+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50.pdf}
+\caption{Network Lifetime for $Lifetime50$}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50}
+\end{figure}
+
+
+As highlighted by figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT95} and \ref{Figures/ch4/R2/LT50}, the network lifetime obviously increases when the size of the network increases, with Model~1 that leads to the larger lifetime improvement.
+Comparison shows that the Model~1, which uses less number of primary points, is the best one because it is less energy consumption during the network lifetime. It is also the worst one from the point of view of coverage ratio. Our proposed Model~2 efficiently prolongs the network lifetime with a good coverage ratio in comparison with other models.
+
+\end{enumerate}
+
+\subsection{Performance Comparison with other Approaches}
+\label{ch4:sec:04:07}
+Based on the results, which are conducted from previous two subsections, \ref{ch4:sec:04:02} and \ref{ch4:sec:04:03}, we have found that DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol with Model~2 are the best candidates to be compared with other two approaches. The first approach is called DESK~\cite{DESK}, which is a fully distributed coverage algorithm. The second approach is called GAF~\cite{GAF}, consists in dividing the region into fixed squares. During the decision phase, in each square, one sensor is chosen to remain on during the sensing phase time.
+
+\begin{enumerate}[i)]
+
+\item {{\bf Coverage Ratio}}
+%\subsubsection{Coverage Ratio}
+In this experiment, the average coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes has been demonstrated figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/CR}.
+
+\parskip 0pt
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+ \includegraphics[scale=0.8] {Figures/ch4/R3/CR.pdf}
+\caption{Coverage ratio for 150 deployed nodes}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R3/CR}
+\end{figure}
+
+It has been shown that DESK and GAF provide a little better coverage ratio with 99.99\% and 99.91\% against 99.1\% and 99.2\% produced by DiLCO-16 and DiLCO-32 for the lowest number of rounds. This is due to the fact that DiLCO protocol versions put in sleep mode redundant sensors using optimization (which lightly decreases the coverage ratio) while there are more nodes are active in the case of DESK and GAF.
+
+Moreover, when the number of rounds increases, coverage ratio produced by DESK and GAF protocols decreases. This is due to dead nodes. However, DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol maintain almost a good coverage. This is because they optimized the coverage and the lifetime in wireless sensor network by selecting the best representative sensor nodes to take the responsibility of coverage during the sensing phase, and this will lead to continuing for a larger number of rounds and prolonging the network lifetime. Furthermore, although some nodes are dead, sensor activity scheduling of our protocol chooses other nodes to ensure the coverage of the area of interest.
+
+\item {{\bf Active Sensors Ratio}}
+%\subsubsection{Active Sensors Ratio}
+It is important to have as few active nodes as possible in each round, in order to minimize the energy consumption and maximize the network lifetime. Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR} shows the average active nodes ratio for 150 deployed nodes.
+
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR.pdf}
+\caption{Active sensors ratio for 150 deployed nodes }
+\label{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR}
+\end{figure}
+
+The results presented in figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/ASR} show the superiority of the proposed DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol, in comparison with the other approaches. We have observed that DESK and GAF have 37.5 \% and 44.5 \% active nodes and DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol compete perfectly with only 17.4 \%, 24.8 \% and 26.8 \% active nodes for the first 14 rounds. Then as the number of rounds increases DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol have larger number of active nodes in comparison with DESK and GAF, especially from round $35^{th}$ because they give a better coverage ratio than other approaches. We see that DESK and GAF have less number of active nodes beginning at the rounds $35^{th}$ and $32^{th}$ because there are many nodes are died due to the high energy consumption by the redundant nodes during the sensing phase.
+
+
+\item {{\bf The percentage of stopped simulation runs}}
+%\subsubsection{The percentage of stopped simulation runs}
+The results presented in this experiment, are to show the comparison of DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol with other two approaches from the point of view of stopped simulation runs per round.
+Figure~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/SR} illustrates the percentage of stopped simulation runs per round for 150 deployed nodes.
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/SR.pdf}
+\caption{Percentage of stopped simulation runs for 150 deployed nodes }
+\label{Figures/ch4/R3/SR}
+\end{figure}
+It has been observed that DESK is the approach, which stops first because it consumes more energy for communication as well as it turns on a large number of redundant nodes during the sensing phase. On the other hand DiLCO-16 protocol and DiLCO-32 protocol have less stopped simulation runs in comparison with DESK and GAF because it distributed the optimization on several subregions in order to optimize the coverage and the lifetime of the network by activating a less number of nodes during the sensing phase leading to extending the network lifetime and coverage preservation. The optimization effectively continues as long as a network in a subregion is still connected.
+
+
+\item {{\bf The Energy Consumption}}
+%\subsubsection{The Energy Consumption}
+In this experiment, we have studied the effect of the energy consumed by the wireless sensor network during the communication, computation, listening, active, and sleep modes for different network densities and compare it with other approaches. Figures~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95} and ~\ref{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50} illustrate the energy consumption for different network sizes for $Lifetime95$ and $Lifetime50$.
+
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95.pdf}
+\caption{Energy Consumption with $95\%-Lifetime$}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R3/EC95}
+\end{figure}
+
+\begin{figure}[h!]
+\centering
+\includegraphics[scale=0.8]{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50.pdf}
+\caption{Energy Consumption with $Lifetime50$}
+\label{Figures/ch4/R3/EC50}
