For Tables 4 and 5 TUS results correspond to plain triple umpire system where as ETUS results correspond to TUS with the incorporation of salvaging.
Again comparing TUS and ETUS results from tables 4 & 5, we find throughput with ETUS is higher.
Throughput with ETUS is higher as compared to plain AODV, self_USS, self_USS with SRR, SCAN and TUS.
From the above results we conclude that ETUS leads to a substantial improvement over plain AODV, Self_USS, Self_USS with SRR and TUS, from the point of view of throughput.
Figure 5 and Figure 6 present failure to deduct probability as a function of mobility and percentage malicious nodes of TUS and ETUS respectively.
We find that false negative probability has decreased with ETUS.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 Presents false accusation probability as a function of mobility and percentage malicious nodes for TUS and ETUS respectively.
It is seen that with ETUS False Positive Probabilities slightly decrease.
Communication overhead can be evaluated based on the number of transmissions of control messages like RREQ, RREP, and RERR in the case of plain AODV and in addition M_ERROR, M-Flag, Umpire, Neighbor list messages in the TUS and ETUS.
The communication overhead increases with increasing percentage of malicious nodes and mobility for both TUS and ETUS.
The corresponding variation for ETUS is from 13111 to 26521.