## 4 Result and Discussion
### Comparative Analysis with Other Methods
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Routing overhead**} & **Nodes** & **20** & **40** & **60** & **80** & **100** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 4 & 15.5 & 31.2 & 42.1 & 64.3 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 9 & 21 & 37 & 48 & 69 \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{**Throughput (Kb/s)**} & HWMP & 12 & 24 & 41 & 53 & 74 \\ \cline{2-7}  & GRP & 17 & 32 & 53 & 61 & 82 \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{**Throughput (Kb/s)**} & **Nodes** & **20** & **40** & **60** & **80** & **100** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 930 & 1230 & 1640 & 2210 & 2900 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 680 & 980 & 1300 & 1900 & 2600 \\ \cline{2-7}  & HEDAR & 500 & 850 & 1150 & 1700 & 1980 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SETORD & 400 & 700 & 950 & 1550 & 1750 \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{**Packet delivery ratio (\%)**} & **Nodes** & **20** & **40** & **60** & **80** & **100** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 99 & 99.1 & 99.4 & 99.6 & 99.8 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 98.7 & 98.8 & 99.2 & 99.4 & 99.5 \\ \cline{2-7}  & HEDAR & 96 & 96.8 & 97.4 & 98.5 & 99.4 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SETORD & 95 & 96.2 & 97 & 98.2 & 99.1 \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{**End-to-end delay (ms)**} & **Nodes** & **20** & **40** & **60** & **80** & **100** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 15.2 & 16.3 & 16.6 & 18.4 & 19.1 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 16.5 & 17.8 & 18.2 & 19.4 & 19.7 \\ \cline{2-7}  & HEDAR & 17.3 & 18 & 19.1 & 20.1 & 21 \\ \cline{2-7}  & SETORD & 18.4 & 19.1 & 20 & 21.3 & 22 \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{**Routing overhead (\%)**} & **Nodes** & **20** & **40** & **60** & **80** & **100** \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Proposed** & 5 & 14.6 & 26 & 30.4 & 41.7 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & SRABC & 8.7 & 19 & 29 & 35 & 45 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & HEDAR & 9 & 27 & 32 & 47 & 60 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-7}  & SETORD & 10 & 22 & 37 & 48 & 69 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of proposed and existing methods for nodes. For a pause time of 400, the proposed method's packet-delivery ratio is 96.2 s, compared to the existing methods' packet-delivery ratios, which are 95, 87, 76, and 88 s, respectively. For a pause time of 800, the proposed method's packet-delivery ratio is 98.9 s, compared to the existing methods' packet-delivery ratios, which are 97.5, 93.5, 88.2, and 94 s, respectively. For a pause time of 1000, the proposed method's packet-delivery ratio is 99.5 s, and the existing methods' packet-delivery ratios are 98.7, 96, 92, and 97 s, respectively. The existing methods involve network expansion, causing congestion and poorer network performance. Also, the proposed method produces a better result. Figure 30 shows the comparison of the proposed and existing methods with six videos for training and three for testing. For 20 nodes, the proposed method achieves a throughput of 932 s, compared to the throughputs of the existing SRABC, HEDAR, SETORD, and  
Figure 28: Analysis of average end delay with four videos for training and one for testing by varying time. Figure 27: Training and testing loss. OLSR methods, which are 682, 502, 402, and 902, respectively. For 40 nodes, the proposed method's throughput is 1232, compared to the existing methods' throughput, which are 982, 852, 702, and 1002, respectively. For 80 nodes, the pro-posed method' throughput is 2212, compared to the existing methods' throughput, which are 1902, 1702, 1552, and 1502, respectively. For a pause time of 100, the pro-posed method's throughput is 2902, compared to existing methods' throughput, which are 2602, 1982, 1752, and 1802, respectively. The existing models need a lot of data to be trained compared to the proposed method. Table 7 shows the values of addi-tional video training and testing by varying time and nodes. Figure 30: Analysis of throughput with six videos for training and three for testing by varying nodes. Figure 29: Analysis of the packet-delivery ratio with five videos for training and two for testing by varying time.