MC Research Paper Analysis

Title: A Review on Multi-objective Optimization in Wireless Sensor

Networks Using Nature Inspired Meta-heuristic Algorithms

1. Area of Research Paper:

The research paper, “A Review on Multi-objective Optimization in Wireless Sensor Networks Using
Nature Inspired Meta-heuristic Algorithms” explores performance optimization in Wireless Sensor
Networks (WSNs), focusing on balancing multiple conflicting design objectives. WSNs consist of
distributed sensor nodes that collect and transmit data, often operating in energy-constrained,
remote environments. Due to limited resources—such as power, processing capacity, and memory—
optimizing these networks is essential for maintaining functionality over time.

The study emphasizes Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO), a framework for solving problems
involving trade-offs between goals like energy efficiency, network lifetime, data reliability, and
latency. Traditional single-objective approaches often fail to capture real-world complexities,
whereas MOO generates Pareto-optimal solutions offering flexible design choices.

Central to this paper is the review of nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithms—such as Genetic

Algorithms, Particle Swarm Optimization, and Ant Colony Optimization—which mimic biological or
natural behaviours to solve NP-hard optimization problems. These algorithms are particularly
effective in WSNs due to their adaptability and capacity for handling multiple objectives in dynamic
environments.

The paper analyses various algorithms in terms of their efficiency and application to WSN challenges
like routing, node placement, cluster head selection, and energy balancing. It also discusses system
models, simulation tools (e.g., NS2, MATLAB, OMNeT++), and evaluation metrics used in this domain.
Importantly, the review identifies research gaps, including the need for mobility-aware models,
security integration, hybrid techniques, and energy-harvesting support.

By bridging WSNs, MOO, and nature-inspired computation, the paper offers a comprehensive
reference for optimizing modern sensor networks in complex, multi-criteria scenarios, guiding both
theoretical and practical advancements in the field.

2. Problem Statement:
Designing efficient Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) is challenging due to the limited energy,
processing power, and memory of sensor nodes—constraints that become critical in inaccessible or
hazardous environments. The fundamental problem lies in managing multiple, often conflicting
performance objectives such as energy consumption, latency, coverage, connectivity, and security.

Traditional single-objective optimization methods or weighted combinations of objectives are

inadequate, as they lack the flexibility to capture the complex trade-offs involved. These methods are
often context-sensitive and fail to provide robust solutions across different application scenarios.

To address this, the problem is formulated as a Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MOOP).

Instead of seeking a single optimal solution, MOOP focuses on generating a set of Pareto-optimal
solutions, each offering a unique trade-off among conflicting goals. This approach allows designers to
select configurations based on specific requirements.

The paper investigates how nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithms—such as Genetic Algorithms

and Particle Swarm Optimization—can effectively solve MOOPs in WSNs. These algorithms are well-
suited to tackle the non-linear, large-scale nature of WSN optimization tasks due to their adaptability
and global search capabilities.

Thus, the research aims to evaluate the effectiveness of these algorithms in optimizing various
WSN parameters, identify their limitations, and suggest directions for future development to meet
the growing complexity and diversity of WSN applications.

- Objective of the Research

The core aim of this study is to review and analyse how nature-inspired multi-objective optimization
algorithms have been applied to various WSN problems. It seeks to:

 Map different WSN performance issues (like coverage, energy, latency) to corresponding
MOO solutions

 Classify and compare meta-heuristic algorithms based on performance

 Identify research gaps and suggest promising directions for future exploration.

3. System Model / Methodology:

The paper adopts a Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) framework to address conflicting design
goals in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), such as minimizing energy use while maximizing coverage
and lifetime. The assumed system model includes spatially distributed sensor nodes with limited
resources, communicating either directly or via multi-hop routing to a central sink node.

The optimization problem is framed as a Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MOOP), where

several performance metrics—like energy consumption, latency, coverage, and load balancing—must
be optimized simultaneously. Due to the interdependent nature of these metrics, solutions are
evaluated based on Pareto optimality rather than a single best outcome. A Pareto front represents a
set of non-dominated solutions offering various trade-offs among objectives.

