# Game theory-based Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Comparative Survey
## 4 Comparison of the Routing Protocols
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Protocol** & **Routing Metric** & **Major Features** & **Advantages** & **Limitations** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{CH4-TEEM 1[31]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Energy, network lifetime} & \multirow{4}{*}{*} & **Mitigation of fading effects through** & \multirow{4}{*}{*} & **No other routing metrics considered** \\  & & energy efficient multi-input, & & **Highly energy-efficient, & other than energy; \\  & & multi-output communication; & & **Performs better than every & **Coniders cooperative transmission** \\  & & Cooperative CHs; & **TEM and saves 50\% of the residual energy.** & & **only. This protocol does not consider** \\  & & Selection of CHs and cooperative & & **the residual energy.** & cooperative sending and receiving \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{RCFR 2[35]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Energy, packet delivery ratio} & \multirow{4}{*}{*} & **Characteristic function to be shared among coalition members:** & **Coalition formation algorithm can be integrated with other routing protocols.** & **Excludes selfish nodes from routing paths that do not form a coalition.** \\  & & & simultaneous packet delivery and minimum route cost. & **Example AODV.** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Assignment game approach [34]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Energy} & \multirow{4}{*}{**Heterogeneous network architecture: Credit-based system to reward cooperative players: Exclusion of selfish nodes from cooperative coalitions.**} & **Introduces energy reduction mechanism in heterogeneous WSNs through cooperative relaying.** & **Excessive coalition formation creates data sharing overhead among nodes.** \\  & & & **Exclusion of selfish nodes from cooperative coalitions.** & **up to 22\% with extensive increase in battery life.** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PRCT 3[4]} & \multirow{4}{*}{Packet delivery ratio, average latency, overhead ratio} & \multirow{4}{*}{**Implementation of the first-order Markov process based on the merging history of nodes: Participation of relay nodes is ensured to introduce cooperation in the network: Reward-based system to cooperative players.** & **Performance comparison with the state-of-the-art protocols: Significant improvement in packet delivery ratio and latency for opportunistic networks.** & **Not enough mathematical formulation for game theory is presented. To implement the protocol in real life, more precise description is necessary.** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Cluster Head Cooperative Trustworthy Energy-Efficient multiinput multioutput.2 Reliable Coalition Formation Routing.3 Probabilistic Routing Based on Game Theory.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: Comparison of routing protocols based on cooperative games. Table 8 lists the qualitative comparison of the routing protocols based on a noncooperative game. Except for COMO [38], noncooperative games have been applied extensively to design routing protocols that are highly energy efficient. The resource allocation strategy for clustering-based WSNs [36] is extremely robust to node failures. Failure of a portion of nodes in a cluster does not affect the routing process. The inter-cluster routing algorithm for WSNs [39] is really a crucial protocol because it is interoperable between WSNs and mobile networks. A routing framework based on energy and delay conservation in [37] was designed and implemented in a scenario where all the nodes were static. COMO [38] is the only routing protocol that has considered end-to-end throughput instead of energy as a routing metric among the routing protocols that exploit noncooperative games. Conversely, GERA [33] was designed to enhance the LEACH protocol by limiting the cluster size. Table 9 summarizes the qualitative comparison of the routing protocols based on the evolutionary and reputation-based games. The focus of the routing protocols designed using evolutionary games was to increase network lifetime. GTEB [40] was designed to outsmart the existing protocols by increasing the average packet delivery ratio. It can robustly avoid redundant transmissions.