## 4 Simulation Experiments: Security Analysis and Comparison
### Computation Time  
An encryption algorithm that is considered good must achieve a balance between security and efficiency. It should be robust enough to withstand attacks and safeguard confidential information, while also being fast enough to perform its function promptly according to the intended use case. To assess the scalability of our scheme, we measure the amount of time it takes to carry out the encryption and decryption procedures.  
The experiments were conducted on a machine with an Intel Core i7-7500U processor running at 2.70 GHz and 8 GB of memory. We conducted experiments on various texts with different sizes to analyze the computation time of our scheme. The results for the encryption and decryption time are presented in Table 3. From Table 3, we can observe that when the number of characters in the plaintext is between 30 and 5995, the encryption time ranges from 0.0254 to 0.0472 s, and the decryption time ranges from 0.0256 to 0.3860 s. These findings suggest that our proposed scheme is effective for cryptographic purposes.  
We conducted a comparison of the computational time between our proposed scheme and several state-of-the-art text encryption schemes [14; 41; 42; 43]. The results of our comparison are presented in Table 4, which demonstrate that our proposed method is significantly faster than the existing schemes [14; 41; 42; 43]. For example, when encrypting and decrypting a 1126-character text, our proposed method only takes 0.0272 s and 0.0926 s, respectively, whereas the method by [PERSON] et al. [42] requires 0.14 s for encryption and 0.109 s for decryption. On the other hand, the results of the schemes by [PERSON] et al. [14], [PERSON] and [PERSON] [41], and [PERSON] et al. [43] are based on texts fewer than 1126 characters, but they still require more time for encryption and decryption when compared with the proposed scheme. These results show that our scheme is more efficient than those schemes [14; 41; 42; 43].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\({}^{1}\)**Plaintext**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Scheme**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(R\)} & \(\begin{array}{c}EQ\\ \text{(\%)}\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}H(P)\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}H(C)\end{array}\) &
\begin{tabular}[]{c}Plaintext \\ **Sensitivity** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{\(P_{3}\)} & Proposed & \(-0.2979\) & \(93.3333\) & \(3.9484\) & \(4.2817\) & \(96.666\) \\  & Ref. [14] & \(-0.0588\) & \(86.6667\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.8314\) & \(6.6667\) \\  & Ref. [18] & \(0.3411\) & \(63.3333\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.0159\) & \(3.3333\) \\  & Ref. [17] & \(0.3411\) & \(63.3333\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.0159\) & \(3.3333\) \\  & Ref. [16] & \(0.3411\) & \(63.3333\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.0159\) & \(3.3333\) \\  & Ref. [15] & \(0.6242\) & \(43.3333\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.0769\) & \(3.3333\) \\  & Ref. [13] & \(0.0223\) & \(66.6667\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.0799\) & \(3.3333\) \\  & Ref. [12] & \(0.3411\) & \(63.3333\) & \(3.9484\) & \(3.0159\) & \(3.3333\) \\  & Ref. [10] & \(0.3588\) & \(60.0000\) & \(3.9484\) & \(2.8115\) & \(3.3333\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) P\({}_{1}\), P\({}_{2}\), and P\({}_{3}\) represents the plaintext messages ENCODE, CRYPTOGARPHY, and MAXPLUS WAVELET TRANSFORMATION, respectively.  
\end{table}
Table 2: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Number of Characters in \(P\)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Time (Seconds)**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & **Encryption** & **Decryption** \\ \hline
30 & 0.0254 & 0.0256 \\
300 & 0.0294 & 0.0432 \\
999 & 0.0320 & 0.0956 \\
3000 & 0.0372 & 0.2050 \\
5995 & 0.0472 & 0.3860 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Computation time of the proposed text encryption scheme.