## 6 Results
### Simulation Experiments Results
At 5 attack nodes, S-2 EC-ERF exhibited an average throughput of 177.739 KBPS, which remained consistently high as the number of attack nodes increased, reaching 167.429 KBPS at 25 attack nodes. Similarly, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada demonstrated comparable average throughput values, with marginal variations observed across different numbers of attack nodes. However, these frameworks generally exhibited slightly lower average throughput rates compared to S-2 EC-ERF. S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada exhibited average throughput values ranging from 177.485 KBPS to 167.11 KBPS at 5 attack nodes and from 187.191 KBPS to 166.947 KBPS at 25 attack nodes. These findings suggest that while S-2 EC-ERF excels in maintaining high data transmission rates, the other frameworks may experience slight reductions in throughput under similar attack conditions. Figure 5: The comparison in real time accuracy between S-2 EC-ERF, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada. During the assessment of the mean energy consumption across varying numbers of attack nodes, distinct trends surfaced regarding the energy efficiency of S-2 EC-ERF, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada, as illustrated in Figure 8. S-2 EC-ERF consistently demonstrated the lowest mean energy consumption values among the methods considered, thus indicating its effectiveness in managing energy resources efficiently. At five attack nodes, S-2 EC-ERF exhibited a mean energy consumption of 10.3505 J, which remained relatively consistent across different numbers of attack nodes, with values ranging from 10.3505 J to 10.8721 J. Conversely, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada displayed higher mean energy consumption values, with varying degrees of fluctuations observed across different attack scenarios. While S-2 EC-LR and S-2 EC-DT generally exhibited similar mean energy consumption patterns, with values ranging from 11.8705 J to 12.3921 J and 11.6405 J to 12.1621 J, respectively, S-2 EC-Ada demonstrated slightly lower mean energy consumption, with values ranging from 11.6405 J to 12.1621 J. These findings suggested that while S-2 EC-ERF excelled in energy efficiency, the other methods may have incurred relatively higher energy costs in detecting and mitigating attacks. Figure 6: Comparison of packet delivery ratio between S-2 EC-ERF, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada. Figure 7: Comparison of average throughput between S-2 EC-ERF, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada. Figure 9 presents the evaluation of the end-to-end delay performance of S-2 EC-ERF, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada across varying numbers of attack nodes (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25). S-2 EC-ERF consistently demonstrated lower end-to-end delay values compared to the other frameworks, thereby indicating its efficiency in minimizing communication latency. At five attack nodes, S-2 EC-ERF exhibited an end-to-end delay of 17.8231 MS, which remained relatively stable across varying numbers of attack nodes, with values ranging from 16.294 MS to 20.5767 MS. Conversely, S-2 EC-LR, S-2 EC-DT, and S-2 EC-Ada displayed higher end-to-end delay values, with noticeable fluctuations observed across different attack scenarios. While S-2 EC-LR and S-2 EC-DT generally exhibited similar end-to-end delay patterns, with values ranging from 23.8412 MS to 26.8209 MS and 25.2798 MS to 28.2501 MS, respectively, S-2 EC-Ada demonstrated slightly higher end-to-end delay, with values ranging from 25.5866 MS to 29.4453 MS.