## 6 Comparative Analysis Based on Recent Literature  
A comparison of the various methodologies and criteria utilized in recent articles to choose the cluster head has been conducted. Each of the measures has been explained in terms of percentage, utilization, and progress [56]. These measures are packet loss, network lifetime, energy, throughput, delay, and overhead. Packet loss occurs when one or more data packets fail to arrive at their intended destination. Network lifetime is based on the number of alive nodes, connectivity, and sensor coverage. The energy of WSNs is evaluated based on the packet received at the destination. Throughput is the actual amount of information that is efficiently sent/received via a communication channel. Delay is the time taken by the packets from sensor nodes to sink and is proportional to the number of hopes. Overhead is the total amount of energy consumed to transmit the data for a given time. Table 3 compares several approaches offered by notable scholars in terms of parameters employed, tools used, and difficulties handled. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt} p{42.7 pt}} \hline \hline
**Reference** & **Parameters Used** & **Tool Used** & **N/w Life** & **Energy Efficiency** & **QoS Increased** & **Security** & **Results** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{MATLAB} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & The overall delay is reduced by 23\%. The rate of packet loss is reduced by 11\%. Residual energy & & & & & reduced by 11\%. Residual energy improved by 38\%. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{MATLAB} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & & & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & In comparison to LEACH and DEEC, network lifespan increased by 50\% and 30\%, respectively. Clustering overhead was reduced by 42\%. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{MATLAB} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & Network lifetime increased by 30\%. In comparison to LEACH and EAUCF, prolonged energy increased by 155.18\%, and 35.75\%, respectively. \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & & & & & & & 30\%. In comparison to LEACH and EAUCF, prolonged energy increased by 155.18\%, and 35.75\%, respectively. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{MATLAB} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & & & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & The network’s lifespan has increased by 28\%. The overhead of clustering was decreased by 57\%. A 13\% reduction in energy utilization. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{MATLAB} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & & & In comparison to LEACH, network lifespan raised by 15\%, 11.38\% with EUSA, and 8.1\% with CAFL. Energy conservation raised by 79\%. \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & & & & & & 8.1\% with CAFL. Energy conservation raised by 79\%. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{MATLAB} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\surd\)} & & & \multirow{4}{*}{\(\times\)} & In comparison to LEACH, there is a 42.7\% increase in power and local distance. \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{5-5}  & & & & & & &  
During comparative analysis, researchers implemented different deterministic and probabilistic approaches.