## 5 Experiments
### Experiment 4: Static Splitting Factors with Stopping Criteria
#### 5.4.3 Connections Saved Criterion
of**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 6**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 8**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 10**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 12**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 14**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 16**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 18**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 20**} \\ \hline
1000 & 0.62 & 0.38 & 0.42 & 0.47 & 0.52 & 0.27 & 0.29 & 0.31 & 0.32 & 0.34 \\
2000 & 0.79 & 0.49 & 0.53 & 0.57 & 0.62 & 0.77 & 0.84 & 0.40 & 0.42 & 1.21 \\
3000 & 1.13 & 0.85 & 0.64 & 0.68 & 0.72 & 0.87 & 1.06 & 1.14 & 1.22 & 1.31 \\
4000 & 1.53 & 0.97 & 0.74 & 0.78 & 0.90 & 0.97 & 1.15 & 1.23 & 1.32 & 1.58 \\
5000 & 2.03 & 1.62 & 1.35 & 1.87 & 1.09 & 1.17 & 1.25 & 1.33 & 1.41 & 1.84 \\
6000 & 2.23 & 1.77 & 1.47 & 2.04 & 1.20 & 1.27 & 1.35 & 1.43 & 1.66 & 1.94 \\
7000 & 2.42 & 1.90 & 1.58 & 2.14 & 1.21 & 1.37 & 1.45 & 1.53 & 1.77 & 2.03 \\
8000 & 2.56 & 1.99 & 1.64 & 2.18 & 1.22 & 1.37 & 1.55 & 1.63 & 1.86 & 2.15 \\
9000 & 2.74 & 2.10 & 1.80 & 2.28 & 1.41 & 1.47 & 1.65 & 1.72 & 1.96 & 2.26 \\
10,000 & 2.93 & 2.23 & 1.89 & 2.39 & 1.42 & 1.57 & 1.74 & 1.82 & 2.00 & 2.42 \\ \hline
**Num. of** & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 2**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 4**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 6**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 8**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 10**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 12**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 14**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 16**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 18**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SF = 20**} \\ \hline
1000 & 8 & 10 & 16 & 22 & 28 & 12 & 14 & 16 & 18 & 20 \\
2000 & 8 & 10 & 16 & 22 & 28 & 45 & 53 & 16 & 18 & 96 \\
3000 & 12 & 22 & 16 & 22 & 28 & 45 & 66 & 76 & 86 & 96 \\
4000 & 19 & 22 & 16 & 22 & 37 Interestingly, when dealing with a pollution factor of 5%, high splitting factors outperform low and medium ones, as also confirmed by Figure 12 and Table 14. Specifically, a splitting factor of 18 emerges as the top performer for connection pools exceeding 4K, taking roughly 1.6 to 2.5 min and utilizing 100 to 120 nodes to preserve 80% of the benign connections. In contrast, a medium splitting factor of 14 demands 6.4 to 7.1 min and over 600 nodes to achieve the same preservation rate. This unexpected outcome can be explained as follows: higher splitting factors necessitate the same resource allocation regardless of whether the pollution factor is 1% or 5%. However, low and medium splitting factors require an order of magnitude more time and nodes to salvage 80% of the benign connections, entailing the execution of an extra epoch during the simulation. And, normally, an extra epoch, besides spawning a greater number of nodes based on the splitting factor, also imposes substantially more connection migrations and node evaluations, thereby considerably increasing the total time. Regarding the efficiency of our scheme compared to previous experiments of Sections 5.2, 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 we opt to concentrate on the best-performing splitting factor and a connection pool size of 10K. Under these conditions, the simulation achieves the preservation of 80% of benign connections in 2.48 min using 120 nodes. Contrasting this with the experiment outlined in Section 5.2, where no criteria were imposed, and the optimal splitting factor was 10, the requirements in terms of time and nodes increase by 87.5% and 91.2%, respectively. In the experiment detailed in Section 5.4.1, where a 15 min constraint was enforced, and the best performer remained the splitting factor of 10, the simulation requires 83.4% more time and 87% more nodes. Lastly, in the experiment given in Section 5.4.2, where a 1000-node criterion was set, and the optimal factor was 10, the simulation necessitates 85.5% more time and 88% more nodes. Recall that the simulation concludes when at least 80% of the 95% benign connections are preserved, meaning that at most 15% of the benign connections are sacrificed. Finally, when applying a pollution factor of 10%, low to medium splitting factors are proved to be the more efficient.