# A Jamming-Resilient and Scalable Broadcasting Algorithm for Multiple Access Channel Networks
## 7 Evaluation
However, failure in transmission of a single critical piece of information, such as the over bit flag, could cause the nodes to  
Figure 10: Comparing the throughput of the KTFW and the BEB algorithms for all jamming rates and \(n\in[60\)–\(100]\). Figure 9: Comparing the throughput of the KTFW and the BEB algorithms for all jamming rates and \(n\in[10\)–\(50]\). become stuck in line. As a result, with even a jamming rate of 0.05, all nodes remain in a listening state, waiting for the bit flag to be received on the channel. The QB algorithm is not designed to handle special scenarios such as lost packets due to jamming attacks. We compared the average packet latency results for all three broadcast algorithms with no jamming and \(n=\) [10-100] (see Figure 11). The results are shown for both injection model types, revealing that the average packet latency increases with the number of nodes. For the BEB, the average packet latency experiences a much larger increase than both the KTFW and the QB algorithms. These results also show that both the QB and the KTFW algorithms have significantly lower average packet latency than the BEB algorithm. For the RIM, the QB and the KTFW algorithms have almost identical average packet latency for all values of \(n\). In contrast, the QB performs slightly better than the KTFW algorithm for all \(n>50\), while they perform identically for all \(n\leq 50\). The results for average packet latency under jamming indicates lower average packet latency for the KTFW in all cases except for when \(j=\) [0.15-0.4] and \(n=10\), in which case both algorithms have similar average packet latency (see Figure 12). In contrast, for the LBIM, the KTFW outperforms other algorithms in all cases. Results also show that the number of nodes has a huge impact on the average packet latency for the BEB algorithm, which increases significantly as \(n\) grows. The reason for this increase in average packet  
Figure 11: Comparing the average packet latency for the three algorithms (QB, KTFW, and BEB) for all \(n\in\) [10-100]. latency is that the jammer will cause most retransmissions of packets to fail. Successive failure of retransmission implies a higher backoff window range, which leads to longer waiting times for packets. In addition, the average packet latency significantly increases for the BEB algorithm as the jamming rate increases. In comparison, the average packet latency for the KTFW algorithm has a slower growth rate than the BEB algorithm, which shows its resilience to jamming attacks. In Figure 12, an unusual result can be observed where the average packet latency for the KTFW algorithm with \(n=10\) (KTFW 10) becomes larger than with \(n=50\) (KTFW 50). The transmission of more packets fails due to the increased jamming power, which increases the segment processing duration. Furthermore, the injection model has a higher probability of injecting packets into the current segment nodes when \(n=10\). Accordingly, the segment processing duration is typically longer for the KTFW 10 than for the KTFW 50 under high jamming rates. This produces longer delays for packets in the other remaining nodes that are not part of the current segment. In summary, the KTFW algorithm results demonstrate a significant advantage in the two performance measures compared with the standard BEB and QB algorithms. Although both the KTFW and BEB algorithms recorded nearly identical throughputs and average packet latencies when the network is small (e.g., \(n=10\)), the KTFW algorithm becomes significantly more efficient as the network size increases. The KTFW algorithm outperforms the BEB algorithm while maintaining a lower average packet latency, whereas the BEB suffers from a significant increase in the average packet latency, especially for high jamming rates. However, the effect on the average packet latency for the KTFW algorithm is fairly marginal for any number of nodes, demonstrating its resilience to jamming attacks compared to the BEB algorithm.