## 4 Results and Discussion
### ANOVA Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Full Factorial**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Plackett–Burman**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Taguchi**} \\ \hline  & **DoF** & **F** & **P\%** & **Sig/Insig** & **DoF** & **F** & **P\%** & **Sig/Insig** & **DoF** & **F** & **P\%** & **Sig/Insig** \\ \hline ND & 1 & 7.0* & 14.5\% & Significant & 1 & 12.7* & 27.5\% & Significant & 1 & 134.9* & 35.5\% & Significant \\ NC & 1 & 0.1 & 0.3\% & Insignificant & 1 & 0.2 & 0.4\% & Insignificant & 1 & 8.2 & 2.2\% & Insignificant \\ NDxNC & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & 1 & 15.7 & 4.1\% & Insignificant \\ BKH & 1 & 11.7* & 24.4\% & Significant & 1 & 13.5* & 29.2\% & Significant & 1 & 140.1* & 36.9\% & Significant \\ WMH & 1 & 18.1* & 37.8\% & Significant & 1 & 16.8* & 36.3\% & Significant & 1 & 79.2* & 20.8\% & Significant \\ Error & 11 & \(-\) & 22.9\% & \(-\) & 3 & \(-\) & 6.5\% & \(-\) & 2 & \(-\) & 0.5\% & \(-\) \\ Total & 15 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & 7 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & 7 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) \\ Adj.R\({}^{2}\) & 0.681 & & & & 0.849 & & & 0.982 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: ANOVA statistical significance and percentage contribution of the factors on throughput. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Full Factorial**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Plackett–Burman**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Taguchi**} \\ \hline  & **DoF** & **F** & **P\%** & **Sig/Insig** & **DoF** & **F** & **P\%** & **Sig/Insig** & **DoF** & **F** & **P\%** & **Sig/Insig** \\ \hline ND & 1 & 5.6* & 13.6\% & Significant & 1 & 19.2* & 21.7\% & Significant & 1 & 207.1* & 13.2\% & Significant \\ NC & 1 & 0.3 & 0.6\% & Insignificant & 1 & 8.7 & 9.8\% & Insignificant & 1 & 62.2* & 4.0\% & Significant \\ NDxNC & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & 1 & 10.4 & 0.7\% & Insignificant \\ WMH & 1 & 9.8* & 23.9\% & Significant & 1 & 25.0* & 28.2\% & Significant & 1 & 451.6* & 28.8\% & Significant \\ WMH & 1 & 14.6* & 35.6\% & Significant & 1 & 32.7* & 36.9\% & Significant & 1 & 836.2* & 53.3\% & Significant \\ Error & 11 & \(-\) & 26.9* & \(-\) & 3 & \(-\) & 3.4\% & \(-\) & 2 & \(-\) & 0.1\% & – \\ Total & 15 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & 7 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) & 7 & \(-\) & \(-\) & \(-\) \\ Adj.R\({}^{2}\) & 0.634 & & & & 0.821 & & & 0.858 & & & \\ \hline \methods. Indeed, the wormhole attack has the most impact, succeeded by the black hole attack and node density. According to the Taguchi method, the black hole attack has the largest effect, followed by node density and the wormhole attack. However, the interaction and the factor number of connections have the least contribution. Based on the F-ratio exhibited in Table 4, we observe that the ANOVA results regarding the packet loss ratio of both Plackett-Burman and full factorial reveal three significant effects, which are node density, black hole and wormhole. Similarly, these results are close to the Taguchi method, except for the factor NC, that shows a significant effect but lesser contribution. The effect of the interaction remains insignificant as estimated by the Taguchi method. Based on the percentage contribution of each factor, it is seen that the most influential factors from the three methods are, respectively, wormhole (WMH: 35.6%, 36.9% and 53.3%), black hole (BKH: 23.9%, 28.2%, 28.8%), and node density (ND: 13.6%, 21.7% and 13.2%); however, the number of connections has the lowest contributions (0.6%, 9.8% and 4.0%). Table 5 illustrates the ANOVA results with respect to average end-to-end delay. It is clear that the three methods produce equivalent results in terms of the factor's statistical significance. The number of connections, node density and the black hole attack are revealed to be statistically significant, whereas the wormhole attack has an insignificant effect and the lowest percentage contribution. The Taguchi method indicates an insignificant effect of the interaction between node density and number of connections.