## 2 Materials and Methods
### Overview of ESRO-SRO Algorithm
The above-mentioned sub-objective was revised as to FF as offered in that \(\alpha_{1}\) and \(\alpha_{2}\) denotes the weight assigned to every sub-objective. \[Fitness=\alpha_{1}(f1)+\alpha_{2}(f2)+\alpha_{1}(f3),\text{ }where\sum_{i=1}^{3}\alpha_{i}=1\alpha_{i}\varepsilon(0,1); \tag{20}\]

## 3 Results and Discussion

In this section, the performance validation of the ESRO-SRP model is examined under distinct levels of energy consumption (EC). The EC is varied from 5% to 100% with a step size of 5%. Table 1 and Figure 2 report a comparative throughput (THRP) inspection of the ESRO-SRP model with recent models under distinct levels of energy [22; 23; 24; 25]. The results portrayed that the ESRO-SRP model has accomplished maximum values of THRP under all energy levels. For instance, with an EC of 5%, the ESRO-SRP model has provided an increased THRP of 33.95 bytes/s, whereas the BRUe-IoE, ORP-FANET, UAVe-WSN, and TR-UAV Swarm models have accomplished a reduced THRP of 14.54 bytes/s, 14.54 bytes/s, 9.69 bytes/s, and 7.75 bytes/s, respectively. Moreover, with an EC of 100%, the ESRO-SRP system has offered a maximal THRP of 189.20 bytes/s, whereas the BRUe-IoE, ORP-FANET, UAVe-WSN, and TR-UAV Swarm techniques have accomplished a lower THRP of 165.91 bytes/s, 140.68 bytes/s, 110.60 bytes/s, and 99.93 bytes/s, respectively. Figure 2: Throughput analysis of ESRO-SRP technique under distinct levels of energy. Table 2 and Figure 3 define a comparative PDR examination of the ESRO-SRP approach with recent models under distinct levels of energy. The results exposed that the ESRO-SRP model has accomplished maximal values of PDR under all energy levels. For example, with an EC of 5%, the ESRO-SRP model has provided an increased PDR of 65.20%, whereas the BRUe-IoE, GRP-FANET, UAVe-WSN, and TR-UAV Swarm systems have accomplished a decreased PDR of 58.40%, 49.60%, 40.80%, and 39.20%, respectively. Additionally, with an EC of 100%, the ESRO-SRP model has provided an increased PDR of 86%, whereas the BRUe-IoE, GRP-FANET, UAVe-WSN, and TR-UAV Swarm approaches have accomplished a minimal PDR of 79.60%, 73.60%, 67.60%, and 63.20%, respectively. Table 3 and Figure 4 demonstrate a comparative average HOPS (AHOPS) analysis of the ESRO-SRP system with recent models under distinct levels of energy. The results depicted that the ESRO-SRP approach has accomplished higher AHOPS values under all energy levels. For instance, with an EC of 5%, the ESRO-SRP model has provided an increased AHOPS of 9%, whereas the BRUe-IoE, GRP-FANET, UAVe-WSN, and TR-UAV Swarm algorithms have accomplished a minimal AHOPS of 7%, 5%, 5%, and 2%, respectively. Finally, with an EC of 100%, the ESRO-SRP model has offered superior AHOPS of 23%, whereas the BRUe-IoE, GRP-FANET, UAVe-WSN, and TR-UAV Swarm methodologies have accomplished a lower AHOPS of 22%, 21%, 11%, and 7% correspondingly. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{**Throughput (bytes/s)**} \\ \hline
**EC (\%)** & **ESRO-SRP** & **BRUe-IoE** & **ORP-FANET** & **UAVE-WSN** & **TR-UAV Swarm** \\ \hline
5 & 33.95 & 14.54 & 14.54 & 9.69 & 7.75 \\ \hline
10 & 36.86 & 17.45 & 14.54 & 12.60 & 1.93 \\ \hline
15 & 44.62 & 19.39 & 20.36 & \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Packet Delivery Ratio (\%)** & & & & \\ \hline
**EC (\%)** & **ESRO-SRP** & **BRUe-IoE** & **ORP-FANET** & **UAVE-WSN** & **TR-UAV Swarm** \\ \hline



\hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: PDR analysis of ESRO-SRP technique with existing algorithms under distinct levels of energy. Figure 3: PDR analysis of ESRO-SRP technique under distinct levels of energy. Table 4 and Figure 5 illustrate a comparative coverage inspection of the ESRO-SRP approach with recent models under distinct levels of energy. The outcomes represented that the ESRO-SRP model has accomplished improved values of coverage under all energy levels.