## 7 Simulation Parameters
### Analysis of Number of Dead Nodes, Packet Transmitted, and Average End to End Delays  
Figures 7-9 evaluate all benchmark schemes against the proposed scheme ROBINA. For example, EBER\({}^{2}\) is a crook with balance energy and the number of PFN divided among the power level to enhance energy effectiveness. The criteria by which EBER\({}^{2}\) selects and deploys PFN is not energy efficient; this is why a large number of nodes (when it is experimental with ROBINA) is nearly boosted up when only the number of nodes is around 400. As the number of nodes increased by 450, it continuously followed the same behavior towards an increasing peak. The same trend is followed by WBFAD-DBR, which chooses the depth of the next forwarder node to avoid void holes. Since mobility is used with AVH-AHH-VBFA, it successfully raises the lifespan of the network with maximum throughput. Therefore, this study showed an outperformance of EBER\({}^{2}\) and WDFAD-DBR, respectively when compared with ROBINA as the baseline scheme. It was discovered that AVH-AHH-VBF (due to sinking mobility), WDFAD-DBR (due to using depth divisions with traditional DBR), and EBER\({}^{2}\) (due to using (PFN) in its nodes criteria selection) all disregard the following things. (i) criteria towards adjustment of inter-nodes (by any means, either in depth-divisions or PFN and next forwarder nodes). (ii) Selection of shortest path (mentioned in EBER\({}^{2}\) and WDFAD-DBR and the hop-base path followed by AVH-AHH-AVBF) instead of the reliable connected path between nodes. (iii) Proof of work (by some mathematical analysis, formula, or some linear equations) is not followed by any existing state-of-the-art schemes. (iv) The path adjustment and path loss (if any) between two connected nodes are not discussed; likewise, all these parameters are covered with PA-ROBINA and PL-ROBINA. Therefore, the total number of dead nodes for EBER\({}^{2}\), AVH-AHH-VBF, and WDFAD-DBR are 53, 50, and 52, respectively, when the total number of nodes is experimented in network 700. On the contrary, both AEDG and ASEDG have established the atomic-based path that rotates around the sink and an efficient delay and data-gathering approach that is further divided into atomic-shaped trajectory elliptical for autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). Although the path is atomic-shaped and has an elliptical fashion, it is not rotatable. A rotation is missing in AEDG and ASEDG; therefore, most of the relay nodes are not considered, and this is why it is only for 45 nodes against ten iterations, which is comparatively less, and against EBER\({}^{2}\), AVH-AHH-VBF, and WDFAD-DBR, respectively, but much higher than ROBINA, which has only 39 dead nodes. TANVEER and ROBINA both show the most interesting results regarding dead nodes. As TANVEER and ROBINA are working to avoid void nodes, even their sub-variants are also working to support the main mechanism. Due to its triangular approach, TANVEER is partially rotated, and ROBINA is a fully rotated orbit-based approach up to 400 nodes; both have the same fashion loss of any nodes as dead. The increasing trend seems to be followed by TANVEER due to its angle cone; as data is forwarding repeatedly and measuring its cone, the rest of the nodes are compiled with energy drastically. Consequently, we can say that as a greater number of nodes appear as dead nodes, ultimately, the performance of packet transmission decreases. Simultaneously, across the board, EBER\({}^{2}\), ASEDG, and ASEDG have the same packet transmission ratio, approximately which is 40%. Other schemes, including ROBINA, TANVEER, AEDG, WDFAD-DBR, and AVH-AHH-VBF, have 42%, 43%, 41%, 40%, and 42%, respectively. Among all, ROBINA outperformed and has trade-offs compared with TANVEER, as shown in Figures 8 and 9.  
in underwater acoustic channels; thus, it was measured for ROBINA to cross-check the performance of the proposed technique in large deep or shallow water. Ultimately, the TL was comparatively high in all similar schemes, at 50 dB for EBER\({}^{2}\) and 50 dB for TANVEER.