# Game theory-based Routing for Wireless Sensor Networks: A Comparative Survey
## 1 Introduction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c l} \hline \hline
**Survey Article** & & **Limitations** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Reference [19]} & \(\bullet\) & No practical example for readers on how to imply game theory for routing; \\  & \(\bullet\) & No classification of the protocols based on game theory; \\  & \(\bullet\) & No qualitative comparison based on the advantages, disadvantages, \\  & & and main features is shown; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Possible applications of the designed protocols are not presented; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Possible future improvements of the protocols are not discussed; \\  & \(\bullet\) & Challenging and open research issues are not addressed. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Reference [20]} & \(\bullet\) & No practical example of how game theory can optimize a wireless sensor network (WSN) is presented; \\  & \(\bullet\) & It discusses different roles of game theory in WSNs for target tracking, \\  & & power control, topology control, routing protocol design, etc. The \\  & & focus of the survey is not in routing protocols, and thus the survey \\  & & ends up discussing only one routing protocol [26]. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Reference [21]} & \(\bullet\) & No practical example for readers on how to imply game theory for routing; \\  & & No qualitative comparison based on the advantages, disadvantages, \\  & & and main features is shown; \\  & & Possible applications and future improvements of the designed \\  & & protocols are not presented. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Reference [46]} & \(\bullet\) & No practical example for readers on how to apply game theory for routing; \\  & & Qualitative comparison among the protocols is not given; \\  & & Future improvements of the designed protocols are not \\  & & explicitly presented. \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Reference [47]} & \(\bullet\) & No practical example for readers on how to apply game theory for routing; \\  & & Qualitative comparison among the protocols is not given; \\ \cline{1-1}  & & Future improvements of the designed protocols are not \\ \cline{1-1}  & & explicitly presented. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Limitations of existing surveys. As WSNs are application specific, it is critical to choose a particular routing protocol based on the target application. Certain applications may require data reliability more than any other metrics. Conversely, for other applications, latency may not be considered a concern, however, prolonging the network lifetime can be very important. This depends on the purpose for which the WSN is deployed. Because game theory can introduce rationality among sensor nodes, it is moderately easy to design a routing protocol demanding certain special requirements for any type of application. Therefore, a qualitative comparison demonstrating the major features, pros, and cons of the routing protocols can be helpful for researchers and engineers to decide the type of routing protocol that can fit their application demand. Furthermore, we present a network architecture-based comparison of the protocols in this paper, based on parameters like topology, data transmission, and location awareness, which can be helpful in choosing a routing protocol with the desired properties for a particular application. We also present possible applications and future improvements for the discussed protocols. This can aid readers to sort out the protocols in an application specific way and can help researchers to consider possible improvements for the future designs of game theory-based routing protocols. This paper also discusses the open concerns and challenges in implementing game theory for routing in WSNs, along with future research directions. Table 2 presents a comparative view of this survey with the existing surveys.