## 6 Comparison and Discussion
Specifically, Figure 15 illustrates that the proposed DT method and SPRT consume similar false positive rate which improves the replica recognition competence compared to the distributed method (i.e., XED), However, Figure 16 shows that the proposed DT method has a good performance in terms of false negative rates of XED and SPRT. The false positive and false negative values which are shown in Figures 15 and 16, respectively, highlight the performance among distributed (i.e., XED), centralized (i.e., SPRT) and hybrid (i.e., DT) approaches. Moreover, the calculated average values of the false positive and negative rates for these approaches (i.e., XED, SPRT and DT) are compared based on wrongly replica detection (i.e., false positive rate) and in the situation where replica is still present after performing the detection procedure (i.e., false negative rate). It should be noted that by using the DT approach, there is a false positive rate enhancement compared to XED and SPRT. Figure 15 demonstrates that the performance of the DT and SPRT is same in terms of false positive rate (i.e., clone wrongly detected). Figure 15: Comparison of simulated value of false positive rate of the DT (hybrid) detection with SPRT and XED. Figure 16 illustrates that the proposed DT approach performance increased in terms of false negative rate compared to XED and SPRT. The results show that the proposed method based on danger theory is efficient, competent and sheltered for clone identification. Generally, as specified in the above figures, it can be concluded that the hybrid, centralized and distributed techniques for clone recognition have a positive impact in terms of false negative. The multi-level method depends on the first stage (identify the infected area), the second stage (battery level check and exchange random number) and the third stage (to secure network). Figure 17 represents the contrast with respect to energy consumption in distributed, centralized and hybrid approaches for clone recognition. XED and DT utilize less energy while SPRT entails higher. The clone detection of the proposed DT and SPRT procedures decrease gradually, whereas the XED method decreases rapidly for the reason of detection errors in terms of false positive and negative. The energy consumption (i.e., \(E_{d}\)), replica detection ratio (i.e., \(P_{d}\)) and detection time (i.e., \(T_{d}\)) of XED, SPRT and DT approaches are tabulated in Table 1. There is a significant improvement for the DT approach as presented in Figure 17 in comparison with the other methods for replication attacks detection. The SPRT strategy is centralized and may suffer from only one designation collapse (i.e., BS). With this breakdown, the whole network could be affected. Moreover, it has the issues of energy consumption decline and absence in MWSN across one point such as BS. In addition, the SPRT approach is a fast clone detection but it is created by comparing the speed level of each mobile node through adjusted threshold value, hence, it needs precise measurement equipment that could be costly and unaffordable. Furthermore, in the case of intelligent attackers, he/she could adjust the speed level (i.e., which lies in the range of the threshold). The distributed methods can be considered in MWSN to reduce the chance of one-point failure. By studying numerous distributed approaches, it could be observed that most methods depend on the frequency of mobile nodes meeting at a precise time interval. Encountering the random number-based method (i.e., XED), is not considered as a fast clone detection because it depends on the time or frequency of the mobile node meeting. Hence, if two or multiple mobile nodes do not encounter each other at a specific time, it will generate ample delay for clone detection. In the paper [30], clones are not cooperative and do not meet with other mobile nodes, thus clone with no trouble can establish secret communication, so it causes the clone recognition to fail.