### Motivation and Contributions  
The adverse positioning, environmental noise interference, and Doppler frequency shift of UWNS affect the network throughput, data transmission, reliability of data communication, and energy consumption. Thus, passing the data to the final destination becomes an arduous task. Hence, route planning becomes essential to guarantee data propagation from a node to the final destination in the network. Communication between the nodes is energy-consuming owing to the low speed of data propagation within deep seas [4; 5]. It is also complex and changeable. UWSNs are built differently from other wireless terrestrial network sensors as they cannot have high energy consumption and transmission latency. UWSNs should be capable of establishing extraordinarily secure and efficient network links in harsh underwater environments. Underwater routing protocols must be flexible to manage complex topology modifications and maintain network reliability in the face of multiple emergencies. Routing protocols usually choose the route for transmitting information from underwater source nodes to surface destination nodes. Interest in UWSN has seen a steep rise among the research community. Researchers have published an impressive number of articles and journals. Most papers focus on one property of the protocol, such as the node's energy consumption or geographical location. Most of the surveys lacked an efficient comparison of routing protocols. As a result, a comprehensive analysis of multi-path underwater routing protocols is lacking.  
This paper presents a comprehensive survey of multi-path routing for underwater network sensors. Compared to other recent surveys, this paper considers all the multi-path propagation of the UWSN and compares them against each other. The protocols are classified into three types:  
1. Geographical-based protocols: It uses the geographical location of the sensor nodes to estimate the possible topology for the underwater wireless network.
2. Energy-based protocols: Here, the protocol emphasizes energy conservation and extending the life span of the sensors using optimal and low-power protocols.
3. Data-centric protocols: This routing protocol is primarily concerned with the communication of data information from the source node to the destination node to ensure the integrity of the data packets during the transmission process.  
Energy-based protocols are subdivided into the following categories: reactive protocols, proactive protocols, hybrid protocols, cluster-based protocols, depth-based protocols, reinforcement learning-based protocols, bio-inspired protocols, and cooperative-reliability-based protocols. We briefly explain each category's protocol and compare each of them with one another. We discuss each protocol's advantages, disadvantages, and main ideas. Similarly, we categorized geographical information-based protocols and data-based protocols into depth-based protocols, location-based protocols, pressure-based protocols, adaptive protocols, sender-based protocols, clustering protocols, direction-based, and flooding-based protocols, respectively, and compared protocols of each category with each other.