## 5 Simulations
### Analysis of the Experimental Result
The average transmission delay of the MSFC algorithm was stably maintained at about 35, because the algorithm took into account the fuzzy data forwarding relationship between nodes through different indicators of working status. Thirdly, the comparison results between the five different algorithms in the field of average overhead are demonstrated in Figure 11. The energy surplus of each routing algorithm decreased as the node's cache space increased. Specifically, the epidemic algorithm had the least remaining energy, because the redundant message copy group of the algorithm in the opportunistic social network consumed much time and many resources in the network. This method sharply consumed energy in the network. The remaining energy of The EMIST algorithm and ICMT algorithm was higher than the epidemic algorithm, because both algorithms effectively controlled the number of message copies. In addition, the EIMST algorithm implemented community division and information management, while the ICMT algorithm effectively used the cooperation mechanism between nodes to use the node's cache space rationally and control the forwarding time to achieve the purpose of reducing network  
Figure 10: Average end-to-end delay with various cache spaces. energy consumption. The energy consumption of the FCNS algorithm was also significantly lower than the traditional algorithm. This was because the algorithm used the similarity of the nodes to make message forwarding decisions. The higher the similarity, the higher the success rate of forwarding of the nodes, so the less network energy was consumed. The energy consumption of the MSFC algorithm was the lowest in the cache space of different nodes compared to several other algorithms, which further showed that the next hop node selection strategy of the MSFC algorithm was better than the FCNS algorithm, and in all comparisons. In the algorithm, the relay nodes that successfully forwarded the message from the source node to the destination node were also the least. Finally, Figure 12 shows the comparison of the remaining energy of the five different algorithms. The energy surplus of each routing algorithm decreased as the node's cache space increased. More specifically, the energy surplus of the epidemic algorithm was the least, because the redundant message copy group of the algorithm in the opportunistic social network consumed much time and many resources in the network. This method drastically consumed energy in the network. The energy surplus of the EMIST algorithm and the ICMT algorithm was higher than the epidemic algorithm, because both algorithms effectively controlled the number of message copies. In addition, the EIMST algorithm implemented community division and information management, while the ICMT algorithm effectively exploited the cooperation mechanism between nodes to use the node's cache space reasonably and control the forwarding time to achieve the purpose of reducing network energy consumption. The energy consumption of the FCNS algorithm was also significantly lower than the traditional algorithm, because it used the similarity of the nodes to make message forwarding decisions. The higher the similarity of the nodes, the less network energy was consumed. The energy consumption of the MSFC algorithm was the lowest in the cache space of different nodes compared to several other algorithms, which further showed that the next hop node selection strategy of the MSFC algorithm was better than the FCNS algorithm. In all compared algorithms, the relay nodes that successfully forwarded the message from the source node to the destination node were also the least. Figure 11: Average overhead with various cache spaces. In a nutshell, the experimental results showed that the MSFC algorithm effectively reduced network delay, overhead, and energy consumption and increased the message delivery success ratio compared with a typical algorithm and several recently proposed routing algorithms. The average delivery ratio of the MSFC algorithm was 0.95.