# Dwarf Mongoose Optimization-Based Secure Clustering with Routing Technique in Internet of Drones
## 3 Results and Discussion
For example, with 15 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS model gained the least ECM of 1.23 J whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS approaches reached higher ECM of 2.78 J, 2.03 J, and 1.77 J, correspondingly. Currently, with 20 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach attained the least ECM of 1.95 J whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS methodologies obtained higher ECM of 3.38 J, 2.74 J, and 2.58 J, correspondingly. Similarly, with 25 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS model gained the least ECM of 2.55 J whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS approaches reached higher ECM of 3.95 J, 3.52 J, and 23.18 J, correspondingly. A comprehensive cluster lifetime (CLT) inspection of the DMOSC-MHRS model with other models is performed on different scenarios in Table 3. Figure 6 performs a comparative analysis of the DMOSC-MHRS technique with recent models in Scenario-1. The figure highlights that the DMOSC-MHRS algorithm displays enhanced performance with maximal CLT values under all drones. For example, with 15 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS methodology attained enhanced results with improved CLT of 52.34 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS models obtained reduced CLT of 36.73 s, 46.37 s, and 48.67 s, respectively. Also, with 25 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach reached enhanced results with improved CLT of 50.35 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS approaches gained reduced CLT of 32.60 s, 40.41 s, and 44.54 s, correspondingly. Along with 35 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS technique reached enhanced results with improved CLT of 48.36 s whereas  
Figure 4: ECM analysis of DMOSC-MHRS approach under Scenario-2. Figure 7 portrays a comparative analysis of the DMOSC-MHRS algorithm with recent models in Scenario-2. The figure highlights that the DMOSC-MHRS methodology shows enhanced performance with maximal CLT values under all drones. For example, with 15 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach attained enhanced results with an improved CLT of 55.71 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS methodologies reached reduced CLT of 43.85 s, 50.78 s, and 52.78 correspondingly. Besides, with 25 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS model attained enhanced results with improved CLT of 53.24 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS models obtained reduced CLT of 37.70 s, 44.78 s, and 47.86 s, correspondingly. Further, with 35 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach achieved enhanced results with improved CLT of 49.70 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS models obtained reduced CLT of 32.77 s, 38.77 s, and 41.39 s, correspondingly. Figure 8 depicts a detailed study of the DMOSC-MHRS technique with recent models in Scenario-3. The figure points out that the DMOSC-MHRS approach displays enhanced performance with maximum CLT values under all drones. For example, with 15 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach attained enhanced results with an improved CLT of 58.59 s  
Figure 6: CLT analysis of DMOSC-MHRS approach under Scenario-1. Figure 7: CLT analysis of DMOSC-MHRS approach under Scenario-2. whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS algorithms reached CLT of 48.78 s, 55.01 s, and 56.26 s, correspondingly. Besides, with 25 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS technique gained enhanced results with improved CLT of 56.26 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS techniques achieved reduced CLT of 38.81 s, 45.51 s, and 50.49 s, correspondingly. Along with 35 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach gained enhanced results with improved CLT of 52.83 s whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS models obtained reduced CLT of 35.69 s, 40.83 s, and 43.79 s, correspondingly. Table 4 and Figure 9 highlight the reliability (REL) of the DMOSC-MHRS model under varying drones. The experimental values indicate that the DMOSC-MHRS model has demonstrated enhanced results under all drones. For instance, with 15 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS model offered a higher REL of 94.29% whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS techniques obtained lower REL of 87.36%, 89.13%, and 90.43%, respectively. Concurrently, with 20 drones, the DMOSC-MHRS approach presented a higher REL of 94.90% whereas the SCA-ITV, BICSF, and HSCS algorithms attained lower REL of 88.05%, 89.60%, and 91.06%, correspondingly.