## 5 Performance Comparison and Validation
### Results and Discussion
#### 5.2.3 Scenario Analysis  
Case 1 verifies the impact of network size changes on its performance and the performance of each routing protocol. Among them, a single data packet on the network data = 200 bits. Figure 7 shows the performance of the life cycle, delay, and overall energy efficiency of each routing protocol when the distance from the head end to the end of the network changes from d = 100 m to d = 500 m. Figure 7 shows that with the increase in the network range, the energy balance of the network system is destroyed, which also causes the life cycle of each routing protocol to decrease significantly with the increase in d, but MTECR, AUMRP, MTECR, MVECR and DQAAR have better performance in extending the network life cycle. This is because MTECR minimizes the overall energy consumption of the network as an optimization goal, and the number of link hops is significantly reduced compared to the other three algorithms. This may lead to the emergence of local hotspots in the network, which may affect the entire network lifecycle. When the network range is expanded to 500 m, its lifetime is still about 30% higher than the worst performing MTECR. Figure 7 shows the delay performance of each routing protocol as the network range increases, and the time for each routing protocol data packet to reach the sink node gradually increases as the communication distance increases. Among them, MVECR and AUMRP lack the constraints on the delay, which leads to the rapid increase in the delay when the distance increases, and DQAAR reduces the delay through dynamic learning so that the network can obtain good real-time performance. In order to obtain better real-time performance, MTECR reduces the number of hops of data packet forwarding in the network, which greatly increases the energy consumption and shortens the network life. Figure 6: Delay performance of each protocol. Obviously, the DQAAR proposed in this paper is ahead of AUMRP, MTECR, and MVECR in energy efficiency. When the network range is small, the life cycle of AUMRP and MVECR is close to that of DQAAR, and their comprehensive energy efficiency is also close to that of DQAAR. The life cycle index and delay index of the network system using each protocol are shown in Figures 8 and 9. Case 2 verifies the impact of changes in the amount of data in the network on its performance and the performance of the four routing protocols. Among them, the network range is d = 200 m. Figure 10 shows the network life cycle, delay and comprehensive energy efficiency level of the DQAAR proposed in this paper and the other three routing protocols (AUMRP, MVECR, and MTECR) when the single data packet size of the network node changes from Data = 100 bit to Data = 600 bit. As shown in Figure 9(a), an increase in the amount of data in the network is accompanied by a rapid decrease in its life cycle, because the sending and receiving of data consumes the most energy in sensor nodes. MVECR pays too much attention to the energy consumption balance of each node in the network, but it increases its total energy consumption, and the life cycle has a disadvantage compared with AUMRP. The DQAAR transmission path planning based on data aggregation effectively reduces the amount of data in the network and thus prolongs the life cycle of the network, and its performance is higher than the other three routing protocols. The delay of the network system using DQAAR is smaller than that using AUMRP and MVECR but slightly larger than that using MTECR, and the delay increases with the increase in data volume, which is caused by the increase in transmission time caused by the increase in data volume. Data latency increases. Also, as the amount of data increases, the trend of delay growth for DQAAR is not as fast as it is for AUMRP and MVECR. This shows that the data transmission delay is reduced enough by the data aggregation strategy used in this paper to make up for the time it takes to aggregate the data.