## 4 Results
### Monitoring System Performance  
The impact described in Figure 2 shows the difference in each specified metric between the network in a stable state without any technique (neither cooperation nor collaboration) and the network in a stable state with one of the two techniques applied. In this case, with the impact, we refer to each technique's improvement. The metrics taken into account are related to the performance of the sensor network. So, for example, the size of the routing tables influences the number of entries a node has to send packets. It is related to the number of valid routes and the effort the routing algorithm has to make to find the next hop to a destination route. The overhead refers to the control packets, that is, to the packets that flood the network for management of the routing protocol. These packets, if there are too many, can generate more collisions than necessary because the network also has traffic packets, which are the ones that carry the information. The end-to-end delay is the delay that a packet takes from the source to the final destination. The Packet Delivery Ratio (PDR) is the rate of packets that reach the destination. It is the ratio between packets received and packets sent. Finally, the energy is given in Joules, which the node spends on the main network tasks such as turning on, turning off, route processing algorithm, changing state, transmitting and sending packets and listening to the channel. Table 3 quantitatively analyzes some metrics related to the efficiency of the network concerning the user. Through this analysis, we could establish recommendations for cooperative or collaborative schemes for monitoring people according to the needs of the home or health center. So, for example, false positive alarms are higher in the collaborative scheme. This may be because, in the cooperative system, the nodes are more responsible for themselves, making them more successful in their tasks. Regarding resilience, the collaborative scheme is more efficient. This can be caused because resilience is a team effort where the network can return to its stable state quickly and when the nodes collaborate, they make this task faster. Regarding the delay in notifications or daily recommendations, the collaborative scheme is more efficient because the coordinator node has a more up-to-date perspective of the network topology, which means that the routes are always available. This metric matches the end-to-end delay in Figure 2 concerning the fastest scheme. Logical topology changes refer to how often the nodes change proactively or reactively and vice versa. This makes the network priorities set to a few nodes with priority (in proactive mode) because they notice more attention alerts. This metric is neither good nor bad, but it gives an idea of how the topology changes for one scheme or another. However, these changes can generate accurate alerts that a person has abruptly changed their habits and can be a genuine indication of an emergency. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline \hline
**Metric** & **Cooperative** & **Collaborative** \\ \hline False positive alarms & 3\% & 5\% \\ \hline System resilience to loss of energizing & 8 s & 6 s \\ \hline Accurate delivery of daily recommendations (delay) & 2 s & 1 s \\ \hline System logical topology change per day & 3 times & 2 times \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: System performance metrics towards the user. Figure 2: Percentage of improvement impact on network performance metrics. Logical topology change refers to the way in which the communication pathways within a network are organized, as opposed to the physical layout of the devices. In wireless sensor networks for remote monitoring, logical topology change can have a significant impact on the cooperative and collaborative schemes used by the nodes. For example, if a node in the network fails or is taken offline, the logical topology of the network must be adjusted to account for the loss of that node.