## 5 Experiments
### Simulation Results Analysis
In contrast, the DSDV protocol relies on distance-vector-based updates, which have slower convergence and are more affected by control overhead and route selection delays, leading to the poorest performance in terms of average end-to-end delay. As a reactive routing protocol, the AODV protocol only initiates route maintenance when data transmission is required, resulting in a slightly higher average end-to-end delay than the OLSR protocol. The AODV-EM protocol proposed in this paper, however, takes into account the energy consumption and relative mobility of the next-hop node during the path-finding process, resulting in more stable network links and reduced delay from route maintenance. Its performance advantage is particularly evident in scenarios with frequent network topology changes. (4) Comparison of average jitter: Figure 12 presents the simulation results of four protocols with respect to the average jitter metric. Average jitter reflects the fluctuation in delay during data transmission in the unmanned cluster network, while both average end-to-end delay and average jitter are indicators of the network link's reliability and stability [44; 45]. As a result, the simulation comparison curves for these two metrics exhibit similarities. The simulation results for average jitter further  
Figure 10: Comparison of network throughput. (**a**) Variation in the number of nodes. (**b**) Variation in the maximum node speed. Figure 9: Comparison of packet delivery rate. (**a**) Variation in the number of nodes. (**b**) Variation in the maximum node speed. EM protocol proposed in this paper offers superior stability in network links and more reliable data transmission, particularly under complex network topology conditions. (5) Comparison of standard deviation of node residual energy: Figure 13 presents the simulation comparison results of four protocols in the standard deviation of node residual energy. As shown, the standard deviation of node residual energy of each protocol gradually increases with the advance of simulation time. The standard deviation reflects the degree of dispersion of the data distribution, indicating that the distribution of node energy in the network gradually becomes uneven. Notably, the OLSR and DSDV protocols perform worse due to their nature as proactive routing protocols, which require periodic control message exchanges even when no data transmission occurs [46; 47]. This leads to more frequent and uneven energy consumption across the nodes. In contrast, the AODV-EM protocol exhibits a significantly slower increase in the residual energy standard deviation, with the gap between it and the AODV protocol widening over time. This is because the AODV protocol relies solely on \"minimum hop count\" for route selection, causing key nodes to bear a disproportionate amount of data forwarding tasks and deplete their energy more quickly. As these critical nodes run out of energy and go offline, network links can break, disrupting connectivity and data transmission. On the other hand, the AODV-EM protocol accounts for the energy levels of the next-hop nodes when selecting routes, prioritizing nodes with higher energy reserves. This strategy results in more balanced energy consumption, prolongs the node lifecycle, and enhances network link stability. Figure 11: Comparison of average end-to-end delay. (**a**) Variation in the number of nodes. (**b**) Variation in the maximum node speed. Figure 12: Comparison of average jitter. (**a**) Variation in the number of nodes. (**b**) Variation in the maximum node speed.