20 & 16 & 15 & 13 & 9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Overview of the results of the comparative evaluations.