Sentence examples for both the protocols are from inspiring English sources

Delay performance of both the protocols are more or less similar to the 1-hop case.

The 2-hop delay performances of both the protocols are demonstrated in Figure 10.

In a few cases, we observe that the selected number of forwarders in both the protocols are comparable.

On further examination, we found that these are the cases where path availability is scarce and both the protocols are forced to select the same set of nodes.

In Figure6, the performance behavior of both the protocols is evaluated in terms of overhead when the number of CUs increases.

In Figure7, the performance behavior of both the protocols is analyzed in terms of delay-time when the number of CUs increases.

In Figure5, the performance behavior of both the protocols is analyzed in terms of hop count when the number of PUs increases.

Even though the PDR of both the protocols is degraded when the packet size increases, the PDR reduction is less for the proposed residual lifetime based routing as compared to greedy forwarding, since in the proposed method, one hop neighbor is selected based on maximum residual lifetime which reduces the link breakage.

The average end-to-end delay for different values of beacon interval for both the protocol is shown in Fig. 11.

The protocols are listed below.

Delay performance of both the protocols have been shown in Figure 7a.