## 4 Performance Validation
For instance, with 50 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT algorithm had decreased PLR of 1%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE systems obtained higher PLR of 1%, 1%, 1%, 1%, and 1%, respectively. Next, with 500 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT technique had a low PLR of 2%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE models had higher PLR results of 5%, 7%, 8%, 9%, and 10%, respectively. Finally, with 1000 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT technique had a low PLR of 12%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE models had increased PLR of 17%, 19%, 22%, 23%, and 25%, respectively. Figure 4: Network lifetime analysis of the CSRO-MHDT technique in comparison with existing approaches. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**No. of Rounds**} \\ \hline  & **CSRO-MHDT** & **EECRP** & **FCMMFO** & **FBCPSO** & **EGRC** & **LEACH-ERE** \\ \hline FND & 476 & 440 & 403 & 361 & 323 & 280 \\ HND & 838 & 754 & 749 & 730 & 753 & 722 \\ LND & 998 & 940 & 921 & 903 & 874 & 840 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Network lifetime analysis of the CSRO-MHDT technique in comparison with existing approaches. Table 6 and Figure 7 illustrate the number of packets received (NPR) by the CSRO-MHDT system under varying rounds, in comparison with existing approaches. The results showed that the CSRO-MHDT technique had higher values of NPR under all rounds. For instance, with 50 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT technique attained higher NPR of 3792%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE approaches had lower NPR results of 3400%, 2549%, 2876%, 2026%, and 1554%, respectively. With 500 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT method had higher NPR of 17,924%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE models had lower NPR results of 17,401%, 16,027%, 14,784%, 12,167%, and 11,837%, respectively. Furthermore, with 1000 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT system accomplished a higher NPR result of 23,098%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE algorithms demonstrated lower NPR results of 21,457%, 19,887%, 18,775%, 14,849%, and 14,427%, respectively. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Total Energy Consumption (\%)**} \\ \hline
**No. of Rounds** & **CSRO-MHDT** & **EECRP** & **FBCPSO** & **FCMMFO** & **EGRC** & **LEACH-ERE** \\ \hline
0 & 0.51 & 0.76 & 0.76 & 1.49 & 1.49 & 2.71 \\
25 & 1.49 & 1.00 & 1.25 & 2.22 & 3.44 & 5.88  
+++ ==WARNING: Truncated because of repetitions==
\\  
++  
Figure 5: TEC analysis of the CSRO-MHDT method in comparison with current tactics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Packet Loss Ratio (\%)**} \\ \hline
**No. of Rounds** & **CSRO-MHDT** & **EECRP** & **FBCPSO** & **FCMMPO** & **EGRC** & **LEACH-ERE** \\ \hline  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: PLR analysis of the CSRO-MHDT technique in comparison with existing approaches. Table 7 and Figure 8 depict the PDR analysis of the CSRO-MHDT algorithm under varying rounds in comparison with existing approaches. The outcomes revealed that the CSRO-MHDT technique resulted in increased values of PDR under all rounds. For instance, with 150 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT technique attained superior PDR of 99%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE models reached lower PDR results of 99%, 99%, 98%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. Moreover, with 500 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT approach had an increased PDR of 98%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE models obtained lower PDR results of 95%, 93%, 92%, 91%, and 90%, respectively. Finally, with 1000 rounds, the CSRO-MHDT technique accomplished a higher PDR of 88%, whereas the EECRP, FCMMFO, FBCPSO, EGRC, and LEACH-ERE techniques exhibited reduced PDR of 83%, 81%, 78%, 77%, and 75%, respectively.