## 3 Materials and Methods
### Hybrid K-Medoids with IABC-Based CH-Selection Algorithm
As the number of nodes grows, performance will decrease. Table 5 demonstrates that the implementation strategy is significantly more efficient than other strategies. #### 4.3.4 End-To-End Delay (E2E)

Figure 9 and Table 6 show the E2E delay of the suggested CL-HHO and its comparison with the conventional method. The proposed CL-HHO method achieves lower end-to-end latency (1.8 s) within 100 s node than other conventional methods shown in Figure 9. In 100 nodes, the end-to-end delays of conventional methods such as HEED, EECRP, GWO, CL-ALO, and the proposed CL-HHO are 5.8 s, 4.6 s, 4.2 s, 2.9 s, and 1.8 s, respectively. #### 4.3.5 PDR

Table 7 and Figure 10 show the performance of the PDR. Compared to other conventional algorithms, the CL-HHO achieves high PDR (99.4%) energy efficiency at 100 nodes. The proposed method outperforms previous methods. At 100 nodes, the packet-delivery \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**E2E Delay**} \\ \hline No. of nodes & 100 & 200 & 300 & 400 & 500 \\ \hline CL-HHO & 1.8 & 2.4 & 3.3 & 3.8 & 4.0 \\ \hline CL-ALO & 2.9 & 3.8 & 4.3 & 4.7 & 5.2 \\ \hline GWO & 4.2 & 4.8 & 5.4 & 6.3 & 5.5 \\ \hline EECRP & 4.6 & 5.2 & 6.1 & 7.0 & 8.2 \\ \hline HEED & 5.8 & 6.5 & 7.0 & 8.2 & 9.0 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison table for E2E delay. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Throughput**} \\ \hline No. of nodes & 100 & 200 & 300 & 400 & 500 \\ \hline CL-HHO & 0.98 & 0.92 & 0.89 & 0.85 & 0.79 \\ \hline CL-ALO & 0.93 & 0.85 & 0.77 & 0.72 & 0.69 \\ \hline GWO & 0.85 & 0.78 & 0.71 & 0.65 & 0.60 \\ \hline EECRP & 0.75 & 0.70 & 0.68 & 0.60 & 0.55 \\ \hline HEED & 0.71 & 0.65 & 0.61 & 0.54 & 0.49 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison table for Throughput. Figure 9: End-to-End-delay comparison. rates of the old methods HEED, EECRP, GWO, CL-ALO, and the proposed CL-HHO are 95.1%, 95.8%, 96.8%, 98.5%, and 99.4%, respectively. To transmit data efficiently, PDR must be high. As a result, the suggested model outperforms existing methods in terms of performance and efficiency. #### 4.3.6 Plr

Table 8 and Figure 11 show the PLR of the CL-HHO and the traditional algorithms. Compared to previous solutions, the proposed CL-HHO achieves a lower PLR (0.5%) among 100 nodes. The PLR rises as the number of nodes increases. Existing algorithms, such as HEED, EECRP, GWO, CL-ALO, and the proposed CL-HHO, have packet-loss rates of 6%, 3%, 2.5%, 1%, and 0.5%, respectively. #### 4.3.7 Jitter

This calculates the time difference between the first packet sent and when it is received. Figure 12 and Table 9 depicts the proposed algorithm's jitter comparison. On 100 nodes, the suggested algorithm has a lower jitter value (0.45) than existing methods such as HEED, EECRP, GWO, CL-ALO, and the proposed CL-HHO, which have values of 0.73 ms, 0.68 ms, 0.60 ms, 0.53 ms, and 0.45 ms, respectively. The CL-HHO has a jitter value of 0.41 ms for 200 nodes; however, existing strategies such as HEED, EECRP, GWO, CL \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Methods** & & & **PDR** & & \\ \hline No. of Nodes & 100 & 200 & 300 & 400 & 500 \\ \hline CL-HHO & 99.4 & 98.4 & 97.8 & 96.5 & 95.5 \\ \hline CL-ALO & 98.5 & 97.0 & 96.5 & 95.4 & 94.6 \\ \hline GWO & 96.8 & 96.5 & 95.6 & 95.0 & 93.8 \\ \hline EECRP & 95.8 & 95.3 & 94.8 & 94.1 & 93.2 \\ \hline HEED & 95.1 & 94.2 & 93.2 & 92.7 & 91.8 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison table for PDR. Figure 10: Comparison of PDR. #### 4.3.8 Buffer Occupancy

Figure 13 and Table 10 depicts the buffer-occupancy performance of the CL-HHO and conventional methods. In comparison to existing methods, the CL-HHO-method simulation results achieve lower buffer occupancy (4%) at 100 nodes. As a result, the proposed CL-HHO protocol performs better than conventional methods. The buffer-occupancy rates of the proposed HEED, EECRP, GWO, CL-ALO, and CL-HHO methods are 14%, 12%, 9%, 5%, and 4%, respectively.