To solve this MOOP, the paper employs nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithms, including Genetic
Algorithms (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), and Beetle
Antennae Search (BAS), along with their multi-objective variants like NSGA-II and MOPSO. These
population-based, stochastic algorithms are particularly effective in exploring large, complex, and
non-linear search spaces where traditional methods often fail.

Performance is assessed using standard WSN metrics, such as energy usage, network lifetime,
coverage ratio, latency, throughput, and energy load distribution. These metrics help evaluate
algorithm efficiency and real-world applicability. Optimization models are typically implemented in
MATLAB using benchmark functions (e.g., ZDT1, ZDT2) to test algorithm convergence and diversity,
while realistic network behaviour is validated in NS2, simulating routing protocols, mobility, and
energy dynamics.

The methodology is tailored to specific WSN problems like cluster head selection, routing, and
coverage, each requiring different objective functions and constraints. Additionally, mechanisms like
crowding distance (used in NSGA-II) ensure solution diversity across the Pareto front, offering a
broader range of design options.

In essence, the methodology presents a structured, flexible, and simulation-backed approach to

applying MOO techniques in WSNs using biologically inspired algorithms. It balances theoretical rigor
with practical relevance, making it a valuable guide for designing robust, efficient sensor networks
under real-world constraints.

4. Equations If Used Then Explain:

The research paper presents and explains several key mathematical equations that are commonly
used in MOO problems and nature-inspired algorithms for WSNs. Below is an organized explanation
of the most important equations used in the paper:

A. General Multi-Objective Optimization Problem (MOOP):

A multi-objective optimization problem is formulated to find a set of optimal solutions that balance
several conflicting objectives. The standard representation of such problems is:

Subject to constraints:

Explanation:

 fl(a): Objective functions to be optimized (minimized or maximized)

 gq(a): Inequality constraints

 hr(a): Equality constraints

 ap: Decision variables bounded by lower (ap(L) ) and upper (ap(U)) limits

This generic formulation is the foundation upon which all MOO problems, including those in WSNs,
are structured.

B. Pareto Dominance Relation:

The concept of Pareto optimality is expressed mathematically as follows:

Let f(a) = [f1(a), f2(a), ..., fl(a)] be the objective vector.

A solution a1 is said to dominate another solution a2 if:

∀p ∈ {1, 2, ..., l} : fp(a1) ≤ fp(a2)

∃q ∈ {1, 2, ..., l} : fq(a1) < fq(a2)

Explanation:

 This means a1 is no worse than a2 in all objectives and strictly better in at least one.

 If no solution dominates another, they are non-dominated, and such solutions form the
Pareto front.

C. Objective Function Transformation (Max to Min):

When all objectives need to be treated uniformly (either minimized or maximized), it is common to
convert maximization objectives into minimization ones:

Explanation:

 This transformation simplifies algorithm design since many MOO algorithms are tailored for
minimization.

D. Energy Consumption Model in WSN:

A specific case discussed in the paper involves minimizing the energy consumed by Cluster Head (CH)
nodes during data transmission and aggregation:

Explanation:

 ETx−CH(k,d) : Energy used by a CH to transmit k bits over distance d

 Eelec : Energy per bit for transmission electronics

 eda : Data aggregation energy per bit

 deg : Number of nodes connected to the CH

 Efs , Emp : Amplification energy for short and long distances, respectively

 d0 : Distance threshold separating short-range and long-range transmissions

This piecewise function reflects the radio energy model often used in WSN simulations.

E. Coverage Objective Function:

Another typical objective in WSN deployment is to maximize coverage. A simplified representation is
given as:

cov = max(min(dm,n))

Explanation:

 dm,n : Distance between cluster heads m and n

  The goal is to maximize the minimum distance between cluster heads, which helps avoid
overlap in their sensing regions and ensures better spatial coverage.

F. Error Measurement Metric – Adi:

In the simulation results section, a comparison between algorithms is made using a performance
metric called ADi:

ADi = Average distance between estimated Pareto front and true Pareto front

Explanation:

 Lower ADi indicates a more accurate approximation of the true Pareto front.

 Used to compare the performance of algorithms like MOBAS, NSGA-II, and MOPSO.

G. Algorithm-Specific Metrics:
Though not expressed in closed-form equations, certain algorithm metrics are implicitly described:

 Convergence: Distance of solutions from Pareto front over iterations

 Diversity: Distribution of solutions across the objective space

 Coverage: How well the algorithm spans the entire Pareto front

These are evaluated using graphical plots and numerical comparisons across benchmark functions
like SCH, ZDT1, and ZDT2.

H. Equation Summary Table:

Equation Purpose Variables

fl(a) Objective functions in MOOP Performance metrics

Pareto Dominance Identifying non-dominated solutions Objective vector f(a)

max fi(x)=min [−fi(x)] Normalization for optimization Objective functions

ETx−CH CH energy model k, d, Eelec,Efs,Emp,eda,deg

cov = max(min(dm,n)) Maximize inter-cluster distance Cluster head positions

ADi Pareto front approximation error Distance metric

These mathematical formulations offer the quantitative foundation for modelling, analysing, and
solving WSN optimization problems using nature-inspired multi-objective algorithms. They help
encode real-world performance metrics into objective functions that algorithms can optimize
effectively.

5. Research Gap:
Despite progress in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), several limitations persist in the application of
multi-objective optimization (MOO) using nature-inspired algorithms. The reviewed paper identifies
key areas where current research falls short, limiting practical deployment and performance
optimization of WSNs.
A major gap is the insufficient focus on multi-hop WSNs. Most optimization models assume single-
hop communication, which is impractical for large or dispersed networks. Multi-hop routing
introduces complexities like energy balancing, link reliability, and delay management—yet these are
rarely tackled in existing MOO frameworks.

Another underexplored aspect is node mobility. Many WSN applications involve dynamic nodes
(e.g., drones, wearables), but most algorithms assume fixed positions. This limits adaptability in real-
world, topology-changing environments where mobility affects connectivity and energy usage.

Security and trust are also inadequately integrated into optimization models. While WSNs often
operate in hostile or unsecured environments, MOO frameworks rarely address vulnerabilities like
data tampering, node compromise, or denial-of-service attacks. Including trust metrics or intrusion
detection mechanisms in optimization goals could significantly enhance robustness.

Multi-sink architectures, which can balance traffic and reduce bottlenecks, are largely ignored. Most
studies focus on single-sink setups, though optimizing multiple sink placement and routing paths
introduces more realistic and efficient network designs.

There is also minimal research on 3D WSNs and underwater sensor networks (UWSNs). Existing
algorithms are mostly designed for 2D layouts, ignoring the spatial challenges and communication
constraints in 3D terrains or aquatic environments. These scenarios require tailored models that
consider depth, 3D propagation, and environmental interference.

With the rise of energy harvesting, traditional assumptions of finite, non-replenishable energy
become outdated. Current models do not account for dynamic energy input from solar or ambient
sources, missing opportunities for sustainable WSNs.

The literature also lacks robust exploration of hybrid meta-heuristic algorithms. While GA, PSO, ACO,
and others have been applied independently, hybridizing their strengths (e.g., GA’s exploration with
PSO’s fast convergence) could improve solution quality, but is rarely done due to implementation
complexity.

Another gap is the absence of decision-making tools for choosing among Pareto-optimal solutions.
Most studies stop at presenting the Pareto front without offering guidance for practical selection.
Techniques like AHP, TOPSIS, or fuzzy logic could help convert algorithm outputs into actionable
insights for designers.

Performance evaluation is typically narrow, focusing on basic metrics like energy and delay. Broader
metrics such as resilience, scalability, and responsiveness are often overlooked. Standardized
benchmarks, advanced simulators (NS2, NS3, OMNeT++), or real-world testbeds are needed for
reliable comparisons and validation.

Lastly, the potential of emerging methods—such as quantum-inspired algorithms, machine learning-

enhanced optimizers, and interactive MOO approaches—is not fully tapped. Integrating these
advanced tools with simulation environments could offer improved adaptability and scalability for
next-gen WSNs.

In summary, the paper reveals that many theoretical and practical challenges remain unaddressed in
WSN optimization. Areas such as mobility, security, multi-sink design, 3D/underwater contexts,
energy harvesting, hybrid algorithms, and holistic evaluation need focused attention. Bridging these
gaps can lead to smarter, more resilient WSN systems ready for complex real-world applications.
6. Analysis Parameters with Explanations:
Optimizing Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) requires careful consideration of multiple performance
parameters that reflect the network's efficiency, reliability, and adaptability. In multi-objective
optimization (MOO), especially using nature-inspired algorithms, selecting the right set of
parameters is essential to balance competing goals.

Coverage is a foundational metric, representing the portion of the monitored area effectively sensed
by nodes. High coverage ensures no blind spots, which is crucial in surveillance, environmental
monitoring, or disaster detection. Optimizing coverage involves activating the minimal number of
nodes necessary to monitor an area, often using probabilistic or geometric models to conserve
energy while maintaining sensing quality.

Energy consumption is typically the most critical parameter. Sensor nodes are usually battery-
powered and deployed in hard-to-reach areas, so energy-efficient operation is key to prolonging
network lifetime. Most energy is consumed during data transmission, making routing and clustering
decisions vital. Algorithms often use energy-aware clustering by choosing cluster heads based on
residual energy and location to reduce transmission costs.

Network lifetime refers to how long the network remains operational. It is assessed through metrics
like the first node death (FND), half node death (HND), or last node death (LND). Prolonging lifetime
involves load balancing to ensure energy is used uniformly across nodes, preventing premature
failure near sinks due to traffic overload.

Latency or end-to-end delay is crucial for real-time applications. It measures the time taken for data
to travel from the sensor node to the sink. However, minimizing latency can conflict with energy
saving since faster data transmission may drain power quicker. Optimization must strike a balance
using intelligent scheduling and energy-aware routing.

Data aggregation helps reduce redundant transmissions in dense networks. It consolidates data at
intermediate nodes, improving energy efficiency and reducing congestion. However, improper
aggregation can delay information or degrade data quality. Optimization algorithms must carefully
select when and where to aggregate data for optimal performance.

Reliability and fault tolerance are vital in hostile environments. Reliable WSNs maintain consistent
communication even with node failures, using backup paths or redundant nodes. Optimization may
include fault-aware routing strategies to ensure robust data delivery under uncertain conditions.

Scalability indicates how well the network performs as node numbers or area size grow. Scalable
solutions are essential for large-scale deployments like smart cities or agriculture. Optimized
networks handle growth through adaptive clustering, distributed control, and efficient routing
protocols.

Emerging parameters include trust and security, especially in sensitive domains like military or
healthcare. Trust-based optimization avoids malicious nodes, while security-aware metrics
incorporate encryption overhead or abnormal behaviour detection, balancing safety with resource
efficiency.

Congestion control and queue management ensure smooth data flow, preventing packet loss due to
overloaded buffers. Algorithms may adjust transmission rates or reroute traffic dynamically to
maintain throughput and avoid delays in high-traffic conditions.
Lastly, the accuracy of optimization algorithms is evaluated through indicators like the average
distance to the ideal solution (ADi), showing how close results are to the Pareto front. Simulations
using tools like NS2 measure metrics such as residual energy, packet delivery ratio, throughput, and
delay, helping validate algorithm effectiveness under realistic conditions.

In conclusion, performance parameters guide the development of balanced, adaptive, and efficient
WSN optimization strategies. Each metric addresses a unique network concern, and their
interdependence forms the crux of multi-objective optimization. Choosing the right combination of
parameters is essential for achieving practical and high-performing WSN designs across diverse
application scenarios.

7. Research Paper Shortcomings:

Despite offering a broad overview of nature-inspired meta-heuristic techniques for multi-objective
optimization (MOO) in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), the reviewed research paper presents
several notable limitations that constrain its academic and practical value.

One of the primary shortcomings is the limited incorporation of real-world simulations using tools
like NS2, which are standard for validating WSN performance. Although benchmark functions such as
SCH, ZDT1, and ZDT2 are discussed within MATLAB environments, the absence of end-to-end WSN
simulations using NS2 or similar platforms undermines the practical applicability of the proposed
algorithms. Without network-level metrics like packet delivery ratio, end-to-end delay, or node
lifetime, the paper lacks empirical grounding that would otherwise validate theoretical results in
realistic network conditions.

Another key issue is the absence of a standardized evaluation framework. The paper examines
several algorithms—including NSGA-II, MOPSO, and BAS variants—but fails to consistently apply
performance metrics like energy efficiency, coverage, or convergence speed across all techniques.
This inconsistency makes it difficult for readers to draw meaningful comparisons. A comprehensive
comparative table using uniform parameters would have added clarity and practical utility for those
selecting algorithms for specific applications.

Additionally, the level of detail in algorithm descriptions is uneven. Some methods, like MOBAS, are
explored in depth, while others receive minimal explanation or are omitted altogether, including
MOEA/D and CPMEA. This selective coverage hinders a well-rounded understanding of the field,
especially for newcomers seeking foundational insights into these algorithms and their relevance to
WSN optimization.

The paper also largely focuses on static WSNs, overlooking mobile sensor networks, which are
increasingly relevant in dynamic applications such as vehicular or wearable sensing systems. Mobility
introduces new challenges in routing and clustering, yet this dimension is barely addressed. Similarly,
security and trust—critical in applications ranging from healthcare to military—are
underrepresented. The omission of trust-aware metrics or security-driven optimization goals is a
missed opportunity to engage with pressing real-world concerns.

Furthermore, while energy efficiency is emphasized, the study overlooks emerging energy-harvesting
models. Modern WSNs often rely on renewable energy sources like solar or vibration energy, which
introduce fluctuating power profiles. Ignoring this evolution restricts the applicability of traditional
algorithms to newer sustainable WSN architectures that require adaptive, dynamic optimization
strategies.
Another notable gap is the lack of post-optimization decision-making frameworks. While MOO
algorithms produce sets of Pareto-optimal solutions, the paper does not discuss how practitioners
might choose the most suitable solution. Tools like TOPSIS, fuzzy logic, or AHP are commonly used for
this purpose, and their exclusion leaves the optimization process incomplete.

Scalability is another neglected aspect. Although algorithm efficiency is discussed, there’s little
attention given to how these algorithms perform as network size increases. The computational and
memory demands of meta-heuristics grow with the number of nodes, yet there is no analysis of time
complexity or resource overhead. This oversight is particularly relevant for large-scale deployments
where thousands of nodes may be involved.

Lastly, the paper lacks visual aids such as algorithm flowcharts or Pareto front illustrations that would
enhance comprehension. Effective graphical representation is essential in a review context to visually
communicate algorithmic behaviour and performance trade-offs, especially for researchers new to
the field.

8. Related Work with That Research Paper:

The reviewed research paper is situated within a broad and evolving academic context where
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) have increasingly been optimized using multi-objective strategies.
Numerous prior works have laid the foundation for balancing competing performance objectives
such as energy efficiency, latency, and coverage. This paper contributes to that evolving discourse by
consolidating a diverse range of nature-inspired meta-heuristic algorithms for WSN optimization. To
fully appreciate its significance, however, it is essential to position it within the continuum of related
studies that have influenced this domain.

Foundational works such as those by Younis et al. (M. Younis et al., “Energy-efficient routing
protocols in wireless sensor networks: A survey,” Ad Hoc Networks, 2004) and Al-Karaki and Kamal
(J. N. Al-Karaki and A. E. Kamal, “Routing techniques in wireless sensor networks: A survey,” IEEE
Wireless Communications, 2004) primarily focused on routing protocols aimed at minimizing energy
consumption and improving network longevity. Although these studies did not adopt formal multi-
objective optimization (MOO) frameworks, they helped establish key performance parameters that
later became optimization objectives in more sophisticated algorithmic models. Their contribution
lies in defining the problem space rather than proposing solutions grounded in evolutionary or
swarm intelligence techniques.

The transition to formal MOO approaches is better exemplified in more recent surveys like that of
Garg and Bhadauria (R. Garg and H. S. Bhadauria, “Multi-objective optimization in wireless sensor
networks: A comprehensive review,” Wireless Networks, 2020), who reviewed algorithms such as
NSGA-II and SPEA2 in the context of WSNs. Their work, while similar in theme to the reviewed paper,
remained focused on traditional evolutionary algorithms and lacked consideration of newer,
unconventional strategies such as Beetle Antennae Search (BAS) and its variants. Moreover, although
they discussed algorithm classification and evaluation metrics, their treatment of practical
implementation via simulation environments was limited—an area where the reviewed paper
attempts to provide more contextual insight through mentions of MATLAB and NS2.

The relevance of bio-inspired security-oriented optimization is highlighted in studies like that of

Sharma et al. (K. Sharma et al., “Learning automata-based multi-objective optimization for WSN
coverage and energy balance,” 2018), which explored trust-aware routing protocols using swarm
intelligence. This contrasts with the reviewed paper’s relatively limited attention to security as an
optimization parameter. While the reviewed study acknowledges security as a future direction, it
lacks mathematical modelling or empirical analysis of trust-related metrics within MOO frameworks,
underscoring a missed opportunity to delve into one of the field’s more critical contemporary
challenges.

In terms of algorithm implementation, works by Rasheed et al. (M. Z. Rasheed et al., “A multi-
objective NSGA-II algorithm for enhancing energy efficiency and QoS in WSNs,” 2017) and Sharma
et al. demonstrate the utility of integrating NSGA-II within simulation environments like NS2,
targeting parameters such as ETX, delay, and energy balance. These studies go beyond theoretical
benchmark analysis to validate algorithmic performance under realistic conditions, thereby bridging
the gap between simulation and real-world deployment. Their hybrid approaches, combining
methods like Learning Automata with NSGA-II, illustrate the advantages of algorithmic fusion—an
area the reviewed paper identifies but does not explore in depth.

Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) also features prominently in the literature, particularly in trust-aware
routing. Khan et al.'s (S. Khan et al., “Trust-aware multi-objective ant colony optimization routing
protocol in WSNs,” 2019) development of the MOACO protocol exemplifies how multi-objective
frameworks can integrate both energy and security metrics and be evaluated in NS2 simulations.
Although the reviewed paper touches on swarm-based versatility, it does not replicate such detailed
empirical validations, relying instead on literature synthesis and theoretical performance
benchmarks.

Energy sustainability, particularly via harvesting mechanisms, is another growing trend. Mishra and
Sahu (S. Mishra et al., “A multi-objective GA for lifetime and coverage optimization in 3D WSNs,”
Wireless Networks, 2021) examined adaptive routing protocols for energy-harvesting WSNs,
emphasizing the need for dynamic optimization strategies that respond to fluctuating energy inflows
from environmental sources. Though the reviewed paper acknowledges this area, it does not engage
with it in sufficient depth, which limits its applicability to modern WSNs that leverage renewable
energy technologies.

The practical significance of simulation tools like NS2, NS3, OMNeT++, and COOJA has been
emphasized in reviews by Boulis (A. Boulis et al., “Castalia: A simulator for WSNs based on OMNET+
+,” 2007), who catalog his capabilities in validating WSN protocols. These studies underscore the
importance of simulation environments in testing the scalability and realism of optimization models.
While the reviewed paper refers to such tools, particularly NS2, it does not integrate simulation
results directly, somewhat weakening its empirical foundation. Nonetheless, the paper does
encourage future researchers to pursue such validations, highlighting simulation as a critical path
forward.

Ultimately, the reviewed paper carves out a unique space in the literature by synthesizing a wide
range of algorithmic approaches for MOO in WSNs. Its comparative analysis of NSGA-II, MOPSO, and
MOBAS through benchmark functions, along with its classification of algorithms based on biological
inspiration, distinguishes it from earlier surveys. While it falls short in empirical depth and omits
emerging algorithms and hybrid models, it succeeds in consolidating and systematizing existing
knowledge, providing a valuable springboard for further investigation. Its contribution is thus
twofold: retrospective, as a summary of existing strategies, and prospective, in its identification of
gaps and directions for future research—including mobility, security integration, hybridization, and
simulation-based validation. This dual perspective enhances its relevance in the ongoing quest to
develop robust, efficient, and scalable optimization solutions for the next generation of wireless
sensor networks.
9. Surveys Related to the Research Paper:
The research paper under review stands on the shoulders of numerous comprehensive surveys that
have explored multi-objective optimization (MOO) in Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) using nature-
inspired meta-heuristic algorithms. These surveys have examined a wide range of optimization goals
and algorithmic strategies, thus shaping the context within which the current paper operates. One of
the most directly relevant works is by Kaur and Kaur (2022) [1], who provided a focused analysis of
MOO techniques applied to WSNs. Their study emphasizes the use of hybrid algorithms and explores
classical optimization techniques like Genetic Algorithms (GA), Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO),
Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), and Differential Evolution (DE). While their approach aligns with the
reviewed paper's thematic focus, it lacks inclusion of lightweight and recently proposed algorithms
like Beetle Antennae Search (BAS), which the reviewed paper explores in detail. This distinction
positions the reviewed study as a more updated contribution, addressing the growing need for
energy-efficient algorithms in low-power WSNs.

Further adding to the foundational understanding is the survey conducted by Arjunan and Sujatha
(2019) [2], which discusses energy-efficient coverage protocols with an emphasis on deployment
strategies and spatial optimization. Although their work predominantly deals with single-objective
formulations, it offers critical insights into sensor coverage models, which are often restructured
under multi-objective frameworks in more recent research. Their work serves as a valuable
background for conceptualizing coverage optimization, a core objective in WSN design that remains
central to the reviewed paper’s discussion of MOO strategies.

Security-aware optimization has emerged as another significant theme in WSN surveys. Sharma et al.
(2019) [3] contributed to this area with their comprehensive exploration of secure and energy-
efficient WSN frameworks, emphasizing the potential of bio-inspired algorithms in supporting
intrusion detection, trust management, and secure routing. These elements are not deeply explored
in the reviewed paper, but it does acknowledge the need for incorporating security as a multi-
objective component. By identifying this as a future direction, the reviewed paper aligns with Sharma
et al.’s perspective and emphasizes the growing consensus that security must be considered
alongside traditional performance metrics in WSN optimization.

Gupta and Jaiswal (2020) [4] offer another influential survey by benchmarking several evolutionary
algorithms used in MOO for WSNs. Their evaluation of NSGA-II, MOPSO, SPEA2, and MOEA/D across
metrics such as coverage, delay, and energy efficiency provide a comprehensive reference point for
comparative algorithmic analysis. The reviewed paper builds upon this benchmarking tradition but
introduces newer approaches like MOBAS and BAS variants, thereby offering an updated algorithmic
landscape. This expansion not only enhances the practical utility of the study but also contributes to
ongoing efforts to modernize MOO toolkits for WSNs.

Energy harvesting represents a newer domain in WSN optimization, and Mishra and Sahu (2021) [5]
examine how protocols must adapt to dynamic energy sources such as solar and wind. Their work
outlines how optimization algorithms must evolve to consider fluctuating energy availability,
incorporating adaptive mechanisms to deal with such variability. Although the reviewed paper
touches briefly on energy harvesting as a promising research direction, it does not go into depth
regarding the algorithmic models or protocol designs necessary for integrating real-time energy
inflows. Mishra and Sahu’s findings thus fill a vital knowledge gap and offer a natural extension for
future work hinted at in the reviewed study.
Saxena and Singh (2023) [6] introduce a survey that expands the meta-heuristic spectrum by
including newer, rapidly evolving algorithms such as Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA), Salp
Swarm Algorithm (SSA), and Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO). These methods have garnered attention for
their superior convergence behaviour and ease of implementation. The reviewed paper shares a
similar goal of expanding the algorithmic base for WSN MOO problems, although it stops short of a
detailed examination of these specific techniques. Integrating such modern algorithms into future
comparative frameworks would further enrich the reviewed paper’s already robust analysis.

Practical validation through simulation is another crucial area explored in recent surveys. Yadav and
Tiwari (2023) [7] provide a survey focused on simulation-based evaluations of WSN protocols,
particularly those utilizing meta-heuristic optimization. Their emphasis on tools like NS2 and MATLAB
for performance testing mirrors the reviewed paper’s suggestion that simulation-based validation is
necessary for verifying algorithmic effectiveness. While the reviewed study discusses such tools, it
does not integrate simulations into its evaluation strategy. This omission presents an opportunity for
future research to bridge the gap between theoretical and applied optimization.

Adding further relevance is the recent work by Khan et al. (2024) [8], which investigates trust-aware
MOO frameworks. By incorporating metrics such as energy, trust, and delay into a unified model and
testing these strategies using NS2 and OMNeT++, they provide concrete examples of how integrated
objectives can be implemented and validated in real network conditions. This work reinforces the
reviewed paper’s call for expanding MOO objectives beyond energy and coverage to include
trustworthiness and resilience. The reviewed paper’s identification of this gap, alongside Khan et al.'s
execution, marks a critical convergence in ongoing WSN optimization research.

Finally, the survey by Sahu and Tripathy (2021) [9] contributes a structured taxonomy of swarm
intelligence algorithms used in WSN design. Their categorization based on biological inspiration
aligns closely with the reviewed paper’s organization, which segments algorithms into evolutionary,
swarm-based, and physics-inspired types. This structural similarity reflects an emerging consensus in
the field regarding how best to classify and compare optimization techniques, further validating the
reviewed paper’s methodological approach.

In aggregate, these surveys provide a comprehensive backdrop against which the reviewed paper
positions itself. They help contextualize its contributions, particularly in emphasizing lightweight
optimization strategies, Pareto-based trade-offs, and underexplored areas such as mobility,
simulation, and security. The reviewed paper distinguishes itself by updating the algorithmic
repertoire to include newer methods like BAS, expanding objective functions beyond classical
metrics, and suggesting practical future directions. Rather than merely replicating prior work, it
synthesizes and extends existing knowledge, serving as both a continuation of the field’s scholarly
tradition and a roadmap for future innovations in WSN multi-objective optimization.

[1] Kaur, A., & Kaur, N. (2022)

Title: Survey on multi-objective optimization using meta-heuristic techniques in WSNs

Source: Wireless Personal Communications

[2] Arjunan, B., & Sujatha, P. (2019)

Title: A survey on energy-efficient coverage protocols in wireless sensor networks

Source: Wireless Networks

[3] Sharma, V., You, I., et al. (2019)

Title: Secure and energy-efficient frameworks for WSNs using bio-inspired optimization: A survey
Source: IEEE Access

[4] Gupta, S., & Jaiswal, S. (2020)

Title: A recent review on multi-objective optimization using meta-heuristics for WSNs

Source: Journal of King Saud University – Computer and Information Sciences

[5] Mishra, S., & Sahu, S. (2021)

Title: A survey on energy-efficient protocols and metaheuristic techniques in WSNs

Source: Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing

[6] Saxena, S., & Singh, A. (2023)

Title: Emerging trends in meta-heuristic algorithms for WSN optimization: A contemporary survey
Source: Applied Soft Computing

[7] Yadav, K., & Tiwari, R. (2023)

Title: Simulation-based evaluation of meta-heuristic protocols in WSNs: An empirical survey

Source: Journal of Supercomputing

[8] Khan, M., et al. (2024)

Title: Recent advances in security-aware multi-objective optimization for wireless sensor networks
Source: Computer Communications

[9] Sahu, P., & Tripathy, A. (2021)

Title: Role of swarm intelligence in optimizing WSN design: A modern review

Source: Ad Hoc Networks