# Multi-Agent Modeling and Jamming-Aware Routing Protocols for Movable-Jammer-Affected WSNs
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Comparison with Other Protocols  
In this section, we compare JRP with two commonly used routing protocols, namely AODV and DSR. AODV solely concentrates on the depth of nodes and lacks a maintenance mechanism, while DSR also concentrates solely on the depth of nodes and has a local maintenance mechanism to bypass failure nodes that arise during network operation.  
As illustrated in Figure 12a, it is evident that JRP outperforms the other two routing protocols, with DSR ranking second and AODV coming in last. Both JRP and DSR have established local maintenance mechanisms that allow them to bypass sudden failure nodes and attain a certain degree of recovery, thus restoring normal functions to some extent after the WSN experiences external shocks. Therefore, in theory, the performance of MCS should be superior to that of AODV, and the results also confirm this point. To further compare JRP and DSR, it is necessary to analyze the design concepts behind the routing protocols and observe the simulation experiment process. Our analysis reveals that JRP comprehensively considers depth and interference when selecting relay nodes, and its maintenance mechanism allows it to bypass failed nodes locally and preferentially select sensor nodes far away from jammers as relay nodes during maintenance. In contrast, DSR only considers the depth factor of each node itself. When the relay node fails and disconnects, it simply selects another node with a shallower depth than the relay node. However, the new relay it chooses is likely to be in the vicinity of the failed node. If the jammer moves in this direction, it will fail immediately. In contrast, JRP is more inclined to choose relay nodes that are far away from the jammer, making it less susceptible to disruption caused by subsequent movement of the jammer. AODV, on the other hand, does not configure a local maintenance mechanism and only refreshes the network depth and structure during global maintenance. As a result, the reliability of the WSN continuously  
Figure 11: (**a**) MCS trend with air jammer; (**b**) APL trend with air jammer.  
declines between two maintenance cycles, leading to much worse overall MCS performance than that of JRP and DSR.  
As illustrated in Figure 12b, AODV outperforms JRP and DSR in terms of APL performance, with JRP and DSR performing comparably. This is because AODV only considers the depth of nodes, resulting in the shortest path generation. If the link is interrupted due to jammers, most of the disconnected nodes are peripheral nodes far away from the base station, adversely affecting the APL performance. In contrast, both JRP and DSR are equipped with local maintenance mechanisms that enable them to bypass failed nodes, resulting in \"detours\" in the paths they generate and preserving the connection of peripheral nodes to the base station, leading to an increase in APL.  
Overall, although AODV shows better APL performance than JRP and DSR, for WSN, maintaining as many sensor nodes as possible takes priority. In terms of MCS performance, JRP outperforms the existing common routing protocols. The simulation experiment has thus confirmed the reliability advantage of JRP over other existing routing protocols in the presence of movable jammers